7.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes DRAFT October 28, 1998 Page 3 Jerrell Thomas, 27993 Via Ventana, also speaking for his wife, voiced support of the driveway commenting that the Shidelers have been excellent neighbors. Martin Knutson, 27999 Via Ventana, had never seen the easement in the condition shown in the photos until construction of the two homes (Shideler and Yen) took place. He found it appalling that the road may be paved which is mainly on the Kells, Curtis, and Gilbert (one lot) property, when it is not needed. Viole McMahon, 27975 Via Ventana, felt the road was not needed (this is a special privilege) nor is the driveway needed to improve drainage. The access to the site was discussed extensively when the new residence was discussed. This road which the applicants do not need is not on their property. She further discussed the trees in the median on Via Ventana which obtain their water from run-off, and the entry into Via Ventana which is rural and attractive. She does not support the improvements in this area. - Mary Ann McCready, 12105 Oak Park Court, commented that the law states when there is an easement, there is a right to use it. The applicants should be allowed to pave the driveway. Jay Shideler, 27994 Via Ventana Way, applicant, stated that he has worked extensively with' Barrie Coate, arborist, noting pavers will not adversely impact the oak trees. When it rains, the road is too muddy and with the steep slope, it cannot be used. He believes that they have the right to use the easement. Easement rights go with the easement and it does not matter whose property the easement is on. The gate has been there since 1950 and a gate will remain to control access. They do not desire a gate, but it is the only way to control access and it is being required. The gate will be an attractive, unobtrusive gate. He is not trying to change the ambiance there, just trying to use the road. Kathleen Kells, stated she has never tried to deny the right of use of the easement. She felt that paving it was not necessary to provide access to the Shideler house and she would prefer it not be paved. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Director clarified he had discussed this with the City Attorney who stated that the Town can require a site development permit since paving is adding impervious surface. Commissioner Gottlieb discussed the original 1996 application review where there was extensive discussion regarding the access from the lower Via Ventana with a 7-0 vote denying the request. She questioned the turning radius which was answered by the City Engineer who stated the driveway access road is at approximately a 90° angle, which is the same as the driveway going the other direction. Commissioner Gottlieb asked if they have an interpretation from the City Attorney on the right to have access from both the upper and lower easement. The Planning Director stated that the Town has the right to approve or deny the request to pave the driveway.