DEEPHAVEN PLANNING COMMISSION

TUESDAY MAY 16, 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.

ABSENT: Commissioners Joan Budd and Jeff McKinney

OTHERS PRESENT: Councilmember Kim Crockett and Zoning Coordinator Gus Karpas

MINUTES OF April 18, 2006

Motion by Commissioner Nelson, second by Commissioner Sparber, to approve the minutes of April 18, 2006 as presented. Motion carried 5-0.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

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 fourteen feet, four inches of the required twenty-five foot east side yard setback, for fifteen feet, six inches of the required twenty-five foot west side yard setback and twelve feet, six inches of the required one hundred foot lake yard setback.

The requested impervious surface variance is to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface area of 25% by 12.7%.

Mike Sharrett, Sharrett Design, presented the request, saying that applicants have worked with the city for a number of years, reviewing concepts prior to settling on this request. He said the proposed structure would be constructed on the existing footprint for the most part with slight increases in the side yard setbacks. He noted that the footprint has been brought into compliance with the maximum permitted footprint standards and the impervious surface will remain the same.

Mr. Sharrett said a hardship exists in the configuration of the lot and the existing placement of the home. He believed the applicant’s proposal meets the intent of the ordinance.

Mark Erhard, 20660 Linwood Road, said he and his wife have lived on the site for thirteen years and in that time their family situation has changed with the addition of a number of children. He said he has spoken with his neighbors, one that is in the audience, and they are supportive of the request. The plan is to get all the bedrooms on the second floor. There is a need to remove the existing foundation because it is not adequate to support a second story.

Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing.

Norman Pearle, 20670 Linwood Road, said that the Erhard’s are good people and that he didn’t want to lose them as neighbors. His only concern about any redevelopment of the property is the effect it would have on his lake view. The plan shows that the Erhard’s are pulling back from the lake and side yard, so he is in support of the request.

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

Commissioner Werneiwski commended the Erhards for working closely with the city on this request. He didn't have any objections to the plan as submitted and in light of the State Statute requirements, was supportive of the request.

Commissioner Linder summarized the request noting that the footprint had been shrunk and the side yard setbacks have been increased. For these reasons, and in view of the applicability of the Minnesota Statute regarding rebuilding on structures in existence before zoning changes, he feels the request is appropriate and is in support of it.

Commissioner Sparber commented that the applicants have taken steps to further reduce the non-conformities since the plan they presented to the Commission in March. He believes they have produced a plan that conforms as well as it could.

Commissioner Nelson likes what has been done but is still concerned a little about the proposed side yard setbacks. He noted there are encroachments into both side yards and that he would like to see at least one of the side yards more compliant with the ordinance. He asked about the second story and its location. Mr. Sharrett said the second story would be located in the middle of the structure and would comply with the required setbacks and maximum height.

Chairman Dyb said he was supportive of the request. He noted that the footprint area has been reduced and the lake setback increased. He feels the applicants have done a good job working with the city on this request.

ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dyb to recommend that the City Council approve the variance request to encroach fourteen feet, ten inches into the required twenty-five foot east side yard setback, for fifteen feet, six inches of the required twenty-five foot west side yard setback, twelve feet, six inches into the required one hundred foot lake yard setback and to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface by 12.7% for the proposed single family home at 20660 Linwood Road. A practical difficulty exists in the size and shape of the lot and the placement of the existing home on the property. Dyb noted that the approval is intended to follow the requirements of the State Statutes as they pertain to existing non-conforming structures. The motion is conditioned that the applicants work with staff to determine the origin of the existing non-conformance. Commissioner Sparber seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-1. On a motion to approve Commissioners Dyb, Linder, Sparber and Werneiwski voted aye. Commissioner Nelson voted nay.

Council Liaison Crockett warned the Commission to ensure they understand the ramifications of the State Statute so that it is not improperly applied to properties that may not be protected. She asked staff to include information on the history of any structure, including the year of construction and any city action taken, for all variance requests.

Zoning Coordinator Karpas referenced the letter from the City Attorney outlining his interpretation of the Statutes and that it does not apply to properties made non-conforming due to variance requests, though he questioned why the city would not approve a variance to construct on an existing non-conforming footprint created through variance since the city apparently found a hardship in the past.

Crockett understands that but believes there needs to be appropriate and accurate information provided to the Commission as to the existence of the non-conformance footprint so they can make an informed decision.

SPECIAL USE PERMIT – Excelsior Fire District, 20227 Cottagewood Road, (R-2, 40,000). A request to place signage on the Fire Station located behind City Hall. The proposal would place approximately 112 square feet of signage on the façade of the station, just above the garage doors.

Dana George, Interim Fire Chief presented the request. He said that the Fire District established a committee to review the signage needs for the two fire stations and the presented request is what was developed for the “east side” station. The proposed signage would be comprised of nineteen-inch high letters, as shown on the plan, extending twenty-seven feet across the building. A sign company has informed the Fire District that this proposed sign would be readable at one hundred and eighty feet and visible up to seven hundred feet away.

Mr. George said the purpose of the signage is to let the general public, most particularly, those using the trail know there is a fire station in that location in the event there was need for emergency aid. He said the signage is similar in format as that proposed for the “west side” station, only on a smaller scale. He said the Fire District is willing to work with the city

Commissioner Nelson said it was a little weird to see the term Excelsior used on a building in Deephaven. Mr. George said he understood, but noted that is part of the name of the organization.

Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing.

Tom Pokonowsky, 20100 Minnetonka Boulevard, said that he received notification of the request and that he has two issues. The first is in agreement with Commissioner Nelson that it’s a little weird to have the term Excelsior included in the signage, especially on Deephaven’s City Hall campus. His second concern is the need for any signage on the site. He believes that it is clear that the structure is a fire station.

Hearing no further public comment the hearing was closed.

Commissioner Sparber asked if the sign could be abbreviated and include only the initials E.F.D., which would still be recognizable. He agrees there is a need to identify the building.

Chairman Dyb fully believes there is a need to identify the building but has some concerns. He noted that the city worked hard and went through great pains to give the structure a residential feel. He’s concerned about the proposed letter size and feels signage similar to that on the City Hall is more appropriate. He asked if the Fire District considered placing their logo on the structure, which would be recognizable.

Mr. George said the Fire District would consider it if that were what the city wants. He said that he has been approached by people who didn’t identify the structure as a fire station, so there is a need to identify it. He reminded the Planning Commission that the Fire District serves five cities and as a group selected the name of the Fire District. Though he’s sympathetic to the concerns about the name, there are a number of people who identify with the organization. A large part of the identity crises is the fact the building fits into the character of the City Hall so it is assumed its part of the City Hall.

Commissioner Linder said his first impression was that the sign was too large and something smaller may be more preferable. He’s not bothered with the word Excelsior being included in the text.

Commissioner Werneiwski confirmed the distances in which the sign could be seen. He said it would only be visible from Minnetonka Boulevard. He said he was able to read the address numbers from the end of the driveway, which lead him to believe the sign requested may be too large and unnecessary. A smaller sign would still be visible from the road and trail. He suggested that Deephaven be added somewhere in the text as to not cause confusion.

Mr. George said the Fire District would not have any problem downsizing the sign and said again they would like to work with the city to find a sign agreeable to both the city and the district.

Chairman Dyb recommended that the request be tabled to the June meeting to allow the Fire District to compile a number of options for the Commission’s review. Mr. George was agreeable.

VARIANCE – 10 Spring Homes, 19980 Cottagewood Road, (R-2, 40,000). A variance request to build a new single family home located within the required rear and lake setbacks. The requested setback variances are for five feet, seven inches of the required twenty-five foot rear yard setback and seventeen feet, five inches of the required seventy-five foot lake yard setback.

Scott Rosenlund, 10 Spring Homes, presented the request. The request is to remove the existing home and construct a new home. He said the lot is deceiving in that it’s listed as four acres in size, but once you remove the area below the OHWL and the wetlands you are left with under an acre.

Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing. Hearing no public comment, the public hearing was closed.

Commissioner Werneiwski didn’t have an issue with the request though he thinks the requested variance on the lake side is substantial. He is supportive of the request in that it is an improvement over what currently exists.

Commissioner Sparber asked if it would be better to permit an encroachment into another yard in place of the lake yard. He questioned whether there was topographic reason for the proposed location. He suggested the applicant reconfigure the home to lessen the encroachment.

Commissioner Linder said he was troubled by the extent of the encroachment into the required lake yard setback. He said it is aggressive and more than what appears to be necessary to develop the property. He is opposed to the request since there appear to be design alternatives available to lessen the lake yard encroachment.

Judd Olson, 19940 Cottagewood Road, noted that most houses along Cottagewood Road do not comply with the setback. He feels it is reasonable to request an encroachment into that required yard and pointed out that there is vegetation that extends over three hundred feet before you hit open water. He thinks the variance is appropriate.

Council Liaison Crockett noted the discussion of the Council on the lake yard issue on the back bay saying that they felt the front yard setback was more important in the area due to the traffic levels on Cottagewood Road. She said the neighborhood has not been shy in bringing their concerns to the Council regarding that issue.

Commissioner Nelson agreed with Linder in that the requested encroachment is unnecessary. He feels the house is pushed towards the lake pretty far into the required setback. He believes there are design alternatives available to the applicant. He noted that the property is a nice piece of property and he’s sympathetic to the applicant’s plight but doesn’t see a hardship.

Commissioner Sparber agrees there are design alternatives. He said if the city wanted to reduce the setback to fifty feet they would have reduced it when they changed it. He is opposed to the request.

Chairman Dyb said the property is a difficult one to develop. These types of lots are common in the city. Even though they are equally important, he would rather see an additional encroachment into another required yard rather than push a structure into the lake setback. He would support a setback similar to what currently exists on the property. He thinks the applicant should look at alternative configurations.

Mr. Rosenlund reiterated that the open water is over three hundred feet away and that the configuration of the lot is unique. Chairman Dyb said there is more than just an aesthetic issue when it comes to the lake setback. Lake setbacks are also used for the percolation of water run-off. His primary concern is the short distance from the OHWL.

ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Sparber to recommend that the City Council deny the variance request to encroach five feet, seven inches into the required twenty-five foot rear side yard setback and seventeen feet, five inches into the required seventy-five foot lake yard setback for the proposed single family home at 19980 Cottagewood Road. The proposed lake setback is intrusive and there are design alternatives available to the applicant that would lessen the amount of variance required to develop the property. Commissioner Dyb seconded the motion. The motion carried 4-1. On a motion to recommend denial Commissioners Dyb, Linder, Nelson and Sparber voted aye. Commissioner Werneiwski voted nay.

LIAISON REPORT

Council Liaison Kim Crockett said the Council took action on two requests from the previous Planning Commission meeting.

The first item was the request from Shawn and Angela Sherlock to exceed the maximum permitted accessory structure area. After evaluating the request, it was denied by a 4-1 vote. Councilmember Kask was of the opinion that the square footage of both stories has to be considered, therefore increasing the requested area by seven hundred and twenty feet. Mr. Kask provided a synopsis of the history of Deephaven and noted the hard work by the city to keep the single family character of the city. The Council had issues with the sewer hook-up and the potential for the structure to be converted into living space.

The second item was the requested pool by Steve and Pam Schechtman. After analysis of the ordinance, consideration of the request and input from the neighbors, it was decided, using the discretionary power of the Council that the request be denied. It was denied by a 5-0. She said that even though the Schechtman’s agreed to comply with all the conditions of the Planning Commission, there was no guarantee successive owners would follow them.

She said Mayor Anderson took the perspective that it would be a public safety issue in that others would look at the encroachment and would seek their own encroachments using the pool as an example. He believes that setbacks were created to create buffers between neighbors and uses that other neighbors may not want to share in.

In other action, Councilmember Crockett said the city is considering a moratorium on swimming pools and other “luxury amenities” while the accessory structure portion of the ordinance is studied and potentially amended. The actual vote on the moratorium was continued to give the public the opportunity to become aware of it and give them a chance to comment.

NEW BUSINESS

Councilmember Crockett said that she would like to see the Planning Commission begin to view requests in a broader sense. She feels there should be efforts made to dig deeper into a request and try to anticipate how the request could affect the city in the long run.

Chairman Dyb said he would like some feedback on the Commission from the Commissioners. He would like to hear their thoughts and criticisms on the procedures of the Commission and any issues they may have with his role as the Chairman. He would like both positive and negative feedback.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion by Chairman Dyb to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Werneiwski seconded. The motion carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Gus Karpas

Zoning Coordinator