Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2018 07 18

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 18, 2018 Page 5 of 8 house on the lot sets much further back on the lot than the other houses. It also has the narrowest depth than any other house on the plat. Criteria three is met because it conforms to title 17 in the Louisville Municipal Code. The hardship described in criteria four is met because the hardship was not created by the homeowner but by the plat. Criteria five is also met because the proposed design is more consistent with the essential character of the neighborhood than the alternate design which will be built if the variance does not pass. The alternate design will have the same build with the exact same structure in size and height. It will be detached from the height with only a ten foot setback. Lastly, criteria six is met because title 17 would allow the design to be built five feet closer to the setback if it is built detached instead of attached. Carlson also mentions that nine of the ten neighbors are in support of the variance. The one neighbor not in support is not supporting because of the architectural design, not the setback issue. Board Questions of Applicant: Stuart asks if there is a flat gutter above the deck. He thinks it looks peaked and asks if it is. Carlson says it is peaked. Levinson asks that for the patio foundation, is the foundation for the four posts poured? Carlson says that it is not and that they will sink helical piers for the posts. Levinson asks staff if the rear setback for the properties to the south is only ten feet. Ritchie replies with saying that it is a ten foot setback. Public Comment in Favor: None heard. The board enters three emails into the record in support of the applicant. Public Comment Against: None heard. Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Patrick Haines, 916 W Plum Cir Haines reiterates the applicant's representative's opening presentation discussion points. He touches on the uniqueness of the lot, the different setback requirements for their property versus the properties on the south side of them. He also reminds the board that their proposed design is less of a visual encroachment for the neighbors if it is attached to the house than detached. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Board: Stuart states that he is concerned about the setback rule itself. If this was a side setback instead of a back setback, there would be no need for a variance. Also, if this was the south properties setback standard, there would also be no need for a variance.