DEEPHAVEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY OCTOBER 18, 2005
7:00 P.M.
Page 1
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Dyb called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Dyb, Commissioners Walter Linder, Jeff McKinney, Warren Nelson and Bob Werneiwski
ABSENT: Commissioners Joan Budd and Kent Carlson.
OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmember Kim Crockett and Zoning Coordinator Gus Karpas
Motion by Commissioner Nelson, second by Commissioner McKinney, to approve the minutes of September 20, 2005 as presented. Motion carried 5-0.
VARIANCE
– John Ahern,
Paul Ahern, presented the request. He explained that his parents are elderly and do not have on-site parking. They do have a garage across the street, which is not desirable, since they are vulnerable to the elements during bad weather and wintertime.
The request is to construct an open carport on the front of the home, which would be designed to compliment the home's appearance. He noted there would be a minimal increase in impervious surface. He said that this would be only temporary in that it’s his belief that when the home is sold, it will be torn down and a new structure built on the property.
Mr. Ahern said the proposal has been discussed with the neighbors on either side of the property and that they were supportive of the request.
Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing. Hearing no public comment the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Werniewski was supportive of the request and felt it was a good solution to the problem. He feels, based on the submitted renderings, that it would tie nicely into the existing home.
Commissioner Linder agreed and said the proposed carport would not be obtrusive since it would be open. He commented that the proposal would not be as large as a standard garage. Mr. Ahern said it could have been smaller but that they did not want to place footings into the existing tar. Commissioner Linder said he had not objections to the request.
Commissioner McKinney said he was supportive of the request subject to the structure remaining open on three sides.
Chairman Dyb said he was supportive of the request but was concerned about the potential for a future request to enclose the structure. Commissioner McKinney agreed and said if the request was for a permanent garage, design alternative existed on the property, which would not require a setback variance.
Commissioner Nelson noted that the applicants would still need to go into the elements since there is no covered area from the carport to the front entryway. He said the addition of some latticework could help minimize the effects of weather. Mr. Ahern said there is a measure of protection provided by a berm adjacent to the proposed structure.
Zoning Coordinator Karpas said that he was under the impression that the hardcover would remain the same through the removal of paved area equal to the increase created by the carport. Mr. Ahern said he would prefer that not be a condition because it takes away the guest parking area on the west portion of the home.
Chairman Dyb said he agreed the impervious surface should remain at the current percentage. Commissioner Nelson agreed.
Commissioners Linder and Werneiwski also assumed the percentage would not increase.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dyb to recommend that the City Council approve the variance requests for the construction of a carport which would encroach five feet into the required thirty-five foot front yard setback and to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface by sixteen percent. A hardship exists in that the property does not have protected, on-site parking. The motion was conditioned that the carport remains open and that the hardcover be kept at the existing percentage Commissioner Nelson seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
VARIANCE
– Jeff and Doreen Kuzara,
Jeff Kuzara presented the request. He said the request was to exceed the permitted impervious surface by five percent. He noted that the percentage has been reduced over the years due to a number of construction projects on the property. He said the existing hardcover is lower now than when he purchased his home.
He said that he only recently found
out the actual square footage of their property. He was led to believe by
He does not believe the proposal would affect drainage patterns since water tends to collect in the middle of his rear yard rather than running off onto adjacent properties. He feels that pool also has capacity to hold water during a rain event, therefore questions why the city would include it as impervious surface.
He said that he did some research into the ordinances of other cities and has found that Deephaven is the most restrictive when it comes to impervious surface.
Zoning Coordinator Karpas clarified that the applicant was not required to submit a certified survey for his previous requests and noted that the policy has changed and a survey is now required for all requests requiring a building permit or variance.
Chairman Dyb asked about the size of the proposed concrete apron around the pool. Mr. Kuzara said it would be approximately two feet in width all the way around the pool. Dyb said that pools typically have larger decking and asked the applicant if he would be able to live with only a two-foot apron. Mr. Kuzara said they have too in order to minimize the amount of variance needed.
Commissioner Werniewski asked if the existing home had gutters and where they discharged. Mr. Kuzara said they drain into the rear yard. Zoning Coordinator Karpas asked if there was any concern that the run-off would drain into the pool. Mr. Kuzara said he would keep the pool slightly above the grade of the yard.
Commissioner McKinney asked where the applicant intended to place the pump and filter station. Mr. Kuzara said it would be placed next to the air conditioner alongside the house.
Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing.
Nancy Woelffer,
Zoning Coordinator Karpas noted that the city does not have a fence requirement for pools at this time.
Hearing no further public comment the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Werneiwski said he has a
hard time with pools in
Commissioner Linder said he was also up in the air on the request. Given that the pool would meet the required setbacks and that only a relatively small area is actual concrete and that the requested variance is minimal, he would be willing to support the request.
Commission Dyb said he does not see a hardship or practical difficulty in the request since the property can be put to a reasonable use without the pool. He noted the Commission has approved past requests with similar hardcover percentages, but never a pool. He feels the plans need to be clarified showing the pump and walkway locations and a more accurate accounting of the impervious surface.
Dyb said he is unwilling to deny a homeowner the use of their property.
Commissioner McKinney said he was supportive of the request.
Commissioner Nelson commented that every property and request is different. He said it’s hard to say no to a request like this, which meets the setback and would not create a negative drainage situation. He said he is in favor of the request.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dyb to recommend that the City Council approve the variance request to construct a swimming pool which would exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface by five percent. Though a hardship or practical difficulty does not exist on the property, the proposal is in compliance with the required setback and would not create issues with drainage since the run-off drains to the center of the applicant’s rear yard. He noted that the applicant’s lot was less than the minimum required for the R-3 District. Commissioner Linder suggested a condition be included with the motion that the total additional impervious surface not exceed five percent or thirty percent overall for the lot. Chairman Dyb accepted the amendment. Commissioner McKinney seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
VARIANCE
– John Adams and Andrea Nicholson,
John Adams presented the request. He said that during the summer months he is unable to use his deck due to the mosquitoes. He explained the property conditions including the bluff to the rear of his house and the location of the house to one side of the lot. He said there are no other suitable locations for the proposed screened porch. He said he spoke with the adjacent neighbor who had no objections to the plan as long as there were no floodlights placed on the structure.
Chairman Dyb opened the public
hearing. Zoning Coordinator Karpas said
he received a call from Mike Thies,
Hearing no further public comment the hearing was closed.
Commissioner McKinney noted the porch
sat on pillars rather than a full foundation.
Mr. Adams said the intent was to keep the structure above grade.
Commissioner Nelson said he didn’t have any issues with the request. He asked the applicant if he considered placing the addition off the back of the home. Mr. Adams said the house is a multi-level split which require an interior modification that would require you to go up some steps in order to access the porch. He said the rear yard also severely limits the width of the porch. Nelson felt that should be clarified on the plans.
Chairman Dyb said he was supportive of the request since it was not obtrusive and would not be visible from adjacent properties.
Commissioner Linder noted that the request was a significant encroachment but felt the nature of the lot warranted the proposed placement. He said the addition would not be encroaching on anyone’s personal space and that he supports the request.
Commissioner Werneiwski asked about the drainage on the property. Mr. Adams said there are gutters and downspouts on the property and that the drainage pattern would not be changed since the porch would be elevated. Werneiwski agreed the request was a significant encroachment but was supportive of the request.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Linder to recommend that the City Council approve the variance request to construct a screened porch which would encroach fifteen feet into the required twenty-five foot side yard setback. A hardship exists in the terrain of the property and the location of the structure on the property which prohibit construction in compliance with the city ordinance. The motion is conditioned that the structure not exceed the sixteen-foot height presented to the Commission. Chairman Dyb suggested that a condition be included prohibiting the enclosure of the porch. Linder accepted the amendment. Commissioner McKinney seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
VARIANCE/ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE PERMIT – Robert Boisclair, 19400 Azure Road, (R-1, 60,000) request to construct an accessory structure which would exceed the maximum permitted accessory structure height and exceed the maximum permitted accessory structure square footage. The requested variance is to exceed the maximum accessory structure height of twelve (12) feet by two (2) feet. The requested accessory structure size permit is to exceed the maximum permitted accessory structure area of one thousand (1,000) square feet by one hundred ninety-seven (197) feet.
In addition, the applicant is asking to relocate his driveway so that it would cross a one hundred-foot city owned trail easement.
Zoning Coordinator Karpas clarified the request and explained to the Commission that the city ordinance allows for larger accessory structures than permitted by the ordinance provided the applicant receive an accessory structure size permit. He said the findings of the Commission would be based on those of a Special Use Permit and not a Variance since a hardship is not necessary to grant the permit.
Michael Kloti, the applicant’s architect, presented the request. He said the request was to place a larger garage in approximately the same location of the existing detached garage. He said that the principle structure does not have a basement so the garage was necessary to provide storage and would include a FEMA rated storm shelter. The applicant would also like to add attic trusses to the structure to maximize its storage capacity.
Commissioner Dyb asked what the height was on the current garage. Mr. Kloti said it was about twelve feet.
Zoning Coordinator Karpas explained that the ordinance was recently changed to permit greater height for accessory structures to accommodate attic trusses. He said the height was increased from nine feet, to the average of the peak, to twelve feet to the average of the peak.
Commissioner Werniewski asked why the applicant could not meet the requirement. Mr. Kloti said that the low pitch would make it difficult to access. Werneiwski asked if the pitch would match the roof pitch of the existing house. Mr. Kloti said it would.
The Commission discussed the FEMA rated shelter. It was explained that it would have wood stud construction with steel plating. Mr. Kloti said it would have a separate foundation from the garage.
Chairman Dyb asked for a summary of the proposed driveway relocation. Mr. Kloti said the existing driveway has a number of sharp twists and turns which prohibits access by larger emergency vehicles. He described an incident at the household when an ambulance was required and the difficulties it had reaching the main house. He said the plan was to abandon the existing driveway and locate it further north where it could be configured in a straight line.
Chairman Dyb asked if it would be an asphalt driveway. Mr. Kloti said that was the intention but that the homeowner is open to suggestions.
Lori Bosclair,
Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing.
Mary Georgens, 3765 Parkway, said she uses the park everyday. She said the home currently has a nice driveway, which, she believes, provides adequate access to trucks. She doesn’t support putting hardcover in the middle of the park. Mr. Kloti said the existing driveway already crosses the park.
Nancy Woelffer,
Chairman Dyb commented that there are many areas in the city with single lane roads. He said his initial sense is that the request would not be approved. He agrees it would be defacing a park, which is often used by neighborhood kids. He noted the city does not have a lot of usable green space. As for the request for the structure size and height, he’s willing to discuss those items further.
Ms. Bosclair said it’s not a personal issue, rather a health and safety issue.
Commissioner Linder asked for clarification of the problem. Mr. Kloti said the turns are too tight for larger emergency vehicles.
Art Johnsen, 3655 Parkway, said he is sympathetic with the emergency vehicle situation. He recalls that the driveway issue has been raised on numerous occasions with a number of former owners asking to do a similar configuration and in every instance the city was opposed to it. He questioned what changed to bring this situation to the forefront again. Ms. Bosclair said you don’t totally understand until a situation arises.
Mr. Johnsen said he was not opposed to the construction request for the garage. He feels it’s a nice structure. He cannot support the request for the proposed driveway and questioned whether restrictions were placed on the property when the city took control of it.
Zoning Coordinator Karpas read comments submitted by Dan Euhlberg and Marna Ericson of 19350 Lake Avenue, John and Nancy Hughes of 3645 Parkway and Dyke Williams of 3725 Parkway, all who were opposed to the proposed driveway.
Hearing no further public comment the hearing was closed.
Commissioner Werneiwski said he has no issue with the size or the height of the proposed structure. He said he was initially opposed to the driveway, but would like to hear from the Fire Chief. He thinks something can be done to the existing driveway to ease the curves and solve the problem. He is opposed to the driveway.
Commissioner Linder had concerns about the size of the structure, but understands that the nature of the lot limits it obtrusiveness. He doesn’t support the request for the height variance, he feels the city’s ordinance is generous as written. He said if the size of the garage was less, the pitch could match the house, but you can’t have both. He doesn’t see a need to relocate the driveway and is very opposed to the request at this time.
Chairman Dyb said he has no problem with the accessory structure size. He feels the additional two feet of height request is not too much to ask, as long as there are no permanent steps created to access the second story. He would not want to create a situation where a dwelling area could be created on the second floor.
Dyb said he understands the need for access to the property, but feels the applicant has made a poor case for relocating the driveway. He feels it’s not worth giving up precious green space for one property at the expense of the rest of the neighborhood. He noted there are other areas of Deephaven with difficult access.
Commissioner Nelson said he has no problem with the size request, but does with the requested height. He feels that five garage stalls should be able to provide adequate storage space for the property. He agrees that safety is the biggest concern when it comes to accessing the property, but feels there are design alternatives available for the driveway in its present location.
Commission
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dyb to recommend that the City Council approve the special use request to construct an accessory structure which would exceed the maximum permitted accessory structure area by one hundred ninety-seven square feet. There is a demonstrated need for a storm shelter and additional storage for the property. Commissioner Nelson seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner McKinney to recommend
that the City Council deny the variance request to construct an accessory
structure which would exceed the maximum permitted accessory structure height
of twelve feet by two feet. The
applicant has not demonstrated a clear hardship and there are design
alternatives available, which could provide additional storage space without a
need for a variance. Commissioner Linder
seconded the motion. The motion carried
3-2. Upon a roll call vote on a motion
to deny, Commissioners Linder,
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dyb to recommend that the City Council deny the request to relocate the properties driveway to the north, crossing one hundred feet of city park land. There are design alternatives to soften the curves on the existing driveway. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, which outweighs the benefits the property provides to the community. Commissioner Nelson seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
VARIANCE
– Andy and
The request was withdrawn per the applicant’s representative. The applicant may have a plan that would not require a variance.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – Discuss an ordinance amendment creating an ordinance to permit and regulate wireless communications towers.
Zoning Coordinator Karpas gave an overview of the proposed ordinance. He said the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibits the city from excluding such uses within the community. He said the proposed ordinance was selected from a number of ordinances from other communities. The City Attorney and City Council has already reviewed the ordinance.
He noted this issue is being addressed because the city has been approached by a representative of Nextel, who would like to place a monopole tower in Deephaven to alleviate a dead spot in their coverage.
Liz Van Zomeren, introduced herself and said she serves as a site acquisition specialist representing Nextel Communications. She discussed the process included in selecting a site and specific requirements needed to place and maintain a tower. She discussed general lease agreements and gave examples of leases she’s currently working on in a number of communities.
Zoning Coordinator Karpas said one of the main issues in the placement of a structure like a tower is the height and the perception by adjacent residential properties. He said that height is also important in carrying the signal and the number of carriers, which can be co-located on a tower.
Ms. Van Zomeren said that in an area like Deephaven trees are a hindrance. Steps have to be taken to ensure the signal is carried over the treetops and not bounced around. Chairman Dyb noted the ordinance called for a one hundred-foot maximum height and asked if that would be sufficient based on her Deephaven research. Ms Van Zomeren said the engineers have taken signal readings and that one hundred-foot would be adequate.
When asked about low-lying sites, Ms. Van Zomeren said that tower height could compensate for low lying areas. She pointed out that the maximum height for a monopole tower is one hundred and fifty feet.
Commissioners discussed potential location within the city. Some Commissioners expressed concern about limiting sites to only city owner properties. They feel the ordinance must be written in a way which beneficial to both the city and wireless carriers.
Zoning Coordinator Karpas said the idea of limiting the sites to city owned property allows the city a measure of control over the tower and allows the city to benefit monetarily for lease agreements. Commissioner Werneiwski said he understands the desire to keep towers on city property, but is concerned that we may be eliminating other suitable sites.
Ms. Van Zomeren said she has read the ordinance and would be able to work within the city’s parameters. She is concerned about the language in Section 1311.06(2), regarding escrowed funds. She feels this language should not be included in the ordinance since it is something typically addressed and negotiated in the lease agreement. She feels the language in the ordinance is too wide open since it does not list specific expenses to be passed on to the wireless carrier.
Commissioner Linder asked what is the typical monthly lease amount. Ms. Van Zomeren said it was based on the height of the tower and that on a one hundred-foot tower, the amount is about one thousand dollars a month. She noted that was for the tower only and that a separate amount is paid for the land lease.
Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing. Hearing no public comment the hearing was closed.
Commissioner McKinney said he liked the ordinance but is not so sure the city should limit the location to city owned land. He is supportive of the ordinance.
Commissioner Nelson agreed that the city should be given as much control as possible but said there are only about three city owned properties, which he is aware, of which would be suitable for tower placement, while not encroaching on residential property. He agrees that the escrow language should be removed.
Chairman Dyb is supportive of the ordinance change with the removal of the escrow language. He also supports the idea of allowing a carrier to approach the city for a variance if a suitable location is found which is not city owned. Commissioner Linder agrees.
Council Liaison Crockett said she understands the hesitation of the Planning Commission to limit the sites to city owned land, but is concerned that allowing otherwise would draw out the process. She explained that the city would then have to verify that the city owned land is not suitable and then have to hold public hearings.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dyb to recommend that the City Council approve Ordinance 13-37 regulating wireless communications towers. The ordinance is necessary to be in compliance with the Federal Communications Act. The Planning Commission recommends that consideration be given on removal of the escrow language in Section 1311.06(2) and that the ordinance has a provision, which does not wholly exempt properties from consideration. Commissioner Nelson seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-0.
Councilmember Crockett discussed items addressed by the City
Council. She said that the lake yard
setback along
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Dyb to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Werneiwski seconded. The motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gus Karpas
Zoning Coordinator