Laserfiche WebLink
Planning Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />August 12, 2021 <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />Zuccaro replied that there was but he didn't know the measurement. He added that the <br />height of the fence was standard regardless of the depth of the pool. <br />Hoefner asked about the reasoning behind setback requirements for pools. <br />Ritchie replied that the proposed language followed the existing code and that even for <br />a below -grade element there were above -grade noises and activities that might be <br />somewhat mitigated by a setback. <br />Zuccaro added that other cities had setbacks for pools and other recreation structures, <br />regardless of how much they projected above the ground, for the reasons Planner <br />Ritchie described. <br />Hoefner asked about options for residents with side yards or oddly shaped lots, <br />explaining that some residents may have good arguments for wanting pools in their side <br />yards. <br />Ritchie replied that the regulations addressed corner lots specifically and that a variance <br />could address a uniquely shaped lot. <br />Hoefner stated that his understanding was that if you had a side yard with a wide <br />enough setback you could still not have a pool there. <br />Ritchie replied that the intention was to tuck the pool back into the most private part of <br />the yard on either the primary or secondary side. <br />Hoefner stated that he wanted to treat all the lots equally and not create something that <br />was primarily for large back yards. <br />Ritchie replied that this was how they had been applying the code for everybody for <br />decades and Vice Chair Hoefner replied that that was satisfactory. <br />Moline shared that the construction activity and repair necessities that come up with <br />pools meant it was nice to have some extra room around the edge where you wouldn't <br />have to be in someone else's way or dealing with a property line fence. Yard setbacks <br />made that easier. <br />Hoefner asked for public comment. Seeing none, he closed the public hearing and <br />asked for commissioner discussion. <br />Diehl stated that it made sense to clean up some of the language and he thought the <br />requirements followed best practice. All commissioners concurred and Commissioner <br />Howe added that the amendment cleaned up things from the citizens' perspective. <br />Diehl moved to approve Resolution No. 12, Series 2021. Howe seconded. Motion <br />passed unanimously by roll call vote. <br />