Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2014 12 17

Home Browse Search

The applicant has provided a written analysis of the variance criteria, which has been included in the BOA packet materials. Following is a staff review and analysis of the variance criteria. 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. The existing physical circumstance unique to this property is the owner is wishing to retain the existing garage and add work space to a second floor. In an area where most new property owners are scraping the aged structures, this owner is wishing to retain the existing condition and add onto the structure. By retaining the structure and adding on, the owner is utilizing the existing impervious area and retaining the pervious area (grass) to assist in keeping the historic drainage of the property. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 2. That the unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood or district in which the property is located. The Old Town Overlay District is speckled with aging structures located closer to property lines than the code allows. However, as stated above, there is a change over in property ownership in downtown with more property owners wishing to scrape existing aged structure to maximize the building coverage. In the past staff has processed other setback variances for property owners wishing to retain their existing structures and therefore retain the character of the community. Therefore staff believes it is unique for a property owner to want to save an existing structure. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 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. According to Section 17.36 of the Louisville Municipal Code (LMC), non - conforming structures may not be "altered, expanded or extended" without coming into compliance with the regulations established in the LMC. In this instance, the garage may not be altered, expanded or extended because the non - conforming element is the side setback. The only way the applicant may achieve an addition to the garage is to either demolish the existing structure or add on to the north of the garage, thereby increasing lot coverage and removing additional pervious area. Adding additional impervious area would create additional storm runoff for the property and remove grass from the backyard. Also, placing the proposed approximately 485 square foot addition on the first floor would take the property near its maximum allowed lot coverage, constraining future development on the property. Therefore it is staffs opinion the property cannot be reasonably developed without demolishing the existing structure or changing the historic character of this property. Staff finds this criterion has been met. 4. That such unnecessary hardship has not been created by the applicant. The hardship for this property is the original garage was built too close to the property line. Because the original garage was constructed prior to 1974 and was not built by the 4