03-17-2008 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

� . Franchot stated they are in the process of determining their options and that one contractor did indicate the tanks could remain in their present location,but that they are looking at a possible compliant location for the septic south of the driveway. At the present time they are unsure whether that site would prove to be acceptable. Kroeger noted an alternate septic site also needs to be established. Zullo stated she would like to see a final decision on the location of the septic system prior to making a decision on this application. (#07-3335 Douglas and Margaret Franchot,Continued) Kempf indicated he is in agreement with the comments of Commissioner Zullo and that he was � somewhat surprised this application came before the Planning Commission without that item being addressed. Franchot stated they originally thought their septic system was compliant,which later proved to be incorrect. Franchot stated he is unsure whether the required testing can be completed during the cold weather but that they are willing to complete the septic testing prior to their application proceeding forward to the City Council. . Kroeger stated he understands that the Planning Commission is being asked to approve or deny the variance to allow the pool and building to be located closer to the road than the principal structure based on the assumption that the septic issues will be resolved. Kroeger stated if that is the case,and given that the road is a private roadway,he is sympathetic to the concerns of the neighbor with having a pool located more towards the rear of the lot. Kroeger noted the rear location would also require the removal of some trees. Zullo commented having the pool located on the west side of the house would allow for more sunlight but that she would also like to see the pool screened and fenced. Franchot indicated they are planning on landscaping around the pool and building and that they would be willing to consider erecting a fence even though it is not required. Zullo stated she would prefer to see the pool landscaped,fenced and gated if it is located in the front. Kempf commented in his view the proposed pool building helps to screen the pool but that the rear of the pool building would face the street,which in his view is not an appropriate use of a building. Kempf � stated the structure should have as little of an impact as possible on the neighborhood and that the proposed location of the pool and the building in his opinion does have a great impact on the neighborhood. Franchot stated the location of the pool building does help to screen the pool,which in his view is a benefit to the neighborhood. Franchot commented they actually would prefer the location of the pool to be in a somewhat shady area and that they intend to screen the entire back area with landscaping. Zullo recommended the pool building incorporate some more aesthetically pleasing features on the side that faces the street.