Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 03 16

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes February 17, 2016 Page 5 of 12 Robinson says no. The square footage is 5,296 sf. It is 61.4 feet wide and approximately 86 feet deep. Campbell asks what are the physical dimensions of the property to the north? What about the third property north? Robinson says no. It appears to be about the same size. I do not have the dimensions of the other properties. Stuart says in looking at the picture, each property looks slightly larger than the lot asking for variances. Campbell says you mentioned that criterion #4 was met. It is my understanding that when a person buys a property, they stand in the shoes of the previous owner and what they are purchasing is what the previous owner created. What was the un ining zoning for this development before the PUD? Robinson says it was zoned Residential Estate (RE) and t PUD was put in place when it was initially subdivided and developed. Campbell says the developer requested a PUD? The PUlvas grated by the City? Robinson says the developer requested the PUD and it was reviewed and approved by City Council (CC). Campbell says it was the developer that sited the house on this particular lot. He would be the one of the previous owners. Wouldn't this applicant be bound by those criteria? Robinson says the purpose of the variance is to allow for relief from these issues. The question is whether it was applicant's actions that caused it or something inherent in the site or previous actions of an owner. In t built the house on the site or subdivi creating the problems. Staff believes t house, all of these issues were already ' ace. Campbell says if this owner is standing i`' °e sh owner would have been one of them that created the har Robinson says that is not the evaluation we use for this criterion. Stuart says our precedent has been that if the owner bought the lot with that problem, he is not the cause of the hardship. That has been our precedent for interpreting this rule for a long time. He is not standing in the shoes of the other owner. If the rules change and the zoning changes, it is not present owner's fault. It was the way it was sited before he bought it, and it is not his fault. Ewy says there was a period of time in Louisville that when the PUDs were adopted, whether it was by oversight of Staff or was not done at the time, most PUDs will have a lot coverage defined. It is in keeping with the types of homes sited on the property. When the PUDs were done in the 1980s to mid 1990s, it was common that they lacked proper lot coverage. They did not change the zoning as part of the PUD adoption. The 12,000 sf minimum lot size is in conflict with most of those subdivisions from that time. The lot coverage is a significant issue. The BOA works with Staff and Staff worked with CC for a number of years to get an ability to do an administrative lot coverage variance up to 30 %. What has happened on the super small lots is most of the time, they are already exceeding the 30% threshold. We saw a lot of these applications since it is a pretty common problem in the City. DeJong says it is my understanding that under this criterion, it is "this applicant ". Campbell says I hear the answer but I am not sure I agree with it. Stuart says that the criterion have been interpreted this way since I have been on the BOA for over 12 years. Ewy says the City Attorney has been involved with this interpretation as well. Robinson says Staff has always interpreted this criterion so that it is "this applicant" and the current property owner and applicant is not responsible for past actions or decisions by previous property owners. ation, it was n , the current property owner that erty or 'e zoning in place, which are met be► e when they purchased the us •wner, then the previous