Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2020 05 20

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes February 19, 2020 Page 6 of 8 Stuart says regarding criteria two, the lot is unique. It was nonconforming from the very beginning. Cooper agrees and says that the front of the home is smaller than the garage in the back. The garage is bigger than most in the area, and that creates an unusual circumstance. Milhaly says he agrees so far with what Stuart and Cooper has said. Stuart says that regarding criteria three, the property is already nonconforming. It cannot be made conforming without taking things away. Cooper says that it is apparent by reviewing the north and south elevations of the home that there is inefficient space for the lot. The garage takes up space of the area of the lot in comparison to the home. This proposal will correct the existing odd proportions. Milhaly mentions that the homeowners have put considerate effort into reviewing their other options, and their proposal is the most reasonable to renovate the property. Stuart says regarding criteria four, no hardship was caused by the homeowners because they bought the property as nonconforming. Cooper agrees with Stuart’s evaluation of criteria four. Stuart says regarding criteria five, the proposal does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The buffer of trees and extra space will look fine with the rest of the neighborhood. It is important that the neighbors like the design as well. It seems that the adjacent neighbors have expressed their approval. Cooper agrees with Stuart and says that the design of the breezeway and the rest of the design by the applicant is well thought out. Milhaly states that the applicant is not impairing the adjacent properties. The neighbors are in favor. He thinks the design enhances the character of the neighborhood. Stuart says regarding criteria six, the design looks like it will be modest changes. He believes this is not an excessive change. Cooper agrees with Stuart. She states that the homeowners are trying to stay within the existing footprint of the home. Also visually, the house will not look larger from the curbside. Ewy thinks staff did a good job reviewing this case. He says to staff that it sounded like the architect tried to work with staff to minimize the impact. Brennan says that staff did not provide any formal comments on their design. Ewy asks staff if the applicant tried to find a way to come into compliance or did they discuss ways that they could with staff? Brennan says that yes, informally they discussed ways that they could. Ewy points out that the house is disjointed and segmented. The architect’s proposal is a good way to bring it all together. The neighbors are behind this design and Ewy expresses how important this is to him. He leans towards approving the proposal. Cooper appreciates that the applicant does not want to scrape the property and believes that the board would be following the original wishes of the residential property in downtown Louisville. Leedy agrees that all six criteria are met and leans towards approving the variance Koepke thinks staff did a good job with their report. He mentions that he had been struggling with criteria one and two. He now sees that there are mitigating circumstances and looking it its entirety, he is inclined to agree with the other board members. 8