My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2016 06 23
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2016 Planning Commission Agendas Packets Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2016 06 23
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/9/2020 1:31:02 PM
Creation date
7/9/2020 11:37:55 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
6/23/2016
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />June 23, 2016 <br />Page 3 of 30 <br />o Lot 1 would allow 2,588 SF coverage and 3,019 SF floor area. <br />• Lot 2 <br />0 6,375 SF and 42.5' wide. <br />o Noncompliant with minimum lot size, received variances for lot size and lot width. <br />o Lot 2 would allow 2,250 SF coverage and 2,699 SF floor area. <br />• Residential Low Density zone district requires minimum lot size of 7,000 SF and <br />minimum lot width of 70'. <br />• Old Town Overlay District allows on existing 15,000 SF property one unit with 4,500 SF <br />coverage and 5,250 SF of total enclosed space. <br />• Existing lot could have been divided in half for 7,500 SF lots, but the dividing line would <br />have gone through the existing house. <br />• Staff looked at existing lots in subdivision and it is the largest lot. Dividing it will create <br />two lots smaller than the average in the subdivision, but they would not be the smallest <br />subdivision. Typical lot size for Old Town and similar to lots along Roosevelt Avenue. <br />• Given similarity in size to the rest of Old Town, Staff feels it complies with the 2013 <br />Comprehensive Plan and variance approval means it now complies with the zoning <br />regulations in Title 17. Subdivision regulations in Title 16 of the Louisville Municipal <br />Code (LMC) that it needs to meet. It does not meet two. <br />• Title 16.16.060 requires 50 foot frontage and maximum length/width ratio of 2.5 <br />o Lot 1 would be 57.5 feet with 2.61 ratio <br />o Lot 2 would be 42.5 feet with 3.53 ratio <br />• Section of LMC allows modifications for hardship and public good. <br />Staff Recommendations: <br />Staff recommends Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 15, Series 2016, a resolution <br />recommending approval of a replat to subdivide a single 15,000 SF lot into two separate lots in <br />the Residential Low (RL) zone district, located at 105 Roosevelt Avenue, Lots 15-17 & 10' <br />vacated alley, Block 4, Johnson's First Addition, with no conditions. <br />Commission Questions of Staff. <br />Moline asks about the hardship portion of the variance. <br />Robinson says when an application goes before the BOA for a variance, there are six criteria <br />that have to be met, and the BOA must find all six criteria are met. Criterion #1 says "That there <br />are unique physical circumstances or conditions such as irregularity, narrowness, or <br />shallowness of lot, or exceptional topographical or other physical conditions peculiar to the <br />affect property. " The BOA decided the lot was large enough to be divided into two lots. It is <br />unusually long at 150' whereas most lots are 125' or shorter. This made the lot unusual. <br />Rice says on page 6 of the Staff Report, there is data presented about other parcels in this <br />block. The new Lot 2, which is 6,375 SF, would only have two other lots in the survey area that <br />are smaller. The new Lot 1, which is 8,625 SF, would leave four parcels smaller. Looking at this <br />together, this would create two of the five smallest lots in the study area. There are small lots in <br />this study area, but this action would create even more. <br />Robinson says these lots would be small compared with the other properties in the Johnson's <br />First Addition. Looking at broader Old Town, they would be similar in size to the average lot. <br />Rice says the lot width of 42.5 feet; is it even feasible to build on? What are the side setbacks? <br />Robinson says there are lots in Old Town that are more narrow than that. We have some that <br />are 25' in width. Setbacks would be 5' on each side. <br />Rice says we are talking about 32.5' of buildable space. My other question is about the BOA. If <br />you are going through this process, is it necessary to go to the BOA first? <br />Robinson says if you need a variance from the requirements of Title 17 such as lot width and <br />lot area, you go to the BOA. <br />Rice asks if the BOA is simply a recommendation. Is it a final determination on the issue? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.