Laserfiche WebLink
_•~. _ <br />side of the lot and not toward the front of the lot. Had the-house <br />been faced north, the.; pool could have-been built in eithersideyard <br />or in the rearyard and could be as close as 15 ft: to 21st Ave. N,W. <br />Planning Commission Consideration (7/16/74); <br />The Commission t~aived the reading of the.. background 'discussion. <br />The Building%and planning~Coordiriator explained the interpretation <br />problem as it affected this issue. Parham asked what the intent <br />was- in prohibiting pgols in front yards. .Mayor Bromander stated that <br />the intent was gen.erall.y to buffer the-adjacent properties and to , <br />protect their"value. The Mayon stated that. the Planning..Commisson <br />should loak`- at the larger;que ion of what"is a front yard and <br />noted that the Council has been consistent in its interpretat-ion. <br />Parham stated Ghat if the Council has always granted variances from <br />this r.equ=irement,- that it should. examine this -requirement as ~Eo <br />~^whether it is accomplishing its intent. <br />The Mayor noted to the applicant that since time is of the essence, <br />and since-this complicated issue will likely result in delay when <br />before the Council, he would suggest-that the applicant apply for a <br />variance.. <br />The Building and Planning Coordinator asked where the fence would <br />be located in relation to the pool. Mr. Lappen stated that. it would <br />be 3 feet.. to 5 feet back from the .pool apron on three.. sides and <br />would join the house on the fourth. V <br />Mr. William MacNabola, property .,owner to the east, objected to the <br />fence location blocking the view from his house. He stated that his <br />.house was built within 15 feet of the street in the front-and that a <br />fence with a 30' setback would be acceptable to him, <br />Motion by Parham, seconded by Harty to recommend approval of the <br />conditional use permit for the fence as requested provided that it <br />be no closer. than 30 feet to any curb line. <br />Plaraning Commission Recommendation (7/16/74) <br />Motion by Bohling, seconded by Dlugsoch to recommend approval of a <br />variance in the event that the Council interprets the Code to require <br />such variance, :Such variance to be for the swimming pool as requested <br />without. the need for a re-review of a request for a variance <br />applcation by the Planning Gomm~ission and with the-condition that <br />