My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2023 03 15
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
2023 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2023 03 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/8/2023 11:22:42 AM
Creation date
3/8/2023 10:12:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Meeting Date
3/15/2023
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.
/
23
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
2. That the unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the <br />neighborhood or district in which the property is located. <br />The majority of existing residences surrounding the property have their designed front <br />elevation facing the code -defined front lot line. Similar to the subject property, many of the <br />surrounding homes were also built in the early 1900s. (Figure 4 below has highlighted in <br />yellow the surrounding homes that have a designed front elevation facing their code -defined <br />front lot line.) Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. <br />. _ . 3 <br />Figure 4: Sample of Standard Structure Orientations <br />3. That because of such physical circumstances or conditions, the property cannot <br />reasonably be developed in conformity with the provisions of Title 17 of the <br />Louisville Municipal Code. <br />In order to conform to required building setbacks, the entire existing structure would have <br />be moved roughly eight feet to the east. The house was built in 1907 and has been situated <br />with its designed front elevation facing south toward Pine since it was first constructed. Even <br />if the applicant proposed the addition on another elevation of the subject property, it would <br />still be considered an expansion of a non -conformity as the house itself has non -confirming <br />front setbacks. Staff finds the proposal meets this criterion. <br />4. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. <br />6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.