04-13-1987 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Zoning File #1110 April. 8, 1987 Page 3 of 5 The applicant advises that his insurance carrier will. not require fencing aroun,' the pool. Staff has advised the appplicant that a fence (not to exceed PE." in height) can be placed in the lakeshore yard up to the 75 feet lakeshore setback line. Such structu�:cs are not subject to the provisions of the average lakeshore setback/viewing standard. Martinson has advised, that at some future date, he may wish to install a fence but it would not exceed the allowable height. It should be noted that the pool area is located approximately 95 feet from both adjacent residential structures (see Exhibit. K). Staff would recommend that approval of these structures be conditioned such that no additions or modifications to the deck and pool will result in increased vertical elevations. The deck and pool as proposed will create no viewing problems for adjacent neighbors. The deck tennis court will be located 50 feet from Hezitage Drive. In revi.sirg his plans, M artinson's planner placed the court 30 feet from the rear/street lot line - the first plan showed it at a 60 feet setback. Martinson will relocate court to 50 feet street/rear line. Mr. Anderson, the owner o the north appears to have no proLlem with Martinson's proposal. He doet, have a problem with the City granting area variances for lots similar in size to his own undeveloped lot. If you rememoer, Anderson was the owner of 2 rural adjacent substandard lots (one with a residence). The City denied his area/lot width variance application because the property was less than 4 acres (1 unit per 2 acres standard for LR-iA district) and 400 feet of width. Some of you may remember the property as the lcoation for Bec1 & Breakfast applications. Mrs. Bouchard, neighbor to the south, called to advise of her complete approval cf Mr. MaitilLson's site development plan. The Bouchard residence would be 1.30 feet from the deck/tennis court with the rear/street setback at 50' (see Exhibit K) - the Anderson residence would be 1.50 fee'_. The Planning Comiriasion was concerned with the %se impact" of the deck tennis court upon the neighbors and asked Martinson to consider a curfew time in the evening. Martinson has attempted to respond to the Planning Ccmmissi^•i's concerns regarling the use of the court. He advises they will not use the court after 10 p.m. in the evening. Per Section 10.60, Subdivision 8, the lighting for the court must be shielded so that light beams are "not detectal,le at. the lot lines". 1'•7r. Martinson will learn very quickly of the tolerance levels of his neighbors. The very broad public nuisance sections of the muni c•i l a 1 code wi 1 l deal with any abuses resu 1 t inq from the use of the court.