Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Variance Accessory Structure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning panel approves large accessory-structure variance at East Cedar Ridge Court despite neighbor objections
Summary
The Board granted a variance allowing an accessory building larger than the zoning code limits at 312 East Cedar Ridge Court, finding lot coverage and setback factors acceptable despite neighbors’ privacy and drainage objections; a resolution will be prepared within 45 days.
The Board of Zoning Appeals voted to grant a variance enabling an accessory structure substantially larger than the standard limit at 312 East Cedar Ridge Court, after the board concluded the requested change would not violate setback or lot-coverage standards.
City zoning administrator David Westfall told the board the proposed accessory structure, together with existing buildings, would result in about 9.7% lot coverage in a district that allows up to 30%, and that all structures would meet required setbacks. Based on those factors, staff recommended approval.
Applicant Brett Watson said the lot coverage would remain “sub 10%” and cited several previously approved variances in the neighborhood since the COVID period. Watson said the proposed building would function as a pool house, workout facility and office, not as a dwelling. He told the board he and his builder were willing to consider moving the structure and installing a berm or landscaping to address neighbor concerns.
Neighbor Chris Sands, who lives at 224 East Cedar Ridge Court, opposed the siting of the accessory structure and the proposed pool area, saying it would sit about 15 feet from his primary bedroom, exacerbate drainage problems and reduce privacy. “We have not slept for 2 weeks,” Sands told the commission, describing the emotional and practical impacts of the proposal.
Commissioners reviewed the nine variance factors and recorded concurrence with staff’s findings that the property’s size and proposed setbacks did not pose adverse impacts. Peter Fox moved to grant the variance as requested; the motion was seconded and carried. The chair said a resolution granting the variance will be prepared and made available to the applicant within 45 days. An appeal of the decision may be filed to the district court under applicable procedures.
The board discussed but did not impose a condition requiring HOA approval; staff said HOA approval is separate and between the applicant and their HOA.
