07-20-2015 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

Average Lakeshore Setback September 21,201I Page 3 The discussion in 1985 that eventually resulted in the 1992 formalization of the theretofore "customary" average setback line, focused on a series of sketches which depicted a variety of shoreline shapes, lot configvrations, and adjacent home location relationships. These sketches are attached in Ezhibit E. The majority of examples depicted the impact of encroachments on views from the windows that most directly face the lake; it did not delve deeply into the unusual situation where skewness of a home in relation to the shoreline provides lake views from side windows. It was noted that in a straight shoreline situation, the average setback affords each home a 180-degree view from its lake-facing windows. The question of whether a property owner has any rights to protection of lake views from side windows ultimately was answered by the definition of average setback line using a straight `line- of-sight' line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the two adjacent residence buildings, rather than some other more rearward loca.tion on adjacent homes. In some configurations, side window views would not be affected, in others the side views would reduced, but the effect of the code langua eg does not inherentiv protect side window views. The definition eliminated the extent of possible view encroachments that might occur in the case of an angled shoreline in relation to the side lot lines (see Ezample 3 in the attachments to Exhibit E) if one merely took the average of the measwed distance to the shoreline of the "adjacent and nearby" homes. In that example, the average distance to the shoreline was 99', which would have allowed additians to 1040 Tonkawa in a location that wouid have negatively impacted the views of the lake enjoyed by 1030 Tonkawa. The straight line protected those views. To the extent that side or angled views exist over a neighbor's lot, Planning C;ommission and Counci� in variance reviews have often considered whether a proposed average setback encroachment reduces the existing view angle enjoyed by adjacent homes in determining whether the encroachment should be allowed. I don't believe that the avexage setback concept was originally intended to limit the human activity occurring within properties; it was merely to protect views by regulating the location of structures that would impede lake views. However, the 1986 regulation that also subjected all "accessory structures" to the average setback may have changed the perception of the orig�itial intent. For example, an in-ground pool is an accessory structure; while it might have no direct visual impact nor cause a reduction of lake views, the potential impacts of the activity associated with in-ground pools had been a point of discussion at the PC and Council level. While nothing in the ordinance language identifies an intent to use average setback as a tool to limit activity in lakeshore yards,there may be some sentiment towards that end. It was detemuned at some point that we needed to at least informally define at what elevation a deck attached to the house becomes a visual intrusion siinilar to the house. As was eventually codified for struchzral coverage (current code section 78-1403) the use of a 6' height becamc the distinction for defining whether a deck or other attachnaent to a house constituted `the most lakeward protrusion'. The I990s Design Manual entry{4)above was based on the building code requirement of a 42" guardrail for any deck 30"or more in platform height. The deck and railing