Loading...
PC Minutes 6-21-05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 21, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Deborah Zorn, Kurt Papke, Mark Undestad, Debbie Larson, Dan Keefe and Jerry McDonald STAFF PRESENT: Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director; and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Jim Broughton Janet Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 6927 Highover Court North 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SUBSTANDARD DRIVEWAY TO BE UTILIZED AS A PRIVATE STREET TO SERVE MORE THAN ONE LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6281 TETON LANE. JERRY STORY. APPLICANT. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-19. Public Present: Name Address Jerry and Karon Story Cynthia Gallo Naomi Carlson Gary & Karen Dohse John & Sue Kuntz Peter Koro1chuk 12137 88th Place North 16799 Terrey Pine Drive, Eden Prairie 5055 Cathcart Drive, Excelsior 6251 Teton Lane, Excelsior 6441 Bretton Avenue 6330 Teton Lane, Excelsior Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Do we have questions from staff? Kurt, you have something? Papke: Yeah Sharmeen. I apologize for not asking this question earlier so that you could do a little background research, so you'll have to perhaps answer from memory. But one of the standard questions when we have variances like this is precedent. Okay. Do we have other examples in the city, particularly something close to the site where we have granted a similar type of variance? Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 2005 AI-Jaff: No. Papke: So never in the history of the city have we ever granted such a thing? AI-Jaff: Every time we have granted a variance for a private street, we have demonstrated that it cannot be served by a public street. Or there are other environmental features such as wetland in addition to the public street. Environmental features that are being saved. Sacchet: Thank you. Keefe: Just a couple questions. One, I think we asked this before but there's no way to get an access off Powers for this. AI-Jaff: Engineering staff reviewed this request. There are extremely steep grades as well as we're always trying to limit number of access points off of Powers Boulevard and City Engineer Paul Oehme is here, and Paul if you want to add. Sacchet: But it's a county road, isn't it? Powers? Oehme: Yeah, thank you Chairman. Members of the commission. Part of the whole idea is that a county road in that jurisdiction but in our estimation there is several access points on Powers Boulevard in close proximity to this site, both public and private driveways. Right now the traffic volumes are a little over 10,000 counts per day in this area and we try to limit access on these type of collector roadways as much as we can. So we're just recommending that an access not be granted off Powers Boulevard. Sacchet: Thank you Paul. Keefe: And one other question. This goes back, and I don't know if you can answer this at all. You know the 14 foot easement that comes off of Teton Lane, when this property was purchased, was there a consultation with the city that would have said well you know here's the plan. What we want to do with this property and we're going after an easement from the adjacent property and if we're going to develop 4, we're planning on developing 4 or 5 lots here, is a 14 foot road adequate? Can you speak to any of the history in regards to any of that. AI-Jaff: The earliest records I was able to locate were from 1991, which is probably about the time when this property was purchased. Keefe: Alright. And there was nothing that you can. Al-Jaff: I wasn't able to find anything dealing with the subdivision. There has been, as to how it was going to layout. It was staff that had looked at the different alternatives and the access was an issue. At some later point in the file I was able to find a 2 lot request. But really that's. Keefe: But not a 4 or 5 lot subdivision... 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 2005 AI-Jaff: Not off of the 14 foot, no. The 4 lots was a concept that staff looked at. Also at some, probably about a year ago a developer was looking at this site. He actually did purchase it and was working on an extension of this cul-de-sac and there was a plan showing the Story property and it did include 4 parcels but it was going to be served via a public street. Keefe: Yeah, Ijust wanted to make sure that we you know haven't sort of represented something that, but you can't put your finger on anything. AI-Jaff: No. Keefe: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: You had a question Jerry. McDonald: I've got a couple for you also. What is the development around that area? I mean you put a letter in here from 2002. It looks as though there was interest there. What happened to that? Did it just not go anywhere? AI-Jaff: Whenever we look at development, please tell which letter you're referring to. McDonald: It's the one dated May 7th where we're talking about a developer was in the process of buying the land and Frank Natole's property, which I don't see on any of the maps so. AI-Jaff: Yeah, it would be this one. At the time the developer was Dick Loescheider who purchased this property and was interested in subdividing it. And he was working jointly with the Story's. McDonald: What's happened to all of that development, do we know? AI-Jaff: They.. .did some right-of-way from Robert Rabe, which is the property immediately to the south. They weren't interested. McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I had was about private streets and driveways. I know over around Lotus Lake there's several in that area and, but I don't know how many people are served or how old they are or if anything was grandfathered in or anything such as that and I did try to call today just to find out if we have any history of that. Do you know of any roads over in that area? It'd be to the west side of Lotus, in that area and it's quite old. AI-Jaff: I believe you're referring to Ridge Road. McDonald: It's, well Ridge Road is one I'm thinking of but also if you go south of Ridge Road into the older section where they've just put houses wherever they could on the lake and everything. There's a lot of different roads in that particular area. There's one main road that kind of winds around through but then there. AI-Jaff: Pleasant View Road. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 2005 McDonald: But then there's a lot of little, it looks like private roads that run off from that. Do you have any data about those particular roads and number of houses that may be on those? Do they exceed 4 or width wise or, because some of them look pretty narrow. AI-Jaff: We haven't, over the past 15 years we have not processed, to my knowledge, we have not processed any variances for private street widths or easements. McDonald: Okay. That's all I have Mr. Chairman. Sacchet: Any other questions? Debbie. Larson: Well yeah, I'mjust wondering. The gentleman that was trying to subdivide the other property, did they ever consider doing all the road on his side of land versus cutting into the neighbor's land? AI-Jaff: Yes. Larson: Or because there's ajog there, is that why they decided against it? AI-Jaff: That's one of the things that we asked them to pursue was lining up the roads with Ashling Court and maybe engineering can comment further on why we have to have roads aligned perfectly. Oehme: Sure. You know it's just a good practice to have conflict areas at T intersections. The more conflicts you have separated, the more issues you have with the traveling public looking at different potential obstructions along the way so try to limit your access points to major intersections and T's and you know where the volumes of traffic are coming from so that's the reason here. Larson: Okay. I don't have anything further. Thanks. Sacchet: Alright. Thank you very much Sharmeen. With that I'd like to ask the applicant, I believe we have an applicant here, to come forward and tell us your view of the world a little bit. And you might want to mention your name and address, just for the record and please use the microphone. Jerry Story: I'm Jerry Story. This is my wife Karon. We live at 12137 88th Place North, Maple Grove. I'm glad to be here in front of all you guys and thank you for this opportunity. We purchased the land 14-15 years ago with the idea oftrying to subdivide it and build houses on it. I think from day one, I think '91 might be the first time we came in. I tried to get an access off of Powers Boulevard. I talked to engineering at Carver County and he said we'll do at that time whatever the city requests. Well, for some reason they didn't have the money to pursue it so I kind of dropped it at that time. What I'd like to show here is that all property owners around me will not give me an easement or an access to my property. There is a state law that says if you are land locked there is a state law that says you cannot land lock any piece of property in the 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 2005 r State of Minnesota, and I feel that my property comes under that law. Sharmeen says that this is a premature development but I can show you a way where even if our property is developed through the private drive, that the other property can be developed within themselves. And I gave each of you a handout. This is an overview. If we could turn it so north is north. The yellow portion is my property. This is the property that Loescheider bought that we were going to develop together, but he didn't want to do it because he couldn't gain access through Rabe's property right here. We had a meeting here, an informal meeting after the Planning Commission a few months ago and it was suggested that we try and work with staff, planning staff to approach some way to develop this land. And since the city doesn't want us to come off of Powers, Kate Aanenson came up with the idea to try and get a variance and come across the 14 foot easement. So that's why we're here pursuing this. It was recommended by Kate. Also on the same paper I kind of did a little drawing how the property could be subdivided if mine was subdivided separately. By just adding the same road and ending the cul-de-sac here, it could take care of all these properties and all these properties. All these properties could be subdivided from Bretton Way there. It's all right on the road itself so there's no problem there. The owner, the next page that you guys have also is a, it's kind of the same map but it shows a better layout of a plot plan. The Bilte's have built a large addition which, and this isn't drawn to scale but it kind of looks like this. The addition is like 50 feet long by 28 feet wide and then they did a screen porch here in front, which would kind of inhibit from subdividing that property. The Rabe property, I talked to him several times. I've asked him if he wanted to sell it and it was no way, no how. And of course Dick Loescheider tried to work with him to get a road in. He does have a driveway coming right up here and so actually that road wouldn't have even taken away from his property. He offered him a stub in for 3 plus an amount of money and Rabe said he wouldn't do it. So we're kind of left with the city not wanting us to come here. And all property owners not wanting to give us a proper easement or proper land. Our property is land locked. We feel that our property has been eliminated from any discussion from way back when when it was subdivided. No one's ever taken this property into consideration of down the road, how it would be subdivided. Whether, in most cases back then it was unknown how anything would happen, but we kind of feel that we've been left out of the total picture here. We do feel that if this is denied in some way that we are going to have to try and pursue coming off Powers Boulevard. We don't, we're not going to have any alternative. I've made an offer to purchase this property. I've offered to purchase this property from the Natole's and Dick Loescheider with no results. I offered to purchase this property Henry Wong who sold it to the Rob Rabe who owns it now. We've asked them you know how much would this sell for and he wouldn't come up with any type of price so we feel like we're at a dead end here. The property is, would be best utilized because it is a high property. There's no wetlands. It has a nice overlook. It would be best utilized for the city for the beauty and for revenue to have 4 houses there. Or 3, whatever the case might end up being. This house here, from my understanding, Rob Rabe told me it was turned back into a single family but he doesn't live there and he does rent it out so I don't know of the actual status of that but the people who rent it, there's like 25 feet of actual driveway that they use to park their cars here. It is a driveway on the other side of this property that comes all the way up, right up to the house that could be utilized for any renters also if it came to that case so with that, are there any questions? Sacchet: Jerry, go ahead. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 2005 McDonald: Yeah, I've got a number of questions. You brought up the issue of being land locked. How did this property come to be land locked? Did you purchase it that way? Jerry Story: Yes. I guess I didn't realize that when I purchased it. McDonald: You do have access to the property though through an easement, is that correct? Jerry Story: Yes. Yes we do. McDonald: And under the terms of that easement, what are the conditions and restrictions of that easement? Is it unlimited as to what you can do as far as access? Jerry Story: Yes, so it's an ingress/egress easement only. There are no restrictions. McDonald: Okay. I believe in that case under the law the land is not land locked. You do have access to it. It doesn't really guarantee you that you can develop it. It just says that you will have access to your property. And I guess you know when you were here before us before one of the things that we had talked about is because these are rather large lots in that particular area, that what tends to go there is maybe more of an estate type of a setting. Did you do anything further as far as investigating the feasibility of that? Jerry Story: Well I didn't investigate it but it's not in my way of thinking it's not a good idea. There is a foundry set in here. There are two houses really close together right here. In my estimation I don't have the money to make it an estate and build a million dollar house on there. And I just don't have what it takes to do that, and it's still the best utilization of the land I believe is subdividing it. McDonald: Because as I understand it, what you're coming before us today and asking us to do is to basically take away property from other owners so that you would benefit. Am I wrong in that or, because that's part of what I'm trying to understand in all this. I understand that you can't do with it exactly what you wanted to, but you know again under the law you do have access. It's not set up that you can do development and you can make as much money as possible. There are restrictions and you have to live with those. What are you asking us to do? To create access for you? Jerry Story: From my understanding also it is the city can condemn land for a road. I was told they don't do that but I understand that that is possible to be done also. I'm not requesting that. I'm requesting to use the existing easement that we've been using for 14 years and maintaining. McDonald: But again as staff has said, there are certain conditions under which we will do this and one of which is not to create a major traffic thoroughfare but by doing, again you're asking us for a 16 foot variance to, it would be basically a single lane which would mean that the people that live back there, you know what happens as they come and go? I just see us creating more problems than solving a problem. I am all in favor of developing this land. I think staff has worked to try and do that. It's time will probably come. I understand you're losing money and you want us to do something but at this point I'm just, I'm not sure what we can do for you 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 2005 because we're not going to condemn land to create a street and I would only be in favor of creating a public thoroughfare through there and it's too soon to do that. Sacchet: We're not quite at comments yet Jerry. Let's stick with the questions for now. McDonald: That's all the questions I have now. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: What is the current use of the property? Jerry Story: There is a home on it that if we do subdivide the home will be tom down. Papke: Do you currently rent out that property? Jerry Story: Not at this time. We haven't rented it for a year and a half. Papke: But you used to rent that property? Jerry Story: I used to rent it yes. For the whole duration of the rest of that time. Papke: Okay, so you had rental income during that time and you now are electing to not rent it? Jerry Story: The last tenants wrecked it and I don't want to stick all that money into it if it's at some point going to be tom down. Papke: Okay. In your letter to the Planning Commission you mentioned several sales of the properties around you where you attempted to purchase them but they were all sold to someone else. Did you actually bid on any of these surrounding properties? Jerry Story: Yes I did. I did on this property. I forget what the guy's name, he used to live across the street here. One of these properties. And apparently my bid wasn't high enough. Papke: So you were out bid by someone else? Jerry Story: Well he didn't sell it for another 3 years before he actually sold it. Papke: Okay. Jerry Story: I gave Frank Natole a bid for $350,000 on his property and he said he wanted $800,000 and he sold it for $325,000. I gave him a bid but he apparently ignored it or whatever. So Dick Loescheider bought this and I also offered Dick Loescheider $350,000 for the property. He paid 325 and he sold it a year later to the people that own it now. So if, oh and I offered Henry Wong for his property. He said it was for sale so I made him an offer and he waited a year or so and then finally sold it someone else. To Rabe. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 2005 Papke: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Any other questions? Okay, thank you very much. Jerry Story: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing so if anybody would like to speak up to this item, this is your time. If you want to come forward. Please state your name and address for the record and let us hear what you have to add to this picture please. You may want to straighten out the microphone so you speak into it please. Rob Lafleur: I'll do my best. Chairman, commissioners, staff. Thank you for your time. My name is Rob Lafleur. I'm an attorney. I've been asked to speak on this matter on behalf of several nearby property owners. They include Robert Rabe, who owns the adjoining property to the west with an address of 6307 Teton Lane. Naomi Carlson who owns the adjoining properties to the south with addresses of 6397 and 6411 Bretton Way. Gary and Karen Dohse who own the adjoining property to the northwest with an address of 6251 Teton Lane. Kirk and Cami Swanson who live on Teton Lane, directly across from the subject easement with an address of 6340 Teton Lane, and Greg and Patty Bazany toward the south with an address of 6420 Bretton Way. I've had an opportunity to review the staff report on the subject proposal. I have also viewed the property and have had discussions with Mr. Rabe and Ms. Carlson about this project. They in turn have had discussions with other neighbors and I would like to share with you some of their insights as they are relevant not only with regard to this specific proposal but also with regard to the surrounding properties. First of all I want to be clear that the citizens and neighbors listed about strongly support the staff recommendation for the denial of the requested variance. Not only is the request contrary to city ordinance, it is a bad idea for the neighborhood. Although it is not a part of the existing request, it appears from a number of sources that the ultimate plan Mr. Story has for his property is to subdivide it into 4 lots and sell them individually. The access he is proposing would be far from adequate for that purpose. What he is asking for is substantially substandard private street. As the staff has noted, this substandard private street would be serving at least 5 dwelling units. In fact Ms. Carlson may also want access off of it, which means it would then be serving 6 separate dwellings. That is full 50% more than the ordinance contemplates. Even without Ms. Carlson's personal use of the private road, her property and Mr. Rabe's property would have the burden of essentially abutting a driveway that serves 5 adjoining properties. I would certainly not want to be in that position, especially if 1 or 2 of the adjoining properties happen to have teenage drivers and I had young children. The use of a substandard private road under those circumstances could be very dangerous. It is interesting to note that the staff has a list of conditions extending over one page that it recommends in the event you decide to recommend approval of the variance. The burden of enforcing that long list of conditions would be substantial. The staff report also includes an indication that the lack of adequate access has been the primary deterrent to the development of this site. Although it mayor may not be true that lack of adequate access has been the primary deterrent, it is certainly not the only deterrent. The property is, according to the staff report, served by an individual sewage treatment system. Although that may be adequate for a single unit, it is not likely to be adequate for 4 units. Even if the access issue is resolved, sewage issues and possibly other utilities issues remain. At one point there may have been discussions of 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 2005 developing this property in conjunction with the property to the north and west at 6251 Teton Lane, currently owned by Gary and Karen Dohse. The Dohse property was previously owned by Mr. Loescheider who had expressed an interest in developing it. However he has since sold the property. The new owners have made significant improvements since they own the property and they have no plans to develop it in the near future. Mr. Rabe is clear that he has no desire to subdivide or develop his property at any time and Ms. Carlson has no desire to subdivide her property for multiple dwelling units. It may very well be that the cost of extending sewer lines to these 4 units would be far too great to make it economically feasible to subdivide that property. Public safety is another significant reason that this request should be denied. That is clear from the various conditions that staff is recommending in the event the commission decides to recommend approval of this request. Draining is another issue that has not been adequately considered. Also Mr. Rabe's property contains a substantial building, historic trees, and a significant uphill slope directly adjacent to the existing easement, all of which would have obstruct widening it. Factors like these point to the conclusion that Mr. Story is essentially wearing blinders with regard to the development of this property. He sees only a potential profit to be made and since he will not be living in the area after the subdivision, he's showing little concern for what is left behind in terms of public safety, drainage and inconvenience to the neighbors. He goes so far as to state in his application that the property is land locked when in fact it is not. The existing access is adequate for the existing use of the property and therefore stating that the property is land locked is incorrect. He also states the property is excluded from a major street. Although it is not clear what he classifies as a major street, a land owner doesn't have any right to access to a major street. It certainly only makes sense that every property should have access to a public right-of-way. That does not mean access to a major street. The standards set forth in city ordinance for private streets are well thought out and make good sense. They need to be designed to withstand the intended usage. Provide reasonable drainage, serve as an access for adequate police and fire protection, and meet the needs of the neighborhood. This proposal does not meet any of those standards. In Mr. Story's letter of June 7th he attempts to paint the picture that the world is against him and people keep abusing his property. He repeats his statement that the property is land locked. That is simply not true. I also think it is likely that the abuse of his property is more the result of his absence than from it's location. He lives in Maple Grove. His only interest in Chanhassen is whatever profit he can make off of owning real estate here. He states that he tried to buy 3 different properties when they were for sale, but they were all sold to someone else. That is likely because other people were willing to pay more for the property than he was. Since his motive are driven purely by a goal of making a profit, his willingness to pay is apparently not sufficient to actually purchase the properties. For all of these reasons we respectfully request and encourage the commission to recommend denial of the requested variance. Those are my prepared remarks. I just also want to give you a quick aside. I did go visit the property and looked at it as I mentioned in there. As I visited the property today, it was interesting to the north, a deer walked across the property over there. That's the general character of what's here at this point and if we are, if we subdivide it and put 4 more houses there and put 4 houses to the north and all that type of stuff, those types of things are going to go away. Be happy to answer any questions that anybody might have. Sacchet: Thank you very much. McDonald: I've got a question. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 2005 Sacchet: You've got a question Jerry. Go ahead. McDonald: I'm going to ask you about the easement. Have you read it? Have you seen it? Rob LaFleur: I have not read the terms of the specific easement, no. McDonald: Do you anticipate any problems with, if we were to subdivide that into 4 lots, about additional property owners now going over an easement that was originally put in for 1 property owner to access his property? Rob LaFleur: Are you talking about legal problems with that or practical problems? McDonald: Not practical. Legal. Rob LaFleur: Well from walking the property there's a huge practical problem there. I mean that's a driveway that's not even a great driveway in terms of you know it's stone. It's not asphalt. It's you know it's fairly long. Keeping it maintained and that type of stuff is going to be a practical issue. You also, whenever you have an easement that now is going to be a right to, or is going to be a right that exists in 4 property owners rather than 1, you've increased by a factor of 4 the potential disputes between people who have common interests in the same property. McDonald: Okay, no more. Sacchet: Alright. Thank you very much. Anybody else wants to address this item? This is your chance. Seeing nobody else get up, oh you can come back. Yeah. Certainly. Jerry Story: I would like to say that Mr. LaFleur does not know me. Therefore he does not know what my motives are. Sacchet: Yeah, and your motives are not the topic of discussion here tonight so let's be very clear about that. I mean our topic of discussion is an application for a potential variance, okay. Jerry Story: And I mean, now you guys know what I'm up against that I can't get access to my property. Thank you. Sacchet: Yes please, come forward. If you would state your name and address please. Naomi Carlson: My name is Naomi Carlson. I own the 2 properties to the south of the easement and I own the easement. Fee owner of the easement and I didn't realize that you were going to be asking the question would there be a legal problem and from my own personal point of view, yes there would be a legal problem. I do have copies of the easement and I gave a copy to Sharmeen. Of both easements. Rob Rabe has an easement in the back of his property and Jerry Story has one for the back of his property so yes, there would be a legal problem. From a personal point of view. Does that answer your question? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 2005 Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to address this item? Seeing nobody get up, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for discussion. Any, yes Dan. Keefe: One thing that was brought up...is the notion of state law in regards to access to a particular property and what the State may have to say and what that lot particularly is and whether we need to consider that or not. And I'm just wondering, do we need to consider it? If so, do we need to get somebody in front of us to speak to that specially. Sacchet: It's my understanding that the city attorney does look at the staff reports. Al-Jaff: He did look at this application and he concluded this is not a land locked property because it currently has access. McDonald: I guess what I would say is I've dealt with this and that's why I don't believe it's land locked either. The State, the City, we did not create the situation. If you do create the situation, then you have a problem being the municipality. We did not create the problem. That was one of my questions. We do not owe an obligation as far as getting into the property. He does have a right to access for use of his property. He has that through the easement, and I would agree that it's not an issue that we need to worry about. Keefe: And I, yeah I mean you can look at it, it appears that he has access through an easement to the property. The question I have is do we need an official statement and can we take that as... Al-Jaff: Absolutely, and what I can do is also ask the city attorney to put it in writing as to whether this is parcel is a land locked parcel. Sacchet: And beware that this has to go to City Council no matter what we do tonight here so it, I would certainly think that there will be a second time that the city attorney looks at it, if there are State law components that play into it. It would probably come into play at that point. Keefe: I didn't know whether we needed to consider that. Sacchet: I think for us here we have to deal with is the staff report. Keefe: What we've got here, yeah. Sacchet: Yep. Keefe: Okay. That's really, and in my, are we in comment? Sacchet: Yeah, we're commenting definitely. Keefe: You know I think it's unfortunate. This is a piece of property that he may have intended on developing it. There may still be a small possibility to do that. Potentially to the east but I don't, at least what I'm hearing is it's probably is a really low likelihood unless he can get the 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 2005 other people together to try and develop it. I think it's going to be a real uphill battle, as he's well aware of. He's been working on it for some time so. I don't, I don't...changes much from the last time he was in. I think it's got to be a single family at this point if it wants to be developed any further today so that's kind of where I come down on it. Sacchet: Thanks Dan. Want to add anything to that Deborah? Zorn: No comments. Sacchet: Okay, Kurt. Papke: I fully support the staff recommendation on this one. I don't see any reason to go against the staff recommendation and I can see a long litany of reasons why we would not want to do so. Sacchet: Mark? Debbie? Jerry? McDonald: I already made my comments. Sacchet: You know as I recall when you came in, I think it was a work session or discussion after a Planning Commission meeting where we looked at your situation and what is possible, and the way I recall it we were kind of bumping our head everywhere we turned in terms of using this 14 foot access for subdivision in terms of not having the cooperation of the adjoining owners to create a full fledged access. The unlikeliness of getting access from Powers due to the grade. Due to the fact it's a very busy county road. That it is very heavy wooded, and it's the way I recall it, at that point, we suggested that well maybe the thing to leverage is what it is. It's one house and it's access to one house. I know that's not what you particularly were planning to do or apparently not even researched, which I can understand because you're very focused on what you want to do, but I have a hard time believing that Kate Aanenson, our Community Planning Director would recommend in any way or shape to use a 14 foot driveway for a 4 or 5 home access. That does not sound feasible to me but let's not get into that. We can't speak for somebody who's not here. But I fully agree with the staff report. I mean in our role as I said in the beginning of opening the meeting is to look at these proposals that come in front of the city in view of how, to what extent do they comply with the city ordinances and city code. And we have very clear requirements what we have to look at when a variance is granted and this does not fulfill any of these requirements. So I would support the recommendation to City Council of denial for this proposal at this point. Is there anything else anybody would like to add at this point? Otherwise I would be happy to get a motion please. McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that we adopt the staff recommendation that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Variance 05-19 for a 16 foot variance from the 30 foot wide easement requirement, a 6 foot variance from the 20 foot pavement width requirement and a variance to allow a private street based upon the findings of staff in the staff report. Sacchet: And we have motion. Do we have a second? Zorn: Second. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 21, 2005 McDonald moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Variance 05-19 for a 16 foot variance from the 30 foot wide easement requirement, a 6 foot variance from the 20 foot pavement width requirement and a variance to allow a private street based on the findings of fact in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to O. Sacchet: We wish you luck with this. This is a challenging one. Has been from the start. Unfortunately we can't perform some magic to resolve that...as much as we'd like to help you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 7, 2005 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7 :50 p.m.. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 13