Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 12, 2012 <br />Page 5 of 9 <br /> <br />Robinson reviewed the two changes to the LMC. One is an amendment to Section <br />17.16.030.C, amending itto read as follows (words to be deleted are shown in <br /> <br />strikeout; words to be added are underlined): <br />Sec. 17.16.030.C. Accessory uses <br />The minimum rear yard setback from a rear lot line for accessory structures <br />shall be ten feet. No part of an accessory building (including eaves and <br />overhangs) shall be located any closer than ten five feet to any principal <br />structure, either on the same lot or an adjacent lot, in residential zone districts. <br />No part of an accessory building (including eaves and overhangs) shall be <br />located any closer than ten feet to any principal structure, either on the same <br />lot or an adjacent lot, in non-residential zone districts. <br />The second change is an amendment to Section 17.16.130, amending itto read as <br /> <br />follows (words to be deleted are shown in strikeout; words to be added are <br />underlined): <br />Sec. 17.16.130. Principal buildings on the same lot <br />No part of a principal building (including eaves and overhangs) shall be <br />located closer than ten five feet to any other principal building on the same lot <br />in residential zone districts. No part of a principal building (including eaves <br />and overhangs) shall be located closer than ten feet to any other principal <br />building on the same lot in non-residential zone districts. <br />These two changes would allow for less confined development on lots while <br />maintaining an adequate minimum separation between buildings to ensure safety <br />and pleasing aesthetics. <br />Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 7, Series 2012, a resolution <br />recommending approval of an ordinance amending sections 17.16.030 and <br />17.16.130 of the Louisville Municipal Code to change the minimum building <br />separation requirements from ten feet to five feet. <br />Commission Questions of Staff: <br />Russell asked why separation is greater in commercial areas than in residential. <br />Russ stated the commercial lots are larger and the risk of other issues, such as fires, <br />is higher. <br />Russell asked why staff is recommending the change now. <br />Russ stated there have been several Board of Adjustment (BOA) variance requests <br />for this change. This is a similar problem to the ‘roof pitch’, which has been <br />addressed by the Planning Commission. Since the change of roof pitch the BOA has <br />held fewer variance requests for roof pitch difference. <br />Lipton asked if this had any effect on the distance between neighboring lots. <br />Robinson stated the changes will not affect setbacks. <br />Lipton asked if lots could be densified but not affect the closeness to the neighbors. <br />Robinson stated yes. <br />Moline asked how this affects two (2) principle buildings on the same lot. <br /> <br />