Loading...
PC Minutes 11-16-04 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 PUBLIC HEARING: LOTUS VIEW ADDITION. SUBDIVISION OF 2.83 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES. THE SITE IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND IS LOCATED AT 745 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD. APPLICANT. BEVERAL C. THOMAS. PLANNING CASE NO. 04-23. Public Present: Name Address Tom & Judy Meier Valerie & David Rossbach Marianne McCord Beverly Thomas Tom Rosenfield 695 Pleasant View Road 670 Pleasant View Road 6440 Fox Path 745 Pleasant View Road 6915 Fox Glove Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item, specifically clarifying the issues of lake access and easements on the site. Sacchet: Now you totally confused me. Aanenson: Let me just shed a little light on that. There's an issue regarding the validity of the survey. The things they were pointing out on the survey that Sharmeen is point out, while they're not parochial to the subdivision of this, they're on the survey and has raised some clouds by somebody so we're just trying to clarify those. Sacchet: Okay. It doesn't affect the issue in front of us. AI-Jaff: No. Aanenson: No, except there's somebody that wants maybe a little bit more clarity on the survey and we'll modify that as deemed necessary. Sacchet: And you're going to try to do that. Alright. AI-Jaff: And there is also a name that needs to be removed. When the survey was done, the site was under two ownerships and now it's under single ownership. So Ijust wanted to point these things out. Staff is recommending approval of this application and we'll be happy to answer any questions you might have. Sacchet: Are there any questions from staff? Questions? Bethany. ¡ t I l I . Tjomhom: Could you go into the garage issue a little bit. AI-Jaff: Certainly. As you can see there are two homes on the site and this is the main house right here. And this is a guest house, so we have a single access point and then a circular driveway. This house does not have a garage. So as you're approaching the site, this is the driveway. 27 . f [ I f ~ Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Sacchet: It's upside down Sharmeen. Thanks. AI-Jaff: Okay. This is the driveway that takes you to this house. It passes right next to it and as it continues, Nann can you zoom in please? Thank you. There is a garage right here that serves the main house. It is attached to the guest house. The lower level of the guest house serves as a garage. And in this case the total garage spaces between those two, there's a total of 9 garage spaces. The two homes are extremely dependent on one another. If we required the applicant to split this property, they would, this house would become non-conforming and would be required to provide a two car garage. I'm sure we can find.. .on this site however, this guest house is going to end up with 9 garage spaces. So again, dependent on one another. It's a legal non- conforming situation. They're not making it any worst and legally they are permitted to maintain the status quo. Sacchet: Thank you. Kurt. Papke: Yeah, I have two questions about the private street. First of all, how long is it? I didn't see that in the documentation anywhere. Sacchet: Matt is looking for it. Saam: Approximately 300 feet. Aanenson: To the existing house? Saam: Yes. Papke: No, to the new one. The new proposed private drive. Saam: Yeah, I'm sorry. Papke: That must be about 250 or so. Somewhere in that range. Saam: No, we're over 300 feet. 340ish. Papke: Okay. So pretty long. Now the existing driveway, the existing private drive is a paver? Are there any requirements or stipulations for matching the materials with the new proposed private drive? Saam: You know there aren't. The requirements are that it be a paved surface, either brick paver, bituminous, concrete, something like that. However, since it is a variance, if you so deem necessary, I think it's in your power, you could add a condition that they match it but it's not required to be matched, no. Papke: That would be a considerably expensive driveway, yes. That's all I have, thank you. Sacchet: Dan? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 Keefe: Just one question in regards to the entrance of the driveway to Pleasant View. If it does need to be moved, does staff see any issues with the placement of that 50 feet to the east? Saam: Well, I can take that Sharmeen. AI-Jaff: Okay. Saam: Then you can add something too but all of staff went out and looked at that. Myself, Sharmeen, Jill Sinclair, the City Forester too in terms of trees and that sort of thing. My main concern from an engineering standpoint was trying to not get it close to the curb to the east and I guess 50 feet, while it is closer, there's still good sight distance there. In a previous version the driveway was coming down some 200 feet closer to the east and then I had more of a concern so. Keefe: What about the grade, because I think the grade is steeper east of there. Saam: It does appear though, if these grades are correct that it will still work. It will still meet the 10 percent grade. Sacchet: Any other questions? To belabor this driveway, alternate way a little more. So we call this a private street. Basically it's a driveway that goes across somebody else's land. Is that a fair interpretation of it? So it has to be a private road because it goes across somebody else's land. AI-Jaff: Actually whenever it's shared by more than one. Sacchet: But only the really bottom part is shared so why do we call it private road from all the way across there? AI-Jaff: Matt, did you want to answer this one? Saam: I guess it's my believe because it is on somebody else's lot. Sacchet: So technically you could say that the private road is just the part that's shared and then from there it's a driveway. Aanenson: Correct. Correct... Sacchet: That would probably be a little more palatable ultimately. Lillehaug: But you do need an easement. Sacchet: Yes, that would have to be a 7. Now in terms of, if we have this stipulation here, if it will not go over the neighbor's land there on the bottom, was there reason to believe that the neighboring neighbor would not want that anymore? Don't they have an easement? Isn't that an established situation? Saam: I'm sorry, you referring to the existing one? 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Sacchet: Yeah, just where it goes over the comer of the other lot. Isn't that an established thing with easements and stuff? Is there a question whether that would still be viable? Saam: I, at least I wasn't informed that the easement was in place. That's why I put in a condition that where if it's not in place, then it does have to be. Sacchet: So we don't know basically. Saam: I do not at this time, unless Sharmeen would. AI-Jaff: There is an easement in place. However, because they were intensifying the use, that's where we questioned whether it would still be viable. Sacchet: It may have to be re-negotiated because it gets intensified. AI-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay, that makes sense. Okay. AI-Jaff: If that wasn't, if they couldn't intensify the use, then they would be able to relocate it. We just wanted to cover all the bases. Sacchet: And then the last aspect about there is a condition number 17 that says if the new drive is access was built, basically if that would not be a shared one, it says the existing driveway off of Pleasant View must be removed. Isn't it going to the other lot too or is it just for this lot touching the other line? AI-Jaff: Well, we're talking about this portion of the driveway. Sacchet: Right. Yep. AI-Jaff: So this portion would be removed. Sacchet: Because it doesn't serve any other purpose. AI-Jaff: No. Sacchet: Okay, that was my question. Thank you. With that, I'd like to invite the applicant, or did you have anything else to add Sharmeen? AI-Jaff: No. Sacchet: No? Thank you. AI-Jaff: We're recommending approval. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 Sacchet: We got that. You're the applicant? You want to come forward. State your name and address and tell us what you want to add to this, and please move the microphone in front of your face please. It moves. It's flexible. Thank you. Beverly Thomas: I'm Beverly Thomas. I live at 745 Pleasant View. I purchased the subject property in early July and moved into the big house. It's, I'm sure you're all aware, very historical. It was built in 1869 and I've always been kind of a civil war buff and I fell in love with the house and I bought it with a love for the house. I wanted to keep it intact. I think other people looked at it to develop it. Put maybe 4 lots on the side. Tear down the house. Put 20 lots on the property. I intend to live there and actually my daughter and son-in-law live next door, so I get the pleasure of seeing my grandson every day. So it's the best of both worlds. I have my private home. They have their private home but I get to babysit and back and forth, and I think always families will need that, their privacy but bonding with someone that you love. I did buy it with the intent of just taking that east portion that's all grass and putting another home that's in sync with the neighborhood and keeps the integrity ofthe property, so I wouldn't put up a glass house. You know I mean I would want something that would be similar. And I am from this area. I grew up in the area. I knew people in the area from a long time ago. I knew the Cunningham's. I went to high school with one of the daughters. I've loved this area and it's my dream come true. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Any questions for the applicant? No? Thank you. Now this is a public hearing. If anybody want to come up and address this item, this is your chance to do so now. Please state your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say. Jack Fess: My name is Jack Fess. I live at 6280 Ridge Road on Christmas Lake. I'm a neighbor here. The only thing I want to say. Sacchet: Which side of it? Do you want to point out which side of it you are. On the drawing maybe. Jack Fess: There's a private road that comes right off of Pleasant View right next to Fox Chase and I represent my neighbors. There's 12 pieces of property up in a line on Ridge Road, a private road there and then we go into Shorewood. The only thing that I would like to say here tonight, and that's the reason I'm here. I have no conflict with the building on the property, is that we've got an awful lot of construction this summer off of Pleasant View Road. Tremendous amount. There's two big homes down off of Lotus Lake. We've got a remodeling job going on at the turn across from the Cunningham's that she mentioned. It's about finished now. We have a brand new house going on across from Dr. Swatski's, up at the top of the hill. And for the last 2 days we get the power company down, there were 4 or 5 vehicles trimming a deal. We've been on, just to give you a little history here. We've been at the council meeting with a problem of speeding on that road 3 years ago that was pretty bad. We stormed up there. Got the job done but as everything else, it lasted 4 months and that was the end of the police protection. As far as the speeding. This is all going to come back up again this year, I can guarantee you. Because none of these construction trucks all summer long has put any type of signs out there. For instance if you're going to have 5 or 10 vehicles parked on Pleasant View Road and you don't even have a marker with all the turns and everything. We've got school buses in the morning, so 31 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 what I'm here to ask my neighbor here, there's plenty of room while they're developing, it's two homes correct? Or one. Sacchet: It's one home. Jack Fess: Oh just one. Okay. You're going to subdivide into two lots though correct? Just one? Sacchet: Well one she keeps for herself. Jack Fess: Oh okay. I thought there was, I think the neighbors think two homes are going in. Sacchet: One home. Jack Fess: Only one. Well I would ask is, if you'll make the contractor pull those vehicles off the road, because we're going to have a terrible accident there. Do any of your folks travel Pleasant View and know what I'm talking about? Sacchet: Oh yeah, and I think that's a common requirement to have them off the road. Jack Fess: If they would do nothing else but put slow signs down there or construction, you know in front of the cars, like they did today the power company, because last week at that other house that's being built up there across from Dr. Swatski's, you would not believe the problems we had there with the concrete trucks. I mean these guys don't even put signs out on the turn. Sacchet: Okay, good point. Thank you very much sir. Anybody else wants to address this item? If you state your name and address please. Tom Meier: Good evening. Yes, I'm Tom Meier and I'm at 695 Pleasant View and I'm on the south side of the property. One of my concerns, originally I've been involved with the discussion of this development from early on, is the, I was told that those two lots were going to be split. Those two homes, and these are rather large homes and my concern is that if somebody moves out of the guest house, what happens to the guest house? It's my understanding it can't be rented to outsiders. It can be occupied by family so that's my first question. The other issue I have is, on the lot. Now I am Parcel A and Parcel B is this boat house, which is a beach house. It's a very small structure and this whole, these 9 that you're seeing here, is also shown on the development plan. And it's not what actually exists there. This cul-de-sac as you just heard was vacated about 3 years ago. This portion of it is gone. The road was supposed to originally travel this Parcel D into that cul-de-sac. But there's a 30 foot rise from the existing drive to that line right here. Property line, so to retain that much hill back when they developed this back in the 50's or 60's, would have been probably too much for them. So they ended up running the road, and I hope you can all see where the road runs. Sacchet: So it's further to the south, is that what you're saying? Tom Meier: Yeah, it's much further south. It's about 80 feet further south. And this beach house is actually an integral part ofthe estate. It's used heavily and it's for access to the lake, 32 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 which is fine. I don't have a problem with that but I did have a concern that whoever buys this property doesn't get use of this beach house and the lake. Sacchet: And I think we already addressed that actually. Tom Meier: Yeah, that was my concern to Sharmeen. The third thing that I wanted to bring up is the elevation at the house is 952. My driveway, in front of my garage, in front of my house, is 920. There's a 32 foot drop from their main house to my house. There's about 20,000 square feet of hill draining into my house that I have recently, last year I put extensive landscaping in my yard and put a drain in front of my garage to take care of water. It wasn't a problem but then, since '88 and I lived in the property that was right behind it in Fox Path since '89 so I've been in the area 15 years. But when I bought it in '98 it wasn't a problem. We were coming out of a drought or we were in a drought, so it's only been in the last couple years we've had these torrential rains and when they come in, I get all this water. Not just directed to my property but into my house. It goes into my garage and I have a basement under my garage and it goes into my basement and I've had some extensive losses that are not insurable because it's outside water coming in. Okay, you can't get insurance for that. So I put in an expensive drain in but what happens when these rains hit, it brings the sand from the gravel down the driveway and it clogs my drain and I get flooded anyway. So what I've asked, I've had the city out. Matt came out and Lori and we're trying to figure out how to, I think it's a simple solution but I need the water diverted away from my house. And I think it can be done simply by diverting it with grading into the parking area for this beach house would be one solution. Matt also suggested a swale next to my garage but after we talked about it, that's where I have to put my driveway. Our driveway is 300 feet long. All the snow I have goes into a little section of land next to my garage, so I'm afraid that swale will not be operating during the winter months into the spring. Sacchet: But if I may clarify. The current proposal should actually not impact the drainage to the south. Aanenson: Correct. This is a side issue that we are working with this one on. This subdivision wouldn't affect the drainage patterns. The new house is on the other side draining towards Pleasant View so this is a pre-existing condition. As he indicated Matt and Lori have been out. We're working on that but it's really not parochial to the subdivision here tonight. Sacchet: It does get impacted by this, yeah. Tom Meier: If I may, the reason I bring it up is because the parcel of land that's being affected is this parcel and what's been coming across and developing the driveway. To develop this lot and I don't have a problem with this lot. This is fine, but you know, if we're going to develop part of the lot, why can't we look at the whole parcel. That's my concern. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, I hear you. Tom Meier: This is a problem that you know if they're draining the water to my lot, I can deal with that but they're draining it to my house and I brought it up. I have temporarily put a curb in across that driveway to divert it into this parking area and it goes into my garden and then down the hill. These are very steep hills that are in this whole area. This whole area is a huge hill. So what's going to happen when the plows come in in the winter, that's just a little bit of asphalt 33 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 that's going to pop it right out of there. So it's just a temporary fix but I need some permanent help there. Sacchet: Yeah, I would think that's an unrelated item that, I understand. If they're already doing something, why don't they take care of that too but we can't from our end lump it in with this application. Because I mean we're asked to look at this particular request with that new lot. You understand what I'm saying? Tom Meier: Yeah okay, well I do but I'm saying if you're going to develop part of this lot on the road, it seems to me you ought to look at the whole lot. If you're going to develop part of it, why don't we look at the whole lot. I think it's the opportunity. If we miss this opportunity, then I'm forever stuck with water and I don't see how I can do anything about, we share that driveway but I don't share their parking. That's there so I need them to actually take care of the issue and it's their water coming into my lot so it's a pretty substantial issue. Sacchet: Understood. Thank you sir. Marianne McCord: Hi. I'm Marianne McCord and I live on 6440 Fox Path. I am this part. This little bit of lake that I have just right there. Sacchet: Okay. Marianne McCord: The reason why I'm here today is because I am concerned about the dock. Right now. Sacchet: Which dock specifically? Marianne McCord: The dock that they're going to be using. Especially if there's two families where before there was always a family and then a grandma and so she wasn't, so the family would come down. Come in here and use it. They have a real dilapidated, rickety old dock right now so what are they going to do now that they have actually two families living there? ... but they're going to have definitely you know increase there. This particular lot. . . brand spanking new dock. Sacchet: That's him, yeah. Marianne McCord: Yeah, which took up a lot of the area that I'm looking out on and most of my neighbors are looking out on, and it has a cover and all that stuff. I'm concerned about, there really isn't a whole lot of room here and maybe you can say that this lot is not going to have, this house. Sacchet: The new lot. I think that's already a given actually. Marianne McCord: I know but it's... Sacchet: You want to make sure. You want to make sure, alright. Aanenson: Can I just clarify again. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Marianne McCord: Can I just? Aanenson: Sure, go ahead. Sacchet: Yeah, finish your point. That's fine. Marianne McCord: What I would like to see is maybe a community dock that all these houses, we all have one dock that wouldn't take up all of our area that we're using. More size, and there's grants, state grants for the department, and they go ahead and I would like to see it maybe even be an example to the rest of the community how we can develop our lakes and how we can make it accessible to everybody in there. Sacchet: Excellent point. Marianne McCord: Last thing, and I'm so glad he brought it up because he lives on Ridge Road, which is right here and he said just 12 houses. Well what happens is, Fox Path comes out here. We have 4 buses that these little kids line up like little ducks in a row and I don't know why but they'll have traffic sometimes blocked from here to here. The cars are coming over here, and I appreciate that you said that the city takes care of that, but I personally have sat down with a policeman saying, you're going to have to move that. You know this is ridiculous. How many cars they have. One time we came here and they had huge dump trucks. Construction dump things. They were parked on Pleasant View. Sacchet: Yeah, there's not much room there. Marianne McCord: There isn't any room. There's 2, you know I don't even know how you can have parking on that side but some people park out there, but they just leave their trucks there. And that is an issue that I think that we need to address on Pleasant View because you can say that we have ordinances. You can say that we aren't being affected but we have tons of building going on and it's ridiculous that we haven't somehow said okay, you can't put 15 trucks here while you're developing. Put them in a parking lot. Bus those people in. Sacchet: Good point. Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Anybody else wants to address this item? This is your chance. I see somebody rocking. No. Didn't stand up so with that. Aanenson: Can I just address the beachlot and the dock issue. Sacchet: Yes, you want to touch on that. Aanenson: Again, staff indicated that the additional lot would not have beach access rights. Just to be clear. Sacchet: But do we have a condition for that at this point? Aanenson: No. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Sacchet: We can add one, right? Aanenson: No, it has no access point and that's how it's regulated. It has to go with the property in place. We do allow, we have done subdivisions with a common dock. We do also allow where maybe there's 13 lots and we have a beachlot association. We've done, you've seen subdivisions to that affect. We also do allow for a common dock. If you look at the topography on this, there's kind of an open area as you go through that marsh and so that's what happened. You've got long docks. It's shallow at that end and they're going out, trying to get to that open water area there to resolve that. If there is a code enforcement, we try to get out every summer and inspecting docks. There's supposed to be, there's regulations on who can be docking at those, as far as licensed boats. But as far as someone walking down and swimming, if you give permission for someone to swim on your dock, we don't enforce that. The lakes are open for someone to go down. If you give permission for somebody to be on your dock. Sacchet: Now I mean, this is an existing neighborhood with some existing docks. This basically would be up to the neighbors to organize that. It's not something we can come in after the fact and mandate so. Marianne McCord: Actually that is a neighborhood. . . Sacchet: Right. Marianne McCord: .. . right here has their common docks. None of these are common docks. Sacchet: That's what I mean. Aanenson: That's what he's saying. Sacchet: It would be basically up to these landowners to get together and agree to have a combined convenience. Aanenson: And we have done that. Sacchet: Alright. So I'm closing, last chance. Does anybody want to speak up to this? I close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for comments. Discussion. Is there any comments, discussion? Anything that needs to be said there. Slagle: I just have two things. One is, I certainly support the applicant's desire to go into the additional lot with the new home. I would ask, and I think we did this with the Klingelhutz on Galpin. Requesting construction traffic parking on their property. Sacchet: On the construction site. Not on the road. Slagle: So I would ask the applicant be open to allowing the trucks on her 300 foot driveway. Probably would work. And then last. Sacchet: Put them in the garages. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 Slagle: Yeah, the garages. There you go. And then echoing this gentleman's comment on the traffic. We've had this discussion before. To the east. And I mean simply put to the staff, and you've heard this but the traffic is terrible on Pleasant View. And I mean I would love to see us get a little creative and literally have signage out there. If we have to put cones out there, I don't care. I drive that all the time and I remember that lady to the east complaining that people go 40- 50 miles an hour. We did the traffic study or some sort of traffic study and we didn't show that. We showed 35 miles an hour, whatever it was, and that's not the case. People go fast on that road. I'm not saying you're disagreeing with me Matt but the results of that study were different than my opinion and so I would just ask with this application we really try something different. Sacchet: Thanks Rick. Any other comments? Lillehaug: I have a couple quick ones. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: I support the application, and just to comment on the traffic. It's not our place to really fix the traffic problem out there right now. It's not really part of this submittal. I mean it's really, when Chairman Sacchet indicated that it's a city problem, he meant it's a staff problem and not a Planning Commission problem so I'd like the people in the audience to work with staff and fix that and if it's not fixed, address it with the City Council and not the Planning Commission. We're not the sounding chair to address that with. I wish we could but it's not us. And that's really all I have thank you. Sacchet: Good point Steve. Tjornhom: I support the application also. I see no problem with it. Sacchet: A couple of really quick questions for staff. We certainly can request that construction traffic be on site. We've done that before. What happens if there's two family situation, if they're not occupied by the same... Aanenson: The city does have a licensing requirement. Sacchet: So it couldn't be rented without a renting license basically. Aanenson: Right, and it would have to pass inspection for all that sort of thing. There are other circumstances where we have accessory structures with rental. Sacchet: Now with this not being a lakeshore lot, it seems non sensical to put in a condition that says they don't have lakeshore access because they are not bordering a lake so they don't have it, right? Aanenson: That's correct. Sacchet: So that's implied. I mean we don't need to spell this out because it's, anybody can see it. That looks at that lot and it doesn't border against on the lake so it does not have riparian rights. I think that's the word, right? Okay. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 Lillehaug: Point of clarification on that. That doesn't preclude the owner from like Kate indicated, from giving permission for her guests. Neighbors. Aanenson: To walk down and swim. Something like that, right. Lillehaug: To walk down there and swim. Aanenson: Right, but they could not moor a boat there. That's the requirement. There are regulations of who can moor a boat on a dock. Lillehaug: So when the residents are asking, you know restrict them from using the beach, we can't do that. Aanenson: No, if you give someone permission to go on your property to use the dock. Sacchet: That's a personal thing. You can have your friends go use the dock. Now then there was the other issue the gentleman brought up with the drainage issue. Which we sort of say it's not related. Can you give. Aanenson: We are working on that as a separate issue, not related to this subdivision. But we are working on that issue. Sacchet: So it's being worked on? Aanenson: Correct. I guess our point is, the draining, the house was built over 100 years ago. Existing drainage... Sacchet: Right, it's been going like that for over 100 years. Aanenson: Correct, and the new house is draining a different way. Back onto Pleasant View so we are working on that as a separate issue so it is on our agenda. Sacchet: Okay. Because it seems to be really separate in terms of that it is, if anything it probably gets better a little bit with the drainage rather than worst to the south with the new development. That needs to be addressed as a separate issue. Okay. That's all the questions I have. And I do think it's a reasonable request and I'm willing to take a motion. Tom Meier: Mr. Chairman, may I make a point of clarification? Sacchet: We, is it really pertinent to what we're doing here? Tom Meier: Yeah, it's just back to the boat house. The original.. . and there's no fishing. It's very shallow by the end of the dock. About 6 inches of water. Sacchet: So it's really not that big an issue then. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 Tom Meier: ... but does that, can they use the boat house, give people permission to use the beach house I should say. Sacchet: Well anybody can give anybody permission to visit their home. I mean that's within the rights of ownership I would say, would you agree Kate? Aanenson: That's correct. Lillehaug: Just not permanent mooring and. Aanenson: That's correct. That's why, if they go sit at the end of the dock and have a cup of coffee, there's no. Keefe: It's not a habitable building, I mean. . . Tom Meier: .. . kitchen or heated but I'm concerned about maybe the new neighbor in the new house having the rights to use that beach house. Sacchet: Well, the new house does not have lake access rights period. However, somebody, well it does have lake access rights like yourself. I mean if your children or your brothers and sisters come by, you tell them well this is my dock. You can go down there and you can have a picnic. You know, but that's the level of it. Tom Meier: Yeah, I'm just giving neighbors in the neighborhood rights to use that beach house would be my concern. Sacchet: It's not possible to transfer riparian rights. Riparian rights go with the lot that borders the lake. They cannot be assigned in another way, is that correct Kate? Aanenson: .. . someone' s using that house in a way that's not the applicant, we have no regulation over that. Tjornhom: Can I ask? Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Bethany. Tjornhom: When you put up the spot up for sale, are you going to advertise that it has lake access at all? Beverly Thomas: No. It doesn't have lake access. It's not even heated. The City of Chanhassen is holding the meter. It doesn't have water. It's shut down in the winter and it has no lake access. Aanenson: She's talking about the boat house now. Tjornhom: Well no, I'm talking about your lot. Once it's. Beverly Thomas: The lot that's advertised. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 Tjornhom: It's not at all in any language doesn't say lake access. Beverly Thomas: No. Sacchet: Well the only way, Bethany if I can interrupt. The only way it could be construed as having lake access if that lot to the south goes with it. Tjomhom: Right, but I think the neighbors were concerned that it would become like a side perk you know, buy this lot and come share my lake access and that's what I was asking if that was all implicated or suggested in this language for your lot being for sale. Sacchet: Okay. Are we little clear on that one? Clear enough to make a motion. Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case #04-23 for Lotus View Addition for 2 lots and a variance to allow private street as shown on the plans received October 15, 2004, subject to the following conditions 1 through 19. Sacchet: Okay. Do we have a second? Tjornhom: Second. Sacchet: Do we have any friendly amendments? Papke: Yes, I have a friendly amendment. Condition number 20. That all construction parking will be required to be off road. Lillehaug: That is acceptable. Sacchet: Okay. Slagle: I have one additional amendment and that would be to ask that on the east and west side, footage to be determined by staff but there would be signage stating construction ahead or something to that effect. Some caution. Sacchet: Okay. Is that acceptable? Slagle: Let's try something new. Lillehaug: It's not proper use of traffic control though really. Aanenson: That's what we would say too. Just so you know, it is an ongoing problem... Sacchet: Maybe have staff work with. Saam: Yeah, the City Engineer is working with Jim Olson, the staff sergeant assigned to the city on Pleasant View. No parking, that whole issue so we're well aware of it. We are working on it. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Lillehaug: Okay, I don't accept that condition. Slagle: Fair enough. Sacchet: Alright. So we have a motion. We have a friendly amendment. Lillehaug moved, Tjomhom seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case #04-23 for Lotus View Addition for 2 lots and a variance to allow a private street as shown on the plans dated received October 15, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. Environmental Resources Specialist conditions: a. Tree preservation fence shall be installed prior to grading at the perimeter of the grading limits. b. Any trees not shown for removal that are lost due to construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches. 2. Submit a 30 foot wide private cross access easement against all lots and the adjacent property at time of final plat recording. 3. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA and Watershed District. 4. Submit drainage calculations and drainage map for staff review and approval at time of final plat. 5. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. 6. Add silt fence along the perimeter of the grading limit. 7. Add to the plan the following note all sanitary services must be 6-in PVC-SDR26 and water services I-in copper. 8. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the city with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 9. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new lots. The 2004 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,814 for watermain. 10. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Numbers: 5200, 5203, 5204, 5300, and 5301. 11. The private street must be built to a 7 ton design and 10% maximum grade. The developer will be required to submit inspection reports certifying this. 12. On the plan: a. Revise the incorrect bar scale. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show a minimum 75 foot rock construction entrance. d. Add 5-foot side lot line easements. e. Show the 30 foot private driveway easement. f. Show all proposed grading contours. g. Label the proposed house pad as a walkout or WOo h. The gravel drive located south of the property is partially paved and should be shown as such. 13. The applicant shall submit an erosion and sediment control plan for the proposed subdivision. The plan should include the location of silt fencing and rock entrance/exit access pad. Erosion and sediment controls should meet the requirements as stated in the City of Chanhassen Erosion and Sediment Control BMP Handbook. 14. All disturbed areas shall be mulched and seeded or sodded according to the following table: Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated Type of Slope when area is not actively being worked.) Steeper than 3: 1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10: 1 21 Days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 15. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 3.03 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $3,115.00; the water quantity fees are $7,711.00. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $10,826.00. 16. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat. 17. If a new driveway access was built, the existing driveway to the site off of Pleasant View Road must be removed. 18. Building Official conditions: a. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. C. House numbers must be posted at the street and on the homes if a private drive is utilized. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 19. Access to all three lots shall be limited to the private street. Direct access is prohibited off of Pleasant View Road. 20. That all construction parking will be required to be off road. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE FOR THE INTENSIFICATION OF A LEGAL NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE BY BUILDING A CANOPY WITH FOOTINGS WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) LOCATED AT 222 WEST 78TH STREET. THOMAS WILDER. PLANNING CASE NO. 04-39. Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Lillehaug: I have a couple. Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: You said denial right? Because this says approval. So you're recommending denial. Sacchet: It says both Steve. Aanenson: It says both. We have conditions for both. Lillehaug: On the front page it says denial I thought, or approval. Anyways, it's denial. Tjornhom: You're right, it does say that. Sacchet: Okay. Lillehaug: Has staff spoken with the city attorney on the liability the City takes with having a residential structure on it's city right-of-way? Typically I guess I've seen where, you know with personal property on city right-of-way, the city requires an agreement indemnifying them of any liability, etc on this. So what is our attorney saying? Saam: Typically we handle cases like this, or if residents have structures in easements, right-of- way, with encroachment agreements. Basically, then that gets recorded with the property so then it's just laid out that while the city's allowing you to encroach into our right-of-way easement, what have you, we as the city are not responsible for maintenance, that sort of thing. So the encroachment agreement is the short answer. That's our solution. Lillehaug: Is that a typical agreement though on an actual residential structure? I mean I've seen them for walls, retaining walls, fences but on an actual residential structure out in the right- of-way? 43