DEEPHAVEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAy SEPTEMBER 18, 2007
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
Barbarajean Brandt, Walter Linder, Jeff
ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Council Liaison Steve Adams and Zoning Coordinator Gus Karpas
Motion by Commissioner Linder, second by Commissioner Dyb, to approve the minutes of August 21, 2007 as presented. Motion carried 6-0-1. Commissioner Sparber abstained.
PUBLIC
HEARINGS
VARIANCE – Doug and Ann Cooley, 3342 Robinson’s Bay Road, (R-2, 40,000) – The applicants are requesting to demolish and rebuild a single family home which would encroach into the required north and south side yard setbacks and exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface area. The requested variances are to encroach ten feet, six inches into the required twenty-five foot north side yard setback, to encroach eighteen feet, three inches into the required twenty-five foot south side yard setback and to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface area percentage of twenty-five percent by 7.8%.
Zoning Coordinator Karpas reviewed his staff report. He said the request was to use the footprint of the existing home with the addition of an attached garage. The proposed garage would create an additional encroachment into the north side yard.
Karpas said he recommended approval for the request based on the existing lot dimensions and the fact that a number of other properties in the neighborhood had received similar variances. He noted that in his review, he had some of the same reservations that a number of neighbors have expressed in the size of the structure and the additional encroachment created by the garage, but in the end felt the proposal met the hardship criteria.
Mike Sharratt, Sharratt Design, discussed the proposal on
behalf of the applicant. He said it’s
important to remember that when considering a variance, consideration must be
given to whether a project fits into the neighborhood and the conditions of the
property. He said the proposed home was
designed only fifty-five feet wide in an attempt to be sensitive to the
neighbors. He noted that the lot is long
and narrow and has a private road servicing additional properties to the north
running through it.
Mr. Sharratt noted that, hypothetically, there are always
design alternatives to create a structure on any lot, but that he tried to
blend his client’s desires with the requirements of the city. He said the placement of the home could have
been changed lessening the encroachment, but then it would be out of character
with the neighborhood. He said the home
was designed to be a story and a half to lessen the massing along the north
property line. He presented a site plan
showing the proposed garage on the south side of the property and noted that
configuration would reduce massing on the north side but shift it towards the
city owned property.
Doug Cooley said he understands the concerns of the
neighbors and thought he was designing a home that would address them. He said the placement of the garage was to
take advantage of the existing screening and to help block headlights from
infringing on the adjoining property.
Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing.
Zoning Coordinator Karpas entered the letters from Catherine
Finch, 3308 Robinson’s
Mary Kahler, 3320 Robinson’s
Mary Mithun, 3266 Robinson’s
Ray Mithun, 3266 Robinson’s
Rick Lang, 3244 Robinson’s
Mary Mithun said she hopes there is a point in the city
where telling an applicant “no” is an option.
She doesn’t believe that just because an applicant asks for something,
it should be approved. Chairman Dyb
noted that there is not a member of the Planning Commission shy about giving a
negative recommendation to the Council if a proposal does not meet the variance
criteria.
Commissioner Werneiwski said he didn’t have any issues with
the proposal to construct within the existing structure footprint. He does, however, have some concerns about
the proposed garage. He noted that the
Commission has generally been supportive of redeveloping non-conforming
structures providing additional encroachments are not created. He believes there are design alternatives to
place a garage on the property in compliance with the setback
requirements. He would not be supportive
of encroachments on the south side of the property, as suggested by some of the
neighbors. He felt the proposal to
reduce the impervious surface was a positive step, but felt overall that he
would recommend denial for the proposal.
Commissioner Brandt said she holds a lot of respect for
compliance with the setbacks. She would
recommend denial based on the fact there are further encroachments into the
setbacks, even though there are design alternatives to avoid those
encroachments. She likes the design but
feels it asks too much. As for
encroachments into the south yard, adjacent to the city owned property, she
feels that should concern the whole community.
Commissioner Sparber is concerned about the reduction of the
setback. He noted that even though the
setback is technically increased through the removal of the deck, the actual
massing of the structure is moved closer to the property line. He said the applicant’s desire for a
south-facing garage may not work on the property. He said there are other screening methods the
applicant or neighbor could take should headlights become an issue. He’s not as concerned about the impact on the
city owned property if the project is redesigned, since it would only impact
the parking area for the beach.
Commissioner McKinney noted that other Commissioners have
addressed his concerns and that he was not supportive of the request as
presented.
Commissioner Nelson agreed with the comments of the other
Commissioners. He said he was surprised
that the applicant would present alternate plans to the Commission without
discussing them with the neighbors. Like
Commissioner Sparber, he doesn’t like the idea of moving the mass of the home
closer to the property lines. He would
not like to see further encroachments into the required setbacks. He said he likes the design, but believes it
would negatively impact the adjacent property to the north.
Chairman Dyb said, from a character standpoint, the
applicant has presented a fantastic plan.
The problem is that it doesn’t seem to fit the lot. He said there might be some unique
characteristics on the lot, but that most lots in Deephaven have unique
characteristics that require some thought when designing a home. He sees the massing along the north property
line as problematic and doesn’t see an undue hardship for the further
encroachments. He noted that there would
be an additional seventy linear feet of structure, above and beyond that
included in the existing footprint, along the north property line. He said that one of the reasons for setbacks
is to create greenspace and separation between structures. He believes there are design alternatives
available to the applicant to remove the additional encroachments.
Commissioner Linder said he had nothing to add. His initial reaction was that the proposal
was too much for the property and did not support the additional massing on the
north side of the property.
Chairman Dyb commented that he believes, and feels the
Commission would agree with him, that some sort of variances would need to be
granted for the development of the property.
The issue with the proposal is the additional massing and encroachment
along the north side of the property.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Linder to recommend that the City Council deny the variance request to encroach ten feet, six inches into the required twenty-five foot north side yard setback, to encroach eighteen feet, three inches into the required twenty-five foot south side yard setback and to exceed the maximum permitted impervious surface area by 7.8% for the proposed single family home, as presented at 3342 Robinson’s Bay Road. The applicant has not demonstrated an undue hardship preventing a reasonable use of the property and design alternatives exist that would eliminate the additional encroachments into the required north side yard setback. Commissioner Nelson seconded the motion. Motion carried 7-0.
VARIANCE – Mark and Julie
Klauer,
Zoning Coordinator Karpas reviewed his staff report. He said the request was to create an area the applicants could use that would protect them from mosquitoes. The proposed structure would create an encroachment into the rear yard setback and would be placed within a dedicated utility and drainage easement.
.
Karpas said he recommended denial for the request. He felt the applicant had not demonstrated an undue hardship preventing the reasonable use of the property and that design alternative exist to achieve the applicant’s desires without the need for a variance.
Karpas noted that the applicant approached him during the recess to inform him that the plan has been altered in that the size of the structure has been reduced to 197 square feet and has been pulled off the rear property line three feet, removing it from the platted drainage and utility easement.
Mark Klauer said the property is adjacent to a drainage area which breeds mosquitoes preventing them from comfortably using their pool area. The intent was to create an outdoor area by the pool to alleviate the problem. He said the terrain of the property and the location of a drainpipe limited the placement of the structure. He noted that the home was converted to a walkout by the previous owner, who installed the drainpipe. He said he was hesitant to place the structure over that drainpipe for fear of damaging it and creating a drainage issue in his basement. He said he understands the intent of setbacks, but noted that the adjacent property is mostly drainage area that would not be permitted to be developed and that the neighboring home is over three hundred feet away. He said the change in the design was to pull the structure off the platted drainage and utility easement.
Chairman Dyb opened the public hearing, hearing no public comment; the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Dyb noted that he did not see any type of proposed decking to connect the proposed structure with the pool apron. Mr. Klauer said he envisioned a slab to connect to the pool apron. He noted that the doors were located on the side of the structure and that a sidewalk may be used instead of a full slab.
Dyb said he saw the drainage swale and pipe. Mr. Klauer reiterated that the home was converted to a walk out by the previous owner requiring the need for a pipe to carry drainage. He said there is also a fair amount of surface drainage happening on the property.
Commissioner Nelson discussed the proposed dimensions of the structure and its location. He questioned why the proposed site was selected. Mr. Klauer said it was originally assumed that there was thirty-three feet between the pool and the rear property line, but when a survey was done, there was only twenty-five feet. They believed they could have placed the structure with minimal encroachments, until they commissioned a survey.
Commissioner Werneiwski said he is having a hard time seeing a hardship with this request. He believes there are alternate designs and locations for the proposed structure, which would not require a variance. He understands there are issues in regards to the drainage pipe, but doesn’t believe they are insurmountable and can be worked around.
Chairman Dyb agrees. He said regardless of the use on the adjacent property, the city seeks to avoid encroachments unless a hardship is present. He does not believe a hardship can be demonstrated in this case. Commissioner Linder agreed.
Commissioner
Commissioner Sparber asked if the structure could be moved near the location of the pool pump. Mr. Klauer said there was not enough room to comply with the setbacks. Mr. Klauer said he would like to see another location for the proposed structure but does not believe there is a suitable alternative on his property, without removal of trees, which he doesn’t want to do.
Commissioner Brandt said she would echo the sentiments of the other Commissioners that the setback must be adhered to.
Council Liaison Adams asked about the steepness of the slopes. Mr. Klauer said they were pretty steep. Chairman Dyb discussed the slope issues in regard to development in steep slope areas and said he doesn’t believe the slopes on the applicant’s property meet the criteria for steep slopes.
ACTION: Motion by Commissioner Dyb to recommend that the City Council deny the variance request to encroach into the required rear yard setback to construct a detached accessory structure within the required twenty-five foot rear yard setback, located seven feet from the rear property line, as amended and presented at 4635 Old Kent Road. The applicant has not demonstrated an undue hardship preventing a reasonable use of the property and design alternatives exist that would eliminate encroachments into the required rear yard setback. Commissioner Werneiwski seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0-1. Commissioner Sparber abstained.
LIAISON
REPORT
Council
Liaison Adams said the Council followed the Commission’s recommendation for the
McGregor variance request to construct a new deck that would encroach into the
required side yard and lake yard setbacks on
He said the Council discussed the amendment to the fence ordinance. He said the Council approved the first reading of the ordinance by a 3-2 vote, but felt that further discussion needed to be held, so a second reading will take place at the October 1st meeting. He said the version approved by the Council did not include the proposed revision by the Commission. He said those voting for the ordinance in its original form felt the issue of unsightly storage would still be an issue even if the fence was set further back off the property line. It was felt the ordinance provided a tool for the city to intervene when neighbor issues arise.
Commissioner Sparber said he was not at the last meeting but questioned why the Council would prohibit storage beyond the fence setback requirement. Councilmember Adams said it was felt that a fence creates a visual property line regardless of its setback and any storage on the outside of the fence creates a visual impact on neighboring properties.
Commissioner Linder felt that passing an ordinance that would only be enforced based on neighbor complaints was silly, especially when the ordinance, as adopted without the changes suggested by the Planning Commission, in his opinion, is over-reaching.
Councilmember Adams said the two Councilmembers who voted against the ordinance felt it was over-regulation and that it was over-reaching for the city to regulate something that should be resolved by neighbors. He said the other three Councilmembers agreed, and said it was unfortunate that neighbors couldn’t always resolve their own issues which leads to ordinances like this, but at this time there is a need for the proposed ordinance.
Commissioner Linder said it is his feeling that by passing an ordinance making something currently legal illegal could be creating future neighbor issues.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Chairman Dyb to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Werneiwski seconded. The motion carried 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Gus Karpas
Zoning Coordinator