Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2011 06 15

Home Browse Search

The buildable footprint of this small parcel with alley loading is constrained by the required vision clearance. The proposed house model is consistent with the design requirements of the Takoda PUD and is considered a reasonable addition to the property. Staff finds the physical conditions of the lot along with the sight triangle limit the property from being reasonably developed. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. The applicant did not subdivide the Takoda Subdivision, or design the Takoda Planned Unit Development. Any identifiable hardship on the parcel has not been created by the applicant. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 5. That the variance. if granted. will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located. nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property. The proposed patio home design is consistent with the all of the patio homes proposed in Planning Area 2 of the Takoda Subdivision. The required vision clearance area would require a home design that is not consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed design will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in which the property is located, nor substantially or permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 6. That the variance, if granted. is the minimum variance that will afford relief and is the least modification possible of the provisions of Title 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code that is in question. The applicant has requested to eliminate the required vision clearance for Lot 5, Block 16 of the Takoda Subdivision to seek relief in as it applies to the buildable footprint. This request is based on current roadway design practice and detailed in the ASHTO "Green Book". If granted, the variance would not decrease the safety of the intersection for motorists, bicyclists, or pedestrians. Staff finds this criterion has been met. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public notice was mailed to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. Staff has not received any comments regarding this variance request. STAFF COMMENTS AND BOARD ACTION: Staff finds that every one of the variance criteria in Section 17.48.110 of the LMC has been met and therefore recommends approval of the variance request. The Board may approve (with or without condition or modification), deny, or continue the application to a future meeting for additional consideration. The Board may also request additional information if they feel it is needed for their proper consideration of the variance application. The Board will need to make a determination based on the application as it has been submitted. If the Board desires the applicant to make changes to the application