8. Variance Appeal Loren Veltkampu
CITY OF -
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Don Ashworth
FROM: John Rask, Planner I
DATE: December 7, 1994
lip► CM Ada444MW
✓ W sit'
6lodifi
R ejected.___...... �..
Dzi e_�- ? 9
Dets Submitted to Commissiegr
Date Submitted m , WUNd
SUBJ: Loren Veltkamp's Variance (94-7) Appeal to City Council
UPDATE
This item was pulled from the City Council a on November 14, 1994 and again on
November 28, 1994 per the applicant's reque
Itkamp showing a large 2 -stall garage.
u iance to exceed the lot coverage is
i�ck variance is needed based on the
nal engineer (see attached
September 20, 1994).
s appeal for a variance to
Loren Veltkamp's variance was o ul '4 meeting of the
Board of Adjustments and Appeals. This ite w p ed A from the agenda because the
applicant did not submit the necessary info The Board tabled Mr. Veltkamp's
' variance request on September 26, 1994 to an opportunity to submit additional
information and engineering data showing details of his proposal. On October 24, 1994 the
Board denied Mr. Veltkamp's variance appeal for an eight (8) foot variance from the thirty
(30) foot front yard setback requirement and a variance from the maximum lot coverage of
twenty-five (25) percent for the construction of a 24.5 x 42 foot garage.
MEMORANDUM
1
t
Don Ashworth
December 7, 1994
Page2
The applicant submitted several drawings showing alternative plans. However, these revised
plans were not drawn to scale and did not contain the appropriate information as requested by
the Board. The Board was not comfortable with granting a "conceptual approval" based on
sketches prepared by the applicant. In addition, the Board felt a four car garage (24.5' x
42') was excessive for a 11,400 square foot lot and did not warrant the granting of a variance.
If the applicant submits revised engineering plans showing a reasonable size garage, which
meets the setback requirements, the Board indicated they would consider an appeal to exceed
the twenty-five (25) percent lot coverage requirement.
The applicant is now requesting that the City Council approve
' a five (5) percent lot coverage variance. Ne pims
This request would allow the
applicant to build an approximately 950 square foot garage.
' ANALYSIS
' Staff recommended the Board deny the variance request for the requested 24.5 x 42 foot
garage based on the findings listed in the staff report (see attached report).
' Staff would like to clarify the following issues regarding the applicant's appeal:
Mr. Veltkamp indicated that the Board denied the variance because they did not know if
' surpassing the twenty-five percent coverage requirement would be good, bad, or indifferent
for Lotus lake. This was not the case. The Board was unable to determine the impacts
associated with exceeding the twenty-five (25) percent lot coverage requirement because they
' did not have the necessary information, not because they were unsure of the impacts. Further,
they denied the variances based on the application submitted and because a four car garage
' did not warrant the granting of a variance, not because it exceeded the twenty-five percent
requirement (see attached minutes). The city's requirement for a paved drive does increase
the lot coverage. However, it is the proposed four car garage that forces the issue as the
' applicant already has a two car garage.
Secondly, the applicant indicated that he is caught in a "catch 22" because the City is
' requiring him to construct a paved driveway but will not grant a variance from the lot
coverage requirement for the driveway. However, the Board clearly stated that if the
applicant came back with revised engineered plans showing a reasonable size garage, which
' meets setback requirements, they would consider a variance to exceed the lot coverage
requirements (see attached minutes). Again, it is the proposed four car garage that forces the
need for a lot coverage variance.
Thirdly, the applicant indicated the proposed driveway is gentle with only a 43 4.8 percent
rise. Based en the applioam's
Don Ashworth '
December 7, 1994 '
Page3
Staff cannot determine the exact grade of the driveway because
the applicant has not submitted the necessary information. '
The Board requested information showing erosion control measures, type and height of
retaining walls, additional spot elevations, and proposed driveway grades. been '
Information
showing existing and proposed contours prepared by a professional engineer and the
paver block driveway system is needed to determine the total impact to the site as a '
result of the construction activities. It is impossible for the staff or Board to ascertain the
impacts of this proposal without the necessary information. In addifien, akeffiefives e4sts for-
the '
RECOMMENDATION '
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal fora '
variance to exceed the maximum lot
coverage of twenty -five (25) percent. In &Mfiea, st—eff- rvee m =opAs -tho the Ge"a"r deny the
ATTACHMENTS I
1. Memorandum from Dave Hempel dated December 7, 1994
2. Letter from the applicant dated December 5, 1994 '
3. Drawings of revised plan
4. Letter from the applicant
5. Board of Adjustment and Appeals minutes dated October 24, 1194 ,
6. Staff Report
7
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO:
John Rask, Planner II
FROM:
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
DATE:
December 7, 1994
SUBJ: Update to Variance Request - Loren Veltkamp, 6724 Lotus Trail
File No. 94 -14 LUR
On December 5, 1994 staff received a co:
revising the proposed garage addition. Staff
is attempting to reduce the impervious surfac
garage has been reduced from a 3 -stall to a
feet long) is still excessive considering it only a 2 -0
' that the actual lot surface area of his p#lrcel is more
Veltkamp has measured the lot size or,i`vertical plane
the methodology the ordinance uses�r lot sizes. They
extra lot surface area is incorrect."
r]
The driveway has also be°'so
ep mewhat reduced in width.
qt
paver block system °effort to reduce the imperviou s
to Mr. Veltkamp t�t 1 .
or not the surfa l ":tom
from Mr. Veltkamp with regards to
the document and finds Mr. Veltkamp
the need for a variance. The proposed
however, the size of the garage (35
garage. Mr. Veltkamp also indicates
n previously indicated; however, Mr.
rsus the actual lot dimension which is
W e, Mr. Veltkamp's assumption of the
Veltkamp is proposing to use a
su ce of the area. I have indicated
ver blocks to determine whether
t I have not received
this information Wh s surface. On
another note, it may n o use apervious -type paver stone ' tuation where the
moisture will collect underneath
spring and winter freeze -thaw cycles. Staff
this situation would be more appropriate. Z
the overall lot impervious surface coverage.
wing or problems in the
a bituminous or concrete driveway in
surface should not be subtracted from
Upon review of the site again today, there are significant oak and maple trees along the west and
south property lines. Construction of the garage retaining walls and site grading will most likely
impact the root zone of these trees. The plans that were submitted were drawn in pencil by the
applicant and not certified by a professional engineer. The drawings do not show existing and
1
John Rask
December 7, 1994
Page 2
proposed grading contours. Therefore, it is difficult to determine the total impact to the site as
a result of the construction activities.
Although this new plan submittal is a step in the right direction, I believe that additional
information is needed such as existing and proposed contours prepared by a professional engineer
and the paver block driveway system be submitted prior to analyzing the full impacts of the site
grading and drainage concerns.
ktm
Attachment: Letter from Loren Veltkamp received December 5, 1994.
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
g: \eng \dav a \pc \veltkam p
e
Ro m , LoRF �tLTM Lt 0 5 1994
CIT yr �+Iln �r)HSSt(4
Specs for 6724 Lotus Trail garage project as requested
from Sec. 7 -19 Plans and Specifications.
- Garage has been reduced in size twice: from a 4 -stall
to a 3 -stall and now from a 3 -stall to a 2- stall.
- Existing garage elevation is 120
- New garage elevation will be 122 ", 2 higher.
- Existing driveway mouth is 117 ".
- New driveway mouth will be at 118 1 foot higher.
- Existing driveway has a 2% grade.
- New Driveway grade will be 4.8% or 2.8% steeper.
- Actual lot surface area (as measured with a distance
meter wheel) is 13,775; not 11,445 as the
horizontal plane estimates.
- 25% of 13,775 is 3,448.
- house coverage is 1,694
- garage coverage is 995.6
- driveway coverage is about 926, but pervious so it
need not be counted.
- Total lot coverage is 3,416, that's 30' less than
actual coverage.
- The impervious surfaces of garage and house are less
than 25% of horizontal plane. Including driveway
(wrongfully) puts me about 4.9% over.
- The driveway in question is at the bottom of a ridge
and not a ravine. Therefore erosion should be very
minimal as it has been in the past.
- The lot in question is a sloped, lakefront lot and
does not need to absorb excess rainfall like a flat,
landlocked lot does. Therefore the 25% code cannot be
logically applied to this property. Or any other sloped
lakefront or riverfront property.
- No trees will be removed or root damaged.
- All retaining walls will be boulder, under 4 feet,
except off garage where it will be 8 feet for the first
15 feet. Boulder wall construction has been shown.
- Little, if any, dirt will be removed from property
and existing contours and drainage patterns are not
significantly altered. Water will drain primarily
towards existing 1' drainage culvert at west side of
driveway mouth (see flow arrows).
- Driveway will consist of pavers. Pavers are a
permeable surface that allow passage of rain water much
like a deck does, water will be absorbed even under the
stones. They should not fall under the rubric of hard
surface coverage. Zoning book defines "lot coverage"
as "impervious surfaces" not permeable surfaces.
- Existing tree line is shown.
- New vegetation line is shown.
- erosion fencing is shown.
- 1" to 30 foot scale is shown.'
- Erosion fence is shown.
- All relevant construction dimensions are shown.
- Survey is shown.
u
I�
1
- Z' topo maps of before and after are shown.
- Ponding possibilities have been considered and
dropped for this site.
iAAJ P& 005
-- - - - - -3 w ATC - -f- FLa"j
- - - - - =
EXISTING TREE LINE
. . . . . . . = NEW 'VEGETATION LINE
Q = NEW TREES (to anchor terraces>
0 0 0 o o = 2.5 BOULDER WALLS Ca vera ge height)
= NEW GRASS
0 0000
0 PERVIOUS CP 000cg CJ 000000 p
00 PAVERS 4 0 00-30006006 0
TAI 0 ID ,p / p 000OC?CJ�10C}G1
C ' a
a
2-STALL GARAGE
0' JAPANESE GARDEN
NICHE 0 _ _
c.>o 00 - ' - . - , Q
c�
UNTOUCHED WOODS
1 0 0
� = = m m m m = = = = m m = m m = m = =
Zt b
?,2b
t�zb
�2
b r6
- - - - - = EXISTING TREE LINE
• • • • • • = NEW VrEGETAT]DN LINE
d = NEV TREES
BOULDER WALLS --
F. i
4 7
6
I
,56A D2AOIAJ& 301
(Tf- i- -soeur=Y�
6724 4 0io' , T-'
u
0 00
t
N
n lp
Dear City Council:
Helpill I've been trying to get a couple of very ,
insignificant variances and now I'm caught in a catch -
22.
One time the board passed on my project because they
could not read the copies of the engineered Topo Map.
The second time they passed because they did not know
if surpassing the 11 25% hard - surface coverage per lot"
limit would be good, bad, or indifferent for Lotus
Lake. These concerns, among a number of others, now
pass me on to you.
I have revised my plans 3 times now trying to comply
with the City's hard to understand regulations. It has
taken 6 months and spent my building window for 1994,
which has also cost me. I have already made
significant concessions that have resulted in a plan
that is less than optimal for me and reduces the woodsy
character of the neighborhood.
All I am asking for now is a 2.3 foot variance against
the 30 foot set back. This variance would make my
southern most garage stall a regulation 18.5 feet deep
instead of a cramped 16.5 feet deep. This variance
would have absolutely no impact on surrounding
properties given that my garage would still be about 40
feet from the street - a distance 3 times more than my
house. Also there are other garages and houses that are
much closer than this.
Secondly, The Assistant City Engineer, Dave Hemple, has
required a cement driveway to combat any possible
erosion. I see Dave's point in asking for this.
Unfortunately, this condition puts me over the 25%
coverage limit, so I need a 5% variance to accommodate
him. This variance is really not for me, or Dave, it
is for the Lake. Dave requested in writing that the
board provide it, but they did not because they were
concerned that exceeding the 25% coverage might itself
be erosional. So this is the catch -22: The engineer
wants a concrete driveway to combat erosion, but the
board thought exceeding 25% coverage might somehow
increase erosion. One thing is for certain, my current
situation is more erosional than my new plan would be.
u
I have also asked members of the City to show me in ,
writing where the city can specifically dictate the
type of driveway I have when the neighbors on all sides
7
At any rate, I very strongly feel that if the City
really wants a concrete driveway, then the City should
grant the variance without hesitation and without any
further discussion or conditions. That would only be
fair, seeing as how it is for the Lake and not any of
us. And especially since the applicant must first
suffer to get it, then pay for it -and finally look at
it....
Which brings me to another point: If there is a
driveway required I request that a natural stone
"mortared" with grass be allowed instead of concrete.
This driveway would not erode. And because it is
absorbant, it would not fall under the rubric of hard -
surface coverage, either. Therefore we could build a
better looking driveway with no need for a variance at
allt The proposed driveway will be located in a
natural, wooded area, directly under a Japanese garden.
Therefore I would really appreciate the option to go
natural, without a variance, if my costs for the
natural stone are not prohibitive.
In summary, please grant the right to build an
attractive, natural stone driveway with no 25% variance
required. Or, in case I can't afford natural stone,
please grant the 5% variance on the 25% coverage limit
to build a concrete or asphalt driveway. Secondly,
please grant a 2.3 foot setback variance so my southern
most garage stall can be a regulation 18.5 feet deep
instead of a cramped 16.5 feet deep.
Thank -you for your consideration and I hope we will
have enough time to discuss this.
(Loren Veltkamp)
6724 Lotus Trail
470 -7940
of me have gravel driveways, the road in front of my
'
house is gravel, there is 50 foot wide sandy beach in
front of my property, plus there is no serious
erosional problem with my existing gravel driveway. I
'
am still checking into this and request the council's
help in this matter. I want to see this authority
defined in writing and have that writing interpreted
for me by an independent attorney. It just doesn't
'
sound quite fair to me, given the extenuating
circumstances of this case. I mean how important is it
'
to put in a concrete driveway, to combat erosion, when
a 50 foot beach and 1500 foot gravel road lie directly
below it? The proposed driveway is gentle with only a
4.5% rise.
At any rate, I very strongly feel that if the City
really wants a concrete driveway, then the City should
grant the variance without hesitation and without any
further discussion or conditions. That would only be
fair, seeing as how it is for the Lake and not any of
us. And especially since the applicant must first
suffer to get it, then pay for it -and finally look at
it....
Which brings me to another point: If there is a
driveway required I request that a natural stone
"mortared" with grass be allowed instead of concrete.
This driveway would not erode. And because it is
absorbant, it would not fall under the rubric of hard -
surface coverage, either. Therefore we could build a
better looking driveway with no need for a variance at
allt The proposed driveway will be located in a
natural, wooded area, directly under a Japanese garden.
Therefore I would really appreciate the option to go
natural, without a variance, if my costs for the
natural stone are not prohibitive.
In summary, please grant the right to build an
attractive, natural stone driveway with no 25% variance
required. Or, in case I can't afford natural stone,
please grant the 5% variance on the 25% coverage limit
to build a concrete or asphalt driveway. Secondly,
please grant a 2.3 foot setback variance so my southern
most garage stall can be a regulation 18.5 feet deep
instead of a cramped 16.5 feet deep.
Thank -you for your consideration and I hope we will
have enough time to discuss this.
(Loren Veltkamp)
6724 Lotus Trail
470 -7940
REBUTTAL TO BRUCE JOHANNSON'S LETTER
Dear Board, Staff, Council, Public:
Bruce Johannson has written a letter about me that
warrants a rebuttal. This letter is erroneous,
misleading, and malicious enough to be called libelous
in the legal sense of the term. It clearly attempts to
damage my reputation and cause me personal distress. It
has entered the public record.
Among other things, Bruce has made the accusation: "Mr.
Veltkamp threatened to destroy personal property of
mine in the form of a shed which has been in place for
over thirty years because he didn't like the way it
looked from his bathroom ".
This is humorous, but it still deserves a reply. Bruce
has a freestanding porch that is partially on my
property. Bruce calls it a shed, but it isn't. It is
covered by windows on all four sides and focuses on my
house and yard. The entire south wall of this porch,
up to 20 inches, encroaches on my land. The east wall
of this porch is 2 inches from my property line. The
porch is perched on a crumbling retaining wall that is
3 feet above my property. Its roof and windows are 20
feet above my yard. It looks like an abandoned prison
tower from below and people who visit the park think it
belongs to me and ask when I'm going to fix it up.
The screens are long gone and only ripped plastic flaps
in their place, the paint is almost off but there is
still enough to see grey on one side and white on the
other. The floor has cracked and caved in and chunks
of concrete are currently on my property. The value of
this porch can't be over a hundred dollars.
But what bothers me most is the way it looks down into
our master bedroom bathroom. It looks THROUGH THE
SHOWER directly ON TO THE TOILET SEAT. There have been
occasions when we have seen moving shadows in this
porch after dark from our bathroom. If I flip on the
light at night and the curtain is open, I'm in plain
view of whoever happens to be sitting in the porch. My
beautiful wife is very uncomfortable with this
potential "spy tower" as any crack in the curtain would
show her taking a shower. This is especially relevant
since Bruce plans to put renters in the house. WE have
no idea who he's going to rent to. The house is a mess
so it probably won't be anyone too great. Women are
concerned about these matters and who can blame them.
In short, it is a rude building. It also has a better
I I
' view of our family room and sunbathing deck than I do.
Within a week of Bruce buying the house I approached
' him and told him we wanted the porch off our land.
Bruce blew me off saying he didn't see any proof that
it was on my land. I told him of the survey and tried
to show him the surveyor's stakes. He said he'd seen
' some sticks and twine, but that they didn't mean
anything to him (the sticks help identify the surveyors
stakes which are rerod). He did not want to look and
' refused to agree to anything. So rather than press the
matter, I left.
Weeks later I over heard him asking another man how to
' fix this porch up., "The man advised him to just cover
the crumbling floor with another layer of concrete"
(Which, of course, would flow onto my land). I could
' see anew that Bruce had absolutely no intention of
complying with my request; just the opposite, in fact.
' Recently Bruce sent me a certified letter admitting
that even his own survey shows that the porch is on my
land. Never - the -less, he still demanded that I get a
' new survey done, at my own expense, and that he would
then decide what to do about the porch -- so again he
has not committed to anything and essentially blown me
off for the third time.
There is nothing wrong with my survey. If it is good
First, I called the city and asked them how to handle
'
the matter. I was convinced the city was on my side
and Bruce was in the wrong. This call was logged and
may be checked for. I told the inspector of my plan to
have the porch removed from my property and that I
'
expected the city to NOT ALLOW Bruce to rebuild the
wall, or move the porch, within the 10 foot setback
area. They advised me to start off by calling him.
I called Bruce on the phone and told him again that I
was serious about removing the porch from my land. He
'
hit the roof and asked me if I was threatening him. I
said "Yes I am. I'm threatening your porch." then I
corrected myself and said "I'm threatening the part of
the porch that is on my land. Bruce acts like its a
'
crime to tell someone you really mean business.
I thought I was being polite and fair by warning him
'
before he sunk a lot of money into fixing it up. No
such luck! Bruce grew furious and called the police
claiming that I physically threatened both him and his
personal property. He also called the city and talked
to John Rask. Now he has done the same thing again
with the board, staff and the city council.
' Recently Bruce sent me a certified letter admitting
that even his own survey shows that the porch is on my
land. Never - the -less, he still demanded that I get a
' new survey done, at my own expense, and that he would
then decide what to do about the porch -- so again he
has not committed to anything and essentially blown me
off for the third time.
There is nothing wrong with my survey. If it is good
enough for the city to decide variances on, and the
'
underwriters who purchased my property last November,
it is good enough for Mr. Johannson.
report him to the police like a criminal, then bad
'
Since this letter Bruce sent out his hired help to jack
up the building so they could pour a new concrete floor
over the existing one and on to my property. I went
out to talk to him again. I showed him the stakes out
'
lining my property and he claimed he called the survey
and the survey said he didn't put any stakes in. Then I
showed him my survey and he accused me of using a
'
different survey than the one I used with the city.
Then and he tried very hard to get me to threaten him.
(This guy really wants me to threaten him for some
reason). I just walked away when he started that
,
routine again and called the building inspector. The
Inspector came out and wrote him up: He told him he
could not pour a different floor and put windows on "a
'
non - complying structure ". Next day, Bruce was out
painting the porch a grey blue that looks hideous
against the earth colors of the woods.
,
Now we can see Bruce's accusation: "Mr. Veltkamp
threatened to destroy personal property of mine in the
form of a shed which has been in place for over thirty
,
years ", in a better light. Bruce claims the "shed" has
been there forever and this gives him right to keep it
there and fix it up on my land. Now this, I believe,
'
runs counter to city ordinances for non- complying
structures.
If a neighbor comes to me and says I'm on his land with
'
something. I say: "I'll take care of it ". I don't
ignore him, then yell at him, then argue with him, then
report him to the police like a criminal, then bad
'
mouth him, then accuse him falsely before prominent
members of the city, then force him to contact a lawyer
and build a lawsuit. Life is too short for this
nonsense. My lawyer in this, Atty. Krugeal of Glen
,
Lake, wants 240 dollars just to send the letter. He
insists Bruce's activities are illegal and he wins
cases like this all the time. The vast number of
encroachments go to the victim - especially on
registered land. I just resent having to go through
with this now. I really don't feel like it on top of
everything else I've got to do.
Bruce also brought up the previous owner of the house ,
whose name was Tim Smith. Bruce claims I threatened
Tim as well. (What is it with this threatening thing ?)
My problems with Tim began 2 days before we closed on
our house last November. At this time, Tim climbed '
down on to our property and cut down 10 trees that
blocked his view of my front yard, some of the park,
n
1
0
and some of the lakeshore.
Tim admitted this to me when I was out taking pictures
of the vandalism. I also found his saw on my property
which he took from my hand. I also photographed the 6
foot high by 40 foot long pile of trees he pulled up
into his back yard. Tim burned my trees for heat
throughout the winter of 94. He said he had permission
to cut the trees down from the previous owner. I asked
the owner, Rocky Byrne, at closing and he said Tim had
absolutely no permission to cut any trees. He had
supervised permission to trim certain branches 2.5
years ago, but nothing since then.
Two of these trees were 5" diameter. One was 3
diameter. Three were 2 diameter. And the rest were
smaller. Together they formed a 30 foot wide wall of
green. The stumps are still there for anyone to see.
I got a replacement estimates from both Halls, and Lotus
Nursery for the vandalism. They surveyed the damage
personally and both estimates exceeded 3,500 dollars -
due in part to the difficulty of the planting. We have
not decided whether to pursue Tim In court yet, but the
more I think about it, and the subsequent problems this
has caused me with Bruce, the more I feel like it.
Now I understand why Tim cut the trees down: he wanted
to sell his house to Bruce with maximum view for
maximum dollar - at my expense.
The problem this has caused with Bruce is that Bruce
now thinks he has a view of my proposed garage, when in
fact, the only reason he can see my yard at all is
because Tim illegally cut the trees down last November.
So Tim has hurt me twice. First, he cut down my trees.
Second, he sold Bruce a false view. Bruce is very
upset, but I think his problem lies with Tim and his
own reckless speculation, not with me.
Bruce also claims I "disregarded city ordinances by
'
building retaining walls and adding truckloads of dirt
to enlarge my lot onto city property ". This from the
guy whose driveway is half on city property and he
'
parks on it everyday. Bruce's house is 2 feet on to
the same city property that he doesn't want me to plant
flowers on! Give me a break.
'
I needed to level off my land for gardening so I called
Dave Hemple to find out what I could do. Dave came out
and walked the property and discussed options. Later,
'
I brought out only one, half -full, truck and had Mr.
Kerber level it out for me. Dave came back and looked
the work over and wanted some changes that I did not
'
understand the first time. I quickly corrected them
and Dave was then satisfied. This event occurred
months before Bruce even bought the place so he was not
a witness as he claims. If there is anything else
wrong with my place the city will tell me when they
come through next time. I doubt the city needs Bruce
to tell them what to do.
In summary:
Bruce is not living at 6701 Mohawk as he implies. He is
not even a resident of our neighborhood and lives over
on Saddlebrook Curve in a much newer and bigger house.
Bruce is a speculator who has bought a property for
resale or renting. He's a builder looking to make a
quick buck. He could very likely sell the house next
month after he's fixed it up. Meanwhile, he wants
permanent input into how "the Lakeshore" is developed.
I don't think so. Citizens of Chanhassen don't roll
over for developers. (It is doubtful that Bruce is a
builder, too, seeing as how he can't even read a
survey, recognize surveyor's stakes, does not
understand encroachment law, and doesn't know the codes
for non - complying structures.)
Bruce's rental unit has not traditionally had - -and in
the future will not have -- a view of my new garage,
period. No matter what shape it takes. Established
root systems grow 2" in diameter per year and 10 to 15
feet upwards. By the time the garage is done, he won't
be able to see it anymore. In the winter he will see
an outline of the structure until the slower growing
pines take over. No one on Mohawk has a view of Lotus
Lake. Most of the people of Lotus Trail don't even
have a view of the lake. That's why they come down and
sit on my deck. You can too. Bruce, however, is not
invited.
Bruce's rental unit is 1300 feet away from the
lakeshore, around two corners, and on a different road.
Therefore Bruce doesn't have the proximity to comment
on what is "overbearing" for our street or how he would
like the lakeshore to look. He is simply not part of
it. He is aesthetically nuts on this point anyway.
One look at his property will tell you that he just
wants more view at my expense. I pay the taxes and
mortgage; he gets the benefits by crowding and
encroaching on to my property. Did I mention his house
is less than 4 feet from my property line!
Bruce does not know me or my house and therefore cannot
comment on what my hardships are. This is for the
council to decide.
I am not building, nor ever intended to build, an
"enclosed tower type deck ", an "enclosed porch ", or
I
0
"excavating 20 feet deep" as he claims. The excavation
will average 5 feet deep and the shade roofs were not
enclosed.
Bruce has not reported accurately to the board, staff
and council. He has exaggerated and mislead every
chance he got.
I did not threaten my
of his vandalism, I p
view of the lake, but
back and seek privacy
courtesy HAS NOT been
expect it will be.
previous neighbor Tim. Inspite
romised him I would not block his
that I would let the trees grow
for my own property. This
extended to Bruce. Nor do I
Finally, libel is defined as "a written statement that
damages a person's reputation or exposes them to public
ridicule" or "Any defamatory or grossly unflattering
statement or representation ". Enough said.
' Loren,, Veltkamp
' V
f
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 24, 1994
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Mark Senn
STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; John Rask, Planner I; and Elliott Knetsch,
City Attorney
AN 8 FOOT FRONT YARD VARIANCE AND A VARIANCE TO THE MAXIMUM LOT
COVERAGE 25% FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AT 6724 LOTUS TRAIL,
LOREN VELTKAMP.
John Rask presented the staff report on this item recommending denial of the variances.
Johnson: We'll let Mr. Veltkamp, do you have anything you wish to say at this time?
Loren Veltkamp: Yeah. I wanted to address the letter that Brute wrote and then I wanted to
check to see if you all read my lengthy report...
Johnson: Everybody's read it, yes.
Loren Veltkamp: Okay. After we met last time I went home and thought about the garage
and I came up with this new design which doesn't need the setback but I would still like to
have a little bit of setback because the problem I have with this new design is that the, if you
can put that up. The very south narrow comer there, I don't need a garage stall there but I
wanted to store wood there. But the people that come after me will be disappointed with that
because it's about 16, 17 feet long. It's not quite long enough to have, you know to use as a
car stall. So I would still like to come out there 2 or 3 feet maybe if you could see clear to
do that. And then somebody could use it for a stall later on. I don't have any intention of
doing that but just for the future, I think it would be good to do. It's only 3 feet on that one
corner. I think I would still be under the 25 %, well it would be under the 25% coverage with
that additional. So I guess I'm changing my mind from requesting an 8 foot variance down to
a 3 or something like that. However I need to make that a legal decent garage stall at the
very end.
Rask: You have not submitted plans though showing this, is that correct?
Watson: Because we need to deal with something that's been requested. We don't have.
I I
u
L
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 24, 1994
Johnson: You didn't bring anything that we asked for at the last meeting.
Loren Veltkamp: I didn't want to do engineering drawings of this because I did submit a
topographical map which he has on here which is the same that I did before which was, you
know signed by the engineer. So it was, what I brought last time was an engineering
drawing. I'm a technical writer by trade so I ... and this one I did not have signed by the
engineer but I could have brought it over and showed it to him and had it signed just like the
other one. This, the topographical map here is close to the one we had before. It drains the
same way. It drains down our driveway into the culvert in the southeast point of the property
so it has exactly the same drainage. The difference is the garage is in the front instead of on
the side so I don't have to pull out any dirt. No dirt actually leaves the premises with this
plan. There's very little digging.
Johnson: The thing I read in here was that the discrepancy between our City Engineer and
your engineer when they consulted among the last meeting. The previous meeting we had
here before we come to the, they had discussed the property and.
Loren Veltkamp: There was a mistake on the first drawing, which was my fault. I had an
earth berm but I had the wrong number on the top of it so it didn't look as high as it actually
was. Actually it looks like a pool. So it was my mistake.
Johnson: And I looked over your letter here, there's a number of, I disagree with you on a
number of, per every one of your hardships on the home because I feel it's buyer beware. If I
go out and buy an automobile from some gentlemen in the city or some other city and I get
home and I don't like the color of the interior, I can't come running down here to City Hall
and say hey, I don't like the color of the interior because I was the dummy that bought it so.
Loren Veltkamp: I agree with that. It is essentially my fault. I planned on putting a new
garage on from the first time I saw the house because I said this is what it needs and I didn't
realize that the setbacks started in the middle of my driveway. I thought it started on the
road. That's a mistake that has cost me a lot. Not knowing that one thing. But I hoped to
work around it with this new plan and make the best of the situation now.
Watson: This, your newest proposal, was it sent to the planning department on October 17th?
Loren Veltkamp: The newest proposal doesn't show any need for a variance but I still would
like to have some variance to make that last stall a little bit longer. Just to make it
regulation.
2
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 24, 1994
Watson: Well technically then, if his new proposal requires no variance, we just deny the
original proposal and he can come in and work it out with the planning department about
anything, about you know if it doesn't require a variance. He doesn't need us.
Senn: I think there's two issues here. I think it doesn't require a variance according to
distance. It does require a variance though for lot coverage though, if I understood it
correctly.
Rask: Yes, it would still require the lot coverage variance.
Watson: Oh it would, because I thought he said it wouldn't.
Loren Veltkamp: I'm not clear on that because I asked John last time if I had to build a
concrete driveway or something and he said that it was not code. I did not have to do that.
Rask: Well it's not so black and white in the code. When Dave Hempel reviewed this
variance request and he, one of his conditions was that the city would require him to go with
a paved driveway in this circumstance because of the erosion problems in the area and
because of the grades. It was felt that ... hard surface driveway was needed to reduce erosion.
And this is what really forced the issue on the hard surface coverage variance. The garage,
the proposed garage and the house together come up to about 25 %. The driveway then really
forces the issue here.
Loren Veltkamp: So if I don't, if it's not code, if I don't have to have a concrete driveway,
then I would rather not have it.
Watson: Well we have to be concerned with what our engineering department is concerned
with too.
Loren Veltkamp: I have to be ... money. But I'm willing to build the driveway. If I can get a
variance on the garage then that would be a fair deal for me. If I can get a few feet variance
and then I'll build a concrete driveway and then we're both happy. That would seem to me to
be reasonable.
Watson: You mean a variance for the lot coverage?
Loren Veltkamp: No. Just the variance on the garage. .
Watson: On that shorter stall one-
3
C
I
0
0
0
I Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 24, 1994
I Loren Veltkamp: Yeah, the short stall.
I Johnson: You've still over on the area. 25 %.
Watson: I feel a little like I'm playing let's make a deal.
' Loren Veltkamp: I think that is what we're down to.
' Watson: Well, I'm not sure about that.
Johnson: Because we had one here not too long ago on Red Cedar Point where we had a
' similar issue and we made them stay within the 25 %.
Loren Veltkamp: I guess I'm still trying to find out then if the concrete driveway is being
' asked for here or is it being required or what is actually happening here with the driveway?
Because I can build it out of natural stone and grass, which would be.
Watson: It's the engineering department requires it and we give any kind of variance, we
would then include it as a requirement for building. To complete the project wouldn't we?
Isn't that basically.
Johnson: Yeah. Sound right to you Elliott?
Elliott Knetsch: Right. As I understand it, if he was simply redoing an existing garage and
then a gravel driveway, we would not require him to put in a hard surface driveway. It's not
required by code. But since he's asking for a variance we can ask for a hard surface as a
condition of granting the variance.
Loren Veltkamp: And that's fine with me but if I build the design that I recently submitted, I
don't need any variance so then I don't have to do the concrete driveway, right?
Senn: Well except we're, I tried to do it once so I'll do it again. You're requesting two
variances. Okay?
Loren Veltkamp: No I'm not. I'm not requesting any variances.
Senn: Well the ordinance puts you in a position where if you build what you're desiring to
' build, you're going to need two variances to do it. One variance relates to setbacks. One
variance relates to lot coverage. They are not interchangeable.
4
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 24, 1994
Loren Veltkamp: I realize that. I don't, I'm not clear yet whether I have to, if I get, you can
make it, put a condition on any one of the variances, which is okay but I can build a garage
without any variances. That's what I'm saying.
Senn: Yes you can, if you stay within the lot coverage and the setbacks.
Loren Veltkamp: And the plan you have shows that I can do that.
Senn: That's not what I'm hearing from staff.
Watson: No.
Senn: You're telling me it exceeds the lot coverage.
Rask: Yeah, and as the engineering department reviewed this and they informed me that they
would require, if say he came in for a building permit a month from now. The variance is
denied and he wants to construct the garage as shown outside of the required setback. The
engineering department informed me that he has to, they would still require that he pave the
driveway.
Watson: Okay, regardless of whether we give the variance or...
Senn: Regardless of with or without the variance.
Loren Veltkamp: Well that's what I asked John last time I was here. If they could force me
to do the driveway and I'm still unclear on that. Is this a code or is this just something that
they decided to do because nobody around me has a concrete driveway.
Senn: I'd just as soon stay outside of the issue. I mean it has nothing to do with us. What
we need to do is decide on two things. Setback and lot coverage, correct? Okay. So let's
stick to those points because we have nothing to say about what happens on driveways.
AI -Jaff: I'll just point something out. Engineering department can require anything that
would prevent erosion.
Senn: I understand that. But then it's just a recommendation. I mean none of us sitting up
here have anything to do with driveways one way or the other.
Watson: Because we have to deal with what we are given before us, which is two variances.
P,
7
� I
� I
� I
J
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 24, 1994
Senn: Okay now let's go to this proposed plan, okay just so we can try to focus on this for a
minute. His proposed plan eliminates the need for any setback variances. Okay. How much
of a lot coverage variances does it still require?
Al -Jaffa S %.
Senn: S %. So it's 5% off? Okay.
Loren Veltkamp: That's with the concrete driveway and actually it...
Rask: Well we came up with about 29...
Senn: With or without the driveway?
Rask: With the driveway as proposed. It's not, I think as you can see from the drawing here,
it's hard to get an exact measurement from that. This drawing that he submitted shows the
entire ... but it does show a different driveway. I guess I took this survey as he submitted it,
used that area to calculate the area.
Senn: Okay, and on the basis of that he's S %over on the lot coverage?
Rask: Correct.
Loren Veltkamp: That's only if I make it a solid driveway. I could put in a two track or I
can put in natural stone and grass so I don't really think I need this variance. In fact I'm sure
of it. I don't need any variance to build the garage but I will, if you want a good driveway,
then I will do that if I can get an extra 3 feet to make that one stall bigger. Otherwise we're
done.
Johnson: If I understand the staff right, they say that the city engineer is going to require a
cement driveway so it would still.
Watson: And then he would need a variance because he would have exceeded. So my
understanding, he's going to need a variance no matter how it does it. Whether he does it
here and now or whether he has to come in after applying for a building permit. Finds out he
needs a concrete driveway or impermeable surface driveway.
Senn: And come back here again.
Watson: And we'd be right back here doing exactly what we're doing right now.
6
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 24, 1994 ,
1
Loren Veltkamp: And I don't understand that because I just asked John this week, what day
was I in and I asked John, I said do I have to by code or by any means build a concrete ,
driveway and he went back and researched and came out and he said no. Isn't that right?
Rask: No, I didn't say no. I said I wasn't aware of anything but I'd have to talk to the I
engineering department and they had recommended it.
Loren Veltkamp: I know they had recommended it but I'm wondering whether they can
actually order me to build a concrete driveway when there's all these other alternatives. I've
never heard of this. Is it code or what is this?
Senn: Well again, that's not really for Adjustments and Appeals, right? ,
Elliott Knetsch: Well but I think you're right. I mean if he goes back and he says no setback ,
variance and you ask for a building permit for that plan there with the small end so he doesn't
need a setback variance, engineering's going to tell him to get a building permit for that
garage. You need to handle this erosion problem. Engineering has the legal authority to do '
that. In a site plan they can look at all factors that the new structure is going to impact and
drainage and erosion is one of the primary things they look at so they can require a driveway
as part of the building permit process. '
Watson: And then he'd be back here.
driveway would then trigger the lot covers
Elliott Knetsch. And the d y gg a issue and he would be g
back so. '
Loren Veltkamp: Well then I guess my question is if the city is forcing me to drive a
driveway, why do I have to apply for the variance? That doesn't seem right. ,
Elliott Knetsch: Well you're not going to be able to build, even though you don't need a
setback variance, you won't be able to build a new structure without a variance on lot
coverage. We're not forcing you to do anything. We're not forcing you to build a driveway. '
You can keep the structure the way it is and you don't have to do anything.
Loren Veltkamp: Well that's true. I guess I don't understand and I've asked about this a '
number of times. Now nobody around me has a concrete driveway. The guy to my south,
the guy to the north, the guy to the east and the road out in front of me is gravel. We have a '
2,000 foot road out there that's gravel. Furthermore, I'm on a piece that is 60 feet of sand.
Now I'm going to have the only concrete driveway within 500 feet actually.
I Board of Adjustments and Appeals October 24 1994
'
Johnson: But all these other eo le meet city setbacks.
P P h'
'
Senn: We keep getting asked the question we can't answer. I mean either we can sit here
and keep being repetitive or we can go forward. I mean I'm starting to think what Carol said
'
is the case. I mean let's just deny the original application. If no variance is needed, we're
done. I mean we're done because I keep hearing him say he doesn't need the variance so I
mean I'm not going to argue with him. If he doesn't need a variance, fine. Let's just deny the
original one. He wants to go with that plan, there's no reason to be before us.
Loren Veltkamp: I still have a reason. I would like to get that extra 3 feet and I'm trying to
'
negotiate here.
Senn: I'm not willing to go for your additional 3 feet. I don't know if these guys are or not.
Are you guys willing? I mean tell him. Are you willing to go with the variance on there or
'
not?
Johnson: I'm not for the 3 foot.
Loren Veltkamp: I don't want to play let's make a deal either. I'm just trying to build it the
'
best way I can. And whether the city would like to have a concrete driveway, I'm willing to
do that. But I would also like to have an extra, you know 3 feet which would be very
helpful.
'
Watson: Well the only real proposal before us tonight, with all the engineering, with all the
stuff in front of us is the 30 foot front yard, or the 8 foot variance and the maximum lot
'
coverage variance, is that correct? I'll make a motion to deny that proposal.
Senn: Second.
'
Johnson: Any more discussion?
' Watson moved, Senn seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals deny the request
for an 8 foot variance to the setback and a variance to dw lot coverage maximum. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. Mm variance requests were denied.
Watson: I don't feel we can comment on this one because we don't, that one really isn't here.
I mean it came on the 17th of October. If we want to talk about that separately, we can talk
' about that one separately.
9
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 24, 1994 1
considering that? Or do ,
Senn. Are you com g ou feel that there's more submittal y
information that needs to be had before you're comfortable with it? '
Rask: I think the engineering department had the some concerns as far as showing elevations,
drainage. None of this was addressed with the new plan. It happens to shave off a corner.
As far as the planning staff is concerned, we still feel he has reasonable use of his property. '
There are other options. If he needs to store wood, he can certainly build a detached shed
somewhere... still has room to do that so there are other options. We feel he has reasonable
use. '
Johnson: I feel the storage of the boat isn't the city's fault. I have people up in the ,
neighborhood where I live, they have, there's quite a few number of them have got boats. I
noticed today most of them are out of the neighborhood now because they're stored for the
winter. They don't have the room to store them so I don't feel that it's like owning a motor '
home. If you don't have the room to store a motor home or something, I don't feel it's the
city's fault that we have to provide area for him to store it. If you wish to buy a motor home
that don't fit your yard, I don't feel you can put the blame on the city. '
Loren Veltkamp: I didn't say it was the city's fault.
Johnson: No, but I'm just saying. If you don't have the area.
Loren Veltkamp: I sure don't feel that way. I'm just trying to work with whoever I can work '
with here and get a good plan so people in the future...
Senn: Basically from my perspective, my hang up is quite honestly over the setback '
variances. I don't have a real hang up with a 5% variance on lot coverage is it includes the
driveway and so long as the applicant meets all of the other requirements of the engineering
department. '
Watson: Which in this case does include that driveway.
Senn: Well I'm saying I can only look at it one way. I'm going to look at it the way it's '
Y 8 Y
going to end up one way or the other down the road.
in that if he came in meeting '
� Watson: Right. So you're saying g the setback with another
proposal, meeting the setback but requiring the driveway which kicks him over the 25 %, you
would not be opposed to that.
9 �
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 24, 1994
Senn: I wouldn't be opposed to granting a variance based on 5% of lot coverage. I don't
think that's unreasonable. I mean I know we don't like to do it but that certainly puts it
within acceptable parameters to me. But again that means that the applicant has to, and I'm
not saying the driveway only. I'm saying that he needs to meet the engineering department's
requirements which means you've got to get the engineering department to approve what
you're doing erosion wise and everything else.
Watson: One of the things that we ask for, and I realize it's probably a more complicated
question than engineering or anybody wanted to deal with but I would like to know what the
implications are of 25% drainage off a property that goes right into a lake and 33 %. I mean
when you talk about 5 %, what are we talking about as far as what's going into the lake?
What's happening to the lake. What's, you know what kind of erosion are we talking about?
I don't understand. 25% is acceptable. 30% isn't. What happens in that 5 %?
Senn: You get to flip a coin.
Loren Veltkamp: Can I address that? It's actually better for the lake because when the water
runs across sand and gravel, it picks up slit and it picks up chemicals from the grass if they're
using fertilizer and this is bad for the lake. So you really want more hard surface around the
lake. The lake would not be polluted if it was surrounded by concrete. It wouldn't be. But
because they have all these gravel roads and everything, that's why the lake is polluted.
' Watson: No, the lake is polluted because we didn't have sanitary sewer in Carver Beach until
1976. I've lived here all my life. I know why Lotus Lake looks the way it does. But I just
am concerned about what that actually means. Why we picked 25 %.
Rask: I guess on this particular proposal, the engineering department wasn't really able to
ascertain the full impact because there are no engineering drawings. The applicant did do a
nice job and you know, not because of anything he did but in order for the engineering
department to really make a decision on this, they need a grading plan. They need to see
where the erosion control measures are going to be placed. And these other spot elevations...
Watson: And we don't have them?
I Rask: No.
Watson: Basically that's what we asked for before tonight.
Rask: Correct.
10
F1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 24, 1994
Loren Veltkamp: I submitted all the spot elevations. On the driveway, the end of the garage,
the new garage, it's all there. It's right on the map in fact. So I think that they do have this
stuff and I think it doesn't make any difference. It's gravely roads and grass does not, and
concrete does not and hard surfaces do not. I mean that's totally obvious. So when you have
a lot of leaves and woods and this is the kind of stuff that erodes. It's not the hard surfaces
that are the enemy.
Watson: Well I'd say that salt and chemicals run just as well down a concrete surface as they
do down dirt. It may not include the silt but the chemicals are still coming.
Johnson: I never asked you, did you want to make a comment or didn't you?
Bruce Johansen: Yeah I'll make a comment.
Johnson: I'll let you make a comment. I haven't closed the public hearing. We've already
made the vote but I'll let you make a comment.
Bruce Johansen: My comment is I don't see where Mr. Veltkamp has any hardship and my
experience with variances is you usually have some sort of hardship. He's got a 2 car garage.
He's got a big house and I think my property values, from the plans that I saw that he
submitted, would directly affect my property value and I'm not pleased with that. And I have
no garage and I'm not asking for one right now but I don't see where he's got a problem.
He's got a big house. Big garage. Big driveway. Storage area and I don't get it.
Loren Veltkamp: I've listed the 13 or 14 hardships that I have with the current floorplan.
That's what it is and...
Watson: I make a motion to close the public hearing.
Johnson: I'll second that.
Rask: I just wanted to point out one additional thing. On page 6 of the staff report, we have
listed 8 conditions if the Board decides to grant a variance for the construction of a garage.
We had recommended 8 conditions.
Watson: Well we denied it so there's nothing to worry about.
Johnson: He'll have to work it through you people again. ?hank you very much John.
I1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 24, 1994
Watson moved, Johnson seconded to close the public bearing. All voted in favor and the
motion carried. The public hearing was closed.
Loren Veltkamp: Could I, before we go could I please get this thing clear. I've been trying
to clear it up ever since I started this project. I've been working on it for 6 months.
Watson: I know but maybe you need to clear it up with the planning department. We're not
planners.
Loren Veltkamp: ...we're closing the meeting and I feel that this is totally relevant to what
we're talking about here. I don't know if the city can force me to build a concrete driveway
or not. I mean I have been trying to find that out.
Watson: The City Attorney.
Senn: But that's not something for us to tell you. We can't tell you whether they can or not.
Loren Veltkamp: Can the City Attorney? •
Senn: He just told you that they could.
Loren Veltkamp: If I get a variance.
Senn: No. He said even if they didn't.
� I Loren Veltkamp: If I don't have any variances, they can just make me build a concrete
driveway?
' Elliott Knetsch: If you want to construct that garage on that plan, even if it meets the
setbacks, to get a building permit the engineering department will look at erosion and
drainage. If they determine a hard driveway is necessary, the only way you can build that is
' with a hard driveway. And if a hard driveway puts you over the lot coverage requirement,
then you need a variance for lot coverage.
' Senn: And essentially what we're telling you is.
Loren Veltkamp: I haven't heard that yet.
Senn: Well, essentially what we're telling you is we're not going to give you a variance for a
setback so if you want to go back and design a garage, okay that fits within the setback but
12
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 24, 1994 '
me a of lot coverage variance you can come back and talk to us a '
requires so type g , again. Okay? y 8
But to me it seems far better if you go back and sit back with the planning staff and the
engineering department together, and get a solution that you can all live with before, and if it '
requires a variance.
Loren Veltkamp: I've already tried to do that and the answer I got, very specifically was that '
he didn't know of anything that required, enabled the city to force me to build one kind of
driveway or another. '
Senn: Well, that's not what I'm reading here. What I'm reading here is you've come up with
a new plan here in the last week. '
Loren Veltkamp: No, I submitted the new plan and I asked him about that.
Senn: I understand that. That's all within the last week, is it not? '
Watson: Yeah, the 17th. '
Loren Veltkamp: But I didn't hear about it until tonight though
Al -Jaff: ...you do need a paved driveway.
Watson: Because the engineering department has requested it? I
Al -Jaff: Yes.
Elliott Knetsch: If I might say something. This is totally within your discretion. If you look
at page 6 and those conditions, if what I'm kind of hearing at least Mark say is that he doesn't
have a problem with the lot coverage issue and staff had outlined a variance on the lot '
coverage issue only but does not allow any setback variance. And it has to meet the
engineering specifications and so forth. You could act on that tonight if you feel you have
sufficient information. ,
Watson: See I don't. I mean Mark might be comfortable with it but I have not heard
anything that speaks to the implication of exceeding whether that's, if 25% was picked '
arbitrarily or not I don't know but I'm...
(There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) '
Senn: ...that's taking the'S% over, to me that's not. ,
13
7
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 24, 1994
Watson: But isn't the size of the garage contributing to the overall coverage, right?
Senn: Well the house and garage.
Watson: So if we cut the size of the garage down, took into consideration the driveway. Is
there any way we could come up with an equation where we did not exceed the 25 %?
Rask: Sure. You could go.
Watson: Well then see, that is ultimately the answer. Is to design a driveway, concrete and a
building that does not exceed the 25 %. Whatever that turns out to be. Then they don't need
us and you know, the ordinance can.
Loren Veltkamp: Well I've already done that if you construct a natural stone driveway.
Watson: But you're not going to get to construct that driveway. That's history now. It's
going to be concrete.
Loren Veltkamp: This is the first night I've heard this. I'm sorry, that just and I tried to get
information on this. I don't know why it hasn't been made, I don't see where it's written
anywhere that the engineering can do this. I haven't seen this in writing or anything. It's just
been told to me tonight.
Watson: Well we have legal staff in order to make those determinations for us. That the city
indeed has the legal right to impose.
Loren Veltkamp: Well I still have other questions in that nobody around me has one and
then the street itself is gravel. Plus there's the beach. I mean why am I the only one.
Johnson: The reason I'm saying your neighbors for instance, they meet all city setbacks. The
one that John gave us meets all the city setbacks so there he isn't required to have it in the
area coverage.
Watson: They don't have to come to us and then we don't have to deal with it.
Al -Jaff: If any of the neighbors requested any kind of extensions to their existing buildings,
we would require them to put their driveways, and any time when we have a chance to
correct a situation, that's when we usually ask for them.
Watson: This is our opportunity.
14
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 24, 1994
Al -Jaff: Exactly.
Watson: Did we close the public hearing?
Johnson: Yes.
Watson: Okay. I make a motion to approve the Minutes of Monday, September 26th.
Johnson: I'll second it.
Watson moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals meeting dated September 26, 1994 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Watson: I'll make a motion to adjourn.
Johnson: I'll second that. All in favor.
Loren Veltkamp: Can I find out what I have and what I don't have now? Do I not have a
25% coverage variance now?
Johnson: No, you don't have any.
Watson: You don't have any variances.
Johnson: You don't have any variances. We denied all of it.
Loren Veltkamp: What is the next step for me?
Johnson: Work with John and Sharmin and Mr. Hempel.
Watson: Come up with something that doesn't exceed the 25% lot area coverage with a
concrete driveway. Basically that would be the bottom line, right?
Johnson: Yeah, because then you could.
Loren Veltkamp: But we don't even know if exceeding the 25% is a bad thing. It may be a
good thing.
Watson: Well our ordinance has determined that it's not a good thing.
15
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - October 24, 1994
Johnson: What I'm saying is if you can get together with John and you can design a garage
that's small enough plus the concrete driveway, it meets the 25 %, then you don't need us at
all.
Watson: And that would you be your ultimate goal.
Al -Jaffa The decision could also be appealed to the City Council.
Johnson: Yeah, you can appeal it to the Council.
Loren Veltkamp: I tried to understand the situation before I came in here but I just can't.
The rules keep changing. This rule has changed here in the last week, and this is not the first
time the rules have been changed a little bit. Not to put me off but so I can be prepared. So
can we reschedule the meeting so I can address these.
Johnson: You have, what is it, 4 days. In writing to appeal it to the City Council in 4 days.
Give a written appeal and you can have it scheduled for a future Council meeting. And you
can appeal it to the City Council.
'
Elliott Knetsch: I think you can do two things. One, you can appeal this decision to the City
Council within 4 days of today's date. Number two, go back and work with staff to see if a
plan can be worked out that requires no variances and if you still need the lot coverage
variance but the plan is different than what they've just looked at, which was an 8 foot
setback variance and a lot coverage variance, you can come back with a new application for a
variance for only the lot coverage requirement.
Loren Veltkamp: The last thing I wanted to address here was this letter that was written
about me which is liabless. Do you mind if I address that?
'
Johnson: We've closed the meeting so. I don't want to re -open it again. I've closed the
public hearing and also closed the scheduled meeting so.
Watson moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried. The meeting was adjowned.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Planning Director
16
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
STAFF REPORT �
Z
Q
V
J
a.
Q
PROPOSAL: An eight (8) foot variance from the thirty (30) foot front yard setback
requirement and a variance from the maximum lot coverage of twenty -five
(25) percent for the construction of a 24.5' x 42' garage
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
6724 Lotus Trail
Loren Veltkamp
6724 Lotus Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
470 -7940
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 11,400 square feet
DENSITY: 3.82 units /acre
ADJACENT ZONING
Q
W
AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family
S - RSF, Residential Single Family
E - RD, Recreational Development Lake
W - RSF, Residential Single Family
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains a single family home with a tuck under
two car garage. The property slopes towards Lotus Trail.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
BAA DATE: 9/26/94
CC DATE:
'
CASE M 94-7 VAR
By: Rask:v
STAFF REPORT �
Z
Q
V
J
a.
Q
PROPOSAL: An eight (8) foot variance from the thirty (30) foot front yard setback
requirement and a variance from the maximum lot coverage of twenty -five
(25) percent for the construction of a 24.5' x 42' garage
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
6724 Lotus Trail
Loren Veltkamp
6724 Lotus Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
470 -7940
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE: 11,400 square feet
DENSITY: 3.82 units /acre
ADJACENT ZONING
Q
W
AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family
S - RSF, Residential Single Family
E - RD, Recreational Development Lake
W - RSF, Residential Single Family
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The site contains a single family home with a tuck under
two car garage. The property slopes towards Lotus Trail.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
' Veltkamp Variance
September 26, 1994
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
' 1. Section 20- 615(5)a. of the City Code states that the minimum front yard setback is thirty
(30) feet.
' 2. Section 20- 615(4) of the City Code states that the maximum lot coverage for all structures
and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent.
BACKGROUND
' This appeal was originally scheduled for the July 25, 1994 meeting of the Board of Adjustments
and Appeals. This item was pulled from the agenda as additional information was needed. Staff
requested that the applicant submit information showing the following items:
a. Proposed driveway grades
b. Contours of existing and proposed ground elevations
C. Location and height of retaining walls
d. Proposed and existing elevations of all existing and proposed structures
On September 12, 1994 the applicant submitted the above information.
ANALYSIS
The applicant wishes to construct a 24.5' x 42' attached garage onto an existing home. The
existing home contains a two car tuck under garage which would be converted into living space
or a workshop. Converting the old garage would allow the applicant to better insulate this area
while improving the appearance of the building. The applicant has indicated that the existing
garage is served by a steep, narrow and extra long stairway which makes it difficult to carry
groceries or any bulky items up the stairs. The existing driveway would be removed and a lawn
established.
The house is a non - conforming structure located at 6.5' from Lotus Trail. If the garage was to
be built as proposed, it would increase the non - conformity of the structure as the new addition
would also encroach into the setback requirement.
Staff fords that the applicant's request for a 24.5' x 42' garage is excessive for an 11,400 square
foot lot. The lot without the proposed garage has approximately 25% lot coverage with the
existing gravel driveway. The proposed garage and driveway would bring the total lot coverage
to approximately 33 %. As previously mentioned, the proposed garage would increase the non-
conformity of the existing structure. The applicant's proposal does not address the issue of
"reasonable use" as the applicant already has a two car garage. Upon review of comparable
properties within five hundred (500) feet of the subject property, sW9 did not find my
Veltkamp Variance
September 26, 1994 '
Page 3
staff '
did find one home that had an attached three car garage. This garage meets all setback
and lot coverage requirements
Staff explored a second option which consisted of reducing the proposed garage to 22' x 22'
The applicant would eliminate the need for a variance from the thirty (30) foot front yard setback
requirement if a smaller garage was constructed. This option would not increase the non- '
conformity of the existing structure, but would still require a variance to exceed the 25% lot
coverage requirement. Lot coverage would also be approximately 33% as a longer driveway
would be needed to access the garage. This option does not address the issue of "reasonable use" '
because the applicant already has a two car garage.
FINDINGS '
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant
a variance unless they find the following facts: '
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical ,
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority
of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow
a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre - existing standards in this '
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre - existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: Staff conducted a survey within 500 feet of the surrounding area and '
g Y g
discovered that the majority of comparable sites have a two car garage or ,
less. One home, within 500 feet, had a three car garage. The property
already has reasonable use with the existing home and two car garage.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, '
to other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The purpose of this variance is to allow the applicant to build a two car '
garage on a lot that does not contain sufficient area. The Carver Beach
area contains a number of small lots that are odd shaped with steep '
topography. Tins petition for a variance appears to be based on conditions
that are similar to other properties within the general area and the same
zoning classification. This variance does not blend with pre - existing
standards for this neighborhood. t
�7
' Veltkamp Variance
September 26, 1994
Page 4
' C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: Whereas, an additional two car ma ara a increase the value or income
g g Y
potential of this parcel, it appears that the applicant is requesting the
' variance to address some of the problems associated with the existing
garage. The applicant also indicated that he could better insulate the
existing garage making it easier to heat the portion of the home located
' above the garage.
' d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self - created hardship.
Finding: The applicant has reasonable use of the property with the existing two car
' garage. The need to have additional room for the storage of a boat and
fire wood is self - created. There are other options the applicant could
explore for the storage of these items. Problems associated with the
' existing garage also appear to be self created and could be solved by
improving the existing stairway and better insulating the garage. A
separate outside doorway could be constructed to provide for safe all
' weather access to the home and garage.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
' other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: It does not appear that the proposed garage addition would be detrimental
' to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the
neighborhood, because the property slopes away from adjoining properties.
In addition, the proposed garage would not block the view of the lake from
' surrounding properties.
Lotus Trail is built to a substandard City street section and consists of a
' gravel surface with drainage ditches. Due to the topography, this area is
subject to erosion problems. During periods of heavy rain, gravel and
pollutants from the roadway often washes into Lotus Lake. By increasing
' the lot coverage, you will increase the amount of runoff from the subject
property.
' f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the
' danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property
values within the neighborhood.
' Finding: The proposed variation would not impair an adequate supply of light and
air to adjacent property because the garage would be located at a lower
elevation than surrounding residences. The proposed garage would not
Veltkamp Variance
September 26, 1994
Page 5
increase congestion or negatively impact the traveling public because the
garage would be located further from the mad than is the existing home. '
An attached garage designed to match the existing home should not
substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
UPDATE
The Board tabled Mr. Veltkamp's variance request on September 26, 1994 to give him an
opportunity to submit engineering data showing details of his proposal. The applicant did not
submit any engineered drawings or plans. He did, however, submit a. nineteen page letter
explaining his proposal and listing various reasons why the Board should grant the variances.
The narrative was accompanied by a number of drawings, prepared by Mr. Veltkamp, showing
the proposed garage and grading plans. The applicant's plan and drawings were reviewed by the
City Engineering Department. The Engineering Department would still like the applicant to
addresses all the items specified in their original memorandum dated September 20, 1994. They
did add one additional item which calls for the construction of a turnaround area adjacent to the
proposed driveway. With regard to the drainage issue, the Engineering Department did not feel
that it was feasible to try to retain some of the storm water on -site.
The drawings submitted by the applicant demonstrates that it is possible to construct a reasonable
size garage without a variance from the front yard setback requirement. A variance would still
be required to exceed the twenty-five percent lot coverage requirement as a paved drive would
be required by the city.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals deny the eight (8) foot variance
from the thirty (30) foot front yard setback requirement and the variance to exceed the maximum
lot coverage of twenty-five (25) percent. The board may wish to base their recommendation on
the following findings:
1. The applicant already has a reasonable use of the property with the existing home and
two car garage. The need to have additional room for the storage of a boat and fire wood
is self - created. In addition, the applicant has demonstrated that it is possible to
construct a two car garage addition which meets the setback requirements.
2. This petition for a variance appears to be based on conditions that are similar to other
properties within the general area and the same zoning classification. This variance does
not blend with pre - existing standards for this neighborhood
3. Lotus Trail is built to a substandard City street section and consists of a gravel surface
with drainage ditches. Due to the topography, this area is subject to erosion problems.
During periods of heavy rain, gravel and pollutants from the roadway often washes into
Lotus Lake. By increasing the lot coverage you will increase the amount of runoff from
the subject property.
F�
Veldmmp Variance
September 26, 1994
Page 6
If the Board decides to grant a variance for the construction of a garage, staff would
recommend the following conditions:
1. A five (5) percent lot coverage variance to allow for the construction of a paved
driveway.
2. The garage shall comply with all setbacks.
3. The applicant shall provide the City Engineer for review and approval a revised
detailed grading, drainage, erosion control plan prepared by a professional engineer,
registered in the State of Minnesota showing the following items:
a. Additional spot elevations at the end of the driveway and along Lotus Trail
adjacent to the grading limits.
b. Clarify the type and height of retaining walls proposed.
C. Delete the earth berm proposed between the nhw driveway and Lotus Trail.
The existing grade at the garage shall be verified.
' 4. The existing driveway shall be eliminated and restored with topsoil and seed or other
landscape material acceptable to the City.
S. Erosion control fence (type 1) shall be installed and maintained along Lotus Trail
adjacent to the grading limits. The erosion control fence shall be maintained until
the entire site has been fully vegetated and removal authorized by the City.
6. A security escrow in the amount of $500.00 shall be provided to the City by the
applicant to guarantee site restoration and maintenance of erosion control fence.
7. The new driveway shall be constructed of an all- weather Lard surface such as
concrete, brick, or asphalt (bituminous).
& A turnaround shall be provided on the property.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Memorandum from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, dated September 20, 1994.
2. Letter from the applicant.
3. Application.
4. Drawing prepared by applicant showing requested addition.
Veltkamp Variance
September 26, 1994
Page 7
5. Detailed drawing of addition.
6. Drawing of Boulder Wall Design.
7. 1' topo of property without proposed garage.
S. 1' topo of property with proposed garage.
9. Drawing prepared by staff showing 22' x 22' garage.
10. Notice of public hearing.
11. Memorandum from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer, date September 20, 1994.
12. Letter from the applicant, dated September 21, 1994.
13. Letter to applicant from John Rask, dated October 12, 1994.
14. Letter from the applicant, dated October 17, 1994.
15. Letter from Adjoining Property Owner.
16. Board of Adjustment and Appeals minutes dated September 26, 1994.
I
I ATTACHMENTS
0
0
Notice of public Hearing
2. Letter from the applicant.
3. Application
4. Drawing prepared by applicant showing requested addition.
5. Detailed drawing of addition
6. Drawing of Boulder Wall Design
7. 1' topo of property without proposed garage
8. 1' topo of property with proposed garage
Drawing prepared by staff showing 22' x 22' garage
Memorandum from Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
MEMORANDUM
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: John Rask, Planner II
FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: September 20, 1994
SUBJ: Update to Variance Request to Construct Detached Garage
6724 Lotus Trail - Loren Veltkamp
LUR File No. 94 -14
At
Upon review of the provided grading, drainag� � sion control plan certified by Roger Heid
for the proposed addition at the above- refereted pr R , I offer the following comments and
recommendations:
It appears the plans were prepared by , "property o ,
registered professional engineer, Mr. er Heid. There
that need to be resolved as well as 'on control meas
control fence (Type I) should be i led along the propo
In addition, the applicant is pro ng a berm between the
propose an elevation of 90.: believe this is an error and
sunlight in this area and 'eep grades, it will be difficult to
Staff recommends `
Lotus Trail. a.
Loren Veltkamp, and certified by a
e a few pneumatic errors on the plat
employed on the drawing. Erosion
,grading limits adjacent Lotus Trail.
and proposed garage. The plans
ould be 923. Due to the lack of
blish vegetation on these slopes.
'nimize the steep slope towards
The grading plan also p ber walls not to exceed four feet ' t with two tiers.
Upon conversations with the en in "` it a discrepancy in the type
of retaining wall. Mr. Heid and myself beli a is were going to be a boulder type
retaining wall and not the timber wall as on the drawing. This should be confirmed
with the applicant and the plans revised acco ly.
As previously indicated, the site contains very steep hills and is subject to erosion problems. To
help minimize erosion on to Lotus Trail, the driveway, should be required to be paved with an
all- weather hard surface such as concrete or bituminous. The driveway grade should also be
shown on the grading, drainage and erosion control plan as well. There are no elevations taken
F
0
0
0
' John Rask
September 20, 1994
' Page 2
' into the street therefore it is difficult to determine the proposed driveway grade. The City does
have an ordinance restricting driveway grades to a maximum of 10%.
' The applicant has indicated on a previous narrative, a request to provide a "Y" turnaround on the
property. This turnaround has not been shown on the plans and therefore it is assumed that this
is no longer being considered.
' With regards to impervious surface coverage on the lot, the additional garage and new driveway
will increase the impervious surface coverage. It is recommended that the impervious surface
' coverage be verified to see if it meets or exceeds city codes.
Should the City Council approve the variance to construct the garage, staff recommends the
' following conditions of approval be conditioned along with the approval process:
r
1. The applicant shall provide the city engineer for review and approval, a revised detailed
grading, drainage, erosion control plan prepared by a profession engineer, registered in
the state of Minnesota showing the following items:
I A. Additional spot elevations at the end of the driveway and along Lotus Trail
adjacent the grading.
'
B. Clarify the type and height of retaining walls proposed.
C. Delete the earth berm proposed between the new driveway and Lotus Trail. The
'
existing grade at the garage shall be verified.
2.
The driveway shall be eliminated and restored with topsoil and seed or other landscape
'
material acceptable to the City.
'
3.
Erosion control fence (Type I) shall be installed and maintained along Lotus Trail
adjacent to the grading limits. The erosion control fence shall be maintained until the
entire site has been fully revegetated and removal authorized by the City.
'
4.
A security escrow in the amount of $500.00 shall be provided to the City by the applicant
to guarantee site restoration and maintenance of erosion control fence.
'
5.
The new driveway shall be constructed of an all - weather hard surface such as concrete,
brick, or asphalt (bituminous).
Jms
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
FOR 6724 LOTUS TRAIL
The owners of 6724 Lotus Trail (Loren and Paula
Veltkamp) request an 8 foot variance on the usual 30
foot set -back from street requirement. This variance is
requested for a one story, attached garage with a
modern flat roof design. Garage dimensions are 42 by
24.5 feet, 9 feet high at roof peak. Only one corner of
the proposed garage protrudes into city property -a
triangle shape approximately 8 feet by 25 feet.
The garage will be recessed up to it's roof line into
the side of the hill sloping down toward Lotus lake. It
is recessed so much that it cannot block anyone's view
of the lake from any angle. The garage will be almost
completely hidden by landscaping which is only
partially in now. Garage will not appear to protrude
into city space at all because the existing house is
much worse by comparison at only 6.5 feet from the road
while the garage will be 3 times that at 22 feet. There
is no other place to build this garage given the
unusual slope and shape of our property. It is the
queer shape of the lot that has forced the variance of
the house and that now forces the variance on the new
garage.
This garage should benefit the neighborhood and tax -
base in that it will provide out of sight storage for
my boat and huge wood pile. It will also allow for a
proposed privacy hill, at the entrance of the present
driveway, which (when planted with flowering trees and
shrubs) will almost completely hide our property from
the street - enhancing the over -all woodsy character of
Lotus Trail. It will also make it worthwhile for us to
put decent windows in the present tuck -under garage and
a decent finish on the cracked, chipped cinderblock
exterior of this eye -sore. When finished the property
will look professionally landscaped and more secluded.
The unsightly long gravel driveway will be replaced
with grass and flowers, etc. and the new driveway will
be covered with patterned cement or pavers. Garage will
match the cedar siding of the house and have stylish
windows with curtains that give the illusion of living
space.
Personally, the new garage location will help us
alleviate the following problems: 1) provide us with
boat storage. 2) Provide us with 8 cords of wood fuel
storage. 3) Eliminate the steep, narrow and extra long
stairway to our basement garage. This stairway is
difficult and a even dangerous to bring groceries up,
much less furniture or anything bulky. When you forget
u
C
1
something running out to your car, it's a lot of
trouble to run up and run down. 4) My 79 year old
mother intends to live with us in about a year and this
stairway will be too dangerous for her leaving her no
easy access to the garage. 5) alleviate the hardship of
not having any level area for a yard (currently we
don't have a single square foot of level grass. This
new yard will occupy the space of the existing
driveway). 6) The new garage will reduce the high
heating bills and cold living spaces by allowing us to
heat the space underneath our kitchen and living room
(At this point it is cost prohibitive to even get it
warm in January and February (it is difficult to heat a
large room with sub -zero temperatures on 5 of its 6
sides. The forced air and heated water is cooled by the
time it reaches the vents or faucets even when double
wrapped with insulation). 7) The reclaimed work area of
the garage is also needed for hobbies. 8) The original
fieldstone wall that kept the hill up (where the new
garage will be) has broken down of its own weight this
year. I would prefer to shore it up with something more
~' permanent this time. 9) Our driveway is angled at such
a sharp angle to the street that we cannot, with either
of our small cars, drive out of our driveway and make a
left turn. This means we must turn around in our
neighbor's driveway every time we need to go north.
This maneuver is, of course, impossible with a boat
which forces us to take a longer route. 10) Finally,
because Lotus Trail is so narrow, steeply graded and
has a steep ravine along one side, we find it helpful
to turn around before we travel up the street. For this
maneuver we need a "Y" driveway. The new garage design
(this "Y" is not shown on survey) gives us the space
to turn around in our own driveway so we can make it up
the hill in the winter with a sports car instead of
turning around in the neighbor's driveway which may not
be plowed yet.
In short, to make this property as functional, safe and
beautiful as it can be the new garage and driveway and
yard design is important.
1
I`
CITY OF CHANHASSEN ,
680 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937.1800
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ,
„��. ��13r�� OWNER
APPLICANT c .
r
ADDRESS: ��' ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE (Day time) 4 i c" ° / c 4r% TELEPHONE: � 2 �-
1. _
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
11.
Vacation of ROW/Easements
2.
Conditional Use Permit
12. _
Variance
3.
Grading/Excavation Permit
13.
Wetland Alteration Permit
4.
interim Use Permit
14.
Zoning Appeal
5.
Planned Unit Development
15.
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
6.
Rezoning
7.
Sign Permits
S.
Sign Plan Review
Notification Signs
9.
Site Plan Review
X
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"
$100 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP
$400 Minor SUB/Motes & Bounds
10.
Subdivision
TOTAL FEE $
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must
Included with the application.
Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted.
8%" X 11" Reduced copy of tmnsparency for each plan sheet.
NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
PROJECT NAME
tir e W
G?
r �44-
LOCATION
(') 2 d-
L-
-�(-
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PRESENT ZONING -
REQUESTED ZONING l� c
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION e 5
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION RAF -
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or dearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying
with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party
whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of
ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Tide or purchase agreement), or I am the
authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information 1 have submitted are true and correct to the best
of my knowledge.
I also understand that after the approval or granting of the permit, such permits shall be Invalid unless they are recorded
' against the title to the property for which the appmvaVperrnk is granted within 120 days with the Carver County Recorder's
Office and the original document returned to City Hall Records.
1
Sig re of Appl ; Date
SlO ature of Fee Owner I! Date
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the
meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
'ES, Inc.
Land Su
Eden Prat
�r �i i��e �ri�� t
DARELLE & ASSOCIATES, Inc, Book 3 Page File
Land Su ,
3031 Fr-1-1 I—
Eden P.
tertif irate of *u
y For 800 k-'5k Page_j,� F, on
x'7'7 9 - 25—F
11. 16- z sk -p- I ftntot lint.
N 1
-N6T
M�N to rnnrci•-K d N o
Kai- 0en ui%f j
F) Pi wr
ZO
A. 5
' It 110 1
- 7ft v.
? 4'
2. L 4 4
C '
9 D v
ec
De c
K
414s &...e
114 1155 of*
1156 1157 1158 Fli j"
_I Dr
I
14.2
_p a -11L
F l. C A
C
o C5
ap HIS
C? �., � � lb 3 \ . � fl � Sc
-j
C
C! SurfpCe Dry a
L 20
r C E
I hereby certify that this b a true W owtoct representaton of a svftey of the boomdanw. of Lf s It 10 — I I ') — I . r— to t V c r _o ALl
—Co— on—mmam C merty. M 1"ama and of Via fterrov or S! build
Butoveyed by na this
— . of
�I
F�
t � r�j.���...� JIB JET � p ,
Co
9 1
. . . ...... ...
611
I f- 1.
rrJ
'''� ' '1 r1r� 1ti
72co
Ye
Rev,
Tom
. -0
CERTIFICATION
I AM, am, Ed this 1*0 - w prepared b nwkwAftn or
""M V�M y n*
am nV " EZLI
supervw and that I
on taws d tshe
QW& W. W07
i Tc) cD oV OZ I-OWS T2 , 476 - 7 /f4o
•
.,._._ = r�►�tbG -r �J�1� - �<<•� �n�,�. ��� ek�e�cc� �9 �n h�«� �. -•t,� • s�k'�
.� tt = �'� (sev c, a Sup ucy� 1
v� 1
Lk4 t� C_Ol Vcx t
q3 3 1
1
___ I / 1 U ' 1
j
" �• I I' � i 1r. _ 1
p0
rl 1
I
CERTIFICATION
i imeby 091my that this w.n.o.eni or+ or 1
mpor? ws w•vwd by, ex und.r my died
adpanision and that i am a d aid Enpinaar
tha laaa Of tha t
Rope S. Mai Rp No. 7707 1
I I
"ES, Inc.
Land Surveyors
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Ttif irau Of �urv��
ATES, Inc. Land Su Book _.j �i Page_5� File
L
Eden Pre
ConCiE1C Mm
8c)ok_3!k pagG-2.f_ Fik
'range li nt
I � � /8.0 O\
4'
'155 (15� 1157
1
� I
� I
� I
� I
aE; " — VW F
& %Q/
r. � O
W
ZO 1 '70 1
001,
Surfpce Drainage Arrows
---- �W
I hereby 09 '"tRY thW this is • true and awrw rWeseritalon d • ssr"y of the boundaries
J^
c—L Amomw c awmy . mmmna& and of the kcMVDM O A!'build; lklVilson. and RJI
Vi&iD-e en. oatl meats. d &.1y from 0• Op said land Su'voeyed by wre trwis- -fty
is
re
'k 0
0
1
f
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' MEMORANDUM
TO: John Rask, Planner II
' FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
' DATE: October 19, 1994
SUBJ: Update to Variance Request to Construction Detached Garage
' 6724 Lotus Trail - Loren Veltkamp
LUR File No. 94 -14
Upon review of the 16 -page correspondence as a result of Board of Adjustment and Appeals
meeting, I offer the following comments:
' First of all, if Mr. Veltkamp desires a flat, useable piece of ground, he should not have purchased
the rather unique wooded lot. He is trying to defy or restructure Mother Nature essentially by
' flattening off the area to try and grow sod or a garden in a heavily wooded area. Secondly, the
comments that the Board had (A, B, C;and D, with the exception of D) are still warranted. I
would like to add another item to the list and that would be providing a turnaround for the new
' garage. Mr. Veltkamp in his 16 -page response had indicated turnaround problems with the
current driveway situation. I see this still being a problem with the new driveway if a turnaround
is not provided. With the exception of that, I feel that my previous staff report from September
' 20, 1994 addresses all the issues with regards to this proposal.
7
Requested specs for 6724 Lotus Trail garage project.
- Existing garage elevation is 120'
- New garage elevation will be 122'9"
- Existing driveway mouth is 117
- New driveway mouth will be at 118
- Existing driveway has a 2% grade.
- New Driveway grade will be less than 5%
- Earth Berm (privacy hill) is deleted under new plan
- All retaining walls will be under 4 feet.
- No dirt will be removed from property and existing
contours and drainage patterns are not significantly
altered.
- Driveway can consist of natural stone and grass over
a bed of absorbant gravel. This is a permeable and
absorbant surface that should not fall under the rubric
of hard surface coverage, especially since water will
be absorbed even under the stones.
- I have no known site to build a settling pond. I
think this would be best accomplished at 1) the bottom
of the hill, and 2) before each culvert spills into
Lotus Lake. And also where a backhoe can get in and
empty the ponds from time to time and bring the dirt
back up the hill. I cannot see a way to do this on my
little, steep lot, although I think it is a very good
idea to do it elsewhere. I think a big one just past
the handicapped peer would be best. With an asphalt
road running to it and, of course, a couple feet of
grass running down the high side of the asphalt road.
Up until now, no variance should be required.
Dave Hemple, however, wanted a hard surface driveway to
decrease erosion. I don't care one way or the other.
However, I would like a driveway with a "Y" turn. This
would be optimal, and would require a 3.5% "hard
surface variance" as I would be at 28.5% coverage of
lot.
NOTE: Lot measures 11 sq. ft. by the horizontal
survey measuring method. But including its 30% slope
over 70% of its area, the surface area is actually much
greater. More like 12,085 sq. ft.. Including this slope
factor nets me an extra 640 sq. ft. of surface area, or
1
Other Coverage Variance Considerations.
' Also there is much right of way between me and the
street: a swath 10 x 160 feet, or 1600 sq. ft. in fact.
Including this would net me another 400 of coverable
land. And this would satisfy the 25% limit and
eliminate the need for any variance. I think this would
' be fair as no one else will ever use the land for
anything.
But if this is still not enough, (finally) there is an
' unbuildable city lot, because of buried sewer running
through it, to my immediate north. This lot is 40 by 85
or 3400 sq. ft. which would net me an additional 850
' square feet of coverable land if we could include this
as undisturbed surface area. (Hey, I might as well get
some use out of this parcel...)
' These considerations mean and extra 1,450 sq. ft. of
coverable ground. If included, they make the technical
variance easier to allow.
IL
� I
I
�
7
160 sq. ft. of coverable land. (160 is 25% of 640.) '
NOTE: When we're talking erosion, we have to talk
surface area because that's the true area that soaks up '
the rain.
From this figure I need only a 3.5% coverage variance
to satisfy Dave Hemple's desire for a hardsurface ,
driveway. But I don't care, I can do fine with gravel.
I �
11
I �
I �
I �
_ .Ede n Prairie, MN 55344 ._..__
Of *Ur*t:c
14.1 n
41 3:) 3
1 jy For ' c);� _B. Lm _ Book 3L_ Page 56 File_
/
1 !Rd Concrt �*a+
o ..amt• t-� � t � � -• an
_ fv+tt Iint_ � e
N
` J
1 Q Te ran rnr_k
R oad �}
4Y� 5�*
y4 5 8 :St 20
1. S o
till
24-
y- was. L
0 - 1 VIZ.. 0 1
Ott
1
1113 Driv
A O
o " s�. ZR ' •x.59 — - � � ifs
m
1 C 0 1176 . c • � � Sc�l� 1430
• b9.32
1 ; • 11 ?1 ' I
�9
- — - 6�.Z9 — - •� 20 1 2
1 st +2.� Ot4 ♦- 5W31'2a'E 9crL'
1 0-
1 haraby �1' tfrt tl+s i a uua and aorna rapaaantalen d a s�w+l tlr Oowdwa d � S 17 otvCr QC
1 f� d. VG / CawMf. Mimm" and of ft laes' d r bow" wwm% and an �3
d 19
1
1
20 -90
DA ELL ASSOCIATES,
.. — STATE REG. NO. 6508
j4 ttt
0
0
IV
0
00
m
O.za 0, , Y?Ctc�o\� , -
.
qli;
f is
41 ,0 00 0 -116- •
•
00000 ♦
0 ♦ o
0 ♦ 0
0
0 •
♦
0
0 •
♦
♦ ♦
0 0
•
0
♦ o
12 eZ
CRk
= = m = m m = = m = = = = m m = m m m
OmnaLT I mass
FFlT
1!! ENEA711NIG
Cfit 1t111iSES
FMICHM SWFV AND FVAXM
mom w
G TIEJEX
shvw E
d'Ym rack
NM;1i 1 O
H" zwR
SM6 FTS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
G
FLAT ROOF SUPPORT
Al
2X4
[a /:
Sli'POQ
WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
FOR 6724 LOTUS TRAIL
The owners of 6724 Lotus Trail (Loren and Paula
Veltkamp) request an 8 foot variance on the usual 30
foot set -back from street requirement. This variance
requested for a one story, attached garage with a
modern flat roof design. Garage dimensions are 42 by
24.5 feet, 9 feet high at roof peak. Only one corner
the proposed garage protrudes into city property -a
triangle shape approximately 8 feet by 25 feet.
i
is
'
of
The garage will be recessed up to it's roof line into
the side of the hill sloping down toward Lotus lake. It
is recessed so much that it cannot block anyone's view
of the lake from any angle. The garage will be almost
completely hidden by landscaping which is only
partially in now. Garage will not appear to protrude
into city space at all because the existing house is
much worse by comparison at only 6.5 feet from the road
while the garage will be 3 -times that at 22 feet. With
the existing house out so far alre8dy, the land
requested is forever useless to the city. There is no
other place to build this garage given the unusual
slope and shape of our property. It is the queer shape
of the lot that has forced the variance of the house
and that now forces the variance on the new garage.
The proposed garage is a win, win, win situation. The
city wins with more taxes, the neighbors win with a
better looking property. The residents win with a
better functioning property. It will also allow for a
proposed privacy hill, at the entrance of the present
driveway, which (when planted with evergreens,
flowering trees and shrubs) will almost completely hide
the new garage and the rest of our property from the
street - enhancing the over -all woodsy character of
Lotus Trail. It will also make it worthwhile for us to
put decent windows in the present tuck -under garage and
a decent finish on the cracked, chipped cinderblock
exterior of this eye -sore. When finished the property
will look professionally landscaped and more secluded.
The unsightly long gravel driveway will be replaced
with grass and flowers, etc. and the new driveway will
be covered with patterned cement or pavers. Garage will
match the cedar siding of the house and have stylish
windows with curtains that give the illusion of living
space.
Personally, the new garage will help us alleviate the
following major and minor hardships:
1) provide us with boat storage.
17
L
I I
1
P�
'
2) Provide us with 8 cords of wood fuel storage.
3) Related to this I have very significant problems
delivering the wood to the furnace. If I store it
'
outside I have to go out and get it in the cold and
then try and thaw it out in the furnace. If I take it
inside I get insect infestation (imagine having ants in
'
January ?) The garage provides me with a ramp to bring
dry wood in on a two wheeler. It is a real back saver
for me. It should be mentioned that this furnace is not
just a little stand alone unit; it is ducted and wired
'
to cooperate with the gas furnace. If it runs cold the
gas comes on automatically and breaks the piggy bank.
'
4) I need to eliminate the steep, narrow and extra long
'
stairway to our basement garage. This stairway is a
major pain. It is exhausting and dangerous to bring
groceries up, much less furniture, computer equipment,
'
art works (I work as a technical writer and artist) or
construction materials. When you forget something
running out to your car, it's hard to run up and down
'
again. I have to make as many as 15 trips a day up and
down those stairs. It is killing me'and I'm sick of it.
My 80 year old mother takes about 6 hours to get up
these bloody stairs, please.
5) I have a serious hardship of not having any level
area for a yard (currently we don't have a single
'
square foot of level grass. This new yard will occupy
the space of the existing driveway). Imagine having no
place to run your dog, plant flowers, walk barefoot in
the grass, entertain on, play games on, etc, et al.
Everybody in town has a yard except me.
' 7) We have no space for wood working, artist studio, or
indoor gardening. The reclaimed work area of the garage
6) The new garage will reduce the high heating bills
and cold living spaces by allowing us to heat the space
underneath our kitchen and living room. At this point
'
it is cost prohibitive to even get it warm in January
and February. (it is difficult to heat a large room
with sub -zero temperatures on 5 of its 6 sides.) The
forced air and heated water is cooled by the time it
'
reaches the vents or faucets even when double wrapped
with insulation). Furthermore, we have a hot tub down
the basement that is rendered useless by the cold
temperatures emanating from the unheated garage. Our
'
heating bill for that thing is over 40 a month and your
head freezes while your body boils. Then you get the
flu from extreme temperature fluctuations and lose more
'
money by missing work. The problems go on and on and
are related.
' 7) We have no space for wood working, artist studio, or
indoor gardening. The reclaimed work area of the garage
is immediately needed for these businesses and hobbies. I
8) The original fieldstone wall that kept the hill up
(where the new garage will be) has broken down of its '
own weight this year. I would prefer to shore it up
with something more permanent this time.
9) Our driveway meets the street at such a sharp angle ,
that we cannot make a left turn, or a right turn when
entering. This means we must turn around in our
neighbor's driveway every time we need to go north. ,
This maneuver is, of course, impossible with a boat
which forces us to take a longer route.
10) Because Lotus Trail is so narrow, steeply graded '
and has a steep ravine along one side, we find it
helpful to turn around before we travel up the street.
For this maneuver we would appreciate a "Y" driveway. ,
I intended to have a "Y" until the city laid the 25%
coverage rule on me, now I guess I must give this up.
So I do give it up. I
11) The 30 degree sloped hill where the garage will be
has no top soil anymore and is in need of terracing.,
topsoiling, and replanting. This could be avoided with I
the new garage.
12) We have a privacy problem where anyone driving or '
walking down the hill on Lotus Tr. can look directly
into our family room. We have headlights bothering us
when we watch TV at night. This will be fixed with
privacy hill that is part of the new design. There are '
a lot of people walking dogs along the park, sometimes
a constant stream.
13) We have the hardship of living in a house where the
best view of the lake is from the garagel This is just
ridiculous. Only a mechanic could love this floorplan.
Indeed the former owner built the garage first and only
later stuck the house on top of it. This kind of Jerry-
built approach is what haunts me now.
14) Currently we have a gravel driveway that is a
muddy, erosional mess. When it rains or shines it
tracks in dirt everyday. And it looks bad. However, to
pave it would be nearly as much as the entire new
garage and driveway and would put the hard surfaces of
my property way up to 39% coverage. So we are over 25%
hard surfaces anyway. The new plan would take up less
space than this old driveway does now so it seems a
better idea.
15) The boat and wood in the driveway, during winter
and summer, create driving and plowing hazards. Last
C
I I
1 7
week a friend of mine was backing out while trying to
avoid the wood pile, instead he took out his tail -light
on the retaining wall on the other side of the
driveway. Last year my wife did the exact same thing
with our Isuzu. But I have no other place to put the
wood and I cant afford to heat without it.
Home life is filled with troublesome and embarrassing
moments when your property is poorly designed. They
cannot all be listed here. In short, to make this
property as functional, safe and beautiful as it can be
the 8' variance is absolutely essential.
Without it we will have to spend the same amount of
money and get much less for it. We hope the board will
conclude that these 15 hardships, even if they see them
as minor hardships, still add up to one big and
significant hardship - enough for 8' feet of variance
off totally unusable land. Personally, we think this
list demonstrates far more hardship than a person
without any garage at all.
I would like to mention that we bought this house with
the express interest of putting a new garage on it
immediately. I measured from the lake, from the street
and from the neighbors concluded that the garage was
indeed possible. It was only later that the city told
me the right of way boundary actually ran down the
right side of my driveway and not the curb.
4
Furthermore this garage has a GRAVEL DRIVEWAYI And if
,
A. Objections to Findings under A.
Applicant finds the analysis of the staff here to be
mis- representing. Staff says "that ALL comparable sites
'
(within 500 feet) have a 2 -stall garage or less ". They
further imply that this is the standard for this
neighborhood.
'
What follows now is a Channytown garage stall count. A
stall here represents any area that could hold a car,
boat, or wood stack such as I need to do with my
'
proposed garage. Channytown is defined as the older
area that exists in the watershed of Lotus lake around
Carver Beach. This area needs lots of understanding and
'
TLC from all involved parties. It does not need the
"Just say no" attitude. It is not an easy area to
"bring into the 20th century ". These properties are my
'
immediate neighbors. We know these people and their
properties personally from walking our dog.
'
1) My immediate neighbor to the south, at At 6728 Lotus
'
Tr., has a 3 -stall garage that measures 30 just a
little smaller than the one I need. He has two cars, a
,
boat, storage, a work area, and his fire wood in there
'
much like I intend to do. There is just a slight size
difference.
Furthermore this garage has a GRAVEL DRIVEWAYI And if
,
this ain't enough, that driveway is located at the
BOTTOM OF A RAVINE which channels a lot of erosive
waterl This area is probably 10 times as erosional as
the slope I'm on. Yet the city allowed it. So my
requests are not without precedent.
'
The neighbor next to this guy has a garage that is only
about 12 to 15 feet off Lotus Trail. Compare this with
mine which will be 37 feet off the road.
'
2) At 730 Carver Beach there is a 4 -stall garage just 3
doors up from this neighbor. The garage is entered from
both Lotus Trail and Carver Beach. The reason the staff
'
missed this one is because it is a two story garage.
And these folks still have 6 cars rusting in their
driveway so I think they need an even bigger one.
'
3) At 6715 Nez Perce a guy has 2 full -size, 2 -stall
garages that I believe are within the 500 feet mark or
very close to it. The garages are actually by the
'
corner of Hopi and Western Drive.
4) At 6630 Lotus Tr., Just 2 doors down to my north we
have another 3- stall. This one is basically 2 carports
,
12) 6670 Deerwood - 3 -stall
13) 6650 Deerwood - 2 separate, 2- stalls plus a large
shed.
14) 6893 Navajo - 3 -stall
' 15) 6660 Lotus Tr. 2 Carports plus a stall sized shed
6
and a large shed under one roof. It is another
'
"atypical garage ", but then Channytown is full of these
unique structures and it is one of the things that
gives the area its charm.
'
5) At 6880 Lotus Tr., my immediate neighbor to the
north also has a unique way of getting beyond the 2-
stall garage. He has a huge 2 -story shed 1 foot away
'
from his garage for his wood and boat.
6) At 6860 Lotus Tr. there is an attached 1 -stall
garage, plus another detached double -wide 1 -stall
'
garage (which is equivalent to 2- stalls) plus a lean -to
shed for wood that is equivalent to yet another 1-
stall. 2 of these "stalls" are about 15' off Lotus Tr.
'
which is a lot closer than mine would be at 37 feet.
7) The guy at the top of the hill I live on has the
cleverest solution I've seen yet to bypass the city's
'
regulations. He has a huge water proof deck out the
back of his house that he parks his bobcats under!
'
So, with more than a 2 -stall garage, I find 7
properties within 500 feet that do. In deed, it is
almost the norm to exceed 2 -stall garages around here.
'
I could do with a large shed and a 2- stall, but I have
no place to put it due to my sloping yard. So I put
everything under one roof and have a better looking
'
property for it.
* * ** Within about 700 feet:
'
8) At 620 Lotus Tr. there is a guy on Carver beach park
Just like we are. He's about 700 feet north of us. He
built a 2 -stall entirely within the setback zone of the
turn around at the end of Lotus Tr. Now he is building
'
another extra big 2 -stall around back of his house.
Then he will have a total of 4 or 5 stalls.
9) 850 Western Dr. has a 3 -stall garage.
10) 6683 Hopi - 3 -stall garage
'
11) 6681 Deerwood
- two story high 2 -stall garage
(equivalent to 4 stalls)
12) 6670 Deerwood - 3 -stall
13) 6650 Deerwood - 2 separate, 2- stalls plus a large
shed.
14) 6893 Navajo - 3 -stall
' 15) 6660 Lotus Tr. 2 Carports plus a stall sized shed
6
7 11
(this is equivalent to a 3- stall) '
16) 6670 Lotus Tr. - 2 -stall plus 1 -stall size shed
17) 6860 Lotus Tr. - extra -wide 2 -stall which is
'
equivalent in surface area to a 3- stall.
stalls. Fox Chase suburb starts about
18) 680 Carver Beach - 3 -stall equivalent.
'
* * ** Within approximately a 1000 feet:
19) 6940 Lotus Trail - extra deep 2 -stall which wraps
'
around the house making it a 3.5 -stall in area, plus
26) 630 Carver Beach - 4- stall, plus a
they have boat house out in front, plus a large shed in
back. This setup totals about 5 stalls.
'
20) 580 Fox Hill - 2 -stall plus carport.
27) 655 Carver Beach - 5 stalls in one
large detached
,
21) 581 Fox Hill - extra -wide 2 stall plus 1 -stall shed
behind that.
28) 610 Carver beach - 3- stall.
22) 620 Fox Hill - 2 stall plus stall size shed.
,
23) 6689 Nez Peres - 3- stall. •
have 3- stalls.
24) 6641 Nez Peres - 3- stall.
25) About 95% of all new houses in Fox
Chase have 3-
stalls. Fox Chase suburb starts about
800 feet away
from ours and these people use our park regularly.
* * ** Still in the neighborhood
'
26) 630 Carver Beach - 4- stall, plus a
separate 2-
stall. This equals 6 stalls totall
'
27) 655 Carver Beach - 5 stalls in one
large detached
building (one is even a truck stall)
,
28) 610 Carver beach - 3- stall.
29) 95% of all new houses on Nez Peres
have 3- stalls.
As you can see, there is a wide variety of garages in
channytown, we saw a couple of 2 story garages, some ,
lean -tos, others a 2 -stall and a separate shed or boat
house. Others just had super deep 2- stalls that are
really 3 or 4- stalls.
Even right on Lotus Trail there are garages that are ,
bigger than my proposed garage, closer to the road and
there are also properties with more garages. I
Conclusion: Applicant's design does easily conform with
' existing structures and expectations within 500 feet
and within the entire neighborhood of Channytown.
Applicant also finds fault with the staff's
' interpretation of "reasonable use" (This is still under
section A.)
Reasonable use should not preclude "optimal use ".
Optimal use is always better than reasonable which is
usually akin to "mediocre use ". These concepts are all
subjective anyway. One man's reasonable use is
another's outright abusel The mechanic who live here
before probably loved having his garage face the lake.
For me it is an outrage to waste a beautiful lake view
' on a stupid garage. It seems to me this property has a
highly dysfunctional floorplan, but not for him.
I
It is not reasonable to spend more time and money
fixing problems in a round about way, when the same
problems can be fixed elegantly and less expensively
with the help of a small variance. This would not be
reasonable; it would be just plain stupid.
B. Objections to Findings under B."
Here it must be realized that the proposed garage does
not exceed the 25% code like the staff thinks it does.
The lot is 11,400 sq feet. 25% of this is 2850 sq. ft.
The house WITH proposed garage is 2715 sq ft. This
leaves 135 sq ft. extra for a brick and grass driveway,
2 -track driveway - which is absorbent and non - erosional
(the water runs under bricks so it should not be
classified as a hard surface).
The staff has said the "existing house without the new
garage is close to 25%." Taking measurements off the
house and survey, I find the existing house is only
1686 square feet or 14.78% of its lot.
If I don't get the variance and have to pave my
existing gravel and mud driveway that would bring us to
4476 sq ft. or around 39% of lot coverage.
This is another reason to grant the variance, because
the alternative is EVEN WORSEI The existing gravel
driveway really should be classified as either a hard
or erosional surface, but it isn't. It does not absorb
hardly any water. instead the rain runs off it and it
carries mud with it down into Lotus lake. Then we put
more gravel on it and that runs off, too. This is why
Dave Hemple requested a concrete driveway on the new
construction. He has the right idea even though it is
over 25% coverage.
8
9 1
C. Objections to Findings under C. I
City staff does not disagree with Applicant here, but
just for the record, Applicant did not exactly say he
could insulate the existing garage better. He meant to
say he "could spend about as much money reinsulating
the garage as building a whole new one ". The garage
ceiling cannot be lowered because the electric garage
door is right up against it. Even a new door would not
fit if I did that. Must I resort to barn doors now?
And even with better insulation, the problem of cold
would not be solved. The main reason to enclose that
area of the old garage is to let the RADIANT WARMTH of
,
the wood furnace RADIATE out into the old garage area
'
then and rise through the floor into the living areas
above. This, and only this, can really warm our living
room and kitchen. Radiant heat does not function like
forced air heat. Although we have forced air, the air
is cooled by the time it passes 30 to 50 feet through
,
the ducts in the garage ceiling. We also have a hot tub
down the basement that we can't use for.the cold. The
'
icy garage affects almost the whole house.
1
D. Objections to Findings under D. I
Here we are back to the staff's concept of "reasonable
use" again. And again I emphasize this is a subjective
opinion on their part, based on cursory analysis. The
,
staff has never lived in my house of even seen the
inside of it. They did not spend cold nights huddled in
blankets in our living room. Yet the staff suggests I
can fix my stairs, insulate the ceiling of my garage,
and build a new safe all weather doorway into the
house, etc.
,
If this were the case why would I be spending 15,000 to
build a new garage? I would have to be thoughtless!
Just the fact that I am spending this much should
1
convince any REASONABLE person that I have a
significant hardship that cannot be fixed simply.
Furthermore, having a boat or buying a home that heats
with wood is not a self - created hardship. By this logic
you can say that anything anybody does that has a
downside is a "self- created hardship ". If someone
bought a house with no garage you could say "You bought
the house, you therefore created your own hardship" "Or
you bought the car so you created your own hardship" If
the term applies to everything, it has no specific
meaning. If it has no specific meaning, it cannot be
specifically applied here. Again I refer you to the
argument above explaining how "optimal use" should
'
preclude "reasonable use" whenever possible.
'
As for fixing problems some other way, I cannot improve
1
my stairway without either taking out the main
supporting beam for the entire house or eliminating our
utility rooml I cannot shorten the stairway by anything
'
less than raising the basement or dropping the main
'
floorl I cannot reinsulate my garage roof because I
need radiant heat from the wood burner not more
insulation. I cannot have another entry into my house
'
because there is no other place to put it that wouldn't
take gust as much variance as I'm already asking for. I
cannot avoid meandering through 5 rooms to bring up my
'
groceries any easier than with my proposed plan for a
'
better garage. etc, etc.
I have looked and found the optimal solution for all
the house's problems. I have faith in city planners to
do the OPTIMAL thing for people's properties and not
just the "barely get -by" thing, or the "already good
enough" thing. I will not settle for mediocre, half -
baked, band -aid type solutions. For my money, and I pay
'
taxes too, should to be done right or not at all.
E. Objections to Findings under E.
' Applicant objects to staff's conclusion that "by
increasing hard surface area, you increase erosion."
This is just not so. A little runoff on gravel, sand or
' clay is far more erosional than a lot of runoff on
grass or concrete.
My design is about 80% less erosional than the existing
situation at 6724 Lotus Tr. And I will guarantee this!
If you don't believe me we can have a soil engineer
verify it. (but you pay for him, Okay ?)
This is so because the new plan 1) replaces 2700 plus
sq. ft. of gravel and mud driveway with grass. And 2)
1 it replaces a 2500 sq. ft. clay and crabgrass slope
with a non - erosive driveway and garage.
10
And the water from off the new garage roof, plus the
1
water from the back and southern side of my house roof,
can be caught in rain gutters and directed - silt free
- into a drainage culvert the lies at the foot of my
driveway. This is how more hard surfaces and better
'
grass will actually DECREASE EROSION. Currently my roof
water just funnels down and erodes my front yard into
'
the lake.
Piping the water directly to the culvert has two big
advantages: 1) it helps keeps the culvert from being
plugged up with sand - as it has done a number of times
'
this summer. And 2) it moves the water under the road
10
instead of over it - where it won't pick up more silt
and carry it into the lake (or stagnant at the bottom
of the hill and infest us with more mosquitoes).
Finally, Lotus Trail IS slated for paving in the next
few years. They thought they might even get to it this
year. When this happens, a concrete driveway will be
best because it will run clean water off into the
street where the sewers, or ponds, will deposit it into
the lake with as little silt and pollution as possible.
The concrete driveway may bee our best choice, then.
Otherwise I can build the driveway with grass and
bricks which is absorbent and non - erosive. Dave Hemple
seemed to prefer concrete.
F. Objections to Findings under F.
I object to the last line here: "should not
substantially diminish or impair property values within
the neighborhood." This is completely wrong. When the
house looks bigger, has no storageable items out in
front, has no ugly driveway out front... When the home
is partially hidden by trees, has a nice green yard to
set it off, and a beautiful bolder wall to accent it...
When the house's horizontal lines are accentuated with
the new modern roof that will be the same thickness as
the deck that surrounds the house, when the old garage
is enclosed with new windows and a simulated natural
stone exterior.... When all this happens the house will
be BEAUTIFULi And because it is the most prominent
house on Lotus Tr. the entire neighborhood will rise in
value because of it. Even the city owned park across
the street will be enhanced.
This project will substantially IMPROVE property values
within the neighborhood. The neighbors want improvement
on this property. They have independently told me so
and expressed their disapproval with the messes the
last own had on the property. Chris Anderson said so at
the meeting.
OBJECTIONS UNDER THE RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION:
1. "Reasonable use" is a questionable criteria to apply
to all housing situations. It is too subjective and
tied to the mistakes of the past. This thinking could
actually prohibit someone from fixing up a house in a
ghetto! Optimal use is a more responsible and realistic
approach.. If we do the best we can under the
circumstances, that's reasonable.
Needing room for recreational equipment and fuel
sources are not self- created problems, they are basic
human needs that are shared by everyone of our
11 '
I'
�I
1
I neighbors on the lake.
12
My house came with these problems. I bought it because
I saw a creative and simple way to solve its numerous
problems. The house was on the market for over 6 months
and the asking price was forced down 30K because of
these problems. At some point someone has to fix them
and bring this house up to standard with other houses
on the lake; not the crumbling cabins that were built
back in the thirties. Houses on the lake should be
'
compared to other houses on the lake, not cabins back
in the watershed 500 feet away. Ask any Realtor and
they will tell you that lake property has it's own
rules, values and culture. It should have it's own
codes, too. The cabins will need variances too,
someday, and the city should grant them so that we can
have an optimal neighborhood instead of a mediocre
"adequate /reasonable" neighborhood.
This property should not be defined as having
reasonable use because it is no where near optimal; it
'
is closer to dysfunctional than reasonable. Again, if a
house is easy to fix up and we don't do it, that is not
'
reasonable; it is more like dumb, lazy and wasteful.
Codes cannot be so rigidly applied so that they create
even more hardship than the poor construction
techniques of yesteryear.
2. This petition is not based on conditions that are
similar to other properties. My floorplan, lot shape
and hardships are utterly unique. They will never be
repeated in a thousand years. No one else around here
has a tuck under garage with no yard that burns wood.
'
Especially one that has to keep up with the high
aesthetic and functional standards of living on the
lake.
'
The reality is that this neighborhood is victim to poor
city planning from years ago. The whole neighborhood
'
was divided into 20 foot lots originally and its been a
grab bag ever since! And just because everyone is now
in the same small boat doesn't grant the city
permission to dismiss us with the cliche "you're
problems are self created ". The problems we share are
the city's fault as much as anyones.
The city should try to alleviate our hardships and cut
us a little slack as we try to rectify these less than
optimal conditions. That would be the fair thing to do.
They should grant variances to anyone with a good plan
to create optimal conditions like the other people on
the lake enjoy. Why should the settlers suffer while
the late- comers benefit from all their mistakes?
12
As for the opinion that "this variance does not blend
with pre- existing standards for this neighborhood" I
say bravo. This variance seeks to raise the standard
for the neighborhood. The reason Channytown got its
name is because it had poor standards and looked funky.
Everything is out on the lawn here: snowmobiles, boats,
woodpiles, damaged cars. You name it and I can find it
on a lawn in Channytown. If the city wants to maintain
these poor standards, or any low level status quo,
then, I guess, I don't know what to say. They did
however, approve of a new house on Navajo road that was
against the neighbor's will, and that is much more
obtrusive and out of place than my garage will ever be.
My proposed garage would be 37 feet off the street
curb. A person down my street, less than 500 feet away,
Just built a sun -room. (that they didn't need as much
as I need my garage.) The new building is just 39 feet
off the curb and she didn't even need a variance, just
a permit. Now how is this fair?
My proposed structure and its placement is conforming
with the good pre- existing standards and seeks to raise
those standards just a little.
3. It's true that this area is subject to erosion. And
the biggest eroder down here is probably the city.
If the city really cares about erosion, why hasn't the
city paved Lotus Trail which is possibly the biggest
polluter on the lake? The 1 foot diameter culvert in
front of my house is completely clogged with gravel
after just a single storm! And this is just one of
several tributaries. The city has been talking about
this for 10 years, when they paved the others. It would
have been a lot cheaper back then.
My goodness, they don't even put hay bails across the
ravine that they own just south of my house that is
currently carving a dry -bed through some undeveloped
property.
So I find their position hypocritical. They strain at a
gnat and swallow a camel. It seems they don't want to
do their part so they make us do even more to make up
for their laxity. The city should perhaps lighten up on
us and tighten up on itself.
The situation I have now at 6724 Lotus Tr. with a 2700
sq. ft. gravel driveway, and another 2500 sq. ft. in a
30 degree clay and crabgrass slope, is highly
erosional. I would think the city would be glad to have
a solution to this mess. Instead they seem to fight me
13 '
1
every inch of the way, demanding new studies, new
surveys, bringing up new codes never mentioned at the
outset, and worst of all applying codes that were
' written for flat suburbs to lake property where they do
not apply. Why don't they just come down and look at
the property?
' For example, when you live on a lake, the goal should
be to get rain into the lake with as little silt as
possible. Hard surfaces can help with this, not hinder
' this process. They can channel the water directly into
the lake instead of over erosional surfaces. That is
why the city intends to pave Lotus Trail. This is a
' perfect example of controlling erosion with hard
surfaces. So it is controlling the runoff, not limiting
the hard surfaces that counts.
The 25% rule makes more sense on level suburbs where
water needs some place to be absorbed, so that it
doesn't build up and then flow so fast that it causes
erosion. This is not the situation next to any lake.
Around a lake the water flows directly into the lake
and nowhere else. You need as much grass and concrete
as possible to DELIVER THE WATER TO THE LAKE SILT FREE.
This is what my plan offers.
1
e
So, the idea that hard surfaces automatically create
erosion just doesn't hold water. (forgive the pun)
The city's actions force me to conclude they must like
erosion. That they want to fill the lake with mud. They
must be closet erosionalists. That's why they attempt
to deny variances to people with plans that are much
less erosional than the existing situation. Right?
My plan is the best erosion fighter possible for this
lot, it is more than merely reasonable; IT IS OPTIMAL.
WHAT IF I DON'T GET THE VARIANCE?
If I don't get the variance, a number of horrible
scenarios come into play. the following is not an
exhaustive list:
I loose the variance money, the new land survey cost,
and the cost of the engineered drawings, plus untold
hours of planning and drawing the ideas up on the
computer and measuring everything. I've been working on
this since before I moved in last Novemberl We are
talking months of work herel Pleases
I can't fix up the garage which 4 different neighbors
have asked me to fix up, already. the reason I can't do
14
i
15 1
this is because I
renovation because
price of the house
portion of my good
Chanhassen. (Which
again!)
can't get my money out of the
the other problems will bring the
down. I stand to loose a substantial
faith investment in the City of
I or anyone I know will ever make
If I can't put wood in the garage, I will have to build
'
a shed which will be much more unsightly for everyone,
but which I can get simple permit for. This shed will
have to go on what's left of my front lawn.
I will have to pave my existing muddy mess of a
driveway and then we are at 39% coverage of the lot.
This is, of course, more coverage than the alternative
garage plan so a denial from the board will not save
anyone from the over - coverage issue.
The miserable slope of grassless lawn will still be
eroding. Again I won't fix what I can't get my money
out of when I sell. This one thing I will not fix.
City will not get extra tax revenue, which will amount
to tens of thousands. Which they need this to fix the
road that is polluting the lake.
Neighbors will not get a raise in property values and
this will especially hurt my good neighbor Bret to my
south (the guy with the 3 -stall garage) He has a great
deal of money invested in his house -twice as much as
me - and his house and deck look out on my muddy mess
of a driveway that is full of wood and recreational
equipment. He plans to sell in about a year or so.
Neighbors -and anyone visiting carver beach
see an ugly house and driveway instead of a
one that mirrors the park and enhances the
wilderness mood.
park, will
secluded
semi-
I will have to attempt to fix the hardships I have by
round about ways that will really only partially
alleviate them. I will be forced to apply for other
less rational variances.
Furthermore I will never get my money back out of the
repairs I do when I sell the house! So I will end up
having a dysfunctional house to sell that costs me even
more money than it ever needed to.
It may sell slowly again, costing me even more money.
Then, I'll have to hire a Realtor to sell it costing me
even more money.
f
Finally, when I do sell, the next person will
eventually figure out what the house needs and be
taking you through this whole hairy process again.
What a shame. The running up and down the stairs, the
high heating bills, the hauling of wood, the driving
and plowing snow difficulties of avoiding my boat in
the driveway, this list is a long one. It forces the
owner into hundreds of hours of unpleasant living
conditions, needless work and undesired resentment.
I hope we can settle this next time we meet and be done
with it.
Finally, I fix up houses to look good. Before moving
here I fixed up a house in Circle Pines without
intending on moving, but my wife got transferred to
Fingerhut so we had to dump it fast. This house was so
nice I had neighbors dropping by, that I had never met,
just to compliment my work. I sold it myself in 3 weeks
and got the highest price of any similar house ever
sold in that neighborhood!
I can do it again if you let me. And I always thought
you would or i never would have gone to the trouble of
doing this. Thanks for your understanding. If you have
any more questions or suggestions, please call me at
470 -7940.
Thanks again.
Loren Veltkamp
6724 Lotus Trail.
16
1m1
=m = = m m =mmmmmmm
m m m
m = = = = = = = = = m = = = = m r
FLAT ROOF SUPPORT
l
2x4 stun
K.T SN019.E!
FF].T
V[ 21E74""
MTKMMS SEWM OM FdWC %
mma% Raw
FEY JWW R
mot Of
fiAT AFB
TUFFS -M RRFD cmum ME UP*"
imm" Tom— O
8xos• Fn EXLS m FODTER
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m = =
m m m
r m m m m m m s m m m m m m
October 12, 1994
Mr. Loren Veltkamp
' 6724 Lotus Trail
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE 0 P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
' RE: October 24, 1994 meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals
Dear Mr. Veltkamp:
This letter is to remind u that you need to submit your revised plans to our office by
y
Monday, October 17th.
' On September 21, 1994 you submitted a site plan and letter explaining your thoughts on the
variance request. As we have discussed, this information does not adequately address the
' Board's request for engineering data. More specifically, the Board wanted you to provide the
city engineer, for review and approval, a revised detailed grading, drainage, erosion control
plan prepared by a professional engineer, registered in the State of Minnesota showing the
' following items:
A. Additional spot elevations at the end of the driveway and along Lotus Trail
adjacent the grading.
B. Clarify the type and b0ght of r"ining walls proposed.
C. Delete the earth berm proposed between the new driveway and Lotus Trail.
The existing grade at the garage shall be verified.
The Board also asked you to look into the possibility of retaining some of the storm water
runoff on- site. x, `
Your letter clearly states that you do not want to incur the expense of an engineer prior to
' receiving approval from the Board. If this is indeed the case, I would recommend that you
submit any information or drawings that you may have so staff can review and forward this
Mr. Loren Veltkamp
October 12, 1994
Page 2
to the Board. I would strongly recommend that you submit the necessary information by
October 17th to avoid any further delays.
Staff will recommend that the Board render a decision at their next meeting as you have been
given sufficient time to address the Board's concerns.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 937 -1900, ext. 117.
Sincerely,
John Rask
Planner I
c: Board of Adjustment and Appeals
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
' NOTE: Lot measures 11,445 sq. ft. by the horizontal
survey measuring method. But including its 30% slope
over 70% of its area, the surface area is actually much
' greater. More like 12,085 sq. ft.. Including this slope
factor nets me an extra 640 sq. ft. of surface area, or
V.1 \ YI V... I'll .1 .
M�!!�► C l 7 D
Cv 1 17 1`
'
CHUM {ASSEN PLAINNIN QEP1
'
Requested specs for 6724 Lotus Trail garage project.
- Existing garage elevation is 120
- New garage elevation will be 122
- Existing driveway mouth is 117
'
- New driveway mouth will be at 118
- Existing driveway has a 2% grade.
'
- New Driveway grade will be less than 5%
'
- Earth Berm (privacy hill) is deleted under new plan
- All retaining walls will be under 4 feet.
- No dirt will be removed from property and existing
contours and drainage patterns are not significantly
altered.
'
- Driveway can consist of natural stone and grass over
a bed of absorbent gravel. This is a permeable and
absorbant surface that should not fall under the rubric
of hard surface coverage, especially since water will
be absorbed even under the stones.
'
- I have no known site to build a settling pond. I
think this would be best accomplished at 1) the bottom
of the hill, and 2) before each culvert spills into
Lotus Lake. And also where a backhoe can get in and
'
empty the ponds from time to time and bring the dirt
back up the hill. I cannot see a way to do this on my
little, steep lot, although I think it is a very good
idea to do it elsewhere. I think a big one Just past
the handicapped peer would be best. With an asphalt
road running to it and, of course, a couple feet of
'
grass running down the high side of the asphalt road.
Up until now, no variance should be required.
'
Dave Hemple, however, wanted a hard surface driveway to
decrease erosion. I don't care one way or the other.
However, I would like a driveway with a "Y" turn. This
'
would be optimal, and would require a 3.5% "hard
surface variance" as I would be at 28.5% coverage of
lot.
' NOTE: Lot measures 11,445 sq. ft. by the horizontal
survey measuring method. But including its 30% slope
over 70% of its area, the surface area is actually much
' greater. More like 12,085 sq. ft.. Including this slope
factor nets me an extra 640 sq. ft. of surface area, or
riry OP ruaNpb4Zi ,rj,
Other Coverage Variance Considerations.
Also there is much right of way between me and the
street: a swath 10 x 160 feet, or 1600 sq. ft. in fact.
Including this would net me another 400 of coverable
land. And this would satisfy the 25% limit and
eliminate the need for any variance. I think this would
be fair as no one else will ever use the land for
anything.
But if this is still not enough, (finally) there is an
unbuildable city lot, because of buried sewer running
through it, to my immediate north. This lot is 40 by 85
or 3400 sq. ft. which would net me an additional 850
square feet of coverable land if we could include this
as undisturbed surface area. (Hey, I might as well get
some use out of this parcel...)
u
These considerations mean and extra 1,450 sq. ft. of
coverable ground. If included, they make the technical'
variance easier to allow. •
�I
�
�I
� I
' 160 sq. ft. of coverable land. (160 is 25% of 640.)
NOTE: When we're talking erosion, we have to talk
surface area because that's the true area that soaks up
' the rain.
From this figure I need only a 3.5% coverage variance
to satisfy Dave Hemple's desire for a hardsurface
driveway. But I don't care, I can do fine with gravel.
� I
� I
� I
• _.fi n Prairie. MN 55344 ._..
r.
O
I il3
-6
J
~' Te me rrs k Road g
r y� 54 Y' S`� - ' -
Bssl to
11'10 ►as
I v
o .
G 24
Ju
0 14c
1
:y For _(3 _ Book
Pag File
Fd Contt^ctc won
....... ........... — --�r-
fv+cc ;ne e
h
I o
�o
c q
� N
to
t
sc +z.
D v
by e
o
�= z� - •1.59 – -
1 176
b4 Iz i
1171
} ; gig
o
2 2 o
Pt...♦ • 58I� 31' 2�' E �c* _ .
lr
S�a1t: 1 =30�
d a way d tha how,daniw d L.O� S �I1 a— «71 P n. V t � ESr ec4�
� Aw�Dy osrtty ,N,,hs i a vua and aonaa nv� /►
"caway. mw m and of ft a! Wal . MaP40%. a/
.:a. wweadwmntL d any. ha* or an said rrIi Surareod by
6 , iA bARELW& ASSOCIATES, INC.
STATE REG. NO. 6508
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
OOCP MlT SUDIM -ES
FELT
WE SNEATHOIG
W CHM SUFF1T AND FVAXM
pmK DF
CLhv AND
TIEES
IMPR M E
*arms ro
Oftw T 10
FEY XIMIEA
GMjS' FTG
m
i�
4 6
8080C ,16�
0 0 C)
0 0 0
00 0000000 C7Ooo o
C) OO0000Do% C)
c) 0 1 00 di
C
0
. dc POD
0000 000
SJ -��
FLAT ROOF" SUPPORT
STi
2x4
SUPP[U
m
m
Bruce Johansson
P.A.. Bov 7%
6'01 Mohawk Dr.
Chanhassen. Mn. 55317
10/16/94
Planning Department!
Board of Adjustments and Appeals
City of Chanhassen
Dear Members,
I am writing this letter to inform you of my strong objections to the variance
proposal of Mr. Loren Veltkamp at 6724 Lotus Trail.
There are several reasons why I am against the granting of this variance and I wish to
make my position as clear as possible.
I recently purchased the home at 6701 Mohawk Dr, which is directly behind the
Veltkamp property and was not aware until last week of his plans. 'When I found out I
visited City Hall and reviewed his proposal for a very large garage and enclosed tower
type deck and enclosed porch, along with apparent 20' depth excavation of hillside.
These are my objections.
The Veltkamps do not have a hardship situation. They currently have a full
two car garage with ample driveway space for addtional parking.
Overall they have very reasonable use of their property. The setback variance
and the lot coverage ordiance I feel should be maintained in this instance. Their home
is already very close to the road and the public beach. Their home is spacious and has a
commanding view of Lotus Lake. Any additions via structure ox, height would have a
definite adverse effect on my property value. I also feel the esthetics of their proposal
are too overbearing for the neighborhood and lakefront.
In the short while I have been involved with my property at 6701 Mohawk, Mr.
Veltkamp has disregarded city ordinances by building retaining walls and adding
truckloads of dirt to enlarge his yard on city property. Built decks which do not
conform to Building code safety standards, threatened the previous owner of my house
that he should be nice to Veltkamp because Veltkamp controlled his view, and just a
couple of weeks ago threatened to destroy personal property of mine in the form of a
shed which has been in place for over 30 years because he didn't like to loot at it when
he was going to the bathroom! I have only spoken to Mr. Veltkamp one time in person
and one time on the phone.
As a tin censed building contractor who has built 5 homes in Chanhassen. I know the
stringent standards the city uses to maintain its ordinances, and in this instance I just
do not see where Mr. Veltkamp is experiencing any hardship with his current living
situation .
Thaw You n
B, ce $son
n
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 26,1994
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Mark Senn, Carol Watson
STAFF PRESENT: John Rask, Planner I
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order.
Loren Veltkamp, the applicant, is requesting an eight (8) foot variance from the thirty (30)
foot front yard setback requirement and a variance from the maximum lot coverage of twenty-
five (25) percent for the construction of a 24.5' x 42' garage in a RSF, Residential Single
Family zoned district.
John Rask presented the staff report.
Chris Anderson, of 6680 Lotus Trail, stated that he had no problem with the development.
He believes that Mr. Veltkamp's proposal will enhance the neighborhood as well as correct
some of the erosion problems.
Mr. Veltkamp indicated that he had additional information that staff had not reviewed. His
revised engineering plans showed that erosion would be reduced. In addition, the plans
included the new retaining walls. Mr. Veltkamp stated that he was aware of the erosion
problem and that the old gravel driveway would be removed and a new hard surface drive
constructed, which would help to reduce the erosion problems. However, the real erosion
problem is from materials washing from the roadway into Lotus Lake.
Mark Senn indicated that the Board has granted variances in the past to exceed 25% lot
coverage. The issue with this site is that the additional lot coverage may increase the erosion
problems along the lake shore.
Carol Watson expressed her concerns with the size of the structure. The structure would be
much larger than a typical two car garage.
All Board members agreed that additional information was needed to ascertain the impacts on
Lotus Lake.
Mr. Veltkamp stated that he has additional engineering data or would be willing to have a
engineer show that his proposal will not create any additional erosion problems. His
preliminary calculations showed an approximate 80% reduction in erodible surface area.
Carol Watson made a motion to table this item until detailed engineering data is provided and
until the staff has time to review and comment on the revised engineering plans.
Mark Senn seconded the motion and added that the applicant needs to show how runoff
would be contained on the site.
[1
u
I
0
Board of Adjustments and Appeals Minutes
September 26, 1994
Page 2
All voted in favor and the motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Carol Watson moved approval of the minutes for September 12, 1994. Mark Senn seconded
the motion. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
Carol Watson moved, seconded by Mark Senn for adjournment. All voted in favor and the
motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.