My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2016 04 14
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2016 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2016 04 14
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:31:31 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 11:37:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
4/14/2016
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 14, 2016 <br />Page 16 of 19 <br />PROPOSED CHANGE <br />o Under 120 SF <br />o Already do not require a building permit, have no fees associated with them <br />o 3' setbacks from both rear and side property line <br />o Discontinue shed & play structure location permits <br />EASEMENTS <br />o Structures shall not limit access to public facilities <br />o Structures places in private easement but of consent of easement owner <br />o Easement holders shall have not liability for cost of relocated items in easement <br />o Structures shall not be on permanent foundations in easement <br />Staff Recommendations: <br />Staff recommends Planning Commission move to approve Accessory Structure Setback LMC <br />Amendment, Resolution No. 10, Series 2016 recommending approval of an ordinance <br />amending Section 17.16.030 of the Louisville Municipal Code regarding accessory uses. <br />Email entered to record: <br />Motion made by O'Connell to enter email from Kathy Barnes, dated April 13, 2016, into the <br />record, seconded by Brauneis. Passed by voice vote. <br />Commission Questions of Staff: <br />Rice says my experience is that these kinds of proposals have a background. What is the <br />background on this one? <br />Trice says we don't get very many shed and play structure location permits. You also see that <br />many people have sheds that are closer to their property lines than the 5' and 10'. It has come <br />up with citizens, not only being frustrated but also not complying with the current regulations. <br />Rice says we have people to do it despite the fact that it violates the Code, and then the <br />neighbors complain about it? <br />Trice says not necessarily. In some situations, in the email you received, it was a neighbor <br />complaining about their neighbor's shed. <br />Rice asks what would be the procedure now. Suppose I had a shed that I wanted to put within <br />3'. Is there a way I can do that? Can apply for a variance? Who hears a variance? How many of <br />those have we had? I am searching for the need for this change in the Code. <br />Trice says you would have to get a variance. They would go to the Board of Adjustment. <br />Robinson says we had one last year or two years ago for a shed. We don't get a lot of them <br />mostly because it costs about $700 to apply for a variance. People are not willing to do that for a <br />120 square foot shed. <br />Trice says it comes up with people being frustrated with the idea of putting a shed in the middle <br />of their yard. It seems natural that they would put it closer to their property line. <br />Pritchard says we are talking about a difference of 7' and 2' <br />Hsu says what happens if my neighbor has a shed that is violating either current regulations or <br />with the ordinance change. What can I do to get that changed? Does the City do anything to <br />enforce that after the fact? <br />Trice says it is complaint -based so if neighbors complain, we do write a letter to the property <br />owner, informing them that they are violating those setbacks, and that they need to be brought <br />into compliance. <br />Tengler asks if anyone has ever done it. Is it a toothless threat? <br />Robinson says we have had a couple where the property owners had to move the shed to <br />comply after we received complaints. <br />Brauneis says other than the thought that people don't like to have their sheds in the middle of <br />their property, it doesn't mean that neighbors want to have it on their property line. So I <br />appreciate that there are a lot of nonconforming sheds out there and if people haven't <br />complained, that's fantastic. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.