08/08/2001 P&Z Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• • Planning & Zoning Board July 11, 2001 Page 10 Chair Schaps felt the City Council and City Attorney should be made aware of this situation and perhaps an investigation should be done to determine how much it would cost to relocate the pool to eliminate the need for a variance. He did not feel that the applicant should be responsible for paying the cost to relocate the pool. He noted that even if a suitable location is found, there may still be an issue with the applicant wanting a six -foot high fence. He stated he wished to encourage the neighbors to get along and he felt in order to rectify a problem that should not have happened, it would be worth while investigating the option of relocating the pool. Chair Schaps asked Ms. Ramsay if she was willing to continue this request for a period of time in order to find out from her contractor whether it would be possible to relocate the pool. Ms. Ramsay stated that this would be acceptable providing she would not have to pay for the relocation of the pool. Chair Schaps asked Mr. Ranallo if he would agree to this option. Mr. Ranallo responded affirmatively. Ms. Ramsay noted with the current layout of the house, would still be visible even if moved. Chair Schaps not the issue, rather the issue was locating the po be needed. her neighborhood, her pool visibility of the pool was ck variance would not Ms. Ramsay questioned why eight -foot t. ` ee ees would be allowed for screening but a six -foot tall fence is prohibi Schaps was not certain. Mr. Rafferty suggested that a w visibility through the fence. He re to come to an agreement may be more costly, bu between the neighbors. fe a` e could be constructed in order to allow ed that the applicant work with her neighbor e acknowledged that a wrought iron fence y . e worth the extra cost to maintain good relations Mr. Corson made a MOTION to table the request for a setback variance by Geri Ramsay, 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court, in order to allow an investigation to be done to determine whether the City could pay for the relocation of the pool to an appropriate location in the rear yard in order to avoid the need for a setback variance, incorporating the comments made this evening by the Planning and Zoning Board, staff, the applicant, and the adjacent property owner, and was supported by Mr. Lyden. Motion carried 5 -0. Chair Schaps requested that this issue be added to the August Planning and Zoning Board meeting agenda. All Board Members agreed. Mr. Smyser stated per State Law, Ms. Ramsay will be receiving a letter from the City indicating that because the City is required to take action within a certain amount of time, the review period will automatically be extended for 60 days. He stated staff will attempt to resolve the issue sooner than the 60 -day extension deadline.