Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2014 05 21

Home Browse Search

and will require significant support from the public and City officials. At this point, the best option for the applicant is to seek a variance instead of a rezoning. REVIEW CRITERIA: The BOA has authority to hear and decide, grant or deny this application for a variance from Section 17.12.040 of the LMC by the powers granted the BOA in Section 17.48.110 of the LMC. The BOA may grant a variance only if it makes findings that all of the criteria, as established under Section 17.48.110.B.1-6, have been satisfied, insofar as applicable: The applicant has provided a written analysis of the variance criteria, which has been included in the BOA packet materials. Following is a staff review and analysis of the variance criteria. 1. That there are unique physical circumstances or conditions such as irregularity, narrowness or shallowness of lot, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the affected property. The unique physical circumstance in this case is that the lot is 6,343 square feet smaller than the minimum allowed lot size in the zone district. Generally, in the LMC, as minimum lot sizes get smaller, maximum lot coverage allowances increase. In this case, the maximum lot coverage appears to be mismatched to the lot size. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 2. That the unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or district in which the property is located. Section 17.48.110 of the LMC states a variance may only be granted if all criteria, “insofar as applicable,” are met. In this case, where the majority of the lots in the subdivision are smaller than the minimum lot size, the unusual circumstance by definition exists throughout the neighborhood. Staff has determined that applying this criterion to applications of this sort is not appropriate.Staff finds this criterion is not applicable. 3. That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of Title 17 of the Louisville Municipal Code. Base on the property size, the current zoning does not allow any expansion of the building’s footprint. This includes decks above 30 inches in height and covered porches, as well as additions. The proposed deck expansion is not overly large, and is intended for a more usable rear yard experience. The requested expansion complies with the setbacks established for the subdivision The RE zone district lot coverage requirement would not enable this reasonable expansion to occur. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. The existing house was built in 1992 exceeding the allowed lot coverage of the RE zoned district and with no room for expansion. The applicant did not create the unnecessary hardship.Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4