Welcome to the Official Web Site of the 

City of Deephaven, Minnesota

 

"two square miles of tranquility"

 

CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Keith Kask called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

PRESENT: Chairman Keith Kask, Commissioners Joan Budd, Dan Dyb, Ann Lawler, Jeff McKinney, Warren Nelson and Marvin TenClay.

ABSENT: None

OTHERS PRESENT: Council Liaison Nancy Middleton, Zoning Coordinator Gus Karpas

Chairman Kask welcomed Joan Budd to the Planning Commission.

Motion by Commissioner Dyb, second by Commissioner McKinney, to approve the minutes of April 20, 2004 as submitted. Motion carried 7-0.

VARIANCE– Carolyn Jenkins – 4260 Jefferson Street, (R-3, 20,000) request for a variance to encroach into the required side yard setback, a request for a variance to construct an accessory structure within the required accessory structure/principle structure setback and a request for a variance to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface by two percent.

Carolyn Jenkins presented the request. She said the property does not currently have a garage and that the request tried to situate the garage on the property to lessen the impacts of increased impervious surface. She said the location was chosen so as not to obstruct the existing walk out family room.

Chairman Kask opened the Public Hearing.

Zoning Coordinator Karpas said he had received two phone calls and a letter from neighbors commenting on the request. He said that two of the neighbors were opposed to the request and that one was opposed to the request as presented, but supported the notion of placing a garage on the property.

Hearing no further public comment, the Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Kask asked for Commissioner comments.

Commissioner McKinney said he thought the proposed garage was close to the existing principle structure and extremely close to the property line. He feels there are design alternatives, which could reduce or eliminate the need for a variance.

Commission Lawler commented that the lot is small and that she wouldn’t have a problem relocating the garage even though it would increase the amount of impervious surface. She is concerned that the proposed garage is too close to the property line and felt it was important to protect the property line.

Commissioner Dyb said the request as presented is ideal in the sense that it lessens the amount of impervious surface, but he agrees with Commissioner Lawler that he would be willing to give on the impervious surface to protect the south property line. He understands that by placing the structure in the rear of the property, it takes away the use of the back yard, but as proposed, there is limited access to the rear yard. He commented that the elevations showed second floor windows and asked if there would be an upper floor on the structure. Ms. Jenkins said the windows are for aesthetic purposes only. Commissioner Dyb commented that the character of Cottagewood, especially on the smaller lots, is to have a garage on the rear of the property. He feels it’s important to retain that character.

Commissioner TenClay asked if the floor of the garage was to match the ground elevation of the principle structure. Ms. Jenkins said it was and that the garage would be cut partially into the hill on the property. Commissioner TenClay commented that he asked since it wasn’t clear on the elevations. He said there is already a relaxed setback on the north portion of the property and was uncomfortable to permit an encroachment into the required side yard. He feels the proposed garage could be incorporated into the existing principle structure in a way that it meets the required setback.

Commissioner Budd commented on the size of the lot and the character of the neighborhood. She feels the setback should be preserved, especially since there appears to be design alternatives available to the applicants.

Commissioner Nelson said he would not support encroachment into the side yard since the property already encroaches into the other required side yard. He would also support a request, which increases impervious surface as long as the setback is maintained.

Chairman Kask agreed with other Commissioners about prohibiting an encroachment on the south side when one already exists on the north. He also supported an increase in impervious surface as a trade off to meeting the required setback. Kask said he feels a hardship exists in the fact that the property does not have a garage but feels the integrity of the ordinance as it relates to accessory structure setbacks is important. He commented that he feels the same as other members that there are design alternatives available which would meet the required setback. He feels the request goes against the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Jenkins questioned if the setback had to be fifteen feet. Chairman Kask said he couldn’t design the project for the applicant, but personally felt he would like to see the required setback met. He commented that he feels the size of the lot creates a hardship as it relates to impervious surface and re-iterated that he and other members of the Commission appeared willing to compromise the impervious surface in order to gain the required setback.

ACTION: Commissioner Kask made a motion to recommend the City Council deny the variance requests associated with the proposed detached garage, as presented, at 4260 Jefferson Street. The proposal would alter the essential character of the neighborhood and design alternatives exist which would lessen or eliminate the need for a variance. Commissioner Dyb seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Upon roll call vote, Commissioners Budd, Dyb, Kask, Lawler, McKinney, Nelson and TenClay voted aye. There were no nay votes.

Ms. Jenkins asked if they could re-submit the application taking into account the feelings of the Planning Commission. Zoning Coordinator Karpas said that she had two options, the first being presenting the existing plan to the City Council, hoping they reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. The second option would be to withdraw the request and resubmit a plan with the Commissioners’ comments in mind. He said he would need a letter stating that she was withdrawing the request if that was her decision.

MASTER PLAN REVIEW – DEEPHAVEN COVE – Steven Scott Development – 3660 County Road 101, (PUD) conceptual review of a proposed twenty-eight unit townhouse development.

Chairman Kask briefly described the public hearing process to those in attendance.

Dean Dobolis, DJR Architects, presented the request. He said he would give an overview of the project and that he would address the main issues discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Dobolis presented the final structure elevations commenting that there had been no changes since the last meeting. He said the color schemes shown would be typical of the development.

Mr. Dobolis presented the main site plan and discussed the landscaping on the periphery of the property. He commented that the retaining wall had been reworked, with the addition of terracing on some portion of the north wall, to lessen the perception of a straight drop-off. He said the heights of the walls have remained the same.

Mr. Dobolis presented detailed plans showing the proposed landscaping around the structures.

Mr. Dobolis discussed the proposed fill on the property. He presented a map showing the amount of fill on the property. He said the fill was necessary to balance the extremes in elevations from the north to the south side of the property. He said the fill, combined with the retaining walls created a delicate balance to permit proper drainage of the property. He presented cross-section maps showing the typical amount of fill throughout the project. He commented that the slopes on the north side of the property were not natural.

Mr. Dobolis discussed the retaining walls and retention pond on the south portion of the property. He said they were designed in a way, which would retain as many of the mature trees as possible.

Chairman Kask opened the Public Hearing.

Chris Brown, 17731 Jericho Road, said he was the appointed spokesman for a group of neighbors, which spanned three sides of the proposed development. He said the group remains concerned about the amount of fill proposed and the disturbance of the slope. He said the actions proposed by the developer create a four and a half acre buildable area out of a three and a half acre buildable area.

He said the proposed cutting into the slopes will affect two-thirds of the hill. He feels this is excessive. As to the comment on the slope not being natural, he said the property could have had different topography, it is all based on the time period one picks. He asked if the slope shown by the applicant is based on a recent survey. Mr. Dobolis said it was.

Mr. Brown said the neighborhood is also concerned about the number of trees, which would be removed. He said it would be nice if the developer could mark the trees he proposes to remove to give a visual representation for the neighbors. He also thought it would be a good idea to mark the property line. He said this would help calm the nerves of the neighbors who feel a buffer zone is very important. Mark Gronberg, Gronberg and Associates, said he would delineate the property line and mark the trees proposed for removal.

Mark Murphy, 17771 Jericho Road, is concerned about the location of the proposed retaining wall, which follows the required thirty-foot setback until it reaches his property where it is only fifteen feet away from the property line. He asked about the height of the wall adjacent to his property. Mr. Dobolis explained that the wall was about five feet in height by Mr. Murphy’s property due to the increase in grade on the subject property as it moves east to west.

Mr. Murphy asked about the annexation process. Zoning Coordinator Karpas said that the City of Deephaven’s attorney is working with attorneys for the developer and the City of Minnetonka on the annexation document. At this time, a draft document has been created. He said the annexation will be part of the Master Development Plan Review.

Mr. Murphy asked about a traffic study. Karpas stated that Hennepin County is aware that a development may go on the site and created a turn lane to allow access without interrupting the flow of traffic on County Road 101.

Chris Dahlquist, 17857 Jericho Road, discussed a current lot line dispute between her and her neighbor and asked how it would affect the property lines of the subject property. Mark Gronberg commented that the property Ms. Dahlquist is referring to is not directly adjacent to the subject property.

Richard Berscheit, 17840 Stonecroft Lane, asked about the utility easement on the west portion of the property and whether there would be access in times of repair. Mr. Gronberg said the property where the utilities are located is a platted road, which can not be built on. He said he would talk with the utility companies, and if needed, he could dedicate an easement to access the area across the developer’s property.

Chris Badola, 17800 Stonecroft Lane, asked about ground elevation on the west portion of the property and whether it would affect an existing fire hydrant in the area. Mr. Gronberg said that fill and grading in that area would be at a minimum and that there would be no noticeable change in the ground elevation.

Dari Murphy, 17771 Stonecroft Lane, commented on the drainage issue and described how water runs from the north side of the property and occasionally floods the properties south of the proposed development. Mr. Gronberg said the proposed grading on the property will catch all the water running from the north of the subject property and drain it into the retention pond to the east. He said the drainage situation in the area will be improved. He pointed out that the proposed development would have less impervious surface on the property when compared to what exists.

Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Kask closed the public hearing and asked for Commissioners’ comments.

Commissioner McKinney said he had some concerns about the proposed fill. He commented that the driveway on the northwestern most structure appeared to have some access problems. Mr. Dobolis said he could adjust the driveway configurations to eliminate the problem.

McKinney pointed out that the northeastern most structure would require a variance of the minimum required side yard setback. Mr. Dobolis said the placement of the structures on the lot was such as to limit encroachment towards existing residential areas. He said the buildings could be adjusted westward but that would have a direct effect on the adjacent western properties. Zvi Leibovich, Paragon Design, commented that the structure widths are at the minimum permitted by the PUD ordinance.

Commissioner Lawler asked the residents in attendance if the main concern about the fill was that it would bring the structures into their view. Mr. Brown said the concerns center around the drop-off created by cutting into the slope. He said the buildings could be screened with a buffer zone.

Lawler understands the concerns raised by the neighbors. She feels the developer has done a good job designing the property with consideration to drainage and surrounding property values.

Commissioner Dyb asked about the annexation process. Scott Bader, Steven Scott Development, said the annexation procedure is moving on a parallel path with this process. Dyb asked about the drainage issues raised by Bolton & Menk. Mr. Dobolis commented that the issues have been addressed and clarification will be provided on the Master Development Plan.

Dyb said he understood that decreasing the cut into the slope would require more fill. He commented that maybe the north side is not suitable for walk out basements. Mr. Dobolis said regardless if the structures were lookouts or walkouts, the cut and fill would still be necessary to achieve proper drainage.

Commissioner TenClay commented on the utility easements on the west portion of the property and re-iterated the need for access to that area. Mr. Gronberg said the existing easement ties into an existing right-of-way.

TenClay said he liked the design of the underground drainage system. He said he was impressed with the re-design of the retaining walls with the additional terracing on the north side, but wondered what residents on the south side felt about staring at a flat wall. He said the overall plan has moved positively since last month’s meeting.

Commissioner Budd agreed with neighbors that delineation of trees to be removed was a good idea. She felt the developer should also provide more detail on the replacement of trees. She questioned the proposed safety fence on top of the retaining wall. Mr. Dobolis said the fence would run the entire length of the retaining wall and would be approximately four feet in height. He said the height of the fence was selected to provide safety without imposing on the adjacent residential properties.

Chairman Kask said he is not supportive of the variance request on the northeast structure. He said he also has concerns about the driveway on the northwest structure. He is convinced there will be access problems in that area. Mr. Dobolis said the structure could be twisted, but that it would remove some of the proposed landscaping on the western portion of the property.

Kask said that information regarding proposed signage, including materials used in its construction and any proposed lighting needs to be submitted for review.

He asked if a color aerial-type photo could be submitted showing the trees around the perimeter of the property. Kask commented that the homes looked modest based on the submitted floor plans.

Kask said he still has issues with the proposed retaining walls. He said it seems that the proposed basement floor will be built at the existing grade and the grade around it raised. He said the city must begin to address the use of retaining walls in the city. Mr. Dobolis said the walls serve a purpose in this project. He said if the walls were all to be terraced, it would require a deeper cut into the slope and the removal of significantly more trees. He said the developer has erred on the side of saving trees. Kask said he sees a difference between a wall retaining a hill and a wall used to create more buildable area.

Kask said he understands the need for the additional fill to help drainage. He agrees that the trees to be removed must be marked. He feels the final plan should include the annexation portion of the request and show exact heights of the proposed retaining wall.

He said that even though he feels the plan looks good, he feels the required setback must be met on the northeast property line. He said he understands that meeting the setback would either push the development to the west or require a reduction in the number of units. Mr. Bader said that pushing the development to the west could potentially create additional parking issues. He pointed out that the encroachment is on a commercial use. Kask feels the parameters of the PUD need to be met.

Commissioner Nelson said he isn’t concerned about the encroachment as much as he is the driveway situation on the northwest structure.

Commissioner Lawler agreed and said she would not want to see the development pushed towards the west.

Chairman Kask asked if other design options were considered. Mr. Dobolis said there had been a few. The first would have all the structures, three stories in height, crammed together in the center of the lot, like an apartment building with driveways on both sides. He said they also considered one level townhomes, which would have expanded the footprint area of the structures on the lots. The final option considered were duplex type homes, which would be rather close together with twice as many separate driveways as currently proposed. He said the current proposal creates a tighter development, which is more aesthetically pleasing.

Chairman Kask said the proposal is the most practical use of the property. He is supportive of the concept, but does not support the variance request.

Zoning Coordinator Karpas said there should be two separate motions made to the Council, covering the concept plan and variance request.

ACTION: Commissioner Kask made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the Concept Plan for Deephaven Cove as presented, subject to clarification of the issues discussed with the Planning Commission meeting and entered into the meeting minutes, excluding the variance request. Commissioner Nelson seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Upon roll call vote Commissioners Budd, Dyb, Kask, Lawler, McKinney, Nelson and TenClay voted aye. There were no nay votes.

ACTION: Commissioner Lawler made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the variance request to construct the proposed northeastern most structure thirteen feet into the required side yard setback as indicated on the applicant’s concept plan. Requiring the structure to meet the required setback would have an adverse affect on the residential properties located to the west of the subject property. Commissioner Nelson seconded the motion. The motion carried 5-2. Upon roll call vote Commissioners Budd, Dyb, Lawler, Nelson and TenClay voted aye. Commissioners Kask and TenClay voted nay.

ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – Floodplain – Amend the Zoning Ordinance to create an ordinance to regulate the floodplain.

Zoning Coordinator Karpas explained that the City of Deephaven will begin participating in the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s floodplain program. He said the Minnesota DNR has developed a model ordinance which it encourages cities to adopt.

Karpas said that the city has not received maps showing the different zones referenced in the ordinance. He recommended that the public hearing be continued to the June meeting to permit staff to review the Floodplain maps when they arrive.

The Planning Commissions agreed.

ACTION: Commissioner Lawler made a motion to continue the public hearing for the proposed ordinance amendment creating a floodplain ordinance to the July Planning Commission meeting to permit Staff time to review the map and how it relates to the ordinance. Commissioner Dyb seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Upon roll call vote Commissioners Budd, Dyb, Kask, Lawler, McKinney, Nelson and TenClay voted aye. There were no nay votes.

ORDINANCE AMENDMENT – Finished Grade – Recommendation to City Council on the creation of a definition for finished grade.

Zoning Coordinator Karpas explained that this ordinance had previously received a recommendation for approval, but had been amended at the City Council. Councilmembers wanted the ordinance to delineate between properties where there would be alterations to existing structures and vacant land.

A spelling error was found and corrected.

ACTION: Commissioner Kask made a motion to recommend the City Council approve the finished grade ordinance, as amended. Commissioner Dyb seconded the motion. The motion carried 7-0. Upon roll call vote Commissioners Budd, Dyb, Kask, Lawler, McKinney, Nelson and TenClay voted aye. There were no nay votes.

Motion by Kask to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Lawler seconded. The motion carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:23 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gus Karpas

Zoning Coordinator