03-17-2008 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

. , ��,vt N c �r,��t , � � �►�i �S PC Exhibit G �"�v�-y �a � 4. 07-3335 DOUGLAS W.AND MARGARET S.FRANCFIOT,2010 COLIN D12IVE, VARIANCE,6:17 P.M.—6:46 P.M. Douglas Franchot,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated the applicants are requesting a variance to allow construction of an in-ground swimming pool with a 40' x 14' pool building to be located closer to Colin Drive than the principal structure. The existing home is located approximately 130 feet from Colin Drive. The required front yard setback is 50 feet. The applicants have requested a variance to allow construction of the poo185 feet from Colin Drive and the pool building 59 feet from Colin Drive. Both locations meet the front yard setback but would be located ahead of the principal structure. ' (#07-3335 Douglas and Margaret Franchot,Continued) Staff feels there are alternative locations to construct the pool and pool building that would meet the setbacks as shown in Exhibit D3. In addition,the applicants have current and future septic needs to consider. Staff would argue that the applicants have reasonable use of the property and that providing for sewage treatment must be considered above a pool amenity. If there is not an appropriate location for a pool and septic ireatment areas,the septic treatment areas must prevail. Considering the limited schedule for Planning Commission review, Staff felt it was reasonable to bring the variance request to the Planning Commission prior to receiving information regarding an alternate septic treatment site provided that the application does not move forward for final approval to the City Council until a secondary site is identified unless the recommendation from the Planning Commission is for denial. Staff recommends the Planning Commission discuss the five issues for consideration listed in the staff report. Staff recommends denial of the setback variance for the pool and pool building as requested as alternate locations are available. Should the Planning Commission feel that the proposed location is appropriate, a review of this application by the City Council should be delayed until an adequate secondary septic site is identified. Franchot stated their application lists the reasons why they feel the variance is justified. Franchot indicated that during their application,they have found the septic system is noncompliant and that they are agreeable to fixing their septic system as part of this process. The intent of the regulation to keep accessory struciures behind a principal structure is to maintain a streetscape,which does not apply to their street since it is curvy. If the pool were located near the rear lot line, it would be more intrusive to the neighbors. Kempf asked whether the proposed septic site would allow the applicant to construct an in ground swimming pool between the proposed septic site and the home. Curtis stated it is possible depending on the location of the tanks. Currently the tanks are located near the front of the home. Curtis pointed out the location of the e�cisting septic site on the overhead. Franchot indicated the tanks are to the right of the driveway. Curtis stated the tanks may need to be relocated.