Loading...
PC-05-03-11 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 3 MAY 2011 8:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Hutchins called the meeting to order at 7:55 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Acting Chair Hutchins, Commissioners Davis, Hasek, Charbonnet, Garelick; Planning Director Nielsen; City Administrator Heck; Council Liaison Siakel Absent: Chair Geng, Commissioner Arnst APPROVAL OF AGENDA Hasek moved, Davis seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Agenda of May 3, 2011 as presented. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Hasek moved, Davis seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5, 2011 as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 1. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. AMENDMENT TO REDUCE AGE RESTRICTION IN SHOREWOOD POND P.U.D. Applicant: Shorewood Pond Homeowner’s Association Location: State Highway 7 and Eureka Road Planning Director Nielsen indicated that certain notification requirements had not been met for tonight’s meeting, and suggested opening the public hearing tonight and continuing it to the next meeting on May 17, 2011. He noted that notification requirements have been sent to properties within 500 feet of the subject property for the May 17 meeting. As a party of interest, Commissioner Garelick indicated he would recuse himself from discussion. Hutchins opened the public testimony portion of the public hearing at 8:02 P.M. Speaking as a Shorewood resident, Garelick stated that a survey of the residents in the Shorewood Pond development had been conducted, and two out of 60 people objected to lowering the age restriction in the development to age 55. The consensus of those in favor of lowering the age is that it would help to increase the value of the properties and bring younger seniors into the community. Davis moved, Hasek seconded to continue the Public Hearing for the C.U.P. Amendment to Reduce the Age Restriction in Shorewood Pond P.U.D to the May 17, 2011, Planning Commission Meeting at 7:00 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 May 2011 Page 2 of 4 2. DISCUSS DOCK VS. DECK Director Nielsen indicated that due to a neighborhood complaint, Mr. Bill Mason was sent a zoning violation notice for too many docks at his property at 27680 Island View Road. Mr. Mason appealed the zoning violation notice to the City Council, stating that one of the three structures in question was not a dock, but a deck. If the city considers it a deck, Mr. Mason would like the city to consider the possibility of allowing certain properties to have more than one dock. The current ordinance allows for one dock per property. It was suggested that Mr. Mason combine his two docks into one, but he doesn’t believe there is room to do that. The City Council directed Mr. Mason’s appeal to the Planning Commission. Nielsen indicated the Planning Commission is to look at the definition of a dock vs. deck. Nielsen indicated that Mr. Mason is here this evening. Mr. Mason distributed a copy of a property survey. He stated that when he bought the property in 1994, the area in black on the survey was a retaining wall made of 10’ x 10’ treated timbers. He noted the broken line on the survey is a retaining wall under the structure. There are underpinnings under the structure to secure it, and the rest of the retaining wall is secured by cement weights. He indicated that his neighbor thought the structure had been made in the 1960s. The Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) has photos of the structure going back to the 1970s. He stated a dock should have dock posts, and this structure does not have posts. It’s low to the water, and he doesn't park his boat there. Mr. Mason indicated he has over 600 ft of lakeshore, and he would like the City to consider an application process to allow for more than one dock. He stated the deck is not desirable to use as a dock, as it is not accessible. He previously had contacted Fire Chief Scott Gerber to offer the use of his dock for the fire rescue boat, but that is on hold until this issue is resolved, as he may need to use part of that dock to reconfigure his boat houses. He noted the deck serves as a retaining wall for erosion control. He stated that a redwood board broke thru so he put down a mat, filled it with rock for more erosion control underneath the structure, and put new deck boards on it. Commissioner Davis asked if the deck has a railing. She asked what the lines were along the front. Mr. Mason indicated there are no railings and that there are posts along back holding it to the shoreline. He installed five vertical posts a foot back from the edge of the dock for aesthetics. In response to a question by Davis, Mr. Mason indicated the water is 12’ deep where it is dredged in the center. Commissioner Hasek asked if the Commission is charged with discussing the definition of a deck and dock, and based on that, to determine how many docks are on the property. Nielsen indicated the issue is to determine if any changes need to be made to ordinance to make the definitions more clear, and if the city should allow properties to have more than one dock. In response to a question from Hasek, Nielsen stated the LMCD has accepted this structure based on photos from the 1970s, and the City has also grandfathered in this structure based on the photos. The City Code that limits one dock per property is a mid-1980s code. Hasek read the definition of deck and dock. He indicated he does not see anything confusing about the definitions; they are very clear to him. He stated that by definition, Mr. Mason’s structure is a dock. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 May 2011 Page 3 of 4 In response to a question about the rubber banding around the structure, Mr. Mason indicated that when fishermen come in that area, they run their boats into the deck, so he put rubber banding across the structure to protect it. He indicated the size of the structure is exactly the same as it had previously been. In response to a question by Councilmember Siakel, Mr. Mason noted that on the backside, if you pull the boards off, there are posts going down that are holding up that section. There are posts that hold down the front of the deck. In response to a question from Siakel, Nielsen clarified that the City Code allows for one dock for each property, and LMCD allows one dock for every 50' of shoreline. The more restrictive code applies. Hasek commented that the materials indicated there are more of these structures, and wondered if any were located in Shorewood. No further information was available on the location of similar structures. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, that the definition of a deck and a dock are clear and given that definition, two docks exist on the property at 27680 Island View Road. Motion carried 5/0. Hasek indicated that if the City Council would like the Planning Commission to take a closer look at what exists around the lake, they should request the Commission do this. Nielsen stated that Mr. Mason would need to make an application for a zoning text amendment if he wants to pursue changing the definitions of deck and dock. Mr. Mason was concerned about the June 1 deadline to resolve this issue; it was noted that the City Council would need to consider changing the June 1 deadline. He indicated he would like to make application for more than one dock, noting it may be time for the City of Shorewood to consider changing its ordinance, based on the current times in which families have more than one boat and other watercraft such as jet boats. This issue will be brought to the May 23, 2011, City Council meeting. Hutchins thanked Mr. Mason for attending the meeting this evening. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR None. 4. OLD BUSINESS None. 5. NEW BUSINESS None. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 3 May 2011 Page 4 of 4 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Nielsen indicated the May 17 meeting agenda will include the continuation of the Shorewood Pond public hearing, a resolution relating to the Green Steps Cities Program, the deer feeding item and discussion of a survey question on deer feeding, and Smithtown Crossing follow-up discussion. 7. REPORTS Liaison to Council  Hasek reported on items considered and actions taken at the City Council meeting of April 25, as detailed in the minutes of that meeting. SLUC  No report. Trail Committee  Nielsen provided the Trail Committee report after the Approval of the Minutes. He reported that the Trail Committee met on May 2 and they identified four areas of priority, the top priority being the link of County Road 19 connecting to the LRT. He indicated the meeting went very well. They will meet next month in June. He stated there is grant money available in 2014 for the trail overpass. He noted that Three Rivers Park District does not have design money available this year, but will begin discussions with neighboring communities in 2012. In response to Garelick’s question, Nielsen indicated that the Trial Committee is charged with reviewing the trail plan that is outlined in the comprehensive plan, and to identify updates to the trail plan, to include prioritizing the trails. Council would then consider the Trail Committee’s recommendations for inclusion in the CIP. The Trail Committee is primarily responsible for local trails, but will have input on the County Road 19 trail. Commissioner Hasek indicated the goal is to make it a plan, and not just a concept. 8. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Hasek seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of May 3 at 8:57 p.m. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Jean Panchyshyn, Recorder