PC 040908 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Besso stated that Mr. Spencer is asking for a five -foot setback from the fence for his pool, his in- ground hot tub, and a four -foot high water fall. He noted that this would put Mr. Spencer's pool 30 feet from Mr. Spencer's back door but only 20 feet from his own. He added that his property line from his back door to the fence line is only 15 feet, and his main entertainment area would be five feet directly opposite from Mr. Spencer's pool and hot tub. He indicated that what he is requesting is that the setback from the fence be moved back ten feet instead of five, which would put the pool 25 feet from Mr. Spencer's house and give him a 20 -foot space from his house to the Mr. Spencer's pool. He added that even with this setback, the Spencer pool would be closer to his house than to the Spencer's house. He questioned why he should be subject to having Mr. Spencer's pool 20 feet from his back door when Mr. Spencer does not wish to have his own pool 15 feet from his back door. He stated that in addition to moving the pool ten feet from the property line, he is also requesting that there be proper drainage and a retaining wall built next to the fence for irrigation purposes and so rain does not come back into their backyard after the pool is put in, as their property is four feet lower than the Spencer's property line. He further requested that the four -foot high water fall which would sit across from their master bedroom be toned down so the noise is kept to a minimum. Lastly, he proposed that the in- ground spa be moved not on the opposite side of his own spa but kitty corner from Mr. Spencer's yard and closer to his house and to the yard of the neighbor at 8015 Oak Creek, which would be that neighbor's side yard. He said that this location would allow that neighbor continued privacy coming our of his home. He added that this would put Mr. Spencer's spa farther away from his spa and at the same time, would not interfere with the neighbors' enjoyment of their back yard. He then thanked the Commission for its consideration. Commissioner Fox asked Mr. Besso to point out his spa on the displayed map. Mr. Besso pointed out his spa and indicated that it was actually located opposite 8015 Oak Creek Drive. Commissioner Fox inquired how many feet his spa was from the property line. Mr. Besso replied that the distance was about six feet. Commissioner Fox asked staff what the setback requirements were for the spa in this development and if a spa were a Class I or Class II structure. Ms. Amos replied that she was not certain what Class category an above ground spa might be but that in- ground spas are typically required to be set back five feet from the rear property line and three feet from the side property line. Commissioner Fox inquired if the location of the Besso spa was within the setback requirements. Ms. Decker noted that if the Besso spa is considered a portable spa, it would be exempt from setback requirements. Mr. Besso clarified that his spa was considered a portable spa and was exempt. Commissioner Olson requested clarification from Mr. Besso that under Point No. 2, Condition No. 2, he would pay for the improvement related to the retaining wall. Mr. Besso noted the Mr. Spencer's pool is five feet from the wall, and the berm wall is approximately one foot thick and with two feet above the ground, the water features would put Mr. Spencer's property six feet above Mr. Besso's property line. He expressed concern that if Mr. Spencer puts landscaping behind the bean wall, it would go down two PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 9, 2008 Page 23 of 33