01-13-1986 - Agenda Packet City Council - city council (4)

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #987 January 24, 1.986 Page 2 Now, considering the sightlines of the neighboring residences, this literal method does not necessarily protect the view rights of the northerly neighbor., to the extent that the pool structure could technically be placed up to the dashed average setback line and to within 10' of the side lot line (still on Item 3). Perhaps at this point, looking now at Irem 2, as tht? applicant showed last time, the front line of the house must be to-keri into account. I would encourage you to read through Items 1-9 of Exhibit A to get a feel for the average setback concept, realizing that a) the section on average lakeshore setback (10.22, Subdivision 1) does not refer to sight lines nor does it in any way exp'ain the purpose of the section, it doesn't state what we are supposed to be protecting; b) in at least one previous application in 1980, staff. used the literal interpretation of average setback (Item 3), but since then has generally used the "customary", "straight - line -between -adjacent - houses" method in practically all cases; and c) the shape of the shoreline and location or "skewness" of houses in relation to the Lakeshore has a great effect on a property owner's perception of what constitutes an acceptable sight -line. The applicant has submitted a letter indicating the reasons for the proposed pool location, reviewing why various other locations would be less acceptable or non -acceptable, and descriting his family's need for a pool. Staff does not pretend to be pool designers, but Exhibit 13 shows a possible pool structure configuration requiring a minor variance to site setback rather than average setback (depending on which average setback method is used). Applicant has stated a number of reasons why this is unacceptable, such as: - not adjacent to utility roam under office - lack of sunlight - lack of views from pool area to lake - limits severely the dimensions of pool decking To address the Council's third request., staff has verbally noti- fied both property owners of the January 27th meeting (direct phone conversation with Gasch, left message with secretary at Noelt ings). Also, I wi :j. 1. note for the record that Mrs. Gasch was present at the Public Hearings on November 18 an(l December 1.6, 1985, and Mr. & Mrs. Noelting were present at the Public Hearing on November 18. Bath adjacent neighbors are aware of the current. proposal.