Laserfiche WebLink
Little Caada ,'fanning Commission <br />Little Canada Mayor and City Council <br />5 July 15's' <br />Page Two <br />The Rich? 1's property meets setback requirements for the rear and side <br />yards. ;, cite the fence is only five feet from the front lot line, it is <br />still thir+y feet from the road surface due to the large right -of -way <br />on Count! Road D. North of this property is Interstate 694. Because <br />of the somewhat secluded nature of this property and the additional <br />space pr&dided by the street right -of -way, the pool and fence have <br />little i any effect on the supply of light or air, street congestion, <br />or publi. safety. Since a swimming pool is a residential amenity, it <br />is consi r mt with the Comprehensive Plan goals of residential development. <br />Should i't: have any effect on property values, it would only raise them. <br />The need ;or a variance is caused by the triangular shape in which the <br />lot was ,pitted. Because of the lot taper, placement of the pool and <br />fence it )nformance with all setback requirements would be difficult. <br />A swimm pool is a permitted accessory use in the R -1 district. A fence <br />around t • pool is required by the Zoning Ordinance. A six foot solid <br />fence is !ustified through a need to screen from traffic generated on <br />County Rrjd D as well as block noise and appearance of Interstate 694. <br />RECOMMENiATION <br />Because 'ate use is acceptable within the R -1 zoning district, and the <br />impact c,' this request does not impair property values or set unfair <br />precedent, in the City, we recommend approval of the variance for a swimming <br />pool and fence within the required front yard. <br />cc: Joe Chlebeck <br />-Ed Locke <br />Tom Sweeney <br />Richard S. Richards <br />