HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6930 Staff AnalysisOctober 30, 2000
Item No.: 6
File No.. Z-6930
Owner: Kevin and Rosalina Johnson
Address: 2218 Sawgrass Drive
Description: Lot 27, Pebble Beach Estates
Zoned: R-2
Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the
accessory structure area
regulations of Section 36-156, the
building line provisions of Section
31-12 and the fence height
provisions of Section 36-516.
Justification: The applicant's justification is
presented in an attached letter.
Present Use of Property: Single Family
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family
Staff Re ort:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues.
B. Staff Analvsis::
The R-2 zoned property located at 2218 Sawgrass Drive is
occupied by a new, two-story, brick and frame, single family
residence. The property is a corner lot and has 25 foot
platted building lines on both the Sawgrass Drive and Dorado
Beach Drive perimeters. The house has been pushed even
farther off of the front property line, providing a, 34 foot
front yard setback and further reducing the rear yard area.
Additionally, there is a 7.5 foot utility easement along the
rear property line. The combination of the siting of the
house, the platted building lines and the utility easement
greatly reduces the buildable area available in the rear
yard. The applicant wishes to build a 15 feet by 35 feet
swimming pool in the rear yard. Due to the previously
October 30, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
mentioned constraints, the pool is proposed to be located
beyond the 25 foot building line adjacent to Dorado Beach
Drive. The pool will have a street side yard setback of 11
feet. The code requires accessory structures, including
swimming pools, to have a street side yard setback of 15
feet. The applicant also proposes to enclose the rear yard
and a portion of the side yard with a 6 foot tall privacy
fence for security and privacy purposes. The fence is to
extend across the platted building line to the property line
adjacent to Dorado Beach Drive. The code limits the height
of fences erected within setbacks adjacent to streets to 4
feet.
Staff is supportive of the requested variances. Apart from
the building line issue, the 4 foot reduction in the street
side yard setback for the pool is relatively minor. The
pool is an "in -the -ground" model and no above -grade
structures will extend into the setback or building line
area. Allowing the two foot fence height variance to permit
a 6 foot tall fence versus a 4 foot tall fence seems
reasonable in light of privacy and security concerns related
to the pool. The home under construction on the lot
adjacent to the west does face Dorado Beach Drive. This
adjacent home is located 30± feet west of the common lot
line but there will still be some visual impact from this
proposed fence extending into the "front yard" along Dorado
Beach Drive. That impact is somewhat reduced by the
difference in elevation between the two properties. The
adjacent property is somewhat higher than the applicant's
property. In any event, the opinion of this neighboring
property owner should be taken into account when considering
the fence height variance.
If the Board approves the building line variance for the
pool, the applicant will have to do a one -lot replat
reflecting the change in the building line as approved by
the Board. The applicant should review the filing procedure
with the Circuit Clerk's office to determine if the replat
requires a revised Bill of Assurance. Additionally, the
applicant should determine if the proposed fence is a
violation of the Pebble Beach Estates Bill of Assurance.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested fence height,
building line and accessory structure setback variances
subject to compliance with the following conditions:
Pa
October 30, 2000
Item No.: 6 (Cont.)
1.A one -lot replat reflecting the change in the building
line for the swimming pool.
2. The fence is to be constructed in "good neighbor"
fashion, with the finished side facing outward.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(OCTOBER 30, 2000)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff presented the item and recommendation of approval subject
to compliance with the conditions outlined in the "Staff
Recommendation" above. Staff informed the Board that several of
the required signatures on the notice form were obtained 7 or 8
days prior to the hearing, not 10 days as required by the Board's
Bylaws.
A motion was made to accept the notices as completed by the
applicant. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 0 noes
and 0 absent.
Gary Langlais commented to Kevin Johnson, the applicant, that it
appeared he was building a pool in his neighbor's front yard.
Mr. Johnson stated that he had met with the owner of the adjacent
property and the builder who is constructing the home on that
lot. He stated that neither individual had any objections. Mr.
Johnson stated that he had also discussed the issue with Winrock,
the developer of the subdivision, and Winrock also had no
objection to the proposal. Mr. Johnson stated that the home on
the adjacent lot was at a higher elevation than his own home,
reducing the visual*'impact of the fence and pool.
In response to a question from Norm Floyd, Mr. Johnson stated
that the pool could not be located elsewhere in the rear yard,
due to the slope of the lot and the existing deck.
Chairman Langlais called the question, including staff comments
and conditions. The vote was 4 ayes, 1 noe and 0 absent.
3