Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />18 October 2021 <br />Page 3 of 8 <br />Diehl asked if those cases could get a variance today. <br />Ritchie replied that there had been a 2017 Code amendment for properties without a PUD that <br />part of the underlying criteria to approve a variance was that the approval would not result in <br />more density than the underlying zoning would allow. So, technically, no, that's not eligible for a <br />variance. <br />Onaran added that the regional trend was of oversupply of really large houses and undersupply <br />of smaller houses. Demand studies showed that there was a demand for smaller lots and <br />structures near downtown amenities, as there are in Old Town. There was also an increase in <br />unrelated people living together in a large house. <br />Park stated that it was a question of, If we build it, will they come. Right now, the Code did not <br />allow for the option. He was interested to know whether the commissioners were interested in <br />hearing more about smaller houses and whether those should be allowed. Then, the <br />consultants could investigate the mechanics. <br />Diehl stated that it was a problem to be addressed and the smaller structures were important. <br />Hoefner agreed with the diagnosis of the issues and asked how they might work with the <br />prototypes without forcing structures into boxes. He emphasized promoting creative solutions <br />and approaches. <br />Haley stated that it was an insightful presentation that helped explain why the Commission had <br />been confused as to how things happen like they do on the Code side, especially with the <br />massing of new builds. She was surprised that there was a limit on how small you could have a <br />building. That felt like they were fighting an uphill battle with preservation. <br />Keller stated that there was an aging population and the younger generation, like his own <br />children, did not want larger homes. He saw a rise in multigenerational households again, so he <br />thought there would be demand from both sides of the demographic age spectrum. <br />Brauneis noted that there had been an approval to subdivide a lot adjacent to Louisville Middle <br />School to allow a second house and that the houses there were relatively modest. He noted that <br />allowing subdividing would mean they would have to be comfortable with more density and they <br />wanted to avoid teardowns. <br />Moline seconded the report and where the consultants were heading. He shared the history of <br />bachelor homes in the area and asked about ADUs today. <br />Onaran replied that additional structures were allowed but they could not have more than one <br />residential unit on the R-L zone, an issue the consultants would return to. Nothing was off the <br />table right now, including ADUs. They would look into options for allowing them in a way that <br />would not disturb the community character. <br />Moline staetd that the narrow streets of the neighborhood were part of the character, but were <br />not necessarily tackled in an overlay. <br />Onaran replied that streets and forestry and the like could be zoning related. <br />3 <br />