Laserfiche WebLink
B 5 <br />lich <br />mot <br />5 at <br />mgs <br />mix <br />Fox <br />sent <br />the <br />hich <br />3ver <br />pli- <br />hore <br />MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING HELD DECEMBER 16, 1985. PAGE 6 <br />#987 ROBERT J. BAUMAN <br />Marge Gasch stated that when a variance is granted the <br />Commission must find a hardship. She can find no hardship <br />for building an indoor swimming pool. <br />Mr. Bauman explained the pool addition was designed this way <br />because of the existing slope of the land. Their hardship is <br />that they have 4 small children who all love the water, and <br />cannot swim in the lake during the winter. The lake at the <br />end of the dock area is much too deep for children of this <br />age. The reason for putting the pool on that side of the <br />house is that it will be used for entertainment and the lower <br />level is designed for that purpose. If the pool was located <br />on the other side of the house, you would have to enter the <br />pool area by going outdoors. The other solution would be <br />access through the garages which contain power tools, etc. <br />Just because no one else has a pool in the area, does that <br />mean one cannot have a pool? Some of the homes in the area <br />have tennis courts, or gyms etc. <br />Chairman Callahan noted, for the record, that Marge Gasch is <br />correct in her comment regarding the other neighbors in <br />opposition. The Noltings were present at the last meeting to <br />express their opposition. <br />Goetten asked the applicant why the variances were not <br />requested when grade changes were applied for in August of <br />1985. If everything had been done together, the Commission <br />may have a better understanding of what is going on with the <br />property. <br />Mr. Bauman noted that his family has lived there for just <br />over a year. When they originally started the additions, <br />staff was able to make trade-offs with hardcover, thus <br />eliminating the need for extra variances. At that time the <br />pool was a long range goal, after the first portion of the <br />construction was done. Assistant Zoning Administrator <br />Gaffron suggested at the time the garages were built, the <br />applicants come in for a variance for the pool. <br />It was moved by Taylor, seconded by Kelley, to recommend <br />approval for Robert J. Bauman for a variance to the average <br />lakeshore setback for the pool addition based on the <br />following findings: <br />1. There is no other feasible location on the property <br />for the pool addition. <br />2. The way :he pool is being designed does not <br />substantually t.*ncroach on the neighboring properties. <br />d