Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2017 03 15

Home Browse Search

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. Staff finds the subject lot is 3,457 square feet smaller than the minimum allowed lot size. Generally, in the LMC, as minimum lot sizes get smaller, maximum lot coverage allowances increase. In this case, the maximum lot coverage is mismatched to the lot size. Staff finds proposal meets this criterion. 2. That the unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or district in which the property is located. Staff finds that the subject property, while not unusual in the neighborhood of Centennial Valley Filing 3, it is unusual for the zone district (RE), which requires a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. Staff finds proposal meets this criterion. 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. Staff finds that the physical circumstances result in a property that the applicant cannot reasonably develop in conformity with the provisions of Title 17 of the LMC. Staff notes that in 2014, the City amended the code to allow administrative variances for up to 30% lot coverage on properties zoned R -E and are smaller than 8,000 square feet. In this case, the Board of Adjustment must consider the request because the subject lot size is 8,543 square feet. The requested additions to the home that would result in a lot coverage of 23%, which is consistent with lot coverage requirements for residential zone districts with minimum lot areas less than 12,000 sq. ft., such as the R -L that has a maximum lot coverage of 30%. The additions are also consistent with the setbacks established for the subdivision. Staff finds proposal meets this criterion. 4. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. The existing house was constructed in 1984. The PUD approved in 1981 does not address lot coverage. The City established the zoning in the area in 1977 when the zoning code was updated and the current yard and bulk standards were established. The current owners purchased the property after these events and are not responsible for these standards. Staff finds proposal meets this criterion. 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. The variance request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property. The additions are within the setbacks. While the architecture of the home will appear more modern than the existing design, it is consistent with improvements other property owners have made in the area. The home retains the single-family character of the neighborhood. Staff finds proposal meets this criterion.. 5