Laserfiche WebLink
A k <br /> Franchot indicated they are willing to look at that as well. <br /> Kempf sta.ted the issue is the fact that the building is located considerably in front of the principal <br /> structure and that the building should be located on the other side. Kempf noted a variance is required <br /> for the pool regardless of its location and that he would like to see some screening required. <br /> Franchot stated locating the building on the other side of the property may cause it to be raised up. <br /> Kroeger noted there is a six-foot elevation difference from the south to the north. <br /> (#07-3335 Douglas and Margaret Franchot,Continued) � <br /> Kempf stated the water in the pool and the deck surrounding the pool are at exactly the same elevation <br /> from one end to the other,with the entrance to the building being at that same elevation. <br /> Curtis asked whether the building would be cut into the hill. <br /> Franchot indicated it would be. <br /> Rice stated she does not see a hardship for the variance. Rice indicated in her view the pool could be <br /> located elsewhere. <br /> Franchot asked whether Commissioner Rice visited the site. <br /> Rice indicated she did drive by the property but did not go onto the property. Rice stated the applicant <br /> has reasonable use of his property currently and that a hardship has not been demonstrated to locate the <br /> pool in front of the principal structure. <br /> Zullo noted the lot does consist of two acres and that property owners should have a right to construct a <br /> pool for their recreation in light of the fact that lots along the lake are able to enjoy the water. <br /> Winer indicated she does agree with the recommendations of Staff and that the applicants do have <br /> reasonable use of the property without the pool. Winer concurred there should be screening of the pool <br /> and building. Winer stated the Planning Commission would like to see verification of the septic sites <br /> prior to the application proceeding forward to the Council. In addition to the issues identified by Staff, <br /> another issue would be a fence with a locked gate. <br /> Curtis requested the Planning Commission address Item No.3 listed in Staffls report in more depth. <br /> Curtis stated the City's zoning code requiring the structure to be located behind the principal structure is <br /> designed to protect the neighbors. Curtis stated the 15-foot setbacks are determined by code and are <br /> dictated by the size of the pool. <br /> Franchot stated the location proposed by Staff would require the removal of some mature trees and <br /> would be crammed in there. Franchot noted Staff's location is also not desirable because it directly <br /> abuts the house and they would have to look at the pool for six months out of the year when it is not in <br /> use. <br /> Schwingler stated he did speak with some of the applicant's neighbors and that they did not raise a � <br /> concern with the proposed location. Schwingler indicated he is okay with the proposed location of the <br /> pool. <br />