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