Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2018 04 18

Home Browse Search

coverage in the RE zone district. 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, and the variance request is proportional to the mismatch. 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 the subject property, while not unusual in the neighborhood of Hilltop, it is unusual for the zone district (RE), which requires a minimum lot size of 12,000 square feet. Staff finds the 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. This property already exceeds the maximum lot coverage and it is a reasonable request to allow a lot coverage more similar to smaller -lot zone districts such as the R -L District, which has a minimum lot area similar to the applicant's lot size and a lot coverage allowance of 30%. 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 1987. The PUD approved in 1983 does not address lot coverage. The property was zoned RE when it was annexed to the City. The current owner purchased the property in 2008 and is not responsible for the original development that created the nonconforming lot conditions. 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 variance request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, nor permanently impair the appropriate use or development of adjacent property. Staff notes that the proposed addition is within the setbacks; the analysis provided above demonstrates that this proposal will result in a lot coverage that is within the range of lot coverages for the area, is proportional to the RE standard, and the home retains the single-family character of the neighborhood. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. 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. 7