Letter from Tom & Judy Meier 7-27-05
JUL. 27. 2005 3: 49PM
BOISE
NO. 364
P. 3
Tom & Judy Meier
695 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
July 27. 2005
Chanhas8en Planning Commission
City of Chanhassen
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: August 2) 2005 public hearing for Wetland Alteration Permit to construct
walkway and dock on property located at 6440 Fox Path.
Dear Sir or Madame,
As the adjacent owner of 695 Pleasant View Road I would like to object to the proposed
Alteration Permit.
Having lived for nine years ourselves at 6410 Fox Path, Lot 6, from 1990 to 1999 it was
clear in our subdivision plat that only lots 10 thro 19 has any access to Lotus Lake.
While lots 2 - 9 had lake views we were not allowed to directly access the lake.
Now we live directly east of Lot 9 at 695 Pleasant View Road. If you did grant them an
easement to cross the Conservation Easement (which restricts the placement and erection
of buildings, structures, docks and walkways), they still cannot:
1. Reach open water in a straight line direction while maintaining the city code
dock setback requirements.
2. Other neighbors would be adversely affected. They are going directly across
any future access for 6430 Fox Path.
3. Their proposed location is within 8 feet of our dock not 20' as indicated.
They do not show our dock correctly on their survey.
4. They cannot reach our channel without dredging the lake due to 2-4 inches of
water depth in the entire area where they are proposing their dock. This area is
often a dry bed if we do not receive continuous rains.
5. The length of their walkway and dock is estimated to be at least 440 feet long
to no open water. To reach open water is an additional 350 feet at a severe
angle to their proposed dock, not a straight line as the code is written.
6. Dredging cost a minimum of $50~OOO plus a DNR pennit which is very hard
to acquire. I just went through this cost analysis recently.
JUL. 27. 2005 3: 50PM
BOISE
NO. 365
P. 1
.. ~
7. Our channel maintenance costs, (weed spraying) would have to be shared and
we are not interested in any agreements or partnerships.
8. The Conservation Easement supersedes any Riparian Rights.
9. There is a family of deer immediately to the south of their proposed dock
which would adversely affect them. The deer have lived there at least since
1989. Many giant snapping turtles additionally live in their proposed path. It
is also home to the Egret~ Heron~ Ducks and many species of birds. It is also a
spawning bed in the spring for the pickerel and carp.
Since your staffhas also recommended the Planning Commission deny the Wetland
Alteration Permit~ I urge you to do the same. I would also invite you to see first-hand
what the situation looks like by inviting you to our property. Peel free to stop by and
walk. out on our dock.
Sincerely~
, IPu.;
Tom Meier
Tom & Judy Meier
695 Pleasant View Road
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
July 27,2005
AUG 1 2005
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
Chanhassen Planning Commission
City of Chroiliassen
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
RE: August 2,2005 public hearing for Wetland Alteration Permit to construct
walkway and dock on property located at 6440 Fox Path.
Dear Sir or Madame,
As the adjacent owner of 695 Pleasant View Road I would like to object to the proposed
Alteration Permit.
Having lived for nine years ourselves at 6410 Fox Path, Lot 6, from 1990 to 1999 it was
clear in our subdivision plat that only lots 10 thru 19 has any access to Lotus Lake.
While lots 2 - 9 had lake views we were not allowed to directly access the lake.
Now we live directly east of Lot 9 at 695 Pleasant View Road. If you did grant them an
easement to cross the Conservation Easement (which restricts the placement and erection
of buildings, structures, docks and walkways), they still cannot:
1. Reach open water in a straight line direction while maintaining the city code
dock setback requirements.
2. Other neighbors would be adversely affected. They are going directly across
any future access for 6430 Fox Path.
3. Their proposed location is within 8 feet of our dock not 20' as indicated.
They do not show our dock correctly on their survey.
4. They cannot reach our channel without dredging the lake due to 2-4 inches of
water depth in the entire area where they are proposing their dock. This area is
often a dry bed if we do not receive continuous rains.
5. The length of their walkway and dock is estimated to be at least 440 feet long
to no open water. To reach open water is an additional 350 feet at a severe
angle to their proposed dock, not a straight line as the code is written.
6. Dredging cost a minimum of $50,000 plus a DNR permit which is very hard
to acquire. I just went through this cost analysis recently.
7. Our channel maintenance costs, (weed spraying) would have to be shared and
we are not interested in any agreements or partnerships.
8. The Conservation Easement supersedes any Riparian Rights.
9. There is a family of deer immediately to the south oftheir proposed dock
which would adversely affect them. The deer have lived there at least since
1989. Many giant snapping turtles additionally live in their proposed path. It
is also home to the Egret, Heron, Ducks and many species of birds. It is also a
spawning bed in the spring for the pickerel and carp.
Since your staffhas also recommended the Planning Commission deny the Wetland
Alteration Permit, I urge you to do the same. I would also invite you to see first-hand
what the situation looks like by inviting you to our property. Feel free to stop by and
walk out on our dock.
~~