Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes 04-02-2014Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting April 2, 2014 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair James Davis, Commissioner Bryan Oakley, Marc Anderson, Dick Kobussen, Gary Goldetsky and Nathan Robinson MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Gordon Petrash STAFF PRESENT: Planning Manager Barbara Thomson and Office Support Representative Janice Bergstrom 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MOTION by Commissioner Robinson, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to approve the April 2, 2014 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 19, 2014 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Kobussen, to approve the March 19, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Vote. 6 Ayes. MOTION approved. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. DANIEL GUSTAFSON (2014001) Chair Davis introduced the continuation of the request by Daniel Gustafson for a zoning ordinance amendment relating to docks. Commissioner Kobussen recused himself from this agenda item. Planning Manager Thomson gave an overview of the staff report. Commissioner Oakley asked how the 6 -foot setback was arrived at. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 2, 2014 Page 2 Planning Manager Thomson explained this is the common setback for accessory uses, and it is reasonable to apply in this case as well. Chair Davis introduced Jim Erickson, who stated he is representing the applicants. Mr. Erickson said he discussed with Planning Manager Thomson the option of placing the dock outside the high water mark on the lake side, not touching land. He said the only access would be through a temporary structure to go from land to the dock. Mr. Erickson said they would operate only on the lake bed, not on city -regulated land. He said they discussed setbacks from lot lines extended into the lake and concluded at that time that if we follow that approach, we could do that. Mr. Erickson said last Friday City Attorney Roger Knutson stated the legal position of the city has changed, based on materials he provided. Mr. Erickson stated nothing in the materials City Attorney Knutson provided are applicable. The DNR General Dock Permit Flyer 2008-041 dealing with dock platforms does not apply because this is a dock, not a dock platform. He said riparian rights are not diminished by a permit for a dock platform. Statute 6115-0210, Structures in Public Waters, does not apply to docks because those are for boat storage structures and mooring facilities. Mr. Erickson said the East Gull Lake Ordinance talks about docks and projecting the setback lines into the lake. He said Plymouth does not have that in their ordinance and while the city has the power to extend setback lines into the lake, right now they stop at the high water mark and don't extend into the lake. Mr. Erickson concluded that nothing City Attorney Knutson submitted justifies changing the position the city staff had two weeks ago. Mr. Erickson said Mr. Gustafson is adamant about his right to exercise his property rights, riparian rights and grandfather rights. He stated there is proof to install this dock, and said if you want to see what this dock looks like, a 45- x 3 -foot standard garden variety dock is currently sitting on the lake where it would be when the pipes go down. Mr. Erickson introduced Dan Gustafson, 900 Horn Drive, Minnetonka, MN. Mr. Gustafson reviewed four law cases, Bradshaw v. Duluth Imperial Mill Co., Sanborn v. People's Ice, Petraborg V. Zontelli, and Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. v. Canning, all of which Mr. Gustafson stated support his cause. Mr. Gustafson thanked the Planning Commission for their consideration. Mr. Erickson said this issue is about everyone who has riparian rights. Mr. Erickson said he respectfully disagrees with Planning Manager Thomson's proposition that both parts of the text amendment are necessary for Mr. Gustafson to put his dock on his property. He said our application is for a solution, however, staff has confirmed that we can withdraw our application and take our chances with current law. Mr. Erickson said we think we can do this under current law, but want to do something productive here. He said the staff is recommending that the city waive the requirement that there be a principal structure, but the 6 -foot setback requirement with lot lines creates an unnecessary problem. Mr. Erickson emphasized that lot lines under Plymouth ordinances do not extend into the lake. Mr. Erickson provided handouts to the commissioners and a way to solve the problem on small lots. He said with this option, they would get the benefit of waiving the principal structure requirement, however, the 6 -foot setback would not apply because by sensible definition it would be hard to apply a 6 -foot setback on the land side with a 5 -foot lot. He stated if the planning commission feels that a small lot like Mr. Gustafson's can't meet setback in the water, this would be the way to allow it. He said they would reapply Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 2, 2014 Page 3 and submit to the City Council. Mr. Erickson stated this is a sensible alternative to staff's suggestion. He said they believe they have the right to place the dock outside the high water line, touching land only with a temporary facility, and the setback does not apply. He said if the city wants to apply setback requirements, they should adopt an ordinance like the East Gull Lake Ordinance. Commissioner Anderson asked if the application is for a dock or for a text amendment. Planning Manager Thomson clarified the application is for a text amendment to allow a dock with or without a principal structure and no setback. Chair Davis re -opened the public hearing. Chairman Davis introduced Margaret Evavold, representing adjacent property owners, Joseph Kenyon and Lymari Santana. Ms. Evavold apologized if her comments are scattered, as information presented was not in the staff report and she has not seen City Attorney Knutson's recent correspondence. Ms. Evavold said she agreed with City Attorney Knutson's last opinion that Mr. Gustafson's legal argument did not have bearing on the Planning Commission decision about the amendment. Ms. Evavold said Minnesota courts have said riparian rights are not paramount to the rights of the public; the city can regulate riparian rights on issues such as this. Ms. Evavold said they do not dispute the right to use the water; by being an owner of property in the city, you must follow the city rules. She said Mr. Gustafson has made an argument that this is a taking without just compensation, but the crux of the issue is Mr. Gustafson has to show he had reasonable investment -backed expectations in how he would use this property. She said Mr. Gustafson presumably did not ask the city about placing a dock or relied on the presentation from the previous landowner. Ms. Evavold said today a dock showed up on the ice on the lakeshore. She said she was blind -sided and was not sure what Mr. Gustafson was hoping to accomplish. Ms. Evavold said a floating dock with a changing water level can be a safety hazard, and said her clients would be opposed to that. Ms. Evavold stated their position opposes the amendment to place a dock without a principal structure. She said there could be more problems if someone owned a larger piece of property and put in more docks to rent out. She stated she strongly supports staff's recommendation imposing setbacks, as that buffer helps avoid conflict between neighbors. Ms. Evavold added with this amendment nothing would stop her client from putting his dock right next to Mr. Gustafson's dock, which would create more problems. Ms. Evavold said her clients have been dealing with this since last fall and it is not their problem that Mr. Gustafson did not do his homework before buying this property. Chairman Davis introduced Mary Steen, 5605 Evergreen Lane N. Ms. Steen said she lives on Bass Lake adjacent to the city park with a fishing pier. Ms. Steen said she was told when she purchased 18 years ago no other association members could put a dock on the 15 -foot outlot. She said turnover in recent years resulted in an influx of new residents in the 15 homes and realtors have told them they can put in docks. She said there are no usage guidelines in the bylaws in the Vale Hoff homeowners association. Ms. Steen learned there are three members planning to put in docks and boats on the 15 -foot outlot adjacent to her property, which will decrease her property value, create encroachment problems, and safety and trespass issues. Ms. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 2, 2014 Page 4 Steen said she is opposed to waiving the principal structure requirement. Ms. Steen said if you enforce the lot lines, then the 15 -foot outlot will result in the association putting in a dock 6 feet from the city fence, which will cause more encroachment issues. Ms. Steen said she became aware of this issue when recently applying for a fence permit. She expressed concern and said the principal structure requirement is there for a good reason. She said there is no structure on the 15 -foot outlot. Ms. Steen reviewed a map of the properties showing her dock location and the location where new homeowners can put an L-shaped dock that would accommodate 3-6 boats. Ms. Steen said Mr. Gustafson is asking for a ruling for the entire City of Plymouth, and she said she appreciates sharing perspective of how it will affect the Vale Hoff homeowners association. Chair Davis closed the public hearing. Commissioner Anderson said we need to agree on allowing accessory uses on a property that does not have a principal structure before we can have the setback discussion. Commissioner Oakley said Mr. Gustafson presented a lot of information about his riparian rights on his lot and the neighbors have riparian rights as well. He said the city's authority ends at the ordinary high water level. Commissioner Oakley said he will not support anything that will infringe on a neighbor's riparian rights to their lots. He said he is in favor of allowing docks on lots without a principal structure and there are many existing lots that are suitably sized for that. Commissioner Oakley said he does not see there being a problem with that until a lot gets to be too small. Commissioner Anderson said with zoning ordinance changes we have to imagine in our minds ramifications, and here we have had an extensive education going back to 1892 in terms of the kinds of issues. He said Ms. Steen's position about what this would do to other properties in the city makes us ask if this is good public policy to be allowing accessory uses when there is no principal building. Commissioner Anderson said no. He said he is opposed to waiving the principal structure requirement without getting into the setback question from what we have heard in terms of possible problems that will occur if that is done. Chairman Davis asked about the extent of lots that would be affected by this change to the ordinance. Planning Manager Thomson said staff is aware of approximately 12 properties would be affected; three have docks now and the others are vacant properties. She said there could be other properties affected as well. Commissioner Goldetsky said he could support a dock without a principal structure. He said requests could go through a review process, and suggested there could be situations where it would not pose a problem, and other situations where it could be problematic. He said if there were a review process for docks where there is not a principal building and there is no conflict and does not violate setbacks, then there would not be a problem. Chairman Davis asked if that would require a variance. Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 2, 2014 Page 5 Planning Manager Thomson said this idea seemed more like a conditional use permit process where the city would establish conditions that would have to be met to allow a dock without a principal structure. Commissioner Robinson asked if it could follow the same process as when an individual applies for a fence permit and provides a drawing and explanation for the city to determine that the request meets standards. Planning Manager Thomson said the City Council could determine if they wish it to be a public or administrative process. Commissioner Anderson said he would be happy to look at a review process or a conditional use permit, but that is not what is presented at this time. Commissioner Goldetsky said if the text amendment is approved, he is suggesting adding the words, "dock with a conditional use permit". He said we would get the setback requirement and have the flexibility to determine where it would work reasonably or cause a conflict. Commissioner Oakley questioned if setting some rules and not restricting anybody from asking for a variance would be a less frequent situation than the alternative of requiring a conditional use permit, which everybody would have to go through. He said that would be onerous on staff and citizens. Commissioner Goldetsky said conflicts with the setbacks are also onerous for everyone. He said perhaps a term other than conditional use permit could be used, but these are time consuming and problematic. Commissioner Oakley said he would support the language in this resolution. He said docks should be an allowed use on a lot without a principal structure and there should be a setback to protect the riparian rights of the neighbors. He acknowledged there could be instances where complying with the 6 -foot setback would cause issues, and in those instances the property owner could request a variance. Planning Manager Thomson said there could be a variance request now if someone wished to have less than a 6 -foot setback. Commissioner Oakley said we have to address the situation, and we are at the tipping point on this issue. There are enough docks without structures that the city should take positive action and should define it as a legal use or not, and then go forward from there. He said there are two issues here and he said he does not believe we can pass a resolution which includes only the first. Commissioner Oakley said he would not be in favor of a resolution that allowed a dock with a principal structure without any guidance on setbacks. He said the 6 -foot setback staff recommends applies to other accessory buildings and is common sense. Commissioner Oakley said it was mentioned earlier that the setback should be larger than that, and he added most Approved Planning Commission Minutes April 2, 2014 Page 6 pontoons are wider than 6 feet. Commissioner Oakley said he would prefer not to have someone park their boat in front of his property, but could support the 6 -foot setback. MOTION by Commissioner Oakley, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the ordinance allowing construction of a dock on a lot without a principal building provided the dock is set back six feet from lot lines and the findings of fact as listed in the resolution. Commissioner Anderson said six feet makes sense as the side yard setbacks are 6- and 9 -feet. He said we are not talking about boats and how they move and operate, and suggested we increase the setback to 20 -feet so boats have room to maneuver or you will create all kinds of problems. Motion for friendly amendment by Commissioner Anderson to increase the setback to 20 feet. Chairman Davis said 6 feet is legal for situations now. He asked why impose a 20 -foot setback when we have managed to survive with the 6 -foot setback without a lot of property disputes. Commissioner Goldetsky said we are talking about a very narrow piece of land, and for most lots the 6 -foot setback would work beautifully, and you don't get a sense of being in a canyon. He said he could understand the 20 -foot requirement for this unusual piece of property, but he can support the 6 -foot setback. Planning Manager Thomson said Lake Minnetonka is an example of a 10 -foot setback requirement. Motion for friendly amendment withdrawn by Commissioner Anderson. Chairman Davis said there are many instances in the city where docks exist without principal structures and this would make those legal and would be in the best interest of the city. He said he believes the setback should be included, as it is good government to have neighbors slightly separated by a setback whether building a fence or accessory building, and setbacks have proven to be useful over the years. Chair Davis said he will be voting in favor of the motion. Roll call vote. 5 Ayes. Commissioner Kobussen recused. MOTION approved. 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chairman Davis, with no objection, to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 P.M.