DEEPHAVEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY APRIL 18, 2006
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 Joan Budd, Walter Linder, Warren Nelson, Josh Sparber and Bob Werneiwski (7:04).
ABSENT: Commissioner Jeff McKinney
OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmember Kim Crockett and Zoning Coordinator Gus Karpas
Motion by Commissioner Nelson, second by Commissioner Dyb, to approve the minutes of March 21, 2006 as presented. Motion carried 4-0-1. Commissioners Linder abstained.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
VARIANCE
– Mark and Lisa Erhard,
The requested setback variances are for sixteen feet, four inches of the required twenty-five foot east side yard setback, for seventeen feet, six inches of the required twenty-five foot west side yard setback and eleven feet of the required one hundred foot lake yard setback.
The requested building coverage variance is to exceed the maximum permitted building coverage area of 6,000 square feet in the R-2 District by 730 square feet.
The requested impervious surface variance is to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface area of 25% by 8.3%.
ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE SIZE PERMIT – Shawn and Angela Sherlock,
The
proposed structure would exceed the maximum seven hundred square foot area by
two hundred square feet.
Shawn Sherlock presented the request. He said they would like to construct a detached accessory structure in their rear yard to serve as a pool house, storage area and home office. He said they would like to construct a structure that would exceed the maximum permitted square footage by twenty square feet.
Zoning Coordinator Karpas explained that the combined area of accessory structures in the R-3 District is limited to seven hundred square feet and that the applicant’s proposal would exceed that regulation by twenty square feet, but that the additional structures on the property must also be considered. In this case, the applicant is seeking to exceed the maximum permitted square footage by two hundred square feet.
Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing. Hearing no public comment the hearing was closed.
Commissioners Weirnewski, Linder, Budd and Sparber were in support of the request and had no questions for the applicant.
Commissioner Nelson expressed concern about the proposed office space and asked if it was going to be heated space. Mr. Sherlock said it would and that he intends to move out of the office space he currently rents into the home office area.
Commissioner Nelson questioned whether there would be a requirement for smoke detectors. He’s concerned about creating an area that could be used for sleepovers that was not fire protected.
Chairman Dyb discussed the city’s concerns about creating space in accessory structures that could be converted into living space. He noted that there are many residents who operate home offices in the city. He said he is supportive of the request since the subject property exceeds the minimum lot area of the R-3 District by three times. He feels there is plenty of space to construct the structure and that it would have a minimal impact on the adjacent properties.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dyb to recommend that the City Council approve the Accessory Structure Size Permit for the proposed detached garage which would result in a combined accessory structure area exceeding the maximum permitted accessory structure area by two hundred square feet. The request meets the criteria for approval and the property contains ample space on the lot for the structure. Commissioner Linder seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1. Commissioner Nelson voted nay.
ACCESSORY
STRUCTURE SETBACK PERMIT – Steve and Pamela Schechtman, 4245 Northern Road,
(R-3, 20,000). A request to build a swimming pool which encroaches into the
required rear yard setback.
The proposed encroachment is for seven feet of the required fifteen-foot rear yard setback.
Steve Schechtman presented the request. He said he would like to construct a pool on the rear portion of his property, behind his home. He explained that the request has been amended to increase the size of the pool to 12.5’X22.5’. He discussed the drawings and photos that he submitted with the request showing the proposed location of the pool. He described the process used to choose the location of the pool and settled on the proposed location due to a number of factors including, safety, screening and access for infrastructure. He pointed out the he is within the required hardcover standards and said he felt there would be no runoff issues associated with draining the pool since he would drain it in a large vacant area on his property.
Mr. Schechtman informed the Planning Commission that he could construct the pool within the zoning requirements, without city approval on another portion of his property, but that he preferred the proposed location for the reasons he has discussed.
Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing.
Mark
Mitchellete,
Carrie
Bell,
Chairman
Dyb said the City of
Ms. Bell said she is also concerned about noise, but that she would rather have it placed where it is being proposed rather than next to her house, which can be done without city approval.
Mr. Schechtman commented that if neighbors have issues or concerns about the pool, they should stop and see him. He will do his best to remedy issues. He’s not trying to create something that would negatively affect the adjacent properties.
Councilmember Crockett said she would like two comments. She told those in attendance that they all have equal access to the Council and that the Council welcomes the public to give their opinions on issues and ideas on solutions. That being said, she reminded everyone that we live in a country that grants property rights to property owners. She said the Council doesn’t always have the answers to address trends. She noted that there has been a change in culture in that people stay home more and want to use their property to fit their needs. She thinks the regulation of pools is an interesting discussion, since it will be a challenge to find a middle ground with regulation that protects private property rights. She understands the concerns of the neighbors in retaining the character of the neighborhood.
Josh
Hackney,
Councilmember
Crockett commented that
Mr. Schechtman said that he believes he has plenty of property to handle drainage. He described the conditions on his property that would encourage percolation.
John
Poage,
Mr. Schechtman said his impervious surface is in compliance with the city ordinances. He said the decking around the pool is included.
Mr. Poage said there would be significant runoff from the roof into the pool, which would require further purging and questioned what the DNR thinks about putting polluted water into the lake. He noted that other cities have ordinances to insure safety and limit runoff.
Councilmember Crockett asked if the pool equipment would be housed in the garage. Mr. Schechtman said if possible, if not, it would be well screened.
Mr. Poage feels there should be testing done to verify the property can handle the additional drainage. Chairman Dyb asked about current city policy about pool draining. Zoning Coordinator Karpas said there is not one.
Councilmember Crockett said that she is aware of a pool in the neighborhood using new technology, removing the need for backwashing.
Carrie Bell expressed concern about the potential draining of the pool making her basement wet.
Joanie
Morgan,
Councilmember Crockett asked if the city was able to attach conditions to a special use permit. Zoning Coordinator Karpas said it could and in addition, if the conditions were not being met, the special use permit could be revoked.
Mr. Mitchellete believes a requirement for a pool cover would be a good idea.
Ms. Morgan asked if there would be any damage to the tree roots on the applicant’s property. Mr. Schechtman said he has researched the issue and there would not be any damage.
Hearing no further public comment the hearing was closed. Chairman Dyb asked for Commissioner comments.
Commissioner Budd said she has mixed feelings on the request. She’s disturbed that the neighbors are concerned and believes their concerns are valid. She agrees this is a situation where the Commission has to balance property rights against the concerns of adjacent neighbors. She noted that applicant has discussed the placement of the pool in an area which would not require city approval. She feels the requested location is the best in that it allows the city to impose additional requirements. She noted that Cottagewood is a neighborhood with no fences and lots of children. She is supportive of the request because it could be done without city approval and favors attaching conditions including requiring a pool cover and that an analysis of the soil conditions be done to verify the ability to absorb the water caused by draining the pool. She feels the applicant must show that the water will stay within the confines of his property.
Commissioner Werneiwski agrees with Commissioner Budd. He is supportive of the request with the additional conditions. He’s sensitive to the noise issue, but there’s no standard available to address it. Mr. Schechtman said he knows what is right and what’s wrong. He feels he can control the noise and encourages his neighbors to voice their concerns and to use the pool. He feels it could be a good community asset.
Werneiwski agreed there is no way in regulating being neighborly. He asked what the applicant’s plan was for fencing. Mr. Schechtman said there was no immediate plan for fencing. He feels there may be some conflict architecturally to fencing.
Commissioner Sparber felt that the pool might be less of a safety hazard if it were placed in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Schechtman said he is more concerned about the safety of his family than he is with uninvited guests. He said a trespasser will always gain access regardless of where the pool is placed. Sparber said he was more concerned about the children in the neighborhood. Mr. Schechtman said he could erect a fence, but that would be detrimental to the views of his neighbors.
Commissioner Linder asked about verification of the hardcover calculations. Zoning Coordinator Karpas noted that the survey is less than a year old and was used to obtain the building permit for the garage currently under construction on the property.
Linder feels that setbacks are very important and noted that the request was to reduce the setback by seven feet. He doesn’t feel the benefit of the request meets the substantive nature of the request. Mr. Schechtman informed the Commission, that by ordinance, he could erect a one hundred and twenty square foot structure, fifteen feet tall, four feet from the property line without city approval. He feels that would be much more intrusive than an in ground pool.
Linder feels that, after weighing the circumstances, there is no justification for the request. Mr. Schechtman disagreed and said the request was reasonable.
Commissioner Nelson said he feels the applicant has done more than his fair share of development on his property. He feels the applicant has done a good job in researching his request, but feels the setback could be more. He wants to be sensitive to the valid concerns raised by the neighbors. He supports the condition for a pool cover and drainage plan. The applicant has to prove to the city that the pool will not have an adverse affect on adjacent properties. In regards to noise, he feels that fencing would only make the issue worse and supports the placement of bushes or arborvitae to dampen the noise.
Nelson is happy that the applicant is trying to work with his neighbors and agrees he has a right to the reasonable use of his property. He would like to see every effort made to preserve green space on the property.
Chairman Dyb feels the applicant has done a good job thinking through his project prior to submitting his application. He summarized the concerns raised by the neighbors in relation to fencing, noise, runoff and character. He said there is not such thing as a character variance and noted that as time passes, change comes. He understands that there are runoff issues in the neighborhood and thinks it’s a wonderful idea to require a percolation test. He said these concerns don’t diminish if the pool is located elsewhere. At least with this request the city can impose additional conditions. He believes the issues raised by the neighbors are valid and explained that in order to change city regulations, residents need to contact their government to start the process. In this case, Mr. Schechtman’s request is consistent with the current regulation.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dyb to recommend that the City Council approve the Accessory Structure Setback Permit for the proposed swimming pool which would encroach into the required fifteen foot rear yard setback by eight feet. The request meets the criteria for approval. The approval is conditioned that a study be done to verify the percolation of the property, that a screening plan be developed and submitted to the Council for their review and that a secure cover be placed over the pool to restrict access. Commissioner Nelson seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-1. Commissioner Linder voted nay.
LIAISON
REPORT
Council Liaison Kim Crockett had no report.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Chairman Dyb to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Budd seconded. The motion carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gus Karpas
Zoning Coordinator