Loading...
CC Minutes 7-11-05 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 2. The applicant’s engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to meet city standards. 3. Direct the city attorney to draft a purchase agreement for Lot 1, Block 4 ($740,000) and Outlot B ($560,000) for the development of a future water treatment plant and park land. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Todd Gerhardt: Mayor, in the future you can have one motion. Just include both of those if you’d like so. Councilman Peterson: You just have to remember to do that. Mayor Furlong: That’s right. I don’t think we officially did it so better to be clean. Todd Gerhardt: Not a problem. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SUBSTANDARD DRIVEWAY TO SERVE AS A PRIVATE STREET TO DRTBR MOTR THAN ONE LOT; LOCATED WEST OF POWERS BOULEVARD, NORTH OF BRETTON WAY, AND EAST OF TETON LANE, JERRY STORY, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-19. Public Present: Name Address th Jerry & Karon Story 12137-88 Place North Naomi Carlson 5955 Cathcart Drive, Excelsior Robert Rabe 6307 Teton Lane Rob LaFleur 3700 Campbell Mithun Tower, Minneapolis Cynthia Gallo 16799 Terrey Pine Drive, Eden Prairie Kate Aanenson: This is an application for a variance with a subdivision, which has different criteria, subdivision with variance with a subdivision automatically gets forwarded to the City Council. That’s why it’s here before you tonight. The property is located off of Powers Boulevard. Location is, here’s Powers Boulevard. The city owns this piece of property. There is a private easement that accesses that piece of property currently. I want to give a little bit of the history of this property. The Story’s have had the property since 1991. They don’t currently live on the property but have owned it since that time. This item, they’ve tried to subdivide this property over a number of years, and most recently we, as a staff had recommended that they go to the Planning Commission to talk about different ways to subdivide that property under open discussion, again to get some direction on how that should occur. It did go to the Planning Commission under open discussion and didn’t feel like that was the right answer that they 24 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 wanted to hear. I think the Planning Commission felt like maybe it was premature, again for the reason being that there is the 14 foot easement that does provide access for the property and they actually wanted 4 lots. It’s kind of hard to see on the light shaded but actually 4 lots with a cul- de-sac so they can only provide additional right-of-way once they got past that common portion. So in meeting with myself and the city manager, again to try to get some clarity or administrative relief to go through the process, to have their story heard, they actually wanted to do the variance and we recommended that without a subdivision. Again not to incur a lot of expense of doing all the engineering to find out whether or not there was some support because again the Planning Commission kind of discouraged it. So I did send a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Story and recommended, and the fact that they did need a variance, and give us rationale for that because it’s a 14 foot. Again a private street as you’ve just seen in the last one does require a 30. Again we asked to demonstrate is there another way to do it? On the last example there was another way to do it. It was definitely environmentally greater impact. In this circumstance again, if you can zoom back, there’s no way to get this common portion to the…so you’d actually have more houses on a 14 substandard street. So in looking at this, the previous analysis before we went to the Planning Commission and work session we had laid out kind of the greater neighborhood, this parcel and looked at a possibility of a private street. Unfortunately not everybody’s ready to develop at the same time and the property owner, this property owner didn’t want to provide the additional easement. Again there are already properties in the area that would be ripe for subdivision. Again as part of our job is to make sure that we’re kind of balance all that. So in looking at that, the staff position, going back before they originally went just before the open discussion was that may be premature. So they are, decided to pursue just going for the variance on the 14 foot private easement. And that’s kind of the background of how we got to this point today. So they did proceed looking for a subdivision request, on the variance, on the existing easement that they do have to the property, and that’s when they also set we have before you today. So we went through the private street standard criteria and made an analysis of that and the fact that there is an existing home on the property that has reasonable use. You’ve got the one home. Was that you can’t even get a standard for a private street would be a 30 foot right- of-way, 20 foot pavement width, so you can’t even get that so you aren’t even meeting the variance for the private street. You’re not even meeting that. So with that we went through the criteria and kind of recommended that the existing home has a driveway access and it’s adequate for 5 homes but, for 1 home but not 5. And there are other ways to get to the property in the future, so staff to the Planning Commission recommended too that we deny the variance for the 30 foot wide, the 6 foot variance from the 20 foot pavement. Then we also had recommended, they do want to do what they would have to do to meet that criteria, and that’s where the Fire Marshal’s comments came in if they couldn’t, because this is only 14 feet wide for that many homes which is different than one home at the end of that driveway. The other portion of that common street did meet the 20 foot, just that long ago. This is radically different than that and that’s, I just want to make that connection. So they did put conditions, if the Planning Commission were to approve it, we did put conditions in for the variance. But ultimately the st Planning Commission did recommend denial at their public hearing on June 21 and again that item is here before you tonight because it’s a subdivision request. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. No? 25 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Councilman Lundquist: When, Todd this might be a question for you too. When, if I remember right when I read through this Mr. and Mrs. Story approached the city about buying land accessing directly off of Powers. Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. Councilman Lundquist: Into that piece which is that little pie shaped piece that the city owns. And what was our rationale for not wanting to put a street there? Todd Gerhardt: You always want to try to limit the access points on a major collector road like Powers and I think the County made some comments, but I think if you own property that abuts the Powers, you can put an access point in there and the County said if you can gain one from a property owner, you know they would grant it. Thus being the City owning that property we should not add any more access points onto Powers if we can stop it. So it was my recommendation not to allow another access point out onto Powers when there’s another way in the future off of Teton Lane. Kate Aanenson: And I know the issue was brought up regarding that too. The Habitat for Humanity homes that were put. That one as Todd just mentioned did have direct access onto Powers and that’s why they were given it, and we did require a common driveway for those two lots. And I know they felt like maybe the treatment wasn’t the same but that does abut Powers Boulevard and we did force a common driveway. Councilman Lundquist: And those are those two other odd shaped lots? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, correct. And they’re shaped like that because they have a common driveway easement through the middle. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Other comments or questions? For staff. If not, is the applicant here, Mr. Story. Good evening. Jerry Story: Good evening. Mayor Furlong: You have any comments for the council? Jerry Story: Yes I do. I’d like to thank the mayor and the council members and staff for this th opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Jerry Story. I live at 12137 88 Place North in Maple Grove. I’ve owned the property at 6281 Teton Lane in Chanhassen for over 14 years. I’m here to speak about the proposal for a variance to our property. I lived in this area most of my life and I attended Chaska High School. When I was a kid I used to ride my bike through the rolling hills when Chanhassen was a township. I bought the property at 6281 Teton Lane with the intent to develop and build our home. This is a beautiful and unique piece of property and the best use of the land would be to subdivide it. If we did divide it, 4 homes could be built on nice wooded lots. This would be the best use of the land for the city. The neighbors next to our 26 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 property would like to see our lot stay a single lot because they enjoy the wildlife. There are a lot of deer in this area and the development of my property would not change that. My neighbors have the right to do with their property as they see fit. And they have exercised that right. On the properties surrounding mine there are single family homes, a duplex, a foundry, extra garages and out buildings, also a garage converted into a rental home. And many other things that neighbors have had the freedom to install on their property. What I am asking for is access to my land so that I can exercise my rights. From what I understand there’s a state law that says if your property does not abut a road that you still have the right to use it for a legal purpose and gain access to do so. In the Planning Commission report they stated that my land is a premature development because of surrounding undeveloped property. The owners of these properties have stated, all 3 of them that they have no interest in developing their properties now or ever. I believe that the development of my property is not premature because each adjoining parcel could be developed within itself. This still lets them do whatever they want to with their land. When the current easement was given for access to my property in 1969 the easement was adequate. Obtaining this variance would allow me to use my property in a legal manner. And I’d like to thank you for your time. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Story? No? Okay, thank you. Any follow up questions for staff? If not we’ll move to discussion. Discussion by council. Thoughts. Councilman Lundquist: This one’s a more difficult one I think for me than maybe the last one. I’m sensitive to Mr. and Mrs. Story in their wanting to subdivide their property, which is perfectly expected for that. However the, a 14 foot wide road going in to serve those 4 or 5 homes isn’t going to be something that I can support. It’s just too narrow. Too small. Not built to the right standards for all kinds of reasons, that’s not going to work out. It’s unfortunate that it couldn’t be worked out privately I guess but again as Mr. Story stated, that’s perfectly within the neighbor’s rights to grant or not grant that land. I can see the access off of Powers as well being an issue, and especially as other areas of the city we try to limit those access points on some of our major roads like Highway 7 and we’ve had similar discussions on Highway 41 and other places as well in past developments so I struggle with it because I don’t know, I don’t see a great way to give Mr. Story access to get those 4 or 5 houses on there. From a legal standpoint, I think the state statute burden has been met that there is access to the property to use albeit at this point for one home or something less than 5. And I just don’t, I don’t see with this proposal a way that I can support anything other than it’s current use the way it is. Those are my comments. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I tend to agree with the Planning Commission that this property is premature at the time. He does have legal access to his property. I think it can be used in a manner that his other neighbors…to live. Access to it. I think it’s ideal in there if he would come in with a neighbor and they both would decide to subdivide but obviously they’re not willing to do that at this time and so because of those reasons I agree with the Planning Commission and their recommendation. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Peterson. 27 City Council Meeting – July 11, 2005 Councilman Peterson: I agree. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. As do I. Is there any further discussion or comment? If not, is there a motion? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I’d move the Planning Commission deny variance. Mayor Furlong: City Council perhaps. Déjà vu all over again. Councilman Peterson: Creature of habit I guess. I spent too many times there. That the council denies, recommends denial of Variance 05-19 for a 16 foot variance from the 30 foot wide easement and a 6 foot variance from the 20 foot pavement width requirement and variance to allow a private street based upon the findings of facts in the staff report. Roger Knutson: And you’re adopting those findings as the council’s findings? Councilman Peterson: That’s affirmative. Roger Knutson: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none we’ll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council denies 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 4 to 0. Audience: Mayor, can I ask a question? Mayor Furlong: Regarding what? Audience: Effect of… Mayor Furlong: Is it something that the council needs to deal with or can you just talk to the attorney? Audience: I can talk to the attorney. Mayor Furlong: If it’s an effect issue. Okay. Okay, thank you. 28