Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2017 08 16

Home Browse Search

REVIEW CRITERIA: The BOA has authority to grant or deny a variance request based on the review criteria found in Municipal Code Sections 17.48.110.B.1-6. The applicant has provided a written analysis of the variance criteria (see attached Application Materials). Following is staff's analysis of the criteria with recommended findings on each. 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 4,772 square foot subject lot is 7,228 square feet smaller than the minimum allowed lot size of 12,000 square feet. 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 the 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 for the subject property, while the nonconforming lot size is not unusual in the neighborhood of Sundance and in several other RE zoning neighborhoods, the proposed lot coverage of 33% is unusual for the neighborhood. Staff finds the proposal does not meet 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 make expansions in conformity with the provisions of Title 17 of the LMC. This property was built exceeding the maximum lot coverage and any modest expansion will require a variance. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. 4. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. The existing house was constructed in 1983. The PUD approved in 1981 does not address lot coverage. The property was zoned RE when it was annexed to the City. The current owner purchased the property in 2014 and are not responsible for these standards or the current lot coverage for the property. Staff finds the 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 applicant provided letters of support from the owners and tenant of the properties to the east and west. The property to the rear is owned by the City of Louisville and is designated as Open Space. However, staff finds that the proposal may alter the essential character of the neighborhood by exceeding the average lot coverage in the area by 6