Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2014 07 16

Home Browse Search

condition and add onto the structure. By retaining the structure and adding on, the owner is utilizing the existing impervious area (driveway) and retaining the pervious area (grass) to assist in keeping the historic drainage of the property. 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. The Old Town Overlay District is speckled with aging structures located closer to property lines than the code allows. However, as stated above, there is a change over in property ownership in downtown with more property owners wishing to scrape existing aged structure to maximize the building coverage. In the past staff has processed other setback variances for property owners wishing to retain their existing structures and therefore retain the character of the community. Therefore staff believes it is unique for a property owner to want to save an existing structure. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 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. Under the current conditions the house is currently in compliance with the provision of Title 17 and can reasonably be developed. The variance request is to allow for a two car garage. In discussions with the architect the hardship exists due to the existing layout of the house. In looking at the proposed design, the architect has stated there would be significant remodeling required for any alternative designs. However, because the house can be reasonably developed under the current circumstances staff finds this criterion has not been met. 4. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. The unnecessary hardship has been created by the applicant because there appear to be other options, such as placing a detached 2 car garage in the rear of the property, which would not require the need of a variance. Staff finds this criterion has not 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. If approved the variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because from the street it will appear to be a modest expansion (3 feet) to the south of the lot. 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. If granted, staff believes the side setback variance is the minimum variance that will afford relief. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4