HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-7057 Staff AnalysisJune •25, '2001
Item No.: 16
File No.:
Owner:
Address:
Description:
Zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
No issues
B. Staff Analysis:
Z-7057
Cathy Cook
2106 N. Beechwood
Lot 2, Country Club Heights
R-2
Variances are requested from
the area coverage and setback
provisions of Section 36-156.
Applicant's Statement_: "Due to the
original guest house located in the
rear yard, the 305 coverage rule
has already been violated. The
house was built in 1904."
Single Family
Single Family
The R-2 zoned lot located at 2106 N. Beechwood is occupied
by a two-story, frame, single-family residence and a
detached accessory structure. The accessory structure is
currently in the process of being repaired/remodeled. The
applicant proposes to construct a swimming pool in the rear
yard. The code limits accessory structures to 30% coverage
of the required rear yard. The existing accessory structure
now covers 51% of the required rear yard. The pool will
bring the rear yard coverage to approximately 63%.
Additionally, the proposed pool is to have a side yard
setback of 2 feet. The code requires a side yard setback of
3 feet.
June 25, 2001
Item No.: 16 (Cont.)
Staff is supportive of the requested variance. Although a
swimming pool is defined as a "structure" by the code and,
as such, must meet area coverage and setback requirements,
in reality the visual and spatial impact is different. This
in -ground pool will not add to the above -grade clutter of
the site in the same manner as another structure. The pool
becomes more of an element of the landscape and should not
impact adjacent properties.
C. Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends approval of the requested area coverage and
setback variances to allow the proposed in -ground pool.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(JUNE 25, 2001)
The applicant was present. There were no objectors present.
Staff informed the Board that of the notification signatures
obtained by the applicant; 9 were timely, 1 was one day late,
2 were 3 days late and 2 were 4 days late. Cathy Cook stated
that she thought the day the notices were to be turned in to
staff was the final day to obtain the signatures. Consequently,
some of the signatures were late.
After a brief discussion, a motion was made to accept the
notices. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and
2 absent.
Staff then presented the variance requests and a recommendation
of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments.
A motion was made to approve the variance requests. The motion
was approved by a vote of 3 ayes, 0 noes and 2 absents.
2