HomeMy WebLinkAboutUntitled (4)Board of Adjustment
Meeting Minutes
December 7, 2009
Page 4
Mr. Brown advised that the variances requested would not confer, on the
applicants, any special privilege(s) that was denied by the city code to other
lands, buildings, or structures in the same zoning district. He advised that it was
not a special privilege to have a screen enclosure, privacy fence, and pool
accessories in the R-2 residential zoning district, but it was a special privilege to
have an accessory structure (shed) that did not meet the city code.
Mr. Brown advised that the requested variances were the minimum variances
from the city code necessary to make possible the reasonable use of the land,
building or structure. He clarified that all the requested variances were the
minimum variances from the city code to make reasonable use of the pool,
enclosure, fence, shed, and accessories.
Mr. Brown advised that the approval of the variances would be in harmony with
the general intent and purpose of the city code, and would not be injurious to the
neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare.
Mr. Brown gave city staffs recommendation. He advised that staff did not
support variances necessary to allow for the screen enclosure as constructed,
but it was clear that without a screen enclosure adequate mosquito control was
not possible and maintenance of the pool would be burdensome. Staff supported
necessary variances to reasonably accommodate a screen enclosure, privacy
fence, and pool accessories, but staff did not support rear setback variances the
pool enclosure and pool accessories. He clarified that staff supported a side
yard of 10 ft. for the screen enclosure and 9 ft. for the fence, as it would allow for
reasonable use of the pool while minimizing the encroachment and variances
requested. He advised that staff also supported a pool accessory variance, as
the applicant inherited the pool pump where it was, and it was not causing a
problem, and there was no other place to locate the pump to meet the city code.
However, staff did not support variances from the rear setback for the pool
enclosure and shed. He explained that the pool enclosure could easily be
relocated to meet the city code, and the shed was in a state of disrepair and
deteriorating and not suitable as a host structure for support of the pool
enclosure. Staff also recommended that the shed should probably be
demolished and replaced with a new shed that would meet the city code.
Mr. Brown advised that the Planning & Zoning Board recommended approval of
the side setback variance for the pool enclosure, the setback for the fence, and
the setback for the pool accessories (pump), and recommended denial of the
rear setback for the screen enclosure and the shed, which was the same
recommendation given by city staff. Discussion followed.