Commissioners agree to revisit variance request after debate over counting pools in lot-coverage

Ada County staff recommended denial Jan. 15 of an application (202401958 V AC, Studio H Architects) seeking a variance to exceed the Rural-Urban Transition (RUT) district’s maximum lot coverage; the staff position was grounded on county code that defines a pool as a structure and therefore counts toward lot coverage calculations. After testimony from the applicant’s representative and the property owners, the Board voted to approve the variance request and table the matter to the Jan. 27 business meeting so staff can revise findings and conditions.

Staff planner Stacy DuPree explained the RUT lot-coverage standard for the one-acre cluster is 20 percent and described existing site coverage and the proposed detached accessory structure. DuPree said the lot currently has approximately 7,130 square feet of coverage (roughly 16 percent) and that the proposed accessory structure would increase total coverage to roughly 10,199 square feet (about 23 percent), exceeding the 20 percent limit. She also noted Ada County Code defines a swimming pool as a structure that counts toward coverage, citing the county’s building-permit requirement for pools.

Jessica Heagy of Studio H Architects, representing the property owners, argued the pool should not be counted as lot coverage because pools are typically treated as landscape features and not vertical, roofed structures. Heagy said on-site measurements put the property at 21.6 percent including the pool and at 19.9 percent if the pool is excluded — just under the 20 percent limit. Heagy described the proposed building as a personal-use shop (no commercial intent) to store household equipment and said neighbors had expressed no opposition at the applicant’s public meeting.

Commissioners asked whether the pool had permits when constructed and whether other properties in the area counted pools toward coverage. DuPree confirmed the pool was permitted in 1994 and that Ada County’s code treats pools as structures for coverage purposes. After discussion, the board approved the applicant’s motion to grant the variance and tabled the matter to Jan. 27 to allow staff to prepare revised findings of fact and conclusions of law reflecting the action; the motion also directed staff to include the applicant’s and agency-suggested conditions when drafting revisions.

The record will include the applicant’s presentation as an exhibit, and staff will return with a revised set of findings and conditions at the Jan. 27 meeting.