Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2018 07 18

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes April 18, 2018 Page 6 of 8 He thinks the 25 foot setback is excessive and that the 10 foot setback seems more reasonable for that particular lot. Stuart does not see how the character of the open space would be affected. He then lists how he believes each criterion is met: 1) The lot is unique because of the unique setback guidelines and shallowness of the lot. Also, it is because of the large difference of setback regulations between this lot and the adjacent lots. 2) The lot is unusual because it is corner lot and it is placed toward the back, making it adhere to an unusual setback. 3) It is reasonable developed because the applicant is putting the patio in the back of the home instead of the front where there is a larger setback. Developing the back of the home is the most reasonable design option for the property. 4) The hardship has not been brought upon the property owners because these hardships were in place when the house was bought and because of how the house is situated on the lot. 5) The design is not out of character of the neighborhood because although the structure will be the closet to the open space on that side of the open space, the south side properties are much closer to the open space because of the different setback requirements. 6) This minimum variance will afford relief because the proposed design is the least amount of visual encroachment when it is designed to be attached to the home. Levinson says he was initially against the variance because it did not meet the 25 foot setback, but when he learned that the applicant could have the same design with it detached instead of attached, he finds himself more inclined to vote to approve the variance. Ewy says he does not believe this lot is a unique lot because at 942 Plum Cir, they have a 35 foot setback and would require a variance as well. He understands the other points the board members have made though. The design looks much better attached than detached. He still has a problem with the application not meeting the entire criterion. Leedy admits that although not each criterion is met, she still views the property as a unique lot. The proposed structure would look much better attached to the house then detached and because of that, she is inclined to approve the request. Campbell believes that all the criteria are addressed accurately and because of this, he does not see the application meeting any criteria and will not vote in favor of the application. Levinson makes the point that if the application gets denied, the applicant will just start building the structure detached from the home and then it will be more of an encroachment for the neighbors and open space. Motion is made by Levinson to approve 916 W Plum Circle based on the six criteria described and articulated by board member Stuart, a variance from Section 17.12.040 of the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) from the 25-foot rear setback to allow a patio cover on the rear of the home. Motion is seconded by Ewy. Roll call vote.