06/24/1996 Council Minutes (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

• COUNCIL MEETING JUNE 24, 1996 The applicant would also like to locate the pool approximately five and one half (5 1/2) feet within the 30 foot side yard setback as indicated on the survey document. This is the preferred location as the portion of his yard directly behind the home is at a lower elevation by approximately four (4) feet and may require the construction of a retaining wall and removal of the existing chain-link fence. Mr. Sandahl would like to keep the fenced in area as is and would prefer not moving the existing fencing. He does plan to install a privacy fence around the perimeter of the pool. The findings of fact to consider for this variance application include the following: A. The pool could be located within the required setback, however, full view would not be available from the home. B.The slope of the rear yard could constitute a unique characteristic to the property. C. The applicant could consider a smaller sized pool or locating the pool in a different area on the property although it may be more costly. The Council could consider the slope of the land a hardship. D. Staff is anticipating adoption of the revised zoning ordinance which would eliminate the need for this request. • E. Property values should not be diminished one way or the other, however, that is a subjective statement. • F. The intent of the ordinance was to provide a separation between existing neighboring residences and pool equipment. Placement of the pool itself requires a 10 foot setback according to the existing ordinance and the revised ordinance. The applicant has presented a petition from 12 adjoining property owners, including the owners immediately to the south, indicating no objections to the variance request. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed this request and recommended approval of the variance to allow the pool to be set back 10 feet from the side property line. There was considerable discussion at a Planning and Zoning Board work session when the recommendation was made to change the pool ordinance. The proposed request conforms to the recommended change. The Planning and Zoning Board did not have an opportunity to review the side yard variance request. Staff recommended denial of this request as the pool may be moved toward the back yard and meet the setback requirement although this may require removal of the existing fence and a possible retaining wall. Mr. Sandahl explained that the drawing of his lot is deceiving. The area where the pool will sit is flat, however, the fence sits on a ridge. He explained that if the pool is moved as originally described, he will have to remove his fence. PAGE 19