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