Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-8505 Staff AnalysisNOVEMBER 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 3 File No.: Z-8505 Owner: Gabor and Mary Anne Kovats Applicant: Gabor Kovats Address: 9 Silver Birch Court Description: Lot 319, Pleasant View Addition Zoned: R-2 Variance Requested: Variances are requested from the area provisions of Section of 36-156 and the fence provisions of Section 36-516 to allow an accessory building with reduced front setback and a fence which exceeds the maximum height allowed. Justification: The applicant's justification is presented in an attached letter. Present Use of Property: Fenced Single Family Lot Proposed Use of Property: Fenced Single Family Lot with Pool House STAFF REPORT A. Public Works Issues: No Comments. B. Staff Analysis: The R-2 zoned property at 9 Silver Birch Court is currently undeveloped, with the owner in the process of constructing a indoor pool house on the property. The property owner also owns the lot immediately to the west and the two (2) lots immediately to the north, for a total of four (4) lots. The owner's residence is on the lot immediately to the north at 14419 White Fir Lane. The four (4) contiguous lots with one (1) residence is considered a single zoning lot and ownership. The ordinance definition of a zoning lot is as follows: "Zoning lot means a parcel of land that is designated by its owner or authorized agent as a tract, all of which is to be used, developed or built upon as a unit under a single ownership. A zoning lot may consist of any standard lot or a combination of a lot and any legally recorded portion of a lot that existed prior to the passage of this chapter. When determining the NOVEMBER 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 3 (Can't. front, rear and side yard setbacks for a zoning lot, the required distance shall be measured from the exterior boundaries of the zoning lot." The applicant recently began construction of an accessory indoor pool house building on the lot at 9 Silver Birch Court, the lot immediately south of the residence. A single family house which burned was removed from the property. The pool house is located approximately 48 feet from the lot's front (south) property line at its closest point. There is a driveway from Silver Birch Court which serves as access to the south lot. The south lot slopes downward from back to front (north to south). The applicant has also constructed a new wood fence which encloses a large portion of the four (4) lots. The wood fence is six (6) feet in height, with the exception of a section which is eight (8) feet high running across the driveway and along a portion of the east side property line of the south lot (pool house lot). The fence which is located along the south portion of the property is located between the 25 foot front platted building lines of the southern lots and the Silver Birch Court right-of-way. Section 36-156(a)(2)c. of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum front setback of 60 feet for accessory buildings in R-2 zoning. Section 36- 516(e)(1)a. allows a maximum fence height of four (4) feet for fences located between a platted building line and street right-of-way, and a maximum fence height of six (6) feet for fences along interior lot lines. Therefore, the applicant is requesting variances from these ordinance standards to allow the accessory pool house building with a reduced front setback and the fence along the south and east property lines with an increased height. Staff is not entirely supportive of the application. Staff is supportive of the requested front setback variance for the accessory pool house structure. Staff's support is based on the fact that the structure is not visible from the area to the south, outside the fenced yard area. Although the placement of the accessory structure on the platted lot south of the residence is unusual, it requires only a minor front setback variance (48 feet instead of 60). The structure exceeds all of the setbacks required for construction of a principal structure on the lot. Staff believes construction of an accessory building on the platted lot south of the residence will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or the general area. Although staff has no problem with the fence heights as proposed, staff believes it would be appropriate to move the fence back on the lot at least to the front 25 foot platted building line. This will bring the six (6) foot high section into compliance with the ordinance, leaving only the eight (8) foot section needing a height variance. Additionally, moving the fence back on the lot, and further up the slope of the lot, will make the accessory pool house structure even less visible from the south. Staff believes that if the fence is moved back to the building line it will have no adverse impact on the adjacent properties or general area. NOVEMBER 30, 2009 ITEM NO.: 3 (Con't. C. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested accessory building setback and fence height variances, subject to the following conditions: 1. The fence must be moved back to at least the 25 foot front platted building line on the two (2) southern lots. 2. The accessory pool house structure must be finished as to match the exterior of the principal structure on the north lot. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT: (NOVEMBER 30, 2009) The applicant was present. There were no objectors present. Staff presented the application with a recommendation of approval. The applicant offered no additional comments. The Chairman placed the item on the Consent Agenda for approval, as recommended by staff. The Consent Agenda was approved with a vote of 3 ayes, 0 nays and 2 absent. The application was approved.