Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2019 04 17

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes December 19, 2018 Page 3 of 4 Buffo gives the board a brief history summary of the property in relation to their family and that it has been owned by them since 1936. Buffo then goes into detail about the lack of alley space for the property; something where other adjacent houses do not have the same problem. He believes the back alley would have been a great access point for the house, but since this house has no alley access, it automatically rules out that option for them. Aesthetically it would not be appealing to have two cars parked in front of the house as well as the topic of then having to have curb cuts be put in. The curb cuts would also be an additional cost to the homeowner, which Buffo expressed that that was not ideal. Board Questions of Applicant: None heard. Public Comment in Favor: None heard. Public Comment Against: None heard. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Board: Stuart says the presentation was convincing and understandable. He agrees with Staff's interpretation of the six criteria. He also mentioned that the curb cuts would take away spaces, which would not benefit the homeowner. Levinson said he agrees with staff's presentation and recommendation. Ewy expresses his favor in of approving variance based on staff's presentation. Campbell mentions that in relation to criteria one, there are 15 other properties with similar scenarios. He asked how this property is unique to the other 15 properties. Ritchie points out that this property is the narrowest of those 15, making it unique to the other properties. Campbell says that uniqueness is from the narrowness then, not because there are only 15 properties that are in similar scenarios. He also mentions that in criteria one, money is not a hardship. That fact would be irrelevant when evaluating the six criteria. Ewy mentions that money is not the issue. The issue is taking away parking spaces to the public domain, which would be a negative for the city. His argument for approving the variance is that there is an aesthetic issue for parking in front of the house. Ritchie agrees with board member Ewy. The intent of the old town overlay is to not allow parking in the front yard. This lot is a unique circumstance for the fact that there is no option to park in the back. Campbell agrees that parking in the front yard would not be attractive and sees that the applicant is in a unique situation. Leedy agrees that this property is unique and meets all six criteria. Motion is made by Stuart to approve 709 Walnut Street, a request for a variance from Section 17.20.020 of the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) requiring two off-street parking spaces for a new single-family residence. Motion is seconded by Leedy. Roll call vote.