Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2013 09 18

Home Browse Search

which specifies a 7,000 sq. ft. size minimum and a 30% coverage maximum. As a result, the City has previously granted several lot coverage variances up to the 30% RL limit for inappropriately zoned RE properties. However, at slightly under 4,600 sq. ft., our property is only 66% of the minimum size specified under RL zoning. As such, it was originally developed with a house and a minimal main -level deck that together cover a little over 1,400 sq. ft. or 31% of the lot. Our proposal calls for a modest 2% increase in coverage up to a total of 33% (1,500 sq. ft) so that our deck can accommodate an outdoor dining table. Elsewhere in Louisville's Old Town overlay zoning district, the code states that for lots sized in the 4,000 to 5,999 sq. ft. range, the coverage limit is "1,600 square feet or 37.5 %, whichever is greater ". We feel this would also be a more appropriate "hard" limit to apply in our case. 3. That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of this title (Louisville zoning code); Our lot was originally sized at only 38% of the minimum allowable under RE zoning, and 66% of the minimum allowable under RL zoning. It was also originally developed with house and deck structures covering 31% of its total area. These breaches of the zoning code by Pine Street Park's developer and tacit acceptance by the City strongly imply that our property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of either the RE or RL zoning codes. 4. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the recipient; We bought the home in 1999 with all structures as they exist now. The only structures contributing to lot coverage are our house and our small main - level deck. Both currently stand as conceived and constructed by the neighborhood's original developer. 5. That the variance, ifgranted, 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; Many homes in Pine Street Park already have decks far more spacious and functional than ours in spite of the (now obvious) coverage issue. There are, in fact, several nearby houses with floor plans identical to ours that have above - ground -level decks stretching all the way across the back of the house. The deck we propose would be of a similar size while differing in shape. It would approach the adjacent property on our east side, but it would remain well within the setback perimeter determined with respect to both the adjacent house and the dividing property line. The angle between our neighbor's home and ours and the minimal windowing on the side of our neighbor's home facing ours would further mitigate any conceivable negative