Deephaven Planning Commission

Tuesday January 18, 2005

7:00 PM

Page 1

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

PRESENT: Chairman Dan Dyb, Commissioners Kent Carlson, Jeff McKinney, Warren Nelson, Marvin TenClay and Bob Werneiwski.

ABSENT: Commissioner Joan Budd

OTHERS PRESENT: Council Liaison Kim Crockett and Zoning Coordinator Gus Karpas

MINUTES OF December 21, 2004

Commissioner Nelson noted that Council Liaison Middleton was listed as present when she was not. Motion by Commissioner Nelson, second by Commissioner TenClay, to approve the minutes of December 21, 2004 as presented. Motion carried 5-0-1. Commissioner Werneiwski abstained.

VARIANCE: Lake Minnetonka Care Center – 20395 Summerville Road, (R-3, 20,000) Request for a variance to expand a non-conforming use and a variance to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface by 14.5 percent for a proposed dayroom and bathroom addition.

Jeff Sprinkel presented the request. He summarized the changes between the plan he submitted to the Planning Commission at their last meeting and the one before them now. He said the proposed addition would be two feet larger and placed where the existing deck currently sits. He said a new deck would be constructed on the east side of the new addition.

Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing.

Steve Schechtman, 4245 Northern Road, said that he had spoken with Mr. Sprinkel and feels he has good intentions which would benefit the residents of the facility. When he spoke with Mr. Sprinkel, he felt there were design alternatives either to gain the needed space within the existing structure or through the construction of an addition on the east portion of the existing structure. He said that Mr. Sprinkel expressed concern about potential costs and the loss of egress for a number of bedrooms during construction for an addition to the east. He noted that Mr. Sprinkel was open during the discussions but still felt there were design alternatives, which would lessen the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. He feels there should be a higher burden for a hardship on a commercial use in a residential district.

Joe Haugsland, 4240 Northern Road, agreed with Mr. Schechtman that there might be design alternatives that have not been explored. He said he appreciated the dialogue between Mr. Sprinkel and the neighbors. He expressed concern about the use of an expanded office within the structure.

Nancy Middleton, 20245 Lakeview Avenue, spoke on behalf of Tom Elsen, 4280 Northern Road, who supports the request. She reminded the Planning Commission that the current use has existed in the neighborhood longer than most of the residents and that it is a special use and should merit special consideration. She agreed the plan may not be the most attractive plan, but that it meets the setback requirements of the zoning district.

Mr. Sprinkel commented that he had been in contact with the Minnesota Department of Health about placing an addition on the east side. He was informed that the loss of egress during the construction would require residents to be relocated to other areas of the home, which he does not have. In addition, the facility has two, three person bedrooms, which have been grandfathered. He would have to construct additional space to meet the State’s requirements.

Zoning Coordinator Karpas addressed Mr. Haugsland’s concern about the use of the office space. He informed the neighbors that the city has a Home Occupation ordinance in place, which would limit the use of the space if the facility were to no longer exist.

Hearing no further public comment, Chairman Dyb closed the public hearing and asked for Commissioner comments.

Commissioner McKinney said he was supportive of the request. He felt the new design was an improvement over the previous submittal.

Commissioner Carlson complimented Mr. Sprinkel on his work with the neighbors and the new design since the last meeting. He asked if the applicant was able to get information about exterior siding to match the addition to the existing home. Mr. Sprinkel said he would be able to come close to matching it, but it would not be perfect. He said the difference would be unnoticeable from afar. He commented that the siding on the existing home is no longer manufactured.

Carlson asked if the applicant had considered adding landscaping to his plan to lessen the institutional look of the structure. Mr. Sprinkel said he discussed the placement of some evergreen trees on the northeast portion of the property to help screen it from Mr. Schechtman’s property.

Commissioner Nelson feels the applicant did a good job on his redesign and agrees that the property should remain residential in nature. He agrees that the placement of landscaping, especially around the employee parking area would help soften the look of the facility.

Commissioner TenClay discussed various design alternatives, which would push the addition off the east portion of the existing structure. He felt that an addition on the east side would be more intrusive. Commissioner Nelson agreed. TenClay said he supported the request.

Commissioner Werneiwski said he was generally supportive of the request. He asked about the change in the roof pitch from the original plan. Mr. Sprinkel said the original plan was to match the existing roof pitch, which raised objections from the neighbors. The new pitch would lower the height of the proposed addition.

Chairman Dyb commented that the Commissioners appear to support the request. He said he also supported the request. He said based on the use of the structure, the Commission applied a stricter standard in order to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood. He feels the applicant created a good design and thinks there should be further investigation into the addition of landscaping to soften the look of the property.

ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dyb to recommend that the City Council approve the variance request to alter a non-conforming structure through the addition of a dayroom and bathroom and the variance request to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface by 14.5 percent. A practical difficulty exists in the need to provide a better standard of life for the residents of the facility. Commissioner Nelson seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Upon roll call vote Commissioners Carlson, Dyb, McKinney, Nelson, TenClay and Werneiwski voted aye. There were no nay votes.

SPECIAL USE REQUEST: Beth Larson (Bella Pear) – 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, (C-1, 10,000) Request for a special use permit to erect a new 2-1/2 foot by 7 foot business identification sign.

Dale Larson presented the request. He said he and his wife would be partners in a new Home Décor store opening in April and there is a need to advertise the business.

Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing. Zoning Coordinator Karpas said he received a note from Dave Anderson, owner of Decorators Services, who supported the request.

Hearing no further public comment, the public hearing was closed. He asked for Commissioner comments.

Commissioner McKinney agreed there is a need to advertise commercial businesses and said he supported the request. He said he was concerned about the number of future tenants and the potential number of signs.

Chairman Dyb asked the applicant how much square footage they were leasing as a ratio of the overall structure size. Beth Larson said she was leasing about 1,850 square feet, but didn’t know what the percentage of the overall structure they were leasing.

Commissioner Carlson supported the request and agreed some research needed to be done on potential signage.

Commissioner Nelson asked if the sign would be illuminated. The applicant said it would not. Nelson agreed with the other Commissioners that future signage issues should be explored. He was supportive of the request.

Commissioner TenClay was supportive of the request and commented that he would like to see consistency in the overall signage scheme for the building.

Commissioner Werneiwski supported the request and agreed that there should be consistency with future signage.

Chairman Dyb supported the request and said the applicant did a good job using colors that blended into the building. He feels the sign will make the structure look better by breaking up the roof façade.

ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dyb to recommend that the City Council approve the special use request to erect a 2-1/2 foot by 7 foot business identification sign. There is a need to identify the business. Commissioner McKinney seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0. Upon roll call vote Commissioners Carlson, Dyb, McKinney, Nelson, TenClay and Werneiwski voted aye. There were no nay votes.

VARIANCE: Josh Hackney – 4265 Northern Road, (R-3, 20,000) Request for a variance to lift an existing non-conforming structure and replace the foundation and to construct a new garage addition within the required side yard setback and a variance to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface. The requested variances are for four (4) feet of the required fifteen (15) side yard setback along the north property line, nine and one half (9-1/2) feet of the required fifteen (15) foot side yard setback along the south property line and to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface by three (3) percent.

Josh Hackney presented the request and distributed information about previous variances granted by the city for similar requests.

Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing.

Steve Schechtman, 4245 Northern Road, feels he has been put in an uncomfortable position by speaking out against a neighbor’s proposal. He said he supports the overall concept of maintaining the character of the home, but feels more effort needs to be made to meet the requirements of the ordinance. He commented that he is working on a garage addition and has gone through considerable effort and expense to comply with the ordinance. He said the submitted survey is inaccurate because it does not show a fireplace, which encroaches closer to his property. He questioned whether there was a hardship present since design alternatives exist.

Pam Schechtman, 4245 Northern Road, believes there are design alternatives, which would have less of a negative impact on the neighboring properties. She feels the proposed structure does not maintain the character of the other homes on Northern Road due to its proposed width.

Zoning Coordinator Karpas read a letter he received from Ed and Shirley Showers, 4275 Northern Road, directly south of the subject property. They opposed the proposal because they felt it would not leave enough space between the addition and their home.

Nancy Middleton, 20425 Lakeview Avenue felt the Planning Commission did not have complete information since the applicant had not submitted scaled elevations of the structure.

Joe Haugsland, 4240 Northern Road, said that he hasn’t seen a copy of the plan but is concerned whenever his neighbors are concerned. Because of their concern, he is not supportive of the plan.

Barbara Jean Brandt, 4295 Northern Road, has also not seen the plan but is not getting a good vibe from the neighbors most affected by the proposal.

Mark Hoiseth, Stonehouse Design, explained he is the architect/contractor for the applicant. He said that he and the applicant discussed many different design alternatives and felt the one presented to the Commission was the least intrusive to the adjacent properties. He said the proposed structure would remain the same height and that the garage addition would be lower than what currently exists.

Hearing no further public comment, the public hearing was closed.

Chairman Dyb complimented the applicant on his research of previous variances approved by the city. He said that even though they may seem similar to what he is requesting, each individual request is unique. He said the job of the Planning Commission is to review each request and compare them to the spirit and intent of the city ordinance. He asked that each Commissioner comment on the request and to address each of the variance requests separately.

Commissioner McKinney said he had no problem with the north setback since it technically meets the required setback. He does not support the garage addition, which stretches the structure across the entire lot, ending six feet away from the south property line. He feels there are design alternatives, which allow the applicant to accomplish the goal of a two-stall garage with a mudroom. He thinks the overall impervious surface could also be reduced.

Commissioner Carlson thanked the applicant for his attempt to incorporate the existing structure into his design. He feels there has been some miscommunication between the applicant and the neighbors. He believes there are design alternative available to the applicant. He thinks the applicant should work with the neighbors to the south, who he assumes, would be happy to remove the existing driveway encroachment from their property.

Commissioner Nelson agreed with other Commissioners about the encroachment into the south yard. He commented that the city has been lenient in the past when it came to homes without garages, but feels a hardship for a mudroom may be pushing it. He would not like to see further encroachments into required yards. He likes the design and the intent but feels there are design alternatives that would not require a variance.

Commissioner TenClay commented on the information provided on the survey. He would like to see the required setbacks shown directly on it. He discussed the history of the “relaxed” side yard setback and commented that the home currently meets that setback and that he wouldn’t like to see a setback less than fifteen feet on the south side yard. He believes there are design alternatives available to the applicant.

Commissioner Werneiwski also thanked the applicant for his efforts to maintain the cottage look of the home. He’s concerned about the design of the project and does not support an encroachment into the south yard setback due to the reduced setback on the north side. He feels there are design alternatives available to the applicant to meet the required setbacks.

Chairman Dyb asked the applicant if he intends to keep the detached shed on the property. Mr. Hackney said he did. Dyb commented that it appeared the Commissioners were not in support of the request and informed the applicant that the Commission was an advisory body to the City Council, meaning that even if the Planning Commission was to deny the request, the City Council could approve it. He said that if aesthetics were the only criteria for the variance, the Commissioners appear to approve it, but since it is not, there appears to be issues with the request. He agreed with other Commissioners that design alternatives exist for the property.

Mr. Hackney asked about the process if the City Council were to deny the request and asked if he would be able to amend the plan prior to presentation to the Council. Zoning Coordinator Karpas said if the Council denied the request, the applicant would have to wait one year before he would be able to submit a new request. Karpas said that the Council would send the applicant back to the Planning Commission if he were to amend the plan. He said the applicant could waive his right to a decision within the 120 day time period required by the State and re-submit to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Hackney said he would like to re-submit and waive his right to a decision as required by the State. He said he would submit a letter to the city waiving his right and would most likely submit a new plan for the March Planning Commission meeting.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Dyb to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner TenClay seconded. The motion carried 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gus Karpas

Zoning Coordinator