Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2019 08 21

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. 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 that the irregular shape and overall narrowness encumbers the interior side yard of this property, and is a unique physical circumstance. The configuration of the existing house and garage, as originally constructed, complicate conformance with minimum setbacks. Staff believes when the original homes were constructed, staff at the time may have allowed the developer to build these homes within the side setbacks based on the rationale that these homes were originally designed to be paired. 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 construction of homes within the side setbacks is a unique circumstance to the Sundance subdivision. While staff finds that other homes throughout the Sundance subdivision have similar conditions with respect to lot shape and non -conforming interior side setbacks, this condition is unique when compared to other subdivisions in RE districts (including Sundance 2 PUD). 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 of this property hinder the applicant's ability to make reasonable expansions in conformity with the provisions of Title 17 of the LMC. The location of the desired improvements to the home related to the existing interior improvements results in a conflict with the non -conforming side setbacks, Staff finds that the request allows reasonable development. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. 4. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. The original developer constructed the existing house and garage in 1983. The PUD approved in 1981 established minimum setbacks. The City zoned the property RE when it annexed the Sundance subdivision. At the time of original construction, this property was already non -conforming with the minimum side setback as established in the PUD. The current owner purchased this property in 2007 and is not responsible for these standards or the current setback encroachments on the property. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion 7