Loading...
Letter from Robert Lafleur 6-22-05 Jack L Chestnut Karl L Cambronne Cort C. Holten Dennis B. Johnson Janet WaDer Robert A. LaFleur + Stuart C. Bear Brian N: Toder . Timothy P. McCarthy Jeffrey D. Bores Stewart C. Loper Becky L Erickson Mylene A. Peterson .. Jennifer A. Lammers Carey A. Goetz ... CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE 3700 Campbell Mithun Tower 222 South Ninth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 339 - 7300 (612) 336 - 2940 (fax) PROFESSIONAL ASSOCL4 TION ATTORNEYS AT LA W Kelly Inn, Suite 820 161 St. Anthony A venue St. Paul, MN 55103 (651) 291 - 1900 (651) 291 - 0063 (fax) Of Counsel: William F. Brooks, Jr. Robert A. LaFleur Direct: (612) 336-2919 rlafleur@chestnutcambronne.com 204 North Star Bank 4661 Highway 61 White Bear Lake, MN 55110 (651) 653 - 0990 (651) 653 - 4647(fax) +Also licensed as a CPA -Also admitted in Colorado .. ...11.;0 .:uJnlitted in Pennsylvania .n Also admitted in North Dakota and Kansas www.chestnutcambronne.com June 22, 2005 City of Chanhassen Attention: Sharmeen AI-Jaff Senior Planner 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 MCfIVF.D JUN 2 3 ?005 cnY Of CHANHASSEN Re: Planning Case No. 05-19 Dear Ms. AI-Jaff: Enclosed is a copy of my written remarks from the June 21 st Planning Commission Meeting. I would like this to be made part of the file regarding Planning Case No. 05-19. On behalf of the various property owners who allowed me to present their side at the Planning Commission Meeting, I want to thank you for your professional handling of this matter. One issue which I did not address at the meeting should also be addressed now. Mr. Story indicated in his presentation that Robert Rabe no longer lives at 6307 Teton Lane. In fact, the 6307 Teton Lane has been Robert Rabe's legal address for ten years and continues to be his legal address at the present time. He has no intention of abandoning that address. S.IWPDOCSIRALIRIRABEISh.nneen AI l.fT Itr.doc June 22, 2005 Page 2 Thanks again for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, CHESTNUT & CAMBRONNE, P.A. ~a.~- Robert A. LaFleur RALldjb Enclosure Cc: Robert Rabe June 21,2005 Re; Request for driveway variance at 6281 - Teton Lane by J. Story. Planning Case No. 05-19. Dear Chanhassen City Planners, Staff, and Council, Thank you for your time. My name is Rob LaFleur. I am an attorney. I have been asked to speak on this matter on behalf of several nearby property owners including; 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. 1 , have 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 above 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 four lots and sell them individually. The access he is proposing would be far from adequate for that purpose. What he is asking for is a substantially substandard private street. As the staff has noted, this substandard private street would be serving at least five dwelling units. In fact, Ms. Carlson has indicated (and it would be reasonable to expect) that she may want some access off of this easement as well, which means that it would then be serving six separate dwellings. That is a full fifty percent 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 five adjoining properties. I would certainly not want to be in that position, especially if one or two of those adjoining properties happen to 2 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 had 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 the 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 four units. Even if the access issue is resolved, sewage issues (and possibly the need for other utilities) remain. At one point, there may have been discussion of developing this property in conjunction with a 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. Loscheider who had expressed an interest in developing it. However, he has since sold the property to the Dohses. They have made significant improvement since they owned the property and 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 3 four units will be 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 has recommended in the event the commission decides to recommend approval of this request. Drainage is another issue which 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 obstruct widening. Factors like these point to the conclusion that Mr. Story is essentially wearing blinders with regard to development of his property. He sees only a potential profit to be made and, since he will not be living in the area after the subdivision, he is showing little concern for what is left behind in terms of public safety, drainage and inconvenience to his neighbors. He goes so far as to state in his application that the property is landlocked 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 landlocked, is incorrect. He also states that the property is excluded from a major street. Although it is not clear what he classifies as a major street, a land owner has no right to access to a major street. It certainly only makes sense that every property should have access to a public right of way. However, that does not mean access to a major street. The standards set forth in city ordinances for private streets are well thought out and make good sense. They need to be designed to withstand the 4 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 ih, 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 landlocked. That simply is not true. I also think it is likely that the abuse of his property is more the result of his absence than from its location. He apparently lives in Maple Grove and his only real interest in Chanhassen is whatever profit he can make off of owning real estate here. He states that he tried to buy three 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 those properties than he was. Since his motives 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 deny the requested variance. Thank you for your time and attention. 5