Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2019 06 19

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes May 15, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Briggs says that the owners are looking at short term solutions and because of this, his concern lies with the fact that the property is for sale as of right now. He sees that the property's long term future will be industrial instead of staying as a single family home and because of this, the fence is only a solution for a short period of time. Stuart mentions that the fence would increase property value and preserve the mountain views for the property. Briggs counters with saying that preserving the mountain views would not be a concern if it turns commercial or industrial. Gorsevski mentions that the original design of the fence was to give the property more of a ranch like feel, which would be a design that does not fit in the existing commercial and industrial character in that area. She says that she does not necessarily know how to view the criteria regarding keeping the character of the neighborhood because she does not know which neighborhood to compare it to, residential or commercial. Levinson agrees that this is a tough case. He sees that this property could be a unique circumstance because of its zoning but that it is the only criteria he could see the applicant meeting. He asks the question of what if the fence does not solve the noise problem. Stuart asks staff if berming requires a permit. Ritchie states that because berming is considered landscaping, no permit is required. Briggs says he is opposed of the fence because he believes the applicant has other options that are better such as berming. Leedy reopens the hearing to be public in order for the applicant to address the berming suggestion. Hiivala comments on the berming and says that it may be possible on the east side of the property, however because of the hillside and slopes on the front of the property it is not a viable option. The board and staff review whether the proposed request could be approved if the height of the fence was less than 8 but all agree that if the fence was between 4-6 feet, it would not block the sound enough to make the variance approval worth it. Gorsevski mentions that she would be inclined to approve the request if the approval was contingent on the fence material, giving better assurance that the fence would actually be blocking some of the road noise. Motion is made by Stuart to approve based on the findings of the board's discussion for 10050 Empire Road, a request for a variance from Section 17.16.120 of the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC) requirement to allow a fence up to 8 feet tall in a portion of the property at 10500 Empire Road with the condition that the fence's design is solid. Motion is seconded by Leedy. Roll call vote. Name Vote Jessica Leedy Yes Alison Gorsevski Yes James Stuart Yes Peter Briggs No Rob Levinson No Motion passed/failed: Fail