HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-3961-B Staff AnalysisJuly 21, 1986
Item No. 1 - Z -3961-B
Owner:
Riley's Health and Fitness Center, Inc.
Address:
470.0 Sam Peck Road
Description:
Lots 14, 15 and 16 and W 15 feet of
Lot 13, Woodlawn Farm Acres and Lot 1,
Tennis Club Addition
Zoned:
"AF" and "R-2"
Variance
Requested:
1. From the area coverage provisions of
Section 7-105.1/F.4 to permit 36
percent lot coverage.
2. From the setback provisions of
Section 7-105.1/F.1 to permit a
15 -foot front yard.
3. From the parking provisions of
Section 8-101-D to permit 150
spaces.
Justification:
1. Area coverage not applicable to this
type of use.
2. Setback -buildings to be enclosed
already exist.
3. Parking - none otherwise established
by ordinance.
Present Use of
Property: Tennis Club
Proposed Use
of Property: Same with swimming pool
STAFF REPORT
A. Engineering Issues
None reported.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 1 -- Continued
B. Staff Analvsis
The requested variances are for the West Side Tennis
Club located at the northwest corner of Sam Peck Road
and Peckerwood Road. Some of the property is currently
zoned "AF" Agriculture and Forestry, and a rezoning
request to "AF" has been filed for the western portion
of the site where most of the new construction is to
take place. In the "AF" District, lot coverage for the
main buildings and all accessory structures shall not
exceed 25 percent of the total area, and the front yard
setback is 50 feet. The Tennis Center is proposing the
lot coverage of approximately 36 percent with a 15 -foot
setback for the new structure. The requested setback
maintains the building line established by the
construction immediately to the east, and it appears
that encroachment has not had any impacts on the
surrounding properties. The proposed lot coverage is
reasonable for this type of use and in keeping with a
previous variance approval for lot coverage. In
November 1984, the Board of Adjustment granted a
variance to the Tennis Center to permit a lot coverage
of 34 percent. The final variance is for the number of
parking spaces to be provided. After reviewing the
development plan and proposal, staff feels that the
proposed 150 spaces are adequate for the current use
and supports the request. When the previous variance
was granted, a condition was attached which specified
that the Tennis Center would make street improvements
to Peckerwood at the next stage of improvements or
development of the adjacent property. The street
improvements should be undertaken at this time, and
they should be a condition of this approval. In
addition, because of the multifamily use to the north,
staff suggests that a screening fence be provided along
the north side of the new parking area and the
necessary lighting be directional.
C. Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the three requested
variances subject to the comments outlined in the staff
analysis.
July 21, 1986
Item No. 1 - Continued
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ACTION:
(7-21-86)
There were no objectors in attendance. Mr. Christopher
Barrier, Attorney for the applicant, was present and stated
that he had nothing to add to the staff comments, except
that the owner would erect the required fencing if necessary.
Along the existing tennis area and the north boundary of the
new parking area, he suggested that it might be appropriate
for Planning staff to meet with the owner before
construction of the subject fence to discuss the existing
screening fence along the apartment complex on the north.
The discussion would center around whether the existing
fence will provide the required separation and protect
against the intrusion of headlights. He suggested a meeting
between staff and the owner might occur at some point before
the required installation becomes necessary. The Planning
staff responded that they could accommodate this review with
the owner at the occasion of the review for final
certificate of occupancy. Mr. Barrier stated in response to
a staff question that he had the proof of notice list and
return cards that did not have the proof of mailing slips as
to the actual date they were mailed. The Board accepted
this circumstance. A brief discussion was held followed by
a motion for approval of the proposal subject to the
installation of appropriate street improvements to City
standard and the erecting of the screening requirements
along the north boundary of the new parking area and a
portion -of the existing parking conditioned upon staff
making a determination as to actual need. The motion passed
by a vote of 6 ayes, 0 noes and 3 absent.
�2
�� � ��.,y