Laserfiche WebLink
• <br />• <br />Planning & Zoning Board <br />August 8, 2001 <br />Page 4 <br />The Planning and Zoning Commission could not reach a consensus on this issue and it was <br />decided after discussion to bring this to the City Council for their decision. <br />B. Gerald Ramsay, 1168 Ruffed Grouse Court, Variance <br />Staff presented the application by explaining this item involved two variances: a pool setback <br />from a road and the height of a fence along a neighbor's front yard. At the July P & Z meeting, <br />this item was tabled and directed back to staff to communicate the applicants to determine the <br />potential to move the pool and have the City bear the cost. <br />Staff presented a brief summary of the facts presented at the July P & Z meeting. <br />Staff presented its analysis of the variance by explaining City staff and the applicants had been in <br />communication about the costs of the suggested action. Applicant had sent a draft of proposed <br />costs. The total cost estimate was $9,154.00. Due to this being a draft estimate, it was subject to <br />change. Staff indicated the largest single line item was the pool itself. Applicant noted that <br />disassembling the pool would void the lifetime warranty, so a completely new pool was <br />necessary if it was to be moved. <br />Staff stated they would need to confirm the cost estimates as well as determining if anything <br />would be re -used without affecting applicant's warranty. In addition to the pool itself, there were <br />other costs such as earthmoving and landscaping that would have to be considered and <br />compared. <br />Staff originally recommended to grant the variance for the pool, but not for the six -foot fence <br />surrounding the pool. <br />P &Z recommended moving the pool, giving the particular situation they had in this instance. <br />Chair Schaps asked if the City Council had given any recommendation regarding the assistance <br />with the funding for the moving of the pool. Ms, Smyser replied this had not yet been brought to <br />the Council for their thoughts. <br />Mr. Corson asked if the fence issue was primarily a visibility issue. Mr. Smyser replied it was an <br />aesthetics issue, and it was the City's policy to not fence in front yards with six -foot fences. <br />Mr. Corson asked if there was a safety issue. Mr. Smyser replied he did not know if this would <br />be a safety issue or not There was a potential safety issue, but not a serious one <br />Mr. Corson asked about safety regarding access into the pool. Mr. Smyser replied the City <br />Ordinances did not require a six -foot fence around a pool. The Ordinance only required a four - <br />foot fence around a pool. <br />• Mr. Rafferty indicated he still did not like this situation. He stated the Planning and Zoning <br />Board had asked for recommendations and he did not see the recommendations. He indicated <br />there was no reason a pool should be in a front yard. He stated if the City made a mistake, the <br />pool should be moved. He stated the fence was not the main issue. He noted the best solution <br />