DEEPHAVEN PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY MARCH 21, 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, Jeff McKinney, Warren Nelson, Josh Sparber and Bob Werneiwski

 

ABSENT:        Commissioner Walter Linder and Zoning Coordinator Gus Karpas

 

OTHERS PRESENT:   Councilmember Kim Crockett and City Administrator Dana Young

 

MINUTES OF January 17, 2006

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, second by Commissioner McKinney, to approve the minutes of January 17, 2006 as presented.  Motion carried 3-0-3.  Commissioners Budd, Linder and Sparber abstained.

 

LIAISON REPORT

Council Liaison Kim Crockett provided a brief review of recent Council decisions on planning requests.  She stated that the City Council approved the awning for Minnetonka Community Education after MCE provided additional clarification on the actual dimensions of their proposed awning. 

 

She stated that the City Council also agreed with the Planning Commission’s recommendations on the Mahoney’s request to rebuild an existing non-conforming structure within the required side yard setback.

 

She stated that an extensive hearing was held before the City Council on the proposed rezoning of eight properties on Linwood Road.  She stated that the applicant’s made the same presentation to the Council that was made to the Planning Commission and that three Council members voted to deny the rezoning request and two voted to abstain.  She stated that she voted to abstain and was surprised that the Council decided to vote on the request that evening due to the amount and complexity of material that was presented.  She stated that the majority of the Council supported the Mayor's argument that the current R-2 Single Family zoning designation was a better fit for that area than an R-3 Single Family zoning designation.

 

Chairman Dan Dyb asked if the Council was considering a review on the scope of the zoning regulations.  Kim Crockett stated that the Council was not considering such a review but would entertain any Committee recommendations.

 

PUBLIC HEARING

 

VARIANCE – Mark and Lisa Erhard, 20660 Linwood Road, (R-2, 40,000). A variance request to build a new home on an existing non-conforming footprint located within the required east and west side yard setbacks and the required lake yard setback.  A variance to exceed the maximum permitted building coverage area in the R-2 District and to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface. 

 

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%.

 

Mike Sharret of Sharret Design presented the request.  He asked Mark Erhard to provide some background information to the Committee.  Mark Erhard stated that he and his wife have lived in Deephaven for 13 years and did not anticipate having four kids within five years.  He stated that their current home is more of a bachelor pad and they need additional bedrooms to accommodate their family.  He stated that their present home is not currently in compliance with the City’s setback standards and their new home design intends to build within the existing footprint.  He stated that their new design is set back even further from the lake than the existing house.

 

Lisa Erhard stated that their house was originally built back in 1956 and remodeled in the 1980’s.  She stated that their house doesn’t have a second floor and that 90% of the existing home is crawl space.  She stated that they need rooms for their family and a livable basement, which currently is unimproved with a dirt floor.  She stated that they love the community and want to remain.

 

Mike Sharret stated that three years ago they started planning this project and considered both remodeling and reconstruction.  He stated that it was clear at that time that tearing down the entire structure would negate certain setbacks that they currently enjoy.  He stated that they ultimately decided to build within the existing footprint and keep at least 50% of the existing area.  He stated that their current plan takes down those portions of the structure that are inadequate but keeps those portions that are usable.  He stated that any improvement would be within the current building pad and they also planned to pull the structure an additional 8 feet back from the lake.  He stated that the patio would now be located directly against the house.  He stated that the sideyard setbacks would remain the same and would not be changed.  He added that they do propose to add space to the garage since the need for parking off the driveway is critical.  He stated that the second floor improvements are within the existing setbacks and they are also removing hardcover to improve their overall impervious surface percentage.  He stated that their overall intention is to make the structure better and within the City codes.

 

Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing.  Hearing no public comment the hearing was closed.  He asked for Commissioner comments.

 

Commissioner Budd asked about the additional square footage proposed for the new house. 

Mike Sharret stated that the additional square footage was due to the expansion of the garage to a four-stall garage.  Chairman Dyb stated that the additional square footage was also due to the addition of the lake room.  Mike Sharret agreed and stated that the additional footage in the lake room would be mitigated somewhat by pulling the side wall back from the lakefront.

 

Mike Sharret stated that the State of Minnesota had passed Statute 462.357 about 18 months ago that allows for the replacement of existing non-conforming structures that had been permitted by variance.  He added that their proposal to bring the lake front wall back 8 feet would make the room cozier and bring the project more in compliance with lake front setback requirements.

 

Commissioner Sparber stated that the effect of MN Statute 462.357 would be to approve all the requested variance with the exception of the request for additional square footage.  Chairman Dyb noted that Zoning Coordinator Karpas states in his staff report that he is supportive of Erhard’s request with the exception of the additional square footage.

 

Commissioner Sparber asked if the applicant could construct a detached garage or whether this would still exceed the maximum structure square footage requirements?  Commissioner Budd informed him that a detached garage would still exceed the maximum square footage and stated that the Erhard’s are requesting an additional 456 square feet over and above the current 6,274 square feet of their existing home.

 

Commissioner Sparber asked why does the second story floor plan need to be reviewed?  Chairman Dyb stated that all alterations have to be reviewed.

 

Commissioner Werneiwski stated that he spoke with Lisa Erhard regarding the ground water situation.  Mike Sharret stated that the structure was originally built without drain tiles and that the improved part of the structure will include water proofing.  In response to several questions from Commissioner Werneiwski, Mike Sharret confirmed that the elevation of the basement is above the lake elevation and discussed the proposed location of a rain garden, which will be used to hold the surface runoff.

 

Commissioner Werneiwski stated that Lisa Erhard also appears to be willing to pull the lake room addition back into the envelope of the existing setbacks.  Mike Sharret agreed that the porch has been set back further from the lake and provided revised plans that showed the new location of the porch.

 

Council Liaison Kim Crockett stated that it would be beneficial if the applicant would provide revised plans to the City Council that delineate the existing house from the proposed house.

 

Chairman Dyb asked if the foundations for the pool, garage and east wall would remain?  Mike Sharret confirmed that they would remain.  Chairman Dyb stated that the Planning Commission has operated on the long-standing rule that the Council would approve reconstruction within the setbacks if the existing foundation were kept.  He stated that he believes that the Commission needs more information concerning MN Statutes 462.357 as well as an opinion from the City Attorney before he would feel comfortable reviewing the Erhard’s request.  He stated that he would prefer to postpone action on this request until he is clear on the ramifications of MN Statutes 462.357.

 

Commissioner Nelson agreed with Chairperson Dyb and stated that he normally would have asked the applicant’s to bring the side yard setback into compliance if the entire house were to be demolished.  He stated that it is also hard for him to decipher the site map to determine where the existing structure is located in comparison with the proposed structure.  He added that he was also concerned with the plan to improve the basement in light of the current drainage problems in the basement.  He stated that he is also conflicted with their request for a four-car garage plus the pool and wondered if these constitute a reasonable use of their property?  He also stated that he didn’t particularly have a problem with leaving the patio in its current location.  Commissioner McKinney stated that moving the patio would help the applicants to lessen their amount of hardcover.  Commissioner Nelson stated that he is still concerned with the plan to improve the basement and requested that the applicants provide better plans showing the existing house vs. the proposed house.

 

Mike Sharret stated that the plan that they are presenting tonight is a result of numerous meetings with Zoning Coordinator Gus Karpas.  He stated that it is his understanding that the Commission proposes to table further action on the Erhard’s request due to their confusion regarding MN State Statute 462.357.

 

Chairman Dyb stated that usually the City would incorporate a pertinent section of Minnesota State Statute after review by the City Attorney and this has not been done with Statute 462.357.  He stated that for this reason he would prefer to table this request until their next meeting in April.  Commissioner Sparber agreed that the request should be tabled.

 

Council Liaison Crockett added that she also had some significant issues concerning the staff report.

 

Mike Sharret asked what would be advantages and disadvantages of tabling their request?  Commissioner Nelson stated that tabling the request would result in a clearer recommendation from the Commission rather than proceeding before the City Council with a number of unanswered questions.

 

Mark Erhard stated that if the Commission doesn’t have all the information before them at this time, it would make no sense to try to push it through tonight.

 

Chairman Dyb moved to table the request until the April 18th Planning Commission to provide the Commission with the opportunity to evaluate the impact of MN State Statute 462.357 and allow the applicant the opportunity to submit clearer plans delineating the existing and proposed structures.  Seconded by Commissioner Budd.  Motion carried 6-0.

 

COMMISSIONER SPARBER

The Committee welcomed Commissioner Josh Sparber to the Planning Commission.

 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Chairman Dyb to adjourn the meeting.  Commissioner McKinney seconded.  The motion carried 6-0.  The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

Dana Young

City Administrator