The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-25_VELTKAMP, LORENNHsmmi JOAIIJ LICSS NW'oaSSROPQ LK X02Od pienalnoO OWN OOLL fake Lucy R d Pleasant \P�el L_ C Vlnela, C 2 Iz CD Ir A Western Dr Hiawatha DI rver• Beach Rd ON p\CrJ o 1 e�i e i I Ci nd Carver County Piedmont �<aP Lin (. Pass. ct s 5 '\� Q- Mountain,� ' P Trap view ;% 2j0 `q Stag ,., Line Ct Horn Circle .4�ountainWay Rojina Lane r: ✓ O IA/ N �' `ye - e I U / 1 J IJ " NprO`O0� I ' `Foo�ll - rt r N Lot S Lake Pa rkl GrayE �1Y�lG 5uG'Pa��T' R►�Q��►Zc� A�Eo��crt�t+�i�+�T+{w�� ::FRofn-T-Kr C j 2vE pr" molrt� VVL 4 vtaL6 r l o'C�sTKA�L_ 7H IS ?OrT 6.7 11 1 `-PI K 0 0 to i`�k- rS ,g i A SA-F6'TY oft 6►Fkt�9 Chi ��e Garver bounty _ : Piedmont i �i�G(eeR x '�y aP L�( SPass �P Ct s� 5 �Oti' Mountairi'.d" 2 oQ Trap view �� o n Stag t Line Ct Goy ., d. Horn Circle .!yountaln `Nay '...,7 Blvd; Ln Pleasant q'te �fL. �, oW geo. -` F rn .. --- �.,� _ •� p,�. Lanelo W o. �� Fqx-�',?y ,Y ''t Lake ov ;Zela�N F°`Pathi Obi � •\� /', o i � �� a. �• \ ea !Fox4ail N L t� 3O S Pack r � eke Lucy R d\� `, 96 v o �' v 91�. o Lake Pa,y` o. I r'r T nendoah Western Dr ''' � �\d'' y'?. Circle a Hiawatha Dr Carver Beach Rd each Play ound - = j ?'d 112`'' C� Q O GfEfl�'' IM eerie o i, Ponderosa D", _'�,... y Chc I � h/G SuG'Pc�{ZT R�D��'i'iT � A�EO��i'atAni�ff'Ttiwta�r ::FRofrj-yrtEE C u R vE Prf mow-A\,\A- D rt 4 v t o Le'T `f'o THIS+rNwAy wt41 A�Ct'cy of NCI &4'► OQOp Nr��G ADPt2a 55 l7tiav,s Z)6(,JN 1'l`1400 N(41en �h j q �c. ►,�1 oe s-�- 67M 7331�fi�� 673c 5 P G ) )2 111 C.ioc� 771 � ;uQrt L194ack oP �O vjo� U ,4v,4kA- " 1, rI rn u � l� l V�'�b 1 \ c7116101 NAM, � 7 �a �a c�c--r' cy- Chwhass,eh rnnf, e, e r l� '7 957 376� (- p JI7' -7 6121 r�fj MN 65877 r, V(-O V Ida.-S S th C X 4 s S-t r� ROPCOC s5 9o�z —L(-I() _u 8 1�1 Or �sZ., fix'-adBZ d t_V • J�" �J t t i <71 Ift rw . � �i1 �' `�. is E` "• a r r .,!� "� -'i". . lam_ ►7�' 09, 3 J� - :�- i Nk r I _ f �• All or w AA eAr 41 61 ol I . 1L k J A4 ksg Vw Ale Or Y too+ .... '�!`. 1 y1� -9 mdLjrA t Pry - I Jl- ....... AF 0 6 f FRANK R. CARDARELLE \(612) 941-3031 6^7�1 y /-oT,4s rR a Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Survey For Loren Velthamp Book 347- Page 56 File a6a2 6724 Lotus Trail Ch5nb.ass-en,. MN_- _ CITY OF CtiP,iH�OMlrlrnl-iASSEN W(E�f MAY 17 2006 ENGINEERING DEP1. a c APPROVED BY DEP lo-- w DATE: BY: DEPT.: rc Kq j DATE: _r p6 BY: t, DEPT.: 0 . DATE: ro?. u&f� Rd concimtt Mon n - is max.•_.:_. ._ .. *. x ..a: �K u �� i ptv ftnat lint 4 ,F dy• err 11 rL 1 N W I W .� I n � f Scala fV30` OI Surfnce Drainage Arrows v� �. LOA �Zo 'A� 66,Sg o L�w�r Total Land Area: 15,373 sq.ft. Housle Area: 1,875 sq.ft. Garage: 690� ®q.ft. Total 2565 xQ,o- Deck: 822 sq.ft. Vacated Willow Road � Driveway:2245 sq.ft- 10' Drainage & Utility Easement- Grand Total Land Cover 5632 sq. ft. 36.6% —Description: --- — - -_ —j Lots 1170 through and inclusive of Lot 1178 and hat part of Lot 1179 lying Northerly of a line running from the North v est ciorner of said Lot 1179 to a point on the East line 15.0 feet South from the Northeast corner of said Lot 1179, also' that part of the East 10,.0 feet of Lot 1168 and all of Lot 1169 lying Northerly of a line runnlpg from a point on the East line of said Lot 1169, a distance of 00.0 feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 1169 to a point on the W.ppt line of the East 10 feet of said Lot 1168 a. distance of 60.0 feetlsout� of the Northwest corner of said Last 10 feet of Lot 1168 and there, tertnrinating, Carver County, Minnesota. E o Bsmt. L LQcatdd n .s. N 5/2/2906 29. g r «1 p .....•I I."lax 1174 I hereby curtly that this le atrue and cone of reproaantatlon of a survey, of Ne boundrlaa of ❑UV v a u / Carver County, Minnesota and the location of ell buildings 5area , d I olb ancroaal me , If any on sald land. 9urvayad by Me on this 2nd dayof September ,p 97 %fie V,S � 5' -66 f rank R. Cardarelle 5-16-06 1 State Reg, No. 6505 .a CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.06-25 NOTICE IS HEREBY GI V EN that the. Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, July 18, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a Variance request for relief from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement for the expansion of second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. Two setback variances will be required because the property is a comer lot. The site is located in the Single - Family Residential (RSF) District at 6724 Lotus Trail. Applicant: Loren Veltkamp. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhg5sen.mn.us/sery/ plan/06-25.hhnlor at City Hall during regularbusmesshours. ABinterested Persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: imetzer@ci.charthassen.mit.us Phone: 962-227-1132 (Published in the Chanhassen V illager on Thursday, July 6, 2006; No. 4686) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (� (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. / 4e was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz . Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on this ( day of 2006 . GG>r1f1�� Notary Public , RATE INFORMATION GWEN M. RADUENZ NOTARY mmhPUBIC-MI>A+ESOfA MyCo%EtxesJan.31,2DID Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $40.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ............................... $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $11.51 per column inch SCANNED 0lo—ZS City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council approve Liberty on Bluff Creek 2°d Addition: 1) Final Plat Approval. 2) Resolution #2006-62: Approval of Plans & Specifications and Development Contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Move now to item number 6 under new business. Looking at the hour, let's take, unless there's objection, let's take a 5 minute recess subject to the call of the Chair. LOREN VELTKAMP, 6724 LOTUS TRAIL, PLANNING CASE 06-25: OF A HOME WITH NON -CONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK Public Present: Name Address Jeff King Pat & Keith Gunderson Bruce Johansson Matt & Liz Tibbetts Don & Sig Sennes 767 Carver Beach Road 6661 Mohawk Drive 6711 Mohawk Drive 6699 Mohawk Drive 6680 Mohawk Drive Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. This item... interpretation of staffs... staff interpretation and I11 go through that in a minute. This item first appeared before the Planning Commission back on June 20d' and at that time staff... There was concern with the Planning Commission the direction... and how the property was being used so they asked us to look a little deeper into actually how the property was being used so I'll go through that in a minute too. But the critical thing that you're here tonight to discuss is the variance, and there's some other... issues that I'll touch on too. ...and the subject property is located here. There's an existing house that recently burned, but ordinance does allow to build to the existing structure. There are some non- 36 SCANNED City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 conforming setbacks. They have requested to go higher in those areas that... I'm not going to go into the building plan unless you have specific questions tonight but just for ... the area in blue doesn't meet the setback requirements and therefore... residential height ... 35 feet. The area shown in pink does not meet the setback requirements from Tamarack... have to stay with the existing structure... So therefore that's the request. The 22 foot and the 15 foot setback on that setback... just some questions about, based on some testimony, of how the property was being used and the existing conditions so staff did a little bit more research on that, and that item did go back to the Planning Commission on July 18a'. At that time the staff also had some additional information that we shared, and also I included in your packet some information from the residents as part of their testimony as to the condition of the property and some complaints that may have been researched on regarding ... to the property itself. So what I wanted to mention is that one of the issues that the staff also faced on the evidence that resulted in the investigation on how the fire, on how the property was being used, we made the interpretation that that property was being rented, and if you look at your staff report on page 6 of 8, that's the first interpretation so as a part of the normal code process, anybody aggrieved of the decision of administrative ... to the planning department or myself, the planning director... And part of the testimony, as it is in your staff report, again dated July 18s , there is one of the Planning Commissioners was specifically asked ... so that was one of the findings the Planning Commission felt comfortable... Having said that, if the property is being rented, and the applicant's request, again kind of going through... information that the Planning Commission asked based on some of these questions and information provided by the residents, that they felt that the additional height was also to allow for additional income for the rental property. Again ... and also the testimony the residents felt like the existing height... add to that and so that was some of the problems that the Planning Commission felt was a reason to deny ... not demonstrated a hardship. That there's an alternative —in the staff report where we outlined that should the applicant choose to honor the city code, there is a process if the applicant applies for a variance that would allow a single family situation... The Planning Commission did discuss this... more of a dependent, elderly relative that they need to provide a basement or maybe over a garage ... and there is a process for that and we felt that if the applicant chose that as a way to provide that ... we included the information from the neighbors. There's some other ongoing issues on the property and I wanted to stay focused on the issue of the variance so ... to know that Josh Metzer on our planning staff did meet with some of the residents to try to assimilate some of their questions... the variance and what we're here for tonight. The Planning Commission and the staff did recommend denial of the variance and that the interpretation that the property is being rented... So with that, you have... Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. At this point. Okay. We may have some other ones in the future. Okay. At this point, I see the applicant is here. You're appealing the Planning Commission so why don't you come forward and give us the information. Loren Veltkamp: Hi, I'm Loren Veltkamp. 37 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Loren Veltkamp: Good evening. 6724 Lotus Trail. My house was built in 1926 or started I should say. It's been worked on ever since I think. It's more like a question of when wasn't it being built. I've been there about 15 years. I've doubled the size of the house roughly and I see an opportunity now, totally unexpected, to make it a little better. Perhaps a little bigger. But not much. I don't plan to increase my footprint or anything like that. I don't want to encroach on anybody. I don't see any need for that. What I have, and I don't know, it's a little different than what she showed you or what I had before the fire. If I can just point this out here. As you can see, this little thing here is a dormer and this is basically the blue part that she had before whereas this is the part that we're talking about. This is the part that's controlled by setbacks so towards the front of the house here I had a large room and truss it's called, which is a storage area. And this was a dormer and this was a deck that came out about 6 feet. Beyond the house here so the deck survived the fire but the dormer was lost, but I have the right now to rebuild this dormer so I've already done so. The main issue for me tonight is this little square here which is about 12 feet by 12 feet. This is behind the dormer here and it's going to go to waste if I just put a roof over it. I would like to use it for storage or maybe to expand a bedroom. It's a small area and it doesn't involve anyone's view that I can see. This house here, this house here is about 44 inches from my property line. It encroaches upon my property greatly. And it also goes 2 feet into Tamarack Road. This is a rental unit and has been a rental unit for most of the 15 years that I've been there. Been a wide variety of people living there. The only other thing on this Tamarack Road is perhaps a garage. It's a 2 stall garage which is across the road there so this is looking... This garage, I haven't exactly measured this but if the road here is about 40 feet. I think this road is about 40 feet. The garage is probably within 2 or 3 feet of this road, so the point I'm making here is that these other properties are either on the road, or they're right next to the road. Now these are the only, there's only 3 properties involved here because it's a really short street. This one, this one and this one. And I went to the law library down in Chaska to research this. I just got on West Law and when you punch in setbacks, do a search on setbacks, I have 32 cases from the Supreme Court, and I looked through all the cases to see if there's a case like mine and there was a case exactly like mine called Aurora vs. Burnet. And there's different ways to interpret these cases I know but just briefly, what happened in this case is that somebody was being set back more than other people on a street, and a guy that Burnet. The city had him do setbacks and he didn't want to be set back because he would be set back further than everybody else, and he just went ahead and built and he defied the city and the city took him to court, as you would expect, and he won because the Supreme Court ruled that well, you know the proper thing to do in this situation is to set back the people all the same, you know, and not set anybody back any farther than anybody else so he won the case. And this seems to me to be very similar to what we're dealing with here because I'm being put under a new code here, you know 30 foot setback, which I was never put under before. Now Carver Beach is a very old area. The oldest housing association in Minnesota, built back in 1898. So the housing association is still active. It's 108 years old. My house was built in 1926. I built this deck here against Tamarack Road in the setback, I built this. I got, I think in 20011 got the approval to build this deck, which is further out than what I'm asking for now, and that M City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 was just 5 years ago. So from 1926 to 2001, I had different setbacks on my property. I had a 30 foot setback with, I'm pointing this out. My house was facing this way for 81 years. Now I find out, after my house is burned, my house is facing this way. Okay. And this way. This has never happened before and my question to the council is, how can these setbacks be switched you know in midstream like this. All of a sudden this is not fair to me because I've been building one way and now all of a sudden it's illegal. And who knew? So the reason my house was facing south originally is because there was a road going up like this. And the people who designed this house spaced the garage and the front door and the 30 foot front yard setback was all faced to a road called Willow Road. And Willow Road was never built, and I guess that's because Lotus Trail became the main road but Lotus Trail separates my house from the lake. Okay, it runs between my house and the lake so they wanted to put that road in there because they didn't want a road between them on the lake but eventually it happened, you know. So Willow Road was abandoned and Lotus Trail became the main road because of some decision somewhere along the line. Now I am forced to put my driveway out to Lotus Trail then, so then that makes my house face a different direction, through no fault of my own or the original builders or anything, but my feeling is that, because the house is so old, that the setbacks should be grandfathered in along with the house, because I can't have my setbacks switched every 5 years when I'm trying to develop this property. I don't think that's fair to anyone. I think the city should just stick with a 81 year setback that we've got going here and then we have no problems. Then I have no building problems whatsoever. But it's because of that switch that we got into this jam and I clearly question the legality of that because you know if the city takes control over a new property that they didn't have before, now they're supposed to compensate the owner or work something out, and in this particular case I'm kind of being deprived here you know through no fault of anyone really. It's just you know, it's just the way of the neighborhood has evolved, so I'm just asking for consideration here because it is an older house. But anyway, getting back to this Supreme Court case, which is very similar to mine. In this case the Supreme Court ruled that the fair way to do this is to set everybody back according to the average distance that you know the people are away from the road. So if we're looking for an average here, this house here is 2 feet over and this house is probably 2 feet off. So the average would be right on the road, and I'm 16 1/2 feet off of that, and I'm not even asking for that 16 1/2 feet. I'm just trying to build over my existing footprint so it's very minimal what I'm asking for. It's not even what the Supreme Court would get by a long shot, so I think this is very fair and it's not blocking anyone's views because the view this way is already blocked by the dormer and the view this way is blocked by this part so I don't see that it would have... And the other point I want to make here is that this road here is not a road. It's just a paper street, like we were talking about earlier tonight. So I feel like I'm being set back 30 feet from absolutely nothing when everybody else is over the street. And particularly this part of the street up here. I've never even been able to use this. It's supposed to be public property but it's been blocked by trailers for almost the entire 15 years I've lived there, and I've been physically harassed when I've gone over there to you know kind... about this. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. C City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Loren Veltkamp: So other people are using the road a lot. I'm using it a little, and just trying to you know make use of this little square here, and that's, this just concerns the setback to Tamarack Road so. So you're talking about Tamarack Road setback number. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Can I just make a point of clarification? If you go to page 3 of the staff report, the way we determine setbacks is any public right-of-way. In this circumstance there's two public right-of-way. One that's the improved and one is not but it's still determined as a public right-of-way. So there would be two. Even if you were to vacate Tamarack, as just suggested, the public street would still be Lotus. There'd still non- conforming setbacks so the fact that you have two public streets, which we.have corner lots all over town. There's still, we call it two fronts so it'd be 30-30 is a general single family residential district and then 10 on the other two sides. So, which would be if you had a front and a back, it'd be 30 in the front, 30 in the rear so in this circumstance we have two, a corner lot, it'd be the 30-30 so that's been a long, been along for quite a while. Then also as far as the building permit, I just also wanted to point out, that does go back to 1998 and the one in 2002, and someone made that incorrect interpretation on those and those were pointed out in the staff report that those were issues in error. So just wanted to point that out for the record. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Loren Veltka np: That is another issue that she brings up. See staff now says that the allowance of this, the allowance of this deck being built, which I built as a fire egress for this bedroom up here basically, but they said the permit to build this was given in error. I'm like, where's the error? I got the same setback for 81 years. There's no error. Now the staff 5 years ago was simply respecting the original setbacks for this property which I think is totally proper because you can't just be switching people's orientation on a house like that developing the property. It's just throws everything up in the air. You can't, you don't know what to do anymore. So the Carver Beach and these older neighborhoods, and I would ask the council to you know be understanding to that because it can really lead to problems when you're trying to build. You have to plan for the house and building the house... and you can't do it, so it screws up a lot of stuff. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Loren Veltkamp: Alright, so we're done with, that's my proposal, request on Tamarack. also requested a setback from Lotus. The same argument applies to Lotus is that it was not the original front of my property. What I actually have there from the street, if you take a measuring tape from the corner of my house, which would be here, out to the street, which is in this area here. If I measure on a slope going down okay from you know just chest level to the corner of the house, there's a slope there, I get about 24 feet. Okay. So there's quite a bit of grass and that's at the closest corner. If you look down here, it is at the 30 feet. So the average, I don't know what the average would be, it'd be somehow around 27 feet I am from the street right now. Now, the reason that this, M City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 they're setting me back so far here is because there is a right-of-way in addition to the physical pavement and the way the street, you know you've got right-of-way which is much wider than the street. In this case the street is slammed all the way over to the left side so I've got like 20 feet of right-of-way and before we even begin to measure the 30 feet, so I'm perfectly willing to stay 30 feet away from the physical road. This is a dead end road. You know it's never going to be increased or enhanced or anything like that. I'm perfectly willing to stay 30-35 feet away from that road but putting me 50 feet away from the curb, you know coming up over the top of my property like this, you're coming up over my living room and pushing me back 50 feet from the road because they changed the road. You know I just don't think it's fair. I'm willing to stay 30 feet plus from the physical road, which if anybody walks down the road they can even look up and they will not be able to see the second story. They won't see the roof or the second story. I can put a little deck along here. You know set back. Make this 30 feet here, the closest corner. You know set that back a little. Nobody would see it and I think that's, you know being discreet. I feel it's pretty reasonable considering that these setbacks have been jerked around through the years you know. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Loren Veltkamp: That's about all I've got to say about the setback. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Loren Veltkamp: Then there's one other request that I just have to ask you. This is a little more involved. For the last 6 years I've been renting my property. This has been an issue of great debate. I just can't believe how much debate we've had over this, but I've been renting my property to roommates since I had a divorce, and during my divorce it was discovered that I had a handicap. A rare mental handicap so I've not really been able to work, so what I resorted to was, was renting out my property to roommates, and that was the way I sustained myself for the most part. And at first the city didn't have codes about this because this was 6 years ago, and then eventually I called the city because I was wondering if they had any codes, and they said well no, we don't have codes but we're making some right now you know. So I said okay, I'll wait and send them to me when you got them, and then they did send them to me. And then there was some confusion with the city because they felt that I really built apartments in my house and that I wasn't just having roommates. And you can imagine how you know upset the planning department was when they thought I was building you know a duplex or triplex or having apartments in the house, which I never wanted to do. But on the other hand I want to make my roommates happy, and have space and privacy and all this other stuff so, I'm kind of caught in the middle here. And anyway, after considerable debate or whatever, and many letters to the city, I got a letter from the city say it's okay for me to rent if I didn't have doorways between these different areas of my house. You know so that it was all one house. Not a rental units but one single house, okay and that was the way we resolved it. And I got a letter to this effect and they inspected everything and everything was okay, and we went on this way until the fire. Now after the fire, the planning department took a new look at it and they felt strongly that I really had 41 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 apartments in this house after all you know and then they're back on my tail about this. What I would like to do, I'm not telling you how to resolve this tonight, okay. It's too complicated of an issue here tonight ... this is impossible to do now. What I'm asking for is just some way to have 3 roommates so I can stay in my house. That's what I want. Just 3 people living with me, and I want to go back to what I had before. And the planning department has started chipping away at what I had before, which was 3 kitchens and a large, good driveway. You know they started, they don't want me to go back to that even though it was approved, but it was approved. Just like my original setback was approved, so I think I should be able to go back to this time. You know without being evicted from my house. I mean I'm going to lose my house if I can't get my roommates and I don't want to you know do anything shady or efaithful about this you know. I just want to find a way to do it and a few years ago during this debate I did write a letter to the council, a 8 page letter and after quite a few months I got a note back, and they said thank you for the letter. You know so at least somebody read it but I don't know if it was any of you but in this 8 page letter I made a point that having roommates in a house is good for people, especially for the handicap. You know there's a way to keep a house and I think it's also a way to keep the low cost housing affordable, you know because my rents are cheaper than anybody's. I can beat any price and you know the cheapest rooms we have for people are the ones that already exist. So businesses like it you know because they don't have to pay the employees so much, and you know businesses benefit from having these people around. There may be some stress on the neighborhood if you have too many roommates or allow cars, something like that. I mean I know there's a down side too and I don't want to be any part of that down side. I can tell you what the down side is sometime, we can sit down and talk about it. But anyway, it's a very involved question and I'd like to see this area looked at of, and come up with a viable way for people in Chanhassen to have a few roommates, you know that's not going to bother anybody. It's just done nicely. And rd really like to have the council look at that now. Last time we were together, you know she got the planning department, or is it the planning. Kate Aanenson: Commission. Loren Veltkamp: Commission, to agree that my house should be inspected, and I actually did have, I actually was written. They asked me if I was renting and I said yes, I'm renting. I'm charging rent and I don't think that means that I have, I'm admitting to having rental units. Okay. As far as I know I've never had rental units. Never wanted them. Just some roommates. And so yeah, I said yes you know. I have you know I was renting and I want to continue renting... So what I'm asking for now is that this area is looked at before you know I'm refused the right to have renters, or refused to have a kitchen or driveway or anything like that. I would just like to have this help at this point. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Loren Veltkamp: Not decided or undecided. I just would like to have it ... the legal questions here are so difficult that I'm having a hard time with it myself, and I've been thinking about this for 4 years. 42 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. Ahight. Loren Veltkamp: Suspended and find a good way for, you know to go back to what I had. I don't want to lose what I had so... Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any questions for the applicant at this point? Kate Aanenson: I'd just like to comment, if I may Mayor. Council members. Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Kate Aanenson: Just to kind of, we did believe that there was rentals. We had received complaints from the neighbors so building inspections went up. The planning department never investigated that property. They just relied on the approval of the inspections. Again at that time I think there was some ambiguity if the doors weren't locked. Whether he's renting or whether the units, they're tenants. They're being charged rent and that's what the definition in the city code is so. The other concern that we had was that there was at least 6 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms and there were 3 separate levels with a kitchen without a permit so to us, that kind of creates the levels, 3 kind of apartment areas, whatever you want to call it, but there was exchange of payment for tenancy and that, by our definition meets a rental. So for us to try to solve that rate of problem through this, we finally had, you know what we would call prima facia evidence to say this is how it's being used. While we tried to find it before, because we had received complaints, and I think that's some of the angst with the neighbors but I'm not sure in this format, we did provide another mechanism for the applicant to go through, which we would with anybody else to try to resolve. He can have so many people at this point. I think we really need to take that through a separate process, which is allowed by the code, under a variance. Economic hardship, to come through that process and that's what the staff would recommend. I think the Planning Commission really listened hard. It was a long hearing. I think the neighbors would testify. Several hours, twice to really go through and dissect exactly how the property was being used and I rely on their wisdom to, how they formulated, based on the information, the testimony from the residents and the questions that they asked of how the property was being used. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the, I guess the question is, the effect that would result. If the first requested motion and to recognize that he meets the definition. What's the effect of that? Kate Aanenson: That's a good question and the fact that we have a zoning ordinance is really to protect property rights. The surrounding properties. When you buy into a residential district, your expectation is that you have some protection of how the neighboring properties are being used. So if we were to say anybody, I think that's why, I know that's one of the reasons why we came up with this rental license as we had some of the older properties around town. People were starting to rent them and some of them were nuisances. So we came up with the property maintenance, in combination with the 43 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 rental license so not only can we go after property that's in ill repair, but we also have some control of tenants that are in properties and they can lose their ability to rent property if they're not managing their tenants and the property. It was kind of a two pronged approach on that, so it would have implications if you're trying to solve that, for this application and not look at it city wide because there is an expectation of protecting neighbors properties. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Knutson. Roger Knutson: Mayor, just quickly point out. I'm not going to, under a rental dwelling license, revision to the city code, a dwelling, rental dwelling is, the term rental dwelling means any rental dwelling with one or more living units, so even though you have one living unit, not multiple living units, you can be a rental dwelling. To be a rental dwelling that means you charge someone, or receive other forms of compensation for the use of the dwelling. So whether you live there or not is, doesn't matter. Mayor Furlong: Doesn't matter. It doesn't exclude. Roger Knutson: If you receive rent from someone or if you receive vegetables from someone for living there, any kind of compensation, that makes it a rental dwelling. The fact that you're living there does not change it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Ms. Aanenson, follow up on the comments, both on the setbacks. There was suggestions made that the setbacks were changing over time. And the difference between the setback from the street. I know we've heard this, this has been an issue and point of confusion with a number of people between the street and the right- of-way. Kate Aanenson: Right. The setback is taken from the right-of-way, not the improved surface. Mayor Furlong: Do you have that picture again? Is that the box that goes across there? So by that picture, I think that hatched area that goes around the north, east and south part, is that the deck? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: On the building. Does that go up and touch the right-of-way at this point, or approximately touch the right-of-way? Kate Aanenson: Close. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Kate Aanenson: Again, that goes back to some of the older part... 0 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the request here is essentially to build a second story over the entire pink area? Kate Aanenson: The area in pink is the area that doesn't meet the setbacks. You're not ... to this point. ...does not allow you to go into the 35 feet maximum height. Again there was some concern with the residents that he was, that the applicant was building higher. That does meet the setback. When the home was destroyed, you can meet whatever the zoning ordinance allows, 35 feet. It's this area in pink that doesn't meet the setbacks. I guess the same with the non -conforming portion. Mayor Furlong: And what, even though it is, his home was non -conforming within setbacks, because it burned he can still replace what was there. Kate Aanenson: In the area that meets, correct. Meets all the setback requirements and that's the... Mayor Furlong: Okay, but the request here is to build higher within the pink area. Kate Aanenson: Right. He came in a little bit higher and that was the one we recently said no, there's... Mayor Furlong: On the blue he's going higher as well? Kate Aanenson: Correct... Mayor Furlong: Okay, but that is not restricted because of any setback issue. It's the area in the pink where he's requesting to go higher than what was there before, and that's where, am I understanding that correctly? Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that doesn't meet, it doesn't meet setbacks so you have to stay with what was... Mayor Furlong: Okay, so he can replace what was there before the fire but. Kate Aanenson: ...the apartment's non -conforming, yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of staff? If not, discussion. Comments. Alright, I'm going to start calling names. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: Got the short straw huh. Comments. I think the, my inclination is to side with staff and Planning Commission. Carver Beach is one, it's hard for us it seems like to go a month without seeing something. That's an old area of the city and the lots are small and there's a lot of existing non -conformances and things out there that, I think myself, you know I look at each one of those individually and the circumstances surrounding it when they come in for whatever those variances or requests or things are, and the, whether or not you know in 1929 or whichever what the circumstances were, the 45 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 fact is that we're allowing this applicant to build to replace what was there. To build what burned down seems reasonable. Within that footprint. You want to change the inside? You know lots of options you can do there within that existing footprint, and you know there's right-of-ways there that define where those setbacks have to be and you know if the right-of-way's there, that's where you've got to measure from so, you know I believe my view is that there's some opportunity to increase the height of what's there now in some areas that are within the setback so that's even in addition to what's there now. For those areas that were previously non -conforming, I'm not inclined to increase that non-conformance out there, especially given that essentially he can rebuild the house in the existing footprint and there is potential to do more than that currently out there that I'm inclined to deny the variance because I believe that there's reasonable use of the property and you know in fact can be again made bigger in certain areas of that property. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Lundquist. I guess I could repeat everything he said but I'm really not in favor of taking a non -conforming situation and amplifying it. And I think he does have the right to rebuild what he does have and he has reasonable use of that property and when he does rebuild it the way it was. So I also am going to side with the staff and go on the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny this. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson. Councilman Peterson: I concur. I think there's been a lot of discussion about definition of rental. I guess as I read that and as you listen to our city attorney, there isn't a question. He's renting. And you can ask a lot of what ifs. Well what if he wasn't renting? Would that change our perspective? No. The fact is, he is and so I'm not going to even think about that. You know in, it creates issues and we have an opportunity now to correct some of the issues that it creates and if he'd like to come back and request the variance for, to get the zoning variance to do rentals, to do that route as Kate mentioned, he certainly has every right to do that. But as far as expanding a non -conforming, I don't see a compelling reason to do it at all. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I would concur. I think the issues of reasonable use have been stated. He has reasonable use with rebuilding the property as it was within the non -conforming area. I think the other issues, having read through the verbatim minutes of the Planning Commission, actually 2 meetings where this was discussed, I think the questions and the discussion were very pointed. Very appropriate and revealed information on how the property's being used, to Councilman Peterson's point, and it is being rented. I think that is clear. I think you know if we approved that first request, we'll be stating the obviously on what's been agreed to. And I think the other issue, because it's being rented, improving the non -conforming creates the opportunity and in some cases it looks like the desire to increase income on the property as well, which is another factor that came out in the Planning Commission meeting. And for those reasons I think it's important for us not to go forward with approving and increasing the non - Ell City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 conforming aspect of it. Being able to rebuild what he had, that is reasonable and I'm glad that our state statutes allow that because I think that would be a reasonable request. But to increase the non -conforming and to build more, I think that's unreasonable and doesn't meet the standards. I think the findings of fact in the staff report are consistent with what I've heard here and support the Planning Commission's and the staffs recommendation to deny so. I would concur with other comments and for reasons additionally stated, that it would not be appropriate for us to go forward with approving this requested variance. Any other thoughts or comments? If not, is there a motion? We have 2 motions I believe. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I'll make the first motion. The City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and planning staffs interpretation that the owner of the property at 6724 Lotus Trail, Loren Veltkamp has been renting the property as defined in the City Code Article VHL Rental Dwelling Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and planning staffs interpretation that the owner of the property at 6724 Lotus Trail, Loren Veltkamp has been renting the property as defined in the City Code Article VIII, Rental Dwelling Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Motion 2. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Mayor I recommend that the City Council deny the variance for 22 foot and 15 foot front yard setback area for the expansion of the second level of a home with non -conforming setbacks in the single family residential district at 6724 Lotus Trail based on the Findings of Fact contained in the staff report and the following 1 through 3? Okay. Roger Knutson: Mayor, just to be clear. You're adopting the Planning Commission finding as your own findings. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Did I read the wrong one? Roger Knutson: No, you did it just fine. I'm just amplifying. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. 47 City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006 Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council denies the variance for 22 foot and 15 foot front yard setback variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with non -conforming setbacks in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 6724 Lotus Trail, based on the Findings of Fact contained in this staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 3. There is an alternative process to secure a rental license. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you everyone. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Furlong: Memory serves, we had, I think this is our first council meeting since National Night Out on August 1'. Since we're on the 14`s, and I want to thank staff for their work in organizing it. I also want to recognize and thank members of the Carver County Sheriffs Department, and particularly the posse who serve on a volunteer basis and came out in force to meet with our residents and various neighborhood parties. I think we had, I know we had a presentation at our last council meeting, but it rained that night. The following night and yet attendance was still very strong and I think that speaks volumes of not only our residents but also the organization efforts.... staff and. Councilman Lundquist: We also had the ladder truck and members of the fire department. Mayor Furlong: Absolutely, thank you. Fire department was out there Councilman Lundquist: One of our other assistant. Mayor Furlong: I think we had 3 trucks out there in total from the fire department so thank you for naming that. But it was a good night. A lot of enthusiasm. A lot of good questions were raised. So I think everybody. Todd Gerhardt: Neighborhoods made some makeshift tents between ladders and tarps and so they had a place to gather to get out of the rain. That was pretty creative. Mayor Furlong: So congratulations to everybody and especially to those 40 neighborhoods, for all the people that hosted the party. For their efforts and for everyone that attended, appreciate it. Any other comments or discussion for council members? If not, Mr. Gerhardt. m CITY OF CHMIMSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 5917 Administration Phone:962.227.1100 Fax 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.2271190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax. 952.227,1170 Finance Phone: 952227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone. 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Couller Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone:952227,1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227,1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227,1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci chanhawn.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I DATE: August 14, 2006 SUBJ: LOREN VELTKAMP — Request for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback Variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks — Planning Case 06-25 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On July 18, 2006, the Planning Commission confirmed Planning Staffs interpretation that the applicant has been renting the property and voted to deny the requested variances. The applicant has appealed those decisions to City Council. This is a request for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback Variances for the expansion of the second level of a home on a comer lot with nonconforming setbacks. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 20, 2006, to review the proposed variances and moved to table the proposed variance request at that meeting. Based on statements made in the Carver County Sheriffs Report dated February 23, 2006, staff has made the interpretation that the applicant has been renting rooms on the subject property. The report shows that as many as five persons, in addition to the applicant/homeowner, were renting rooms on the subject property at the time the fire damage occurred. Staff is requiring the applicant to obtain a rental license. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing on July 18, 2006, to review the proposed variance. The Planning Commission moved to concur with the Planning Staffs interpretation that the property owner of 6724 Lotus Trail, Loren Veltkamp, has been renting the property as defined in the City Code Article VM, Rental Dwelling Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 to deny the proposed setback variances for the expansion of the second level of the home because the applicant has reasonable use of the property and has not demonstrated a hardship. The July 18, 2006 Planning Commission minutes are item la of the City Council packet. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chaffing downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gnat place to five, work, and play. Todd Gerhardt Veltkamp Variance —Planning Case 06-25 August 14, 2006 Page 2 RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends the adoption of Motion A confirming the interpretation that the applicant has been renting the property and Motion B denying the requested variances as specified on page 6 in the staff report dated August 14, 2006. ATTACHMENT 1. Subject Property Photos. 2. Fax from Carver County Sheriff s Office dated June 22, 2006. 3. Revised Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 14, 2006. gAplan\2006 planning cases\06-25 vel&amp valiancesexmutive summary.doc 44r iw �� .�._� tiff• �, .•�..� XF�. �:a4 •! K Q �yy P •1 • ;R t Y y A� 12A 0 gI 5� V it ow 06/22/2006 14:04 FAX 952 361 1229 CARVER CNTY SHERIFF DEPT 1A 001 FAX TRANsMISSION CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE SHERIFF BUD OLSON 000 EAST 4TH STREET CNASKA, MN 55318.2102 952.301.1212 Fax: 952.361.1229 JAIL: 952-361-1150 WARRANTS:952-361-1143 INVESTIGATION:952- 361.1139 DISPATCH: 952-361-1273 COLOGNE SHOP: 952-466-5239 To: Date: yln-� bept: Fax #: Pa es: g —4 Including this cover sheet. From: CARVER UNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICIT� 0 Ls-0 �q (952) 361-1212 Subject: aa7 —lob/ 1 THE DOCUMENT THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS FAX MAY CONTAIN FIDENTIAL CON INFORMATION THAT IS LEGALLYPRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INTENDED RECIPIENT NAMED ABOVE, IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY ACTION IN RELIANCE ON THE CONTENTS OF This TELECOPIED INFORMATION, EXCEPT ITS DIRECT DELIVERY TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT NAME ABOVE is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FAX IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMY LkTELY BY TELEPHONE TO ARRANGE FOR THE RETURN OF TUC ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS TO US. NONCOMPLIANCE COULD RESULT IN CRIMINAL, OR CIVIL ACTION- THANK YOU I I N O O CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ICR Number DateMme Revorteg Address 200500009462 16-Apr-2005 11:23 6724 Lotus Trl Remarks: check the welfare / all is fine ICR Number Date/Time Reported Add e 200500010031 22-Apr-2005 17:45 6724 Lotus Trl Remarks: Pre -registered death / me notified / info only w o ICR Number D1te/l5me Repotted Address y 200500019470 13-]ul-2005 23:54 6724 Lotus Trl Remarks: theft of vehicle / no rpt advised / son has vehicle ICR Number Date/Tome Re_nnrted Address 200500022978 09-Aug-2005 14:57 6724 Lotus Trl Remarks: Poss house fire / Unfounded rec fire ICR Number Dale/Time Reported Address 200500023800 16-Aug-2005 14:37 6724 Lotus Trl Remarks: assault -occurred a couple weeks ago CNiL MATTER/ UNFOUNDED ICR Number Date/19me Reported Address 200500023946 17-Aug-2005 15:25 6724 Lotus Trl Remarks: welfare check / message delivered y D ' ICR Number DaleMIR Reported Address 200500034380 22-Nov-2005 9:37 6724 Lotus Trl A Remarks: problems with room mate / advised 4 ICR Number Dale/Time Reported Address 1200500034407 22-Nov-2005 14:06 6724 Lotus Tri y Remarks: questions for officer on sus activity w/ roommates /advised D D J V ,,Page: 1 6724 Lotus Trail Apt p Ci sActivity is ositio Chanhassen Misc/Non Criminal AA Ant a CWaWsu Aeflvi Disvosition Chanhassen Medical 1F Apt q CtNlTwsp ActivityAetivity Disposition Chanhassen Vehicle Theft UN Apt M Ci s Ae"tv Disposition Chanhassen Fire Call UN Apt pb Cie Activity Disnosition Chanhassen Misc/Non Criminal UN Ant H CitylTws I Actlyj D s osttfon Chanhassen Misr/Non Criminal AA Aptt1 cjtyfjrws Activity Disposition Chanhassen Misc/Non Criminal AA Apt k CitYaWSD Activity_Disposition Chanhassen Suspicious Activity AA 06/2212006 lzak 00009323 oil 2B21 Unit Vail 2B12 Unit 2Bll 2B13 2B21 unit 2B12 Unit 2B12 ICR Number Date/rime Reported Address 200500034505 23-Nov-2005 12:50 6724 Lotus Trl Remarks: 0 9 ICR Number 200500037861 Remarks: ICR Number 200600000299 Remarks: ICR Number 200600003087 r, Remarks: caa ICR Number u„ 200600005422 w a Remarks: u: ICR Number v 200600005478 Remarks: ICR Number 200600007215 Remarks: JiCR rqumber w 200600008965 N N .- Remarks: a ICR Number N 200600010769 Remarks: r�+ ICR Number a 200600012907 n Remarks: m 0 0 N N N disorderly roommate / advised Date/Time Reported Address 27-Dec-2005 0:09 6724 Lotus Trl tried kicking male down the stairs / clr advised Apt 9 Cilv/Twsn Chanhassen Apt 9 City/Twsn Chanhassen Activity Disposition Disturbing Peace/Privac AA Activity Disposition Miscellaneous Criminal AA Date/Time Reported Address Ant 4 Citv/Twsn ActivitV Disposition 03-Jan-2006 22:50 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen juvenile was supposed to return to Lodge group home at 2200 and did not. Juvenile is at Chanhassen AA address, which is his mother's house/advised Date/Time Reverted Address Apt 0 Citv/fwsp Activity Disposition 31-Jan-2006 11:44 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen Theft UN possible theft civil matter no rpt Date/Time Reported Address Apt N City/Twsy Activity Disposition 23-Feb-2006 13:13 6724 Lotus Tr1 Chanhassen Fire Call fire in attic/report by 827/follow up report by 841 RP Date/rime Reported Address Apt # Citv/Twsp Activity Disposition 24-Feb-2006 8:05 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen Fire Call IF rekindle see icr 06005422 Datefrime Reported Address Apt 11 Citv/IWsn Activity Disposition 12-Mar-2006 14:58 6724 Lotus Tr] Chanhassen Misc/Non Criminal theft complaint / advised civil AA Date/rime Reported Address Ant k Citv/Twsn Activity Disposition 28-Mar-2006 17:03 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen Fire Call AA smoke coming from where fire was a couple of weeks ago / small rec fire / advised Date/Time Reported Address Apt ti Ci /Tws Activity Disposition 14-Apr-2006 14:37 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen Misc/Non Criminal AA clear, help on the way DateMme Reported Address AN 9 Citv/Twsn Activity Disposition 04-May-2006 15:32 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen Misc/Non Criminal ordinance violatiort/clear party advised AA Unit 2B13 Unit 2A31 2332 Unit 2A31 Unit 2B11 Unit 2B13 5F63 6A67 6D24 Unit 2B12 Unit 2B11 2B 12 Unit 21311 Unit 2B11 5F63 Unit IC2I SF63 c Page: 2 ICR Number DateMme Reported Address ADI CitylTws Activity Disposiflon Unit 200600014829 22-May-2006 17:51 6724 LotusTrl Chanhassen Animal 51763 AA Remarks: two terriers running loose 0 ICR Number Dale/Time Renorted Ad ress Apt # Citv/Twsn Activity Disnositlon unit 200600017301 11-Jun-2006 13:10 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen Misc/Non Criminal 213I1 Remarks: VIOLATION OR WOLD' ORDER RE: BUILDING PERMIT AA 21312 Count:20 w 0 a w M N p�G7 U W N N 'i rl m n N Y� w Ifi n .w m I o 0 a N c Page: 3 H A W H 00 rA CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: iexe•38 July 18, 2006 CC DATE: iW5, i8 August 14, 2006 REVIEW DEADLINE: 3ab- i 8 CASE #: 06-25 BY: JM September 16, 2006 PROPOSAL: Request for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback Variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. LOCATION: 6724 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT: Loren Veltkamp 6724 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential —Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.35 acres DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback Variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. Staff is recommending egg denial of the request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Location Map Veltkamp Variance Planning Case No. 06-25 6724 Lotus Trail City of Chanhassen SUBJECT PROPERTY Lotus Lake Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 3ee»o39 thily 48 August 14, 2006 Page 2 of 8 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting variances to expand a second story of a nonconforming structure. The site is a comer lot located west of Lotus Lake at 6724 Lotus Trail and is zoned Residential Single Family, RSF. Access to the site is gained via Lotus Trail. The existing structure has an 8- foot setback from Lotus Trail and a 15-foot setback from Tamarack Road (paper street). The ordinance requires a 30-foot setback from all front property lines. The requested addition constitutes the intensification of nonconformity. Section 20-72(a) states, "There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity." Tamarack Road serves as a pedestrian access to Lotus Lake for the Carver Beach neighborhood. There are no plans for future improvement of Tamarack Road for use as a public street. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming uses and structures. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (6) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, 30 feet. M.S. 462.357 Subd. le. Nonconformities (a) Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: (2) any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, the city may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. Dwelling unit means one or more rooms which are connected together as a single unit constituting complete, separate and independent living quarters for one or more persons, physically separated from any other room or dwelling unit which may be in the same building and containing permanent cooking, eating, sleeping and sanitary facilities for the exclusive use of a single family maintaining a household. Rental dwelling. As used in this article, the term "rental dwelling" shall mean any rental dwelling with one or more living units. Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 a6riei9 aWy 48 August 14, 2006 Page 3 of 8 BACKGROUND The subject property is composed of portions of 12 separate lots which were created as part of the Carver Beach subdivision which was recorded in 1927. These lots have been combined under one parcel identification number with Carver County. The home was built in 1927 and has nonconforming setbacks. On June 24, 1991, the City Council approved the combination of three substandard lots into two lots with lot areas of 13,550 and 11,326 (subject property) square feet and to allow the construction of a single-family home on the 13,550 square -foot lot. On February 23, 2006 the roof and majority of the second level of the existing home were destroyed by fire. Chanhassen City Code and Minnesota State Statute permit the reconstruction of nonconforming structures destroyed by fire. As long as the structure is rebuilt as it existed before fire damage, no variance is required. Building Permit Mstoy: Permit #9700952: Garage Addition, Second Level Addition, Front Deck. Approved and issued 7-23-98. Permit #0201836: Second Level Egress Dormer & Balcony Addition. Approved and issued 9-26-02. These permits were issued in error in that the additions intensify the existing nonconforming 30-foot setback from Tamarack Road. The home contains at least six bedrooms, three bathrooms and three kitchens (there is one bathroom and one kitchen on each level of the home). The kitchen on the second level of the home was installed without permits. The City has become aware that the applicant is renting bedrooms in the home to numerous tenants. The sheriff's report regarding the fire noted that three family units were living in the home for a total of five full-time tenants and one part-time tenant. The City feels the only need for the use of three kitchens is to allow the applicant the ability to rent to as many tenants as possible. Staff has informed the applicant that the kitchen on the second level will not be permitted as part of the home reconstruction. If the applicant is granted the variance for the expansion of the second level, staff is recommending a condition of approval be added stating that the applicant shall be required to obtain a rental license. In addition, the applicant shall comply with City animal regulations and licensing requirements. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting two front yard setback variances for a second -level addition to an existing home with nonconforming setbacks. The proposed second -level addition is located on a portion of the home which encroaches upon the front yard setbacks of Lotus Trail and Tamarack Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 v6poo Q9 aWy j August 14, 2006 Page 4 of 8 Road; therefore, two front yard setback variances are required in order to complete the proposed addition. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship, has reasonable use of the property and has an alternative process to secure a rental license, therefore, staff is recommending # denial of this request. VARIANCES GRANTED WITHIN 500 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Address Variance File Number Variance 6699 Hopi Road 84-9 17-foot and 30-foot front yard setback variances for the construction of a home and garage addition 6800 Ringo 85 8 12.7-foot front and 6.9-foot rear yard variances Drive for the construction of a single-family home 25-foot front yard setback variance for the 6728 Lotus Trail 86-7 construction of a garage and a 10-foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a deck Combination of three substandard lots into two 6724 Lotus Trail 91-6 lots with lot areas of 13,550 and 11,326 square feet and to allow the construction of a single family home on the 13,550 square foot lot Request for an 8-foot front yard setback and 6724 Lotus Trail 94-7 hard surface coverage variance for the construction of an attached garage DENIED 6711 Hopi Road 97-12 2-foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a detached garage 5.2-foot side yard,1.2-foot side yard and 1 % hard 6640 Lotus Trail 98-14 surface coverage variances for the construction of a home addition 6712 Hopi Road 00-3 16.5-foot rear yard setback variance for a garage addition 767 Carver 6-foot front yard setback and 8.33% hard surface Beach Road 03-2 coverage variances for the construction of a single- family home The revised registered land survey submitted as a part of this variance application revealed that the current hard surface coverage on the subject property is 31.29%. The ordinance allows a Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 3eine38 S August 14, 2006 Page 5 of 8 maximum of 25% coverage in the RSF district. The cause of the nonconforming hard surface coverage is expansion of the driveway over the past ten years. This expansion was likely made to accommodate the parking of tenants' vehicles. Staff is recommending the applicant be required to reduce the hard surface coverage of the lot to 25% or less to comply with ordinance. I y h1171►ft The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, 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 in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The literal enforcement of this chapter allows the applicant to rebuild the home without the need for a variance as it existed before the fire damage. The applicant has reasonable use of the property and has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. That 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 conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that he within the Single Family Residential District. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The proposed variation is based on a desire to ' increase the value of the property. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The applicant will be able to rebuild the home as it was constructed before the fire damage; therefore, the alleged hardship is self-created. 5. That 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 of land is located. Finding: The granting of a variance will %et be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located due to the nearness of the structure to the public suet right-of-way. Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 dexee-39 Aiyi8 August 14, 2006 Page 6 of 8 6. That 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 decrease visibility or site distances, 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 will net impair an adequate supply of light to adjacent Property or increase the danger of fire within the neighborhood due to its close proximity to property lines. RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions: A. "The Phinning GawAnission City Council concurs with the Planning Commission and Planning Staffs' interpretation that the owner of property at 6724 Lotus Trail, Loren Veltcamp, has been renting the property as defined in the City Code Article VIII Rental Dwelling Licenses Sec10-217 Rental Dwelling." B. "The City Council denies the variance for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 6724 Lotus Trail based on the findings of fact contained in this staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 3. There is an alternative process to secure a rental license." Should the City Council choose to approve this request, staff recommends that the ling Gswwtieeie% City Council adopt the following motion: C. "The 14moing GawApiiss City Council approves the variance for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 6724 Lotus Trail based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. A building permit is required. 2. Application for a building permit must include: a. Building plans and documents of sufficient detail to allow plan review and show compliance with current building codes. Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 Ame3A aWy j August 14, 2006 Page 7 of 8 b. Given the previous structure's extent of fire damage, such documents must include a structural engineer's evaluation and approval of the re -use of any of the remaining structure or materials. Side -note: A structural engineer did evaluate the remaining structure (see attached report from "Ulteig Engineers"), however, the purpose of their report is only to determine the possibility of rebuilding the structure with a second story over a portion of it. The report contains no specific approvals of any existing materials or assemblies nor any designs for those areas requiring corrective measures (such approvals and designs, by a structural engineer, are required). Further, the report requires any second story to be designed by a structural engineer. c. Structural engineer must design any reconstruction, remediation, repair or augmentation, they consider necessary, of the existing structure. d. A structural engineer's design, opinion, consideration or approval may be required throughout the construction process. 3. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all exposed slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Sloe Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days 4. Disturbed areas shall have compacted soils ripped or tilled to a depth of greater than 6 inches and should have a minimum of 4" of topsoil or black dirt prior to stabilization. 5. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 6. Construction crews and vehicles shall keep construction waste on site. This includes construction waste in the form of debris, erosion and concrete washout from trucks and tools. 7. The applicant shall be required to obtain a rental license. 8. The applicant must reduce the property's hard surface coverage to 25% or less. 9. The property may have a maximum of four vehicles parked outdoors at all times. 10. The applicant must permanently remove all kitchen and cooking equipment from the second level. 11. A maximum of two licensed dogs may be permitted on the property." Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 aeons-3A ahof o i g August 14, 2006 Page 8 of 8 Should the Plamming Gommission City Council choose to deny this request, the applicant does have the alternative to apply for a variance to use a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Should the applicant choose to seek such a variance, a separate application must be filed but would provide a legal means for the use of one additional rental unit. The ordinance regulating the use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling can be found on page 8 of the "Applicable Regulations" attachment. ATTACIUVIENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Loren Veltkamp stamped "Received May 19, 2006" 4. Registered Land Survey. 5. Building Plans. 6. Structural Engineer Report by Ulteig Engineers stamped, "Received May 5, 2006" 7. Structural Engineer Report by Ulteig Engineers stamped, "Received May 26, 2006." 8. Carver County Sheriff's Report. 9. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. giplan\2006 planning cases\06-25 veltkamp variance\cc staff mporLdoc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Loren Veltkamp for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback Variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. Two setback variances will be required because the property is a corner lot. The site is located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District — Planning Case No. 06-25. On July 18, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Loren Veltkamp for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback Variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. Two setback variances will be required because the property is a comer lot. The site is located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District at 6724 Lotus Trail. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variances that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: See Attached Register Land Survey. 4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals find the following facts: a. Literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause an undue hardship. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. That the purpose of the variation is based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. e. The granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. f. The proposed variation will impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #06-25 Variance dated July 18, 2006 as amended, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the request for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback Variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 18's day of July, 2006. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IM Its Chairman g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-25 veltkamp variance0;ndings of fact.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION VKIN I Applicant Name and Address: !l (S I& ci cti�t4� MN Contact: Phone: Fax:_'5.�1 Q_ Email: nFnclr-2r_.,< Planning Case No.�— CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAY 1 9 2006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Owner Name and Address: Phone: Fax: Email: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) _ Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) X Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VARIWAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB 4 TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital cop v in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: C.724 �DtyS�U �. rclL KCS�Ti(3�L�� LOCATION: 6724- C-A03 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: !;FP - TOTAL ACREAGE: Y WETLANDS PRESENT: YES k NO PRESENT ZONING: S E= P REQUESTED ZONING: v>*Q - PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: 5 Q REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: we - REASON FOR REQUEST: P^u c�to �OLIL a C-'"fAk Cr- Ser_,stic� -C�oUi � DXrVka � Se r4 \ AA .n (vti�)e— ,) lLk c1d-e 3! are- t' (L) --LZ � iL be 5 This application must be completed in ful and be typewritten or clearly pifinted 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. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of 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 Title 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 I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. L,)JL- Sign7 of Appli nt Signature of Pee Owner Date Date ;Lze-iNA39 \pLAMfonns0evelopment Review Applicatlon.DOC Rev. 12/05 Variance request for6724 Lotus Trail, Chanhassen History: Owner Loren Veltkamp has lived in Chanhassen for 15 years and previously doubled the square footage of his home without needing a variance. This request for variance arises from a fire where the roof and half of the second story was consumed. Now we are left with an opportunity to make changes if it seems good to do so. This request does not seek to expand owner's buildable foot print by even one foot, or increase his liveable square footage. It only asks that owner be able to use his present building footprint to hold a full second story, instead of a partial second story, as many, if not most, surrounding homes do. The home in question is a lakeshore home, 80 feet from the water, so it may make more sense to compare it to the other lakeshore type homes on Lotus Lake where it resides and faces these other homes around the north bay. Written justification for variance: a. Literal enforcement of existing codes will cause the following hardships: 1. Owners will not have full and regular use of their upper story. Owners will never have full use of the property as owners with more modem setback property do. Owners in older areas that predate ci ry codes should not suffer for having invested in these older homes. They should be able to build as others do. 2. Owners will not be able to heat and cool home efficiently costing the owners tens of thousands of dollars over the life of the home. This is due to not stacking the living spaces and the storage space properly. Without the variance, living and storage spaces are staggered allowing for heating and cooling to escape from six directions instead of the usual four. 3. Owner will not have a convenient floor plan, particularly concerning storage issues over garage. This causes a lot of small problems with personal projects and access to belongs for the rest of the homes existence. Numerous small hassles add up to hardship. 4. Owner will not have access to the best views of the lake from his own property. This is a hardship if you live on a beautiful lake like Lotus. I personally would rather have good views than an attached garage, but to each his own..... 5. Owners will never be able to do the right thing with their home that builders are now telling me to do. 6. The set back from Tamarack road is imaginary and completely unnecessary, as Tamarack has been rendered unusable, but for easements, and soon to be vacated. b. Carver Beach area was built without any codes originally. Imposing modem codes now creates endless and weird problems which these older and innocent properties were never designed to accommodate. Building a regular 2 story house with stacking bathrooms and bedrooms should not require a variance and normally wouldn't except in Carver Beach the anti -plotting capitol of the universe. The real problem here is that the city has had so many paper roads on the books that no one back then knew how to build to :,tay out of there way. Carver Beach really needs its own set of codes. As for zoning classifications. This is a regular 2nd story on a regular single family home so there is nothing crossing the zoning goals. c. The variance would have never been sought except for the fire that burned the roof off. Now we should do the best thing for the property and get this behind us. d. Problems were created by fire and too many paper roads on city books and the shear age of the pro ierty dating back to 1926. e. The granting of this variance will hardly be noticed by anyone. We are going from a single story with roof to a 2 story with roof. All of which are behind trees most of the year. Traditional neighborhood views are left about 99% intact No trees are threatened. f There is no encroachment in any direction from proposed second story. No light or air issues. No more congestion, no height problems, just a regular type second story on an older rambler. SCANNEO FRANK R. CARDARELLE Land Surveyor ,,,(612) 941-3031 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Survey For Lorenyaltkamp Book 341 Paged Flle_A&y2 6724 Lotus Trail _ _. _ Chanhasasn.. MN.._ - - - - _T . Fd ¢mcrete mop ry J - zo,o- 92:A 8smt. tocated 5/2/2006 L4 ODpR x�fl� Scale 1"`bG� Surface Drainage Arrows u k i M a4,1 Tot Q Land Area: 15,373 sq.ft. Howe Area- 1,875 sq.ft. Garage: 69(S- sq.ft. 9zo,7 .� Total 2565 Deck: 822 sq.ft. Driveway:2245 sq.ft. Grand Total Land Cover 5632 sq. ft. 36.6% Description: Lots 1170 through and inclusive of Lot 1178 and hat part of Lot 1179 lying Northerly of a line running from the North est',porner of said Lot 1179 to a point on the East line 15.0 feet Pc uthl.Acom the Northeast corner of said Lot 1179, also that part of the $ st lb;.0 feet of Lot 1168 and all of Lot 1169 lying Northerly of a lime ri�ppipg from a point on the East line of said Lot 1169, a distance of 00.0, feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 1169 to a point on the "t line of the East 10 feet of said Lot 1168 a. distance of 60.0 feet out�y of the Northwest corner of said East 10 feet of Lot 1168 and thereto hating, Carver County, Minnesota. I I-- I Mnby WdtftlW a4 babes aM aartWryaxanLlan rdam d"ba d duwe v ,..r Carver ;-.cwp•, rin.aw..,dbm�maajwdar A nm.c ... ,rammwai.�a swrv.yw Mbw oaw. 2nd a..a September .,a 97 i.. y_g.py rank R. Cardarelle .li4w�a'0"j pal f State Rag. No. 6508 scri Y E� jR_� 4E O O W 2 K i� x J� N� W Y \ B Y W Z F 6 u x � W W F O N Y � g N X 3 N tl n Wu N � II t n - N W 10 Jti W F N J ypd O yF_ Sy N Q m NORTH ELEVATION WALL SECTION 5 SI 4 MI 2X6 R19 5/8 TYVI CEDI a SOUTH ELEVATION FOR 6724 LOTUS TRAIL FIRE RESTORATION f-EXISTING WINDOW D STORAGE ionAREA TRUSS SASH, SHINGLES/15M T.P, O ("� �-CLASS A CHIMNEY \ IILJ.r-- 6'W,2-2X10 H. 36' EXISTING -2XIO H. RAIL, <4' SP. DOOR, Pk10 H. �12' CIIjDER BLOCK FOUND I -BEAM H. SCANNED 3'W, 2-2X6 EAST E.&vWrlON ALTERNATE FRONT ELEVATION RESPECTING 30' SETBACK AND DECK SCANNED EST �I,>✓v�iTloN 7,946 SCANNED 0 a G 0 a 14:15 ULTEIG MPLS engineers 7635711168 °ie061"d "rkk MEMORANDUM 5201 E Mw Road, S" 308 Unr4apoks, MN 55421-1027 Phone: M571.2500 For: 753.5n.1168 TO: Loren Veltkamp ,_..Md.tlr tus Trail Chanhassen, MN, 55317 DATE: May 5, 2006 FROM: N6 Neil Groon, PE PROJECT NUMBER: 206.0557 RE: Veltkamp Residence I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. i/ q. J—zu�rz Neil A. Groon, PE Minnesota Registration No. 44774 Date: 05/05/06 At the request of Loren Veltkamp, Ulteig was asked to perform a structural engineering inspection of the remaining house structure after a fire damaged the roof, upper, and main floor of the residence located at 6724 Lotus Trail in Chanhassen, MN. The purpose of this memo is to report on the fire damaged areas and determine if the house structure can be rebuilt with a second story over the east end. Neil Groon of Ulteig walked through the entire remaining structure on May 1, 2006, observing exposed elements and those accessible with minimal removal of finished materials, and noted the following items: a. The entire remaining second floor sheathing above the west half of the house is damaged from the fire and water and must be removed and replaced. Also, any other floor sheathing that is damaged by water must be replaced. b. Any wood member including wall studs, beams, floor joists, sill plates, etc. that have more than '/4' deep penetration of fire damage must be replaced, Some specific instances include, but are not limited to, the south header over the patio doors in the main level, the cantilevered second floor joists over the west exterior wall (over the main level master bedroom), the second floor framing joists around the stair opening, the main level exterior west wall studs and top sill plate below the damaged cantilever joists, and some west exterior wall studs for the upper floor above the garage. c. Other areas requiring corrective measures include cracks in the west block foundation wall, inadequate connection of the deck to the support columns, and verification of grouted cores below the steel beam bearing points in the east wall. It is our professional engineering opinion that all members with ''/' deep penetration of fire damage must be replaced. It is also determined that an addition may be built over the east half of the existing structure as long as it is reviewed/designed by a structural engineer and that it follows all applicable Codes. The structure may experience new settlements under a new loading configuration which should be accounted for in the layout. Ulteig is available to assist in the design process of rebuilding and adding on to the existing structure, and offer recommendations for corrective measures to the west foundation wall, deck support, and steel beam bearing cases. Please contact me if you have any questions, Thank you. MY & CHANHASSEN kAY 0 5 2o% Minneapolis, MN - Detroit Lakes, MN - Fargo, ND - Bismarck, ND - SiouxWAMG DEf wcl IwtNT www.utteig.com TOTAL P.02 engineers Get the job done right 5201 E. River Road, Suite 308 Minneapolis, MN 55421-1027 Phone: 753.571.2500 Fax: 763.571.1168 TO: MEMORANDUM Loren Veltkamp 6724 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN, 55317 DATE: May 26, 2006 FROM: Neil Groon, PE PROJECT NUMBER: 206.0557 RE: Veltkamp Residence I hereby certify that this plan, sp ecification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed professional engineer under the laws of the State of N innesot Neil A. Groon, PE Minnesota Registration No. 44774 Date: 05l26106 At the request of Loren Veltkamp, Ulteig was asked to perform a follow-up smtcntrat engineering inspection of the remaining house structure after replacing fire damaged portions of the residence located at 6724 Lotus Trail in Chanhassen, MN. Neil Groon, PE of Ulteig first visited this site on May 1, 2006 and wrote a memo dated May 5, 2006 listing fire damaged areas and instructed the homeowner to replace members with more than 1/4deep penetration of fire damage. The purpose of this memo is to ensure that the required members were replaced. Neil Groon, PE of Ulteig walked through the entire remaining structure on May 26, 2006 and noted the following items: A "Ttie y6 t.11+ hL4olr r er M }Le /'rain te,el te. Lip 5 Theg"Arl .r� PSt!1 o�-tr f{�.t r�as{.t/ �r�nrm c,. fl.d mF•.. (t.c/ wrre rf/1/q ct .E r e tr en,At 1 �`r. f �e15F) r n� %r C �9 FG.t t.Cfl h{I Wfrti Sff K� ...,.t. L,I._,.. mr�ft,tia G`6R�kfOR� j . hIt d 7t,t �V /- �o%IJ5 a cr 44,.c 9 irw.clF welt reel -CO -I N5 .( T ;u over +4.z 4,c.enecr of 4'4A it Fl •r rz r<A.*4"a a ♦ N,t cis r wtrc risT4rA niftt d (G- �, 1-4 C rr'f 4 rd -14r F fLf gLeot G e&a r a-e- aWtf k!hk 4� %5fr OF E e 4 r h c %ie1 /70%cd w5 'f0a.'l.t'. Tt� rS rfs,ysw S. t Lr ff, . rrnr O, n -IC Alf n e e.1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. 1� MAY 2 6 2006 Minneapolis, MN . Detroit Lakes, MN • Fargo, ND • sismarck, P&J"Cf; yp �MENT www.ulteig.com 02/24/2008 15:12 FAX 952 361 1229 CARVER CNTY SHERIFF DEPT Q 002 Date of Original Report: Incident: Date of This Report: 2-23-06 Residential Fire 2-23-06 REPORT Owner. Lawrence Dean Veltkamp,'bOB Homeowner of residential fire Address: 6724 Lotus Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: RENTER'S MENTIONED: Mentioned: Kathleen Mary Lindiueyer� Address: 6724 Lotus Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: unknown Mentioned/Couple: Emory Earl Ames, Jr. / DOB Tracy Lynn Surratt, DOB Juvenile Mentioned: (daughter o s urratt) Address: 6724 Lotus Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: SUN Mentioned: Georgia Kay TitlanyANNN� Address 6724 Lotus Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: DETAILS: ICR: 06005422 On 2-23-06 at approximately 1314 hours, Dispatch put out a call in the Chanhassen area of a residential fire in the attic area of a home at 6724 Lotus Trail. Deputies Jim Gamlin badge #827 and Rian Thiele badge #850 had initially responded to the call as well as Chanhassen CSO Brett Lawler badge #763. Once I realized the address listed to a Lawrence Veltkamp and the fact that it's been known that there are a number of renters that could possibly be within that residence. I advised Dispatch that I would be assisting as well. While en route to the fire scene, I did advise Dispatch that I observed visible smoke above the trees coming from the vicinity of the Veltkamp residence. 2. I had arrived within a couple minutes of the call which was seconds after the arrival of Deputies Gamlin and Thiele. I observed Deputy Thiele marking off area fire hydrants I had gone immediately to the residence where I met with a female holding a dog later identified as Kathleen Lindmeyer. Ms. Lindmeyer was shouting that the homeowner was still inside the house_ It should be noted that the three-story house upon my arrival had a large amount of smoke and visible flames shooting out of the roof area of the third level of the home. I then asked Follow -UP Page t of 7 02/24/2006 15:13 FAX 952 361 1229 CARVER CNTY SHERIFF DEPT [a 009 CARVER -COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE OLtOW--UP REPORT ICR: 06005422 Ms. Lindmeyer if the homeowner was Lawrence Veltkamp and she confirmed that it was. I then had entered into the residence and found Mr. Veltkamp inside the main front glass door and he was attempting to hook up a black residential type garden hose. I told him that the fire was too big and he needed to get out of the house and he pleaded for my assistance to try to help him get his hose hooked up so he could start to put some water on the fire. I then once again told him we needed to get out of the house. At this point, once the hose was hooked up Mr. Veltkamp ran up a flight of steps and to the right where I then pursued him. He attempted to utilize the hose but it was later determined that the hose did not work due to the possibility of water being frozen in the hose. When Mr. Veltkamp was attempting to utilize the hose we were in what appeared to be a kitchen area as I saw a number of kitchen appliances such as a stove, refrigerator, etc. 4. 1 could see that Mr. Veltkamp was standing within feet of a fire up along the center wall. I observed that fire appeared to be rolling along the ceiling area and that some of the ceiling structure was starting to fall down. It should also be noted at this point that it was hard to breathe and that the smoke had come down to about four feet above the ground so I had to duck down just to maintain fresher air. I then pleaded for Veltkamp to get out of the house as the fire department was on their way and they would be best suited to fight this fire. We then walked back downstairs where the garden hose was near the front door. I then went to walk outside however Mr. Veltkamp again tried to plead that he wanted to save his house- I then had initially told him that if there was something in the immediate area that he wanted to grab that was important to him, let's grab it and get out. At this point, he then took off and I pursued him around the comer and down a hallway to a back office area. He stated he wanted to start hauling some of his equipment out the window and he wanted my assistance in tossing stuff out. I then advised Mr. Veltkamp that we did not have time for that as the fire was just above us and the mid -level was now starting to fill with smoke where we were at I could also hear the crackling of the timber as it was burning. I advised Mr. Veltkamp that if we had time we could put some plastic over the stuff to protect it from the water damage but we didn't have that luxury of time. 6. As we then went to leave the residence, Mr. Veltkamp then stated he wanted to try to find a plastic tarp to put over his computer. At this point, Dale Gregory with the fire department had just entered the front door and yelled for everybody to "Get Out of the House Now!" At this point, I advised Mr. Veltkamp that we needed to get out and even the fire department was telling us that we can't stay here at this point. It should be noted that I tried to work the best I could with Mr. Veltkamp. He then agreed and we had exited the home out into the driveway area where I observed that Dale Gregory was on his portable radio trying to get equipment and manpower to the fire scene. Follow -Up Page 2 of 7 02/24/2006 15:13 FAX 952 361 1229 CARVER CNTY SHERIFF DEPT ID004 FOLLOW-UP REPORT ICR: 06005422 It was then that Mr. Veltkamp who was obviously very upset was yelling, "Where is the water? And Where are the fire trucks?. _They need to get here now!" Mr. Veltkamp then pleaded that he needed one specific computer that had a lot of important things to him on it. I advised him that once the fire department got here we would have them go after that computer. I also spoke momentarily with Veltkamp to insure that there were no people or pets in the residence. I was told that the only dog that was in the residence was the dog that Ms. Lindmeyer was holding at the end of the driveway. S. At this point, Mr. Veltkamp yelled out something that I couldn't tell what he was saying and he bolted running back towards the house. Deputy Thiele and I pursued him and while pursuing him Veltkamp grabbed a hold of a gray garbage container and pulled it down in our path in an attempt to trip us up. He then had gotten into the front door that had a glass front on it as I had described earlier and he attempted to lock this door. He then pulled an aquarium over. as another object to block our path. It was at this point that Deputy Thiele had advised Veltkamp if he didn't stop that he would tale him. Immediately, I thought although I did not have a taser in my possession that this would be a very effective tool in overcoming the resident for his own safety to stop him rather than to physically fight with him within the fire scene so I too yelled out that he needed to stop or he would be tased. It should be noted at this point that the second time that I had gone into the residence, in looking up the stairs where I earlier mentioned where the garden hose was and the fire was in the kitchen area, now the fire was visible from the bottom of the stairs into the living room area as all I could see was fire rolling along the ceiling area and heavy black smoke filling the second floor level. 9. As I pursued Mr. Veltkamp it was obvious that he was going back to that office area. It should be noted that to enter the office area there used to be a stairwell which still existed going to the lower or third level however there was a carpeted board or plywood that was put across covering the stairwell except for maybe a couple feet that was exposed or open along the right side. As I had rounded the comer I had observed that Mr. Veltkamp had either fallen into that hole to the stairwell area or he was trying to evade our capture and was trying to get away from us by crawling down the lower stairwell area. At this point I did not feel comfortable in pursuing Mr. Veltkamp as the fire was just above our heads at this point and within the wall next to us. I was uncomfortable also in pursuing Mr. Veltkamp as I did not want to be in a position where I didn't know the layout of the house and I wasn't able to exit. I knew that I could just get around the comer and back out the front door the way we had come in. 10. At this point, both Deputy Thiele and I had exited the house_ I personally felt frustration that I had exited the burning house a second time but this time not with the homeowner with me. I was contemplating put a call out on my radio to the fire department with the urgency that they needed to wear their air packs because Follow -Up Page 3 of 7 02/24/2006 15:15 FAX 952 361 1229 CARVER CNTY SHERIFF DEPT 0005 CAFNER COUNTY WERIWS OFFICE FOLLOW-. P REPORT ICR: 06005422 I had a homeowner that was very reluctant to leave his home. Before I could get this message out to the fire department I heard Mr. Veltkamp's voice outside on the lower third level say "Hey guys, I'm outside of the house, I'm down here". It was at this point that I advised Mr. Veltkamp that he could very well be charged with some type of an obstructing charge at this point for jeopardizing people lives to include his own by running back in that house. I then put handcuffs on Mr. Veltkamp and told him that due to his emotional state he was going to be placed in the rear of a squad car. I then placed him in the rear of Deputy Gamlin's squad. At this point with the fact that Mr. Veltkamp was safely secured and the fact that everyone else was out of the house we could focus our attention on getting fire personnel as well as other resources quickly to the fire scene. 11. While the fire department hooked up their equipment and started to fight the fire I then contacted my supervisor Sergeant Jim Olson badge #818 and relayed to him what was taking place within the city of Chanhassen. I also made a phone call to the on -duty road sergeant Dave Potts badge #819 as well as to the Chief Deputy Bob Vandenbroeke at the office. 12. When I spoke with Deputy Potts, I requested that he come routine to the scene. I advised him what had taken place with the homeowner. Once Sergeant Potts had arrived on scene and within a half hour to an hour's time that Mr. Veltkamp was secured in the back of the squad, I advised Sergeant Potts that I wanted to attempt to speak with Mr. Veltkamp to see if he was calmed down because I preferred to have released him from the handcuffs and from the squad as long as he agreed not to interfere with the firefighting efforts and wouldn't make an attempt at going back into the residence, This was in fact done and he was promptly removed from the squad. At this point although being obviously upset that his house was burning he was very understanding with the fact that we needed to get him out of the house because he presented a danger to himself and to the officers for having to pursue him into the house. 13. While he was outside of the squad we then learned that there was possibly another dog and two cats belonging to a renter within the house. This information was promptly relayed to Fire and they were able to remove a dog and a large green kennel as well as a cat. At the time of this report later there is still a second cat missing. It should be noted that the dog and cat that were rescued were transported by CSO Lawler to be checked for smoke inhalation and they are owned by Georgia Tiffany. 14. While speaking with Mr. Veltkamp, I learned that he had some frustration when he tried to call 911. He stated that he had some phone company service through, I believe, Vonage which I understood was something to do with an internet service. He stated that it took some delay in him getting the message out to the fire department. Because of the fire apparently he had to relay information to these people who which in turn then apparently called the fire department. In asking Follow -Up Page 4 of 7 CARVER IM oos CARVER COUNTYSHEIRIFF':S OFFICE FOLLOW-U04ZEPORT J.. ICR: 0600 5422 Mr. Veltkamp about the fire and how it may have started, he stated that in the lower third level he had a fire burning in a fireplace that had a Class A chimney going out through the roof He stated that he was burning some old oak that may have been wet. He stated that he thought the chimney had gotten hot up in the roof area or the attic area- 15. It was my understanding in speaking with Deputy Gamlin that Mr. Veltkamp was home alone at the time but when renter Kathleen Lindmeyer came home she noted the fire alarms sounding and smoke in the residence and she contacted Mr. Veltkamp. Mr. Veltkamp stated that this was after he had been notified by the renter this was when he attempted to take a hose from the lower level and started the water to flow and placed the end of the hose inside of the wood burning stove to try to put the fire out on the bottom end. At the same time he was attempting to hook up another garden hose to in his opinion poke a hole up through the ceiling to spray water up into the roof area. 16. While on scene, I was approached by a male and female who were carrying a child I believe less than. one year -old. I identified them as renters Tracy Surratt and Emory Ames along with their I learned that they had left at 10:30 a.m. or 10:45 am. and were merely returning home at this time to get some things done before they went to their afternoon or evening jobs when they noted that the house that they rent within was on fire. I advised the couple that it was best for them to stay warm in their car and that it would be some time before they could obviously re-enter the house and gather any of their possessions and the fact that it probably wouldn't occur on today's date. They did ask some questions about whether or not as renters if any of their items were covered by the homeowner's insurance as they stated that they did not have renter's insurance themselves. I told them that I did not have an answer for their question - IT While on scene besides the Chanhassen Fire Department I noted four other fire departments were assisting they were from Eden Prairie, Chaska, Victoria, and Excelsior. 1 g. It was about 1420 hours that I had spoke briefly with one of the fire personnel and told them that I was going to put a call in through Dispatch to Red Cross due to the fact that we had five adults including the homeowner and a baby that would most likely need some emergency assistance. It was later at 1505 hours that Red Cross workers Bill Standke and Virginia Standke had arrived on scene and started to speak with the homeowner Lawrence Veltkamp as well as the renter present Kathleen Lindmeyer. A third unknown named Red Cross worker had eventually arrived on scene and I learned from her that she had contact with Tracy Surratt and her boyfriend Emory Ames and they and their baby were safe at a friend's house and they were told to stay there until this Red Cross worker would come out and meet with them personally. Follow -Up page 5 of 7 Cffl R�COUNTY SH ERIFF'S. OFFICE FOLLOWV-UP REPORT ICR. 06005422 19. With the assistance of the Chanhassen CSO Brett Lawler, we had obtained information off of the dog tag about the owner of the animals Georgia Tiffany. We had trouble trying to locate her as Lawrence Veltkamp and the other renters did not know much about her and where she worked. I was able to speak with her mother at a phone number through the dog tags and learned that her daughter worked at Pro -Tech in Chanhassen. I was then able to get a hold of Ms. Tiffany and advised her that there had been a fine at her rental property and that we were able to rescue a dog and a cat however one cat was still missing. I then requested that she come to the scene so that she could meet with the Red Cross workers which she did in fact do. 20. While on scene, it should be noted that Larry Baer from the Chanhassen Villager who also assists the Chanhassen Fire Department with photos was on scene and I had given him permission to shoot as many photos as he could from a safe distance from all angles of the residence as the firefighters attempted to put the fire out. He later advised me that any photos would be available after a couple of days from him which I in fact thanked him for taking the photos. 2L Eventually while on location i spoke with Sergeant Dave Potts and he asked if I would stay on scene until the fire department cleared. it should be noted that, although understandable, Mr. Veltkamp attempted to cross under the yellow tape on a couple of occasions as he wanted to gain entry into his residence while fire personnel was still putting out some hotspots and while Investigators were investigating the source of the fire. I along with Detective Pat Murphy asked that he please assist with staying out of the danger zone by not entering his home. 22. Investigators on scene were Detective Pat Murphy badge #859, Detective John Bramwell badge #867 as well as Chanhassen Fire Marshals Mark Litfin and Ed Coppersmith, 23. Numerous media representatives had arrived on scene and they were directed to contact our office to speak with Chief Deputy Bob Vandenbroeke for any press release information. I did assist the media by going through the Assistant Chanhassen Fire Chief Randy Wahl to find a spokesperson from the fire department to speak with the media personnel that were waiting on scene for a statement. Chanhassen Fire Marshal Mark Litfin was then assigned to speak with the media. 24. In conclusion, I then remained on scene for security until approximately 1.830 hours when the last of the fire personnel and Investigators had left the scene with the house perimeter secured merely with yellow Sheriffs crime scene tape. Prior to our leaving, Detective Murphy did request that Mr. Veltkamp who was still on scene not enter into the home for safety's sake until tomorrow's date and then he should enter with preferably a representative with his insurance company. Follow -Up Page 6 of 7 02/24/2006 15:14 FAA 952 361 1229 CARVER CA-TY SHERIFF DEPT M CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOLLOW-UP REPORT ICR: 06005422 25. This should end this report at this time with no further information. Evidence Type / Location: None End of Report Deputy Keith Walgrave #841 2-24-06jdc Follow -Up Page 7 of 7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF M)NNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on June 8, 2006, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Loren Veltkamp Variance — Planning Case 06-25 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. �i. WAMD2 .1 Subscribed and swQQm to before me this - day of JUr-f- 2006. Notary I::= SSENnnesotaen 31, 2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for relief from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement for the expansion of second level of a home with Proposal: nonconforming setbacks. Two setback variances will be required because the property is a corner lot. Applicant: I Loren Veltkam Property 6724 Lotus Trail Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/sery/plan/06-25.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer by email at imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application In writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Stall person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later in the evening,depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for relief from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement for the expansion of second level of a home with Proposal: nonconforming setbacks. Two setback variances will be required because the property is a corner lot. Applicant: Loren Veitkam Property 6724 Lotus Trail Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1' Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/i)lan/06-25.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer by email at 'metzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent Information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to wmmerciaVindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be usetl as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring enacting measurement of distance or direction or predam in Me depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found pease contact 952-227-1107. The pmcedng disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes "M 03. Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all dame and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harness the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or thind parties which arise out of the users access or use of data cminded. ulsclalmer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as me. This map is a compilation of reomtls, information and data located in venous city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding Me area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement d distarce or directlm or precision in the depctim of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found pease correct 952-227-1107_ The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Stables §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges that the Gry shall not be liable for any damages, and e>pressly waives all darts, and agrees to defend. indemnity, and hdd ham@ss the City from any and aI dams brought by User, its ernboyeas or agents, or third parties which arse W of the users access om use of data provided. THEODORE J KOLTES & STATE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUST MARTHA NYGREN JOHN E LONGSTREET C/O CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR 6650 LOTUS TRL 6630 MOHAWK DR 600 4TH ST E CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9553 CHASKA , MN 55318 -2102 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9575 KEITH J & PATRICIA F GUNDERSON CHRIS J & CYNTHIA K ANDERSON DONALD & SIGFRID SENNES 6661 MOHAWK DR 6680 LOTUS TRL 6680 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9546 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9575 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9546 MATTHEW J TIBBETTS & BRUCE ROBERT JOHANSSON STEVEN K OIEN ELIZABETH J TIBBETTS 6701 MOHAWK DR 6780 LOTUS TRL 6699 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9546 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9431 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8573 HASSEN MICHAEL F & BARBARA A COYLE GERMAN D SEGURA-GOMEZ STEVEN K & BONNIE JO OIEN 757 CARVER BEACH RD 750 CARVER BEACH RD 6780 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8573 KIRSTEN ANNE PAULY ROYAL & DORIS MARTIN JOAN L WRIGHT 751 CARVER BEACH RD TRUSTEES OF TRUST 6640 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 6650 PAWNEE DR CHANHASSEN , MN 5W17 -9536 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9430 ERIC J MEESTER SCOTT V ISAACSON JAMES & CONSTANCE BOESHANS 6610 MOHAWK DR 6640 MOHAWK DR 6651 PAWNEE DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9553 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9546 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9530 LEONID SILINKER & MARK & AMY SENNES RUTH E LUNDE DIANEEYMOUR 6689 PAWNEE DR 6721 HOPI RD CHANHE 6687 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9430 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9427 ASSENASSEN , MMN 55317 -9425 DR FEDERAL NATL MTGE ASSN LARRY L & MARY E BARRETT TIMOTHY C & LORNA L GORNY ONE S WACKER DR 6741 HOPI RD 800 CARVER BEACH RD SUITE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9427 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9432 GO , IL 60606 -4696 CHICAGO JONAS C & EMILY S STARITA ELIZABETH A WALL STANLEY ROBERT CRONISTER 6728 LOTUS TRL TRUSTEE OF E A WALL TRUST 6730 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8573 PO BOX 1299 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -8573 JULIAN . CA 92036 -1299 MELVIN G HERRMANN JACOB D & ELIZABETH G WOESE JEFFERY A KING & 795 CARVER BEACH RD 777 CARVER BEACH RD JODY COLLIS KING CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 767 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9422 DENNIS D KRUMSIEG MIKE BUENTING & GILBERT W & SHERRY L SIEVERS 760 CREE DR SHANNON WAGGONER 746 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9464 68M RINGO DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9558 CARVER BEACH PROPERTIES C/O ADRIAN JOHNSON 332 2ND ST EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -1806 BRUCE R JOHANSSON 6711 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9431 DANIEL T RUTLEDGE 6711 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9427 MICHAEL A & ROBBIE WOITALLA 6712 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9427 WILLIAM HARLEY WOLFE & SHARON BETH HANSON 6699 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9426 ERNEST F PIVEC 5060 MEADVILLE ST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8788 GREGORY J CARLSON & MARTIN P & AMY E JENSEN GERALYN J HAYDEN KATHLEEN M NYGAARD 770 CREE DR 749 CARVER BEACH RD 760 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9464 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Veltkamp Variance Planning Case No. 06-25 6724 Lotus Trail City of Chanhassen SUBJECT Lotus Lake CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on July 6, 2006, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for Loren Veltkamp Variance — Planning Case 06-25 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sww to before me this /ilk day of -JL4 , 2006. Notary Nlic "`" KIM T. MEUWISSEN Notary Public-Minneso a �_ My ('pmmission Expires Jan 31, 2010 Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: ' Tuesday, July 18, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until later In the evening,depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for relief from the 30-foot front yard setback Proposal: requirement for the expansion of second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. Two setback variances will be required because the property is a corner lot. Applicant: Loren Veltkam Property 6724 Lotus Trail Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/serv/plan/06-25.htmI. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer by email at imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in wri ing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciallindustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be Included in the report to the City Council. It you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Date & Time: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until ' later In the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for relief from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement for the expansion of second level of a home with Proposal: nonconforming setbacks. Two setback variances will be required because the property is a comer lot. Applicant: Loren Veltkam Property 6724 Lotus Trail Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the W What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us/sery/i)lan/06-25.html. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer by email at imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by Questions & phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written Comments: comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is Invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommentlation, Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaUndustrial. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding Its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. This map is neither a legally recorded prep nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a coMailation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding Me area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant Mat the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and Me City does not represent that the GIS Dala can be used for navigagonal, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or gredsion in Me depiction of geographic features. H errors or discrepancies are found please correct 952.227-1107. The preceding cisdalmer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Sued. 21 (2"), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any carriages, aed expressly waves all clans, and agrees to defend, indermity, and hold ha"ess the City Irom any and all claim brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arse out of the users access or use o1 data provided. ulsolafiner This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey arM is not intended to be usetl as one. This Map is a conpilation of records, informal and cata located in various city, county, state and fetleral offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not ,a rant Mat Me Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this MP are error free, and Me City does not represent the the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose reguirng exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depictionof geographic features- H errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-I107. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Stables §466,03, Subd. 21 (2000). and Me user of this map acknowledges that the City shall nor be liable for any damages, aed expressly waves all dam, and agrees to defend, indennity, and hold harmless the City from any and all china brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parses which arse out of Me uses access or use of data provided. THEODORE J KOLTES & STATE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUST MARTHA NYGREN JOHN E LONGSTREET C/O CARVER COUNTY AUDITOR 6650 LOTUS TRL 6630 MOHAWK DR 600 4TH ST E CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9553 CHASKA , MN 55318 -2102 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9575 KEITH J & PATRICIA F GUNDERSON CHRIS J & CYNTHIA K ANDERSON DONALD & SIGFRID SENNES 6661 MOHAWK DR 6680 LOTUS TRL 6680 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9546 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9575 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9546 MATTHEW J TIBBETTS & BRUCE ROBERT JOHANSSON STEVEN K OIEN ELIZABETH J TIBBETTS 6701 MOHAWK DR 6780 LOTUS TRL 6699 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9431 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8573 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9546 MICHAEL F & BARBARA A COYLE GERMAN D SEGURA-GOMEZ STEVEN K & BONNIE JO OIEN 757 CARVER BEACH RD 750 CARVER BEACH RD 6780 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8573 KIRSTEN ANNE PAULY ROYAL & DORIS MARTIN JOAN L WRIGHT 751 CARVER BEACH RD TRUSTEES OF TRUST 6640 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 6650 PAWNEE DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9536 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9430 ERIC J MEESTER SCOTT V ISAACSON JAMES & CONSTANCE BOESHANS 6610 MOHAWK DR 6640 MOHAWK DR 6651 PAWNEE DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9553 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9546 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9530 LEONID SILINKER & MARK & AMY SENNES RUTH E LUNDE DIANE SEYMOUR 6689 PAWNEE DR 6721 HOPI RD 6687 DEERWOOD DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9430 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9427 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9425 FEDERAL NATL MTGE ASSN LARRY L & MARY E BARRETT TIMOTHY C & LORNA L GORNY ONES WACKER DR 6741 HOPI RD 800 CARVER BEACH RD SUITE 3100 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9427 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9432 CHICAGO , IL 60606 -4696 JONAS C & EMILY S STARITA ELIZABETH A WALL STANLEY ROBERT CRONISTER 6728 LOTUS TRL TRUSTEE OF E A WALL TRUST 6730 LOTUS TRL CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8573 PO BOX 1299 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -8573 JULIAN , CA 92036 -1299 MELVIN G HERRMANN JACOB D & ELIZABETH G WOESE JEFFERY A KING & 795 CARVER BEACH RD 777 CARVER BEACH RD JODY COLLIS KING CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 767 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 DENNIS D KRUMSIEG MIKE BUENTING & GILBERT W & SHERRY L SIEVERS 760 CREE DR SHANNON WAGGONER 746 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9464 68M RINGO DR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9558 CARVER BEACH PROPERTIES C/O ADRIAN JOHNSON 332 2ND ST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -1806 BRUCE R JOHANSSON 6711 MOHAWK DR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9431 DANIEL T RUTLEDGE 6711 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9427 MICHAEL A & ROBBIE WOITALLA 6712 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9427 WILLIAM HARLEY WOLFE & SHARON BETH HANSON 6699 HOPI RD CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9426 ERNEST F PIVEC 5060 MEADVILLE ST EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -8788 GREGORY J CARLSON & MARTIN P & AMY E JENSEN GERALYN J HAYDEN KATHLEEN M NYGAARD 770 CREE DR 749 CARVER BEACH RD 760 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9464 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9422 Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Veltkamp Variance Planning Case No. 06-25 6724 Lotus Trail City of Chanhassen SUBJECT PROPERTY Lotus Lake Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Larson: I'll give it a shot. Planning Commission, staff. Okay is this what I'm supposed to read? Planning Commission, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. The Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached access structure restriction in a single family residential district at 3891 West Wd Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following, 1 through 3. Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove three storage buildings. That's it? Okay. McDonald: Do I have a second? Keefe: Second. Larson moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot front yard setback for an existing four -stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 3891 West 6Yd Street, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The applicant will be able to continue the non -conforming agricultural use without the three storage buildings which were constructed without building permits. The Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three storage buildings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. McDonald: What I need to tell the applicant is that you have the ability to appeal. Please don't forget this time... and good luck. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: LOREN VELTKAMP: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF SECOND LEVEL OF HOME WITH NON -CONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK VARIANCES LOTUS TRAIL, PLANNING CASE 06-25. W Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Public Present: Name Address Sig & Don Sennes 6680 Mohawk Drive Pat & Keith Gunderson 6661 Mohawk Drive Jeff King 767 Carver Beach Road Bruce Johansson 6701 Mohawk Drive Jim Boeshans 6651 Pawnee Drive Mike Henderson 6701 Mohawk Drive Shelly Berg 6701 Mohawk Drive Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Before you go on there, I've got a question. If you're saying that he was renting, what's the City's position on that? If this is rental property with apartments within it, what's the code? Is he supposed to have a license? Generous: He would need a rental license. McDonald: And at this point he does not have one. Metzer: Correct. McDonald: And I take it that is in dispute between the City and the applicant as to whether or not he was renting. Metzer: Correct. Staff is however recommending approval of the request. We feel that by recommending approval of this variance we'll be able to better enforce ordinances on the property. And so we have some conditions of approval attached in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Can you explain how granting a variance will help to be able to enforce? Metzer: It's mainly the condition that they'd be required to get a rental license. Kind of allow us to restrict parking in the area. Things like that. Keefe: And so, you can't do that without getting the variance? Metzer: From what we've been told, no. It was just. Keefe: It was just conditions of approval, conditions of approval for reconstruction? For expansion. 61 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Metzer: Of the second level. Keefe: Would incorporate certain conditions which would restrict the use of the building. Metzer: Right, and would not allow the kitchen on the second level. Restrict it to two kitchens with the home. Keefe: And the City cannot control the uses in the building without? Metzer: Without that condition of approval, right. Keefe: Okay. Dillon: What's the status of the building today? Metzer: They have received a permit to rebuild what they had, without the proposed addition. So they're in the process of re -building the roof right now. Dillon: Is it inhabited? Metzer: I don't believe so. It shouldn't be. McDonald: Debbie. Kurt. Papke: Yeah, I've got a couple. On page 3 of the staff report, you mentioned that in the building permit history here there were two building permits issued and that they were issued in error. Could you shed some light on that? What was? Metzer. It was basically, there must have been confusion on the setback to the north, that paper street. Requires a 30 foot setback. My only guess is that, whichever staff members approved the permits were under the impression that it was a 10 foot setback to that. Papke: Okay. The other question was, we're attaching a couple conditions here and I just want to make sure I'm clear how they line up with city code. So the hard surface coverage is clear. Four vehicles parked outdoors at all times. Where does that, is this part of city code for rental property? For single family residential. Where does that, how does that line up with city code. Metzer: It was my understanding that you know it's the intention but not to allow the property to become you know a humongous rental property. And it was thought that by limiting the number of vehicles you park in the driveway. Papke: Is there a limit for residential single family? Metzer: There's not. Papke: Okay. And how about, the same question about the two licensed dogs. 6Ya Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Metzer: It's just to make sure that. Papke: Is there a restriction for residential single family for how many dogs you can have without a kennel permit? Metzer: Yes. Papke: What is it? Generous: If you have more than 2. Papke: More than 2, okay. So this one is basically in keeping with city code whereas the number of parked cars there we're actually restricting the applicant to something tighter than existing city code for residential single family. With sort of the tacit assumption that it's rental property and okay. Got it. McDonald: I have a question for you. Okay, this is a non -conforming use and to approve this we're going to intensify a non -conforming use. And the reason we want to do that is that we're able to put some restrictions on his use. Papke: Correct. McDonald: Whereas if we denied this and said that what he's allowed to do by law is to replace what was currently there, then he doesn't get the second story addition. And then we're back to okay, no rental license but can't city code enforce that if he is renting without a license? Metzer: Well part of it was the. McDonald: You'll get your opportunity sir. We're just asking questions. Metzer: Part of it was the sheriff's report that was taken when the home was burnt down. Tenants... stating that they were renting. Sheriff's report said that there was at least three family units living there. McDonald: Three kitchens, that would make sense. Metzer: So, and as we were going with, by doing this we can disallow a third kitchen. We can restrict parking space, or number of parked vehicles. Which in turn would I believe restrict number of renters. Papke: How are we normally, kind of a follow up question. How would we, if in normal circumstance we found that someone was renting out, you know most of their house to, as rental units. How would we normally get compliance for a rental license? How would we normally enforce that under those circumstances? 63 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Metzer: I'm not totally familiar with it. Generous: It's through the building department. They have a rental license inspection requirement and licensing requirement, so they would go in and determine that the units complied with all building and safety code. Papke: And how would we determine that indeed this was a rental property? Generous: Through investigation. Either the applicant admits that they're renting the property or the tenant admits that they're renting the property. Or you know we see an advertisement in the paper, things like that. If someone can say no, I don't. These are my roommates and, then the issue becomes how do you disprove that because the burden of proof is on the city. Papke: Okay. Larson: Is it, the gentleman that was here before when they had the rental for the care keeper for his daughter. I somehow remember there was something that there is a restriction on how many people can rent in a certain. Metzer: That was for use of a single family home as a two family home. Larson: Okay. So this is a completely different? Generous: Right. Larson: It's a single family home rented by several family units... Metzer: Rent is allowed as long as a rental license is you know in place and is applied for Larson: Okay. So there's no restriction on the amount of family units that can be within a single building? Generous: Theoretically. Larson: Okay. McDonald: Okay, I guess the problem I'm having with all of this is that, we've got a non- conforming use. We just had a non -conforming use case. We turned that down because of the way the code and everything is written. Now you're coming before us, you're asking us to approve something that we just turned down and I'm at a loss to see what the advantage is because again, you know we just went through all this with Mr. Carlson about what he's offering to do and the compromises, back and forth. I don't see yet why I should do this. I haven't heard anything actually from staff that would convince me, and that's what I'm looking for. Why are you in favor of this? Metzer: It's like we said, the requirement of the rental license. NT Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 McDonald: Okay but again you have city code to do that. You can enforce that. I understand the problem of yes, the burden of proof is upon the city but I mean at some point it would seem pretty easy to prove that if you have so many people going in and out, they all can't be living there for free. I'm just, I'm at a loss. You've got to help me here to show where we're really getting an advantage here. Dillon: Yeah, if you take the rental thing off the table, would you say to approve this? Given your recommendation on the previous two variances. Metzer: Just allowing the kitchen on the third level and restrict the number of parking spaces. The number of parked vehicles outside. And that was part of the reason that the driveway became so large we believe is to allow for parking spaces. Larson: So you'd allow two kitchens, but not three? Metzer: Right. McDonald: Well if he rebuilds though, does he get to go back to three kitchens and the wide driveway? I mean if we don't approve this. He is allowed to rebuild the non -conforming because of the fire. Does he get the three kitchens back and the driveway if we were to disallow this? Metzer: Well he doesn't get the driveway, no. I mean he doesn't get the 25%. He has to reduce 25%. Part of that was the reason the driveway became so big we believe is because of the parking spaces. They need parking spaces. McDonald: Okay, and again the third kitchen was built without permits, so wouldn't he have to get permits to build a kitchen if he wanted to, even if it's non -conforming, it was there before, it was there illegally. Metzer: Right. Generous: It depends. McDonald: Okay, so he would still be limited to two kitchens. Metzer: Right. McDonald: Okay. I'm having trouble seeing where if we disallow it, we're gaining anything but, are you the applicant sir? Loren Veltkamp: Yes I am. McDonald: Why don't you come forward and you can, I'll give you your turn and then we'll ask you questions. 65 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Loren Veltkamp: I can clarify a lot of this very quickly. These issues came up about 5 years ago when I started to work on this house and we did spend a lot of time. Oh, my name is Loren Veltkamp. 6724 Lotus Trail. I've lived there for about 15 years and during the time I've added a lot to the house. And I did this all without a variance and after my divorce I was deemed handicapped by the court and I was not able to make a regular living due to certain problems. But anyway I resorted to renting my home out and we got into this with the city over a long period of time and it, this was before Josh was hired by the City, and we went through it with a number of people and it went all the way up to the city attorney and I eventually got a letter from the city attorney saying that I did not have rental units. And this is what I said from the beginning, you know I have a single family home. It's a very nice home, and I don't want rental units. I don't want to have apartments or a triplex or a duplex or anything like that. I've never set out to do this, and the problem we got into was that the code defining what an apartment is, is a little vague. You know it says if you have 5 particular amenities, like cooking. A place to eat, sleeping, a bathroom and a living space, those 5 things, then you have an apartment. Okay, but it also says you have to have a separate unit, okay, and that's where it was determined that I did not have apartments because they were not separate okay, and that there was no door between them. There was certainly no locking door, so it never became a definable, rentable space. And it's confusing, I was very confused about this for a long time, and I ended up writing an 8 page letter to City Council about this, which I believe they still have and you can look at it. I call these, instead of a rental unit, I called it a mila which stood for mother-in-law apartment. And that's what I thought I was building was just mother-in-law apartments that extended families could use in the future, and roommates can use today. And so that's what I set out to build and the kitchen for example, I did get, I didn't exactly get a permit to build a kitchen but I included the kitchen on my plan and because I put a bathroom up there, the kitchen was included under the plumbing permit. And the kitchen was thoroughly inspected and approved and my house was visited 5 times on 5 separate occasions by city inspectors. Five different times now they went through my house from top to bottom to determine that there were not apartments in this building. And that's exactly what I wanted from the beginning. I don't want apartments, but I needed to have people live with me in order to afford the house because I just, there's just no way I can stay there. So I think maybe they cut me some slack you know because of the handicap thing. I'm thinking that's what they might have done. And I did have trouble you know when I built the house writing in the plans you know, I changed the plans as I went. They started off just building a garage and then I got up on top of the garage and I said this is really nice living space so I built a room up there. And then I extended it into the house and then I put in a bathroom and it was all done kind of piecemeal, and I changed the windows three times and I did this over a number of years, which is why the records and I submitted hand drawings on some of the stuff and I believe some of it was lost. You know some of it was just misplaced, but in the end everything I did was you know rigorously inspected and I had all the paperwork for that. I pulled all the necessary permits and even the city attorney spent a great deal of time looking into this. And it is a complicated issue. You know the difference between an apartment and having roommates, and especially when you have the five amenities but you don't have significant separation of the units. So I was totally confused about it, and I don't blame other people for being confused about it too. But I didn't do anything without a permit, and I didn't do anything without a permit and you know the work is not all perfect and all that stuff. I did a lot of it myself but I was thoroughly inspected and we had this all set. I did have roommates in my M. Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 house and you know we went on this way for 5 years you know and it's been fine. And I'd like to continue it just the way it was. With a couple little alterations but I think that the city after some time made the right decision you know. And everything I think has been pretty good, and I would just like to continue it. This variance request is not really born out of hardship. You know what actually happened here is that the roof burned off and I had some builders come over and say you know, what do I do you know, and they said why are you building out over the garage when you should be building out over your house, you know. Because then you can stack the bathrooms and you can put the storage over the garage and everything is much cleaner and neater and you know more economical. So for purely practical reasons I said well, maybe I should apply for this variance you know. I'm not going to get another chance to do it so. This is probably the right thing to do for a house. I'll give it a shot. And in terms of hardship, you know I'm not going to exaggerate hardship here. There's a certain amount of hardship in having a poorly designed house and paying more utilities because things are spread out more and this kind of thing, and I suppose over the life of the house that probably goes into the tens of thousands of dollars. There is some hardship here with having a poorly designed house, that kind of thing but it's nothing that we can't understand. It's pretty clear. So there is some hardship here and there is some opportunity here and I basically just want to build the house a little differently. I don't want to add square feet or anything like that. I don't want to add anything to bother anybody here. By just cleaning up the design of the house a little bit, and make it a little more livable and get things where they belong and put in a different heat system and things like that, then you know I'm good to go. McDonald: Okay. Any questions? Kurt? Keefe: I've got a question in regards to, you know locating the kitchen on the second level, if you were to grant this variance, you're okay with that? Loren Veltkamp: Actually I can't survive in the house with that because the roommates that I had used the kitchen, and I used it too. The kitchens were a common area as the City determined. When you have roommates the City, you know they ... hard and fast ordinance was the City wrote me a letter saying that bedrooms in this situation are private, okay. You can't have people walking into other people's bedrooms. So they're considered private. All of the areas are common. Are held in common. So anybody can walk into anybody's kitchen or you know into any of the living areas or decks or you know, I had everything in the house. I mean hot tub and spa and everything, and everybody, exercise room. You know just everything that anybody would want almost. We had large screen TV's and entertainment rooms and it was wonderful. And people loved it and all the people that lived there as part of the fire losing stuff, they all want to come back you know. They all signed six month sub leases and they all want to come back in August. And I said I'll do whatever I can to get you back you know. So it's a happy family. It's more like an extended family than a bunch of you know rental units. I mean I don't even like rental dwellings. I wouldn't even have a rental if it was up to me. Roommates is the only way to go. But that's the state of things today. But I want to emphasize that we went through a great deal of trouble talking about this 5 years ago and it was all agreed and determined in writing and cleared up finally. And now, since the fire, this whole issue has just exploded again. You know and it's because we got new people working the city and the reason they told us very little and you know the people before that didn't read them that literally. And 67 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 there's another issue here that I need to bring up and this is even weirder. I've been in this house for 15 years you know working on it and I've had I think 5 surveys done on this house in the time that I've lived there. After the fire my survey was done again by the same guy for I think maybe the eighth time, and it was rejected 4 times because he couldn't get it right. You know I agreed with staff that it wasn't really done right. It's crazy but in spite of all this, I still don't even know which way my house is facing. I've been there 15 years and I don't know which way my house is facing. It used to face south and the driveway went south and the front door went south and there was a paper road out there that's going to be developed, which was the fastest way out of the, you know away from the lake there. And also the guy that owned by lot owns another lot which was on this road you know going out so the house originally had defined setbacks. You know it was 30 feet, 10 and 10, which was the way that they did things back then. But now the city decides Lotus is the main road, and they have new setbacks you know. 30 and 30 and 15 and 15 on the sides. This just kills me you know. If my house had burned, it's a very serious problem. If my house had burned for another 10 minutes, I would have been past the 50% destruction level, and I would have lost everything. This scared the bejeebies out of me you know. I totaled up what my loses would have been, and I would have lost a half a million dollars. That's what I would have lost after I got all my insurance and everything else. Just because of that one code. I had no idea that code existed. So I think the city's got to look at this a little more carefully because people don't have insurance for their house and the lot in case they can't ever rebuild it. You know I certainly can't. So that's a side issue but getting back to this more important issue of which way we're facing. I talked to some lawyers about this and they felt, both lawyers felt that the city really shouldn't be imposing these setbacks on me because they're the ones who changed the street, okay. If I had built it wrong, it'd be another issue but since the City changed the street there and then changed the setback in such a way that I no longer have a buildable lot. I've got literally a 10 foot strip down the middle of my lot that is buildable. Which is of course not buildable. So they said that this is land grabbing... You know not intentional land grabbing but land grabbing just the same because you know the city can change the streets any time and then change the variances any time and people like me, completely unaware have a calamity in their lives and we end up losing everything. So I think if this went to court, I think a jury of my peers might have a little trouble with that you know. I think this needs to be researched. I don't know what the answer is but it doesn't seem right to me you know that a person can lose their lot just because the city changes which road is you know going to service their land. So that's a very basic issue in this case, which is still unresolved. And the lawyers want is the $300 an hour to research it, and I thought well maybe they just want my money you know. I don't know. But that's an issue and hope we can look at that further. And I would specifically request, you know I say it all the time but I'm very pro roommates for the city. I don't like apartments. I like roommates and I think it's a good thing. I put this in my letter to the City Council. I think it's a good thing for people to have roommates because if you fall ill or you know the kids need more of a house, or you have some other calamity, roommates can come in and give you the extra money to keep your house, which is what happened in my case. I was able to keep the house and finish the house and develop the house and I think that's a good thing for me and the roommates seem to like it too, and we were able to do it with, you know right in front of the eyes of the city and work this out, you know. RV Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Undestad: I've just got one question for you. He keeps going back to the rental thing and rental units. What issue are there that, I mean if you want to put the three kitchens and things in there, what issues do you have with the city and... Loren Veltkamp: ...you know there's the 5 amenities that make an apartment. Obviously they don't like having tenants in my house. They've never, you know they never liked that. They think it's apartments you know. Undestad: But getting a rental license, you wouldn't do that? Loren Veltkamp: I got a rental license. That's another funny thing. I applied for a rental license and then they determined that I didn't need a rental license because I don't have apartments you see. So I put my, I gave my money and I never got my money back. You know they still have my money but I don't have a license because I don't need one. I said screw it okay. I'm happy. And I don't have more than 2 dogs either. I don't know why that comes up you know. And the driveway, you know staff implied that the driveway was built to accommodate renters but the driveway was built before I was even divorced and the fact is we had two snowmobiles. A large boat. A motorcycle and two cars and we needed the driveway just to turn the boat around because there was no parking on Lotus Trail so. Undestad: You mentioned you might you know, this might need more research or might need more time. That may very... Loren Veltkamp: The code's about rent, you know apartments versus roommates. They need to be re -written because I've been through this twice now. And it's gone on for, I think this is the sixth year now that this has been an issue, and we had it quiet for 2 years. Dillon: We're not going to do that here tonight though. Loren Veltkamp: I know. I know but it's vague you know and it's just a little too vague. And to me the key issue with an apartment is a locking door, you know. If you've got a locking door and the people are renting that space and controlling that space, that's an apartment regardless of whether it has 2 toilets or 3 toilets and whatever. McDonald: Well I guess we're getting a little bit off par here but I do have a question for staff but I, the purpose of all this is so you can bring roommates back in. Loren Veltkamp: No, not at all. I can bring the roommates back anyway, and they all, they do want to come back and the only reason I have applied for a variance is to make the house more livable and it's cleaner. It's a better design and it's cheaper to build per square footage, and it's just more practical for me to do it that way. It's really just a matter of practicality. Now whether impracticality equals a hardship, you know a certain amount of screwed up design. For example, in the old house the storage was through a person's bedroom. Okay, but under the city code you know that bedroom was a private bedroom so I couldn't go into my storage you know without getting written consent you know, so this is an impracticality. So I said. M. Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 McDonald: Well, before you go on with that, I mean that brings up a question and I don't think we have an answer for it but I do have a question for staff. I know in the City of Minneapolis in a situation such as this, this is viewed as a boarding house. You take a residence and you let people have the bedrooms and you have the common areas and those things. Do we have a comparable ordinance that would deal with boarding houses? I mean it seems as though he's being treated as an apartment. Yeah, maybe he's not an apartment house but it's definitely a boarding house. Metzer: I think that's been part of the problem in the past years is the definition of what's what. I don't know if it's finding ways around the definitions or what but. McDonald: Well I guess I'd like to see something there because I'm sorry, I'm still having a problem with all of this. It all comes down to the fact that you're asking for a variance and I'm just not sure why I'm doing this and I need to know something there. After telling two other gentlemen that sorry, you have to tear it down or pull it up and you know, both of them are saying a great financial hardships. Understanding you've got one too but I would just like to know what's going on so I would like staff to do something. I'd like to know what's, if all we have is an ordinance for rental, for apartments, then he's probably got a point. If we view this as a boarding house, which is different, then is there something else that he falls under? Loren Veltkamp: The staff has repeatedly told me that they like roommates. They want to encourage roommates. Roommates are fine but you've got to stay within the line. McDonald: Well I understand that and that's perfectly fine. That's why I say, what you've got is a boarding house. That's the rules of a boarding house. It's not apartments. You've got the common areas. I've seen a lot of these in Minneapolis. Loren Veltkamp: I don't know what a boarding house is so I can't. McDonald: Well you've got one. Yeah, you meet the definition and that's what I want to find out is you know, does the City address a boarding house differently than it does an apartment. And that's something to look at because what you're defining and what you're saying is going on is the same thing that goes on in downtown Minneapolis, around the University. A lot of people take their homes, the old homes down there. They convert them into boarding houses. They rent them out to students. They rent them out to individuals. They have the common areas the City of Minneapolis, also because of the fire 3 or 4 years ago where a couple students were killed, started cracking down on boarding houses. That they do fall under an ordinance. There are requirements. Loren Veltkamp: Are the owners living in these houses with the students? McDonald: Huh? Loren Veltkamp: Are the owners living in the houses? 70 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 McDonald: hi some cases they were. In some cases they weren't, and that's what creates the problem, and that's why I'd like to know what it is you've got. Maybe at that point it does justify the variance. But if staff can't answer that right now, one of the things I would ask him to do is come up with something. Papke: Would you accept a motion to table this? McDonald: I would accept a motion to table this. Papke: Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we table this application until we can come back with something that clearly delineates the legal ramifications here and doesn't attempt to enforce something that seems to be ill defined by granting a variance. Dillon: Second. Loren Veltkamp: Can I make one small request? McDonald: Well first of all let us vote on the motion. Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission table the variance request for 6724 Lotus Trail, Planning Case 06-25, until staff can come back with something that clearly delineates the legal ramifications and doesn't attempt to enforce something that seems to be ill defined by granting a variance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. McDonald: Did you wish to add something? Loren Veltkamp: I would like to just put a rush on it because my house is getting rained on every day. I don't have a roof you know. McDonald: I understand that and staff is under certain constraints. It will be dealt with in an expeditious fashion. I'm sure that they will contact you about, we will, what is the time? Can we come back on the calendar at our next? Generous: Yeah, the next one unfortunately, our next scheduled meeting will be the 4`s. Loren Veltkamp: I just can't wait that long. I, you know, I'm under a certain time limits on the insurance company. They only pay for me to be out of the house for a certain period of time, you know. I mean it's a hardship for me to drag this out. I've got people lined up to work on the house. I've got a roof. Papke: Can you proceed with reconstructing under your current? Loren Veltkamp: I can do what I can. Put the roof over the garage and did some second story decking. You know we've got tarps up. Our tarps have ripped off again with this last you know deluge we had and. I would just like to rush it. 71 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 McDonald: Yeah, well we'll have it back by the 18`s. And that's about 3 weeks away. In the meantime, if this goes up before us for a vote, I'm afraid you'll be turned down and you're still looking at going before City Council. Nothing is going to happen before then anyway so at least by doing this, I think we're only throwing maybe a 2 week delay into anything. It's just, this doesn't make sense and I cannot in good faith vote for it after denial of two other variances. Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and I just haven't heard it tonight. Okay, with that then we will move on to the next agenda item. Resident: Excuse me. Will we get notification of the July 18`, meeting because we're all waiting to see? Generous: I can send out a notice. McDonald: Yep. Notices will be sent out again. I apologize for everybody coming in but I'm afraid at this point we just don't have enough information. And that's part of what we're going to try to do is unconfuse all of this so that everybody understands what's going on and we do finally make a recommendation that makes sense to everybody. So I appreciate everyone coming in. I understand the late hour and everything, but thanks very much and thank you for your patience and I'm sorry if this is going to cause any kind of a hardship but again, as I said to the gentlemen, two before, financial burden is not something that we can look at. We have certain rules to follow and without this making sense within those rules, we can't vote. So we will adjourn with that. APPROVAL OF bIINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 6, 2006 as presented. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 72 Location Map Veltkamp Variance Planning Case No. 06-25 6724 Lotus Trail City of Chanhassen SUBJECT PROPERTY Lotus Lake `�-;Ce.1sS�5�5 �-lb�o2•S �v�+c,�F H� Luc-VOL 411r5 ew c�►� in _--�� r3r w�ce; �..a/. �'a G►,�tw vf� Vktl Od-(�retS c.�/)►'�t w4l t CTc. A*s < e;OOV J MV CI OO Ke7perg/ jVrW K!-6sPxo' As A5 /raw et nl _ _ trcT �J�tlrx c�_ry viG/%i� �lliJ qll- Ci%y d�Qi•nirr�c L 9ok- i ... l�v r�v/� Gasr��AL v�lmd B�jKrf :- -ry/%- O s To ;v:ixazr IS jMWe-vow U�L<G G�I�/�2�G� /.tJ 1�lCa�x/rB� G�4S2`T�`lS�Ya �G lZf�ll<A% �`� �K �osviKsxlf /rf� /�f' �u�6df' j CV c rl- I _f - zr 'of cltrw�,, w -Air WAV 45 ,s6rk 7M cas�� ofll ep a.!5� 9p_ 6�_ It 4! 91 - we ly r i� ec-t.7 It rw a+AL wcr.�eC� .vimy_a s�v� ._ _�za ► �i4✓� !� " " t r S u '- "tc [- - Il a__--.— T�vc�uclr't �KarY�iSt o'.�Yli---- C, �� 3 6701 ew r'ioi VA44 gwoiaovao wlk�cG4 C�a' y'oct �✓ wt`i_� - - - �� - XI _ Nt3 '� 1 E�ryv r& "S.ys k w4ow,1G 67Z y wr4?ec++'!- uvcr -- ____ �b ►�� - ,� is ,w s�a� - --- 3 �Os�iGX Ire) iiNT/b�� wO*17' e*V- ✓e ewdVC0/6a/ efi Ora jmrc�so 2 Y.�o' frros�r G7a� �!d • c4 & 20 t G�Zc-moo rL w14 �c�bf l� c3 'Vi 8 Cc9� Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING: LOREN VELTKAMP: VARIANCE REOUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF SECOND LEVEL OF LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF) AT 6724 LOTUS TRAIL. PLANNING CASE 06-25. Public Present: Name Address Sig & Don Sennes Keith Gunderson Jeff King Bruce Johansson Jim Boeshans Mike Henderson Shelly Berg Liz & Matt Tibbetts Doris Martin Susan Telander Loren Veltkamp 6680 Mohawk Drive 6661 Mohawk Drive 767 Carver Beach Road 6701 Mohawk Drive 6651 Pawnee Drive 6701 Mohawk Drive 6701 Mohawk Drive 6699 Mohawk Drive 6650 Pawnee Drive 11516 Bender Court 6724 Lotus Trail McDonald: With that, staff would you like to give your report or? Aanenson: Sure. Yes, I'd like to start with just a little bit of background and some of the concerns that came up at the last meeting. You did table this item. I apologize but there is some corrections in the revised motion, and I'll go through those. First of all I want to point out, it's the staff s interpretation that this property was being rented, and one of the things that we want to clarify, as stated in city code, is that if the staff makes an opinion of a use or interpretation, that that could be appealed to the Planning Commission. So we are asking you as one of the recommendations, if you go to the handout, that first of all the interpretation that the property is being rented because obviously there's a disagreement of living as cohabitants. Roommates, whatever, are not renters. It's our opinion that it's being rented and we want that on the record. So with that, that would be one motion. The second motion which Josh will be going through in a minute for the variance request, we also had recommended again the goal here is that it's, if it's shown as a rental unit, that there be two courses of action. One through the variance request, that there also be a nexus that you can attach reasonable conditions. And those conditions outlined in the staff report would limit the rental, because there wasn't three separate kitchens in violation of the city ordinance. So what we're recommending is that there be, if you did give a variance, if you chose to grant the variance, that there would be a mechanism to regulate that. The third option, which would be C, which we also pointed out in the cover memo of the staff report, that recommending denial because there is in another provision, if the applicant chose to go through the rental, to pursue a rental, and that's provided in Section 20-59 of the City Code which allows an applicant and any property owner to apply for a two family dwelling, and there are criteria for 15 SMUMM Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 that which we've included in the staff report, and those could be also deemed hardships and issues. I'll just briefly read those for you. Those are found in the city code. Section 20-59, conditions for single family. This is a separate variance process which the applicant did not apply for, so it would have to be a separate process. But what it does allow, again through a public hearing the applicant could apply, that based on a demonstrated need, disability, age or financial hardship that he would want two separate dwellings. Again you could then attach a condition of getting a rental license and those conditions because again it was our concern how the property was being used and what the expectations of some of the surrounding properties. So with that, there was modified conditions, which we did hand out for you tonight, so if you have any questions on that part of it, I'd be happy to answer those. Before Josh kind of goes through the summary of the specific variance request. McDonald: Do any of the commissioners have any questions? For Ms. Aanenson concerning this. Keefe: You mentioned the hardship piece. I was struggling with that just a little bit in terms of hardship. Aanenson: Well yeah. Well there's two hardship cases. One would be a separate, the variance that you're, that the applicant is pursuing tonight. The variance for the side yard setbacks, and Josh will go through that in a minute. The other one is a separate application which will come through which in every city code it's state law that allows you to apply for a single family home to be used as a two family dwelling. You can attach reasonable conditions to that too, and what I was reading to you under Section 20-59 would be one of the criteria, so that would be a separate process. Keefe: Okay. Aanenson: Does that make sense? Keefe: Yep. Aanenson: So two separate processes. The one that you're looking at tonight is actually a side yard variance. McDonald: Okay, I have a question for you. Would recommendations A and B go together? Aanenson: No, A is independent. We would like you to make that interpretation so that it's on the record that the staff is interpreting that it's being, the property is used as a rental, and that you concur with our interpretation. McDonald: Okay. Aanenson: So we've got that on the record. Whether or not you grant a variance, whether or not any other action is taken, we have that on record that, how it's being used so there can be enforcement in the future. 16 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 McDonald: Okay. And then the choices that you would like us to make then are between B and C? Aanenson: Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman, that clarifies that. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else have any questions before I have the staff do a report? Okay. Staff. Metzer: And just to remind Planning Commission and the audience that the site is located on the west shore of Lotus Lake at 6724 Lotus Trail. In February, on February 23rd of this year the roof and majority of the second level of the home were destroyed by fire. State law permits the reconstruction of non -conforming structures destroyed by fire. The existing structure currently has setbacks 8 feet from Lotus trail, and 15 feet from Tamarack Road, which is considered a paper street. Now these are non -conforming setbacks and due to the non -conforming setbacks, the requested second level addition constitutes an intensification of a non -conformity which city code prohibits. Staff is however recommending approval of this request, and again by doing so staff feels that the city will be better able to control or regulate the rental situation on the subject property through the conditions of approval attached. Should the Planning Commission choose to deny this request the applicant does have the alternative again for, to apply for the variance for use of a single family home as a two family dwelling. And should the applicant choose to seek that variance, a separate application should be filed. I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. McDonald: Mark, you want to start? Undestad: Don't have any questions right now. McDonald: No questions? Debbie. Larson: Just in reading a piece you have down here on various variances that have been granted over the years. It looks like some of them are quite small, like the 6711 Hopi. A 2 foot side yard setback variance for a garage. 1'/2 foot side yard. I mean so what he's asking for really isn't, I mean it's a lot, or a lot more generous than what some of the ones that we've already done. Metzer: A more significant request? Larson: Thank you. So I don't know, that was all, the only comment I have at the moment McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: Well you know kind of looking through the background on this, there seems to have been like kind of a history of some, I don't know if, maybe not such great oversight or poor, I don't, probably none of our, before any of our time here but some poor judgment used in issuing some of the permits and stuff like that. 17 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 Metzer: Yes. The second level dormer addition, and also a portion of the garage addition. I think it was, I can only speculate what was going through this person's head at the time but must have gotten confused on what setbacks were restricting what property line because the north property line is actually the front. Considered a front property line because it's still what we call a paper street right-of-way to the north, which requires a 30 foot setback. I can only speculate that they thought it was a 10 foot setback at the time they approved the permits. McDonald: Excuse me. Could you define what a paper street is because this is one of the first times I've seen this term. Metzer: It's just kind of a loose term. It's not, it's a road right-of-way. The city would have the right to put an improved street through there but there is no actual street. It's just empty, vacant right-of-way. Aanenson: So it's recorded as right-of-way but there's no public improvements out there. So we say it shows up on paper but if you were to go out there, you wouldn't be able to discern that there was a street. McDonald: But at some point in the future then the city could extend that street for... Aanenson: Correct, or use it as an easement or whatever. Metzer: And it's my understanding that it's currently used as a kind of easement access for the neighborhood residents to access the lake. Larson: Like a walk path? Metzer: Yeah. Larson: And is this the one that, is there pavement on it or no? Metzer: No. Larson: Just dirt. Metzer: Just grass. Vegetated trail basically. Dillon: So do you know if those permits that were issued in error were issued to the current owner? Metzer: They were. Dillon: And then the kitchen on the second level was installed without permits? Metzer: Correct. Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 Dillon: Was that where the fire originated? I mean. Metzer: That I don't know. I do not know. Dillon: Okay. Just trying to get a little context here. That's all the questions I have. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: I have two questions. One is in regards to, how did the City determine that the property was being rented? What is the determination? Metzer: Basically based off of statements made in the sheriff's report from when the home was burnt down. Keefe: And I was wondering if that, that's what I thought too in number 16. That identified... so okay. And then, hardship for the variance? What is the hardship we're looking at for granting a variance? Aanenson: I guess the way the staff is looking at it again was trying to find some resolution as to how the property was being used. In looking at that, and after the last meeting, speaking with the city attorney, there is another mechanism to provide a second, if the applicant chose to, to do a rental without going through the variance. So the goal was to try to get compliance. Again through the ability to attach with a variance, attach reasonable conditions. But if you chose not to grant the variance, there still is another mechanism for the applicant to proceed to do that. And still attach conditions for a rental unit. Keefe: So if you can't find a hardship, you need to go to Plan B. Aanenson: Or C. Keefe: Or C in this case, right. Pursue that. Does that require a variance too though? They would need to apply for a variance? Aanenson: It's a variance but it wouldn't be for additional square footage or a setback variance. Keefe: Right. Papke: Could you just explain a little bit the recommendation A with having the, this is a new one from my years on the Planning Commission. Having to have the Planning Commission concur with a staff recommendation so. Aanenson: Correct. Papke: In this particular case, let me state what I perceive and you can tell me if I've got it right or not. So in this particular case, staff has come to the conclusion that there, this is a rental property. There's rental property occurring here and the applicant has challenged that 19 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 interpretation so therefore it's our role to act as a, not really a mediator but to either confirm or deny staffs conclusion on this particular case? Aanenson: That's correct. As stated in state code, acting as the board of adjustment, one of your primary roles besides granting variance would be to be, we're the administrators of the code but then you either concur or, if somebody's aggrieved of a decision that we make, then they have a right to appeal that decision to you. So while it wasn't part of the original application, we did talk to city attorney and we felt that it would be important that we kind of resolve that ambiguity because it seemed at the last meeting we got hung up on whether or not there were boarders, co- habitators, so we want to be clear and have you endorse that if this decision is appealed, that you either concur or disagree with our interpretation of that. Papke: So just to be clear, the applicant, did the applicant ask for this appeal? Aanenson: No. Papke: Or this is motivated by city staff. Aanenson: Correct. Papke: Just to get clarity. I just want to make sure 1. McDonald: I think part of what we asked them to do was to go back and look at the differences of the ordinances and come back with something that would give us a little bit more, you know determine what this is. Aanenson: And we haven't had too many appeal cases on that specific language, so you're right. It'd probably be pretty rare that we see these. McDonald: Okay, go ahead. Dillon: So like if, if it ends up that B is the option we support here and then the applicant has to comply with all these conditions that are set forth. If you know, if C is chosen and the applicant chooses to get a one family home turned into a two family home, is that like an, is that a slam dunk thing that you automatically get that? Aanenson: No. Well you would still have to go through the findings for a variance and you'd still have to look at those findings, and again you can attach reasonable conditions. But let me back up just explain what the process would be. No matter what you decide tonight, to approve or deny, any person aggrieved of your decision can appeal it. Whether it's the applicant or one of the neighbors or one of the Planning Commissioners to say I want this to go to City Council. So whatever you decide tonight, someone else could still take it to the City Council and appeal that decision. And then the other option is, if it did go there and whatever happened there, there's still another alternative and that would start over, and that would be Option C. Does that make sense? pill Planning Commission Meeting —July 18, 2006 Dillon: Yep. McDonald: Okay, I have a couple questions for clarification also. Because this was a non- conforming use prior to the fire, he is allowed to re -build based upon what was there at the time of the fire. Now he's asking for expansion beyond that, so that's what makes the non- conforming use more egregious. Metzer: Intensified, right. McDonald: Intensified, so okay. And then the other question, if he goes to a rental, that's to turn a single family into a two family. At the time that we were looking, when the fire happened, there were actually four families total. Three renters and, plus the applicant himself. So two family means two family, am I correct on that? It's not where you could. Metzer: It's also you know setting up the home with separate dwelling units. And this would clarify that you would be allowed two dwelling units rather than the ambiguity and the you know, running around the definitions and things like this, of what's considered open and. McDonald: Because at this time because of what was there prior, he would be allowed two kitchens, as I remember. The third kitchen on the second floor would not be allowed. Metzer: Well he was, the construction of the third kitchen on the second level was not permitted. Now it's really with the granting of the variance we can limit him, can limit the applicant to two kitchens total. McDonald: I just need to get that clarified because... through with this and this is a. Aanenson: Can I just add something on that too. I thought we had put that in there as one of the conditions but one of the things that we did want to look at is the number of people renting. Just to make this even more muddy. The City doesn't prohibit people from having two kitchens as a general rule. A lot of people have entertainment areas, whatever. It's when that use, and that's what started clouding this up. It's when you start having additional units and how people living in it, and how they're living and the ambiguity came into play of someone's interpretation of how they're living so, just to be clear on that. But I think going back to what you were talking about, Chairman McDonald is that you want to make sure that there's just one additional rental family unit. McDonald: Okay. Anyone else have any questions for staff? Dillon: Just so I can place, the worst case scenario then you know for the applicant's point of view, would be to like deny all this stuff and just kind of rebuild on the same exact footprint that's already there, is that right? Aanenson: That's correct. Larson: They use the same footprint but just additional up? 21 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 Metzer: And the request is to make an addition in an area of the home that has non -conforming setbacks. Larson: So beyond... Metzer: So it's like, it's doubling the amount of the home that has, that's within the setback. McDonald: Okay? Okay. Then with that, if the applicant would come forward. We're ready to hear from you at this point. Loren Veltkamp: Thank you. I'm Loren Veltkamp, 6742 Lotus Trail. The information you're getting from staff tonight is very different than what I got from staff in the past and certainly from other members of the City that I spoke with years ago. The proper history of this affair is that I was divorced 5-6 years ago and I started to rent after that. I got divorced in the middle of expanding the house. We put another garage and then I built over the garage and then I continued that into the house, and tonight I would like to get a variance to continue it over the rest of the house. Just making the second story bigger. I would, when I first started to rent there were no codes on the books at all. I called the City about this and somebody said there are no codes concerning renters, but there's something in the works, and that turned out to be true. They did come up with a rental application and some codes concerning renters, which I did apply for, and I was told to apply for them. But we all got bogged down because I didn't actually have rental units, and this was determined by the City. This was not my idea. I was just renting all along through here, and the reason why I was renting is just to make ends meet. I had to have a certain number of renters in for a certain amount of money to make the mortgage basically, and I still have that same problem. So I was just renting to roommates who were sharing everything in the home, and then they started to pass codes and the codes were never quite clear so I was never really sure if I was like you know doing this right or not. But it was eventually determined by the City, not by me at all, that I did not have rental units and the key issue, which I brought up last time was the fact that I don't have locking doors in the house that separate these areas. So if there's no separation, you don't have separate dwelling units. The other problem that we ran into was that I don't rent to families. I rent to single people or older people. They're people like me who you know, you know might be handicapped or you know just basically here you are, pretty quiet. I see in this memorandum that she mentions there were three separate family units living in the house. This is not the definition that we were working with before this. You know family unit is children and married people. You know the people that I rent to are basically looking for a family, and when you put single people together in a house, you create a new family, and it's much closer to a new family than it is to three separate families. So this language of family units is completely misleading. It's absolutely misleading and in fact it's 180 degrees wrong. Okay. What I'm doing is creating a family, and this is the only family that I have until I get married again, and I would like to keep the family intact and so would the other members of the family. So these two issues of not having locking doors in our house, thereby not having separate apartments, and not having you know families in the house, those were the two issues that swung the thinking of the previous staff and the city attorney, who I had a letter from, saying that my rental situation was fine. You know those are two key issues. Having single people and not having locking doors, and that's why I had the five inspections on my property. They wanted to 22 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 go through the property again and again and again, over a period of time to make sure that there were not locking doors and separate dwelling units. So we went through this exhaustively. I can't tell you how many letters we had and how many months we spent on this and it was all determined. So I don't think we have any issue here today. I don't think there is an issue. The City has long decided this issue that if you have roommates in a house, it's not individual whatever. It's not separate units. And I did not want to do, in fact I had this option many years ago to go to a duplex, and I don't want a duplex. I don't think neighbors want a duplex. I don't see any need to have a duplex. What we were doing was fine. Was not done under cover at all. As I said, I applied for the rental variance and we went through that whole process so. And another thing the staff keeps saying here, which is completely wrong, is the idea that the kitchen was like snuck into the building somehow. You know I worked on this place for a period of, I've been working on my house for about 8 to 10 years and I have a stack of inspections, inspection receipts that is about three-quarters of an inch high, and it's not including the five final inspections. We had the plumber out there and another thing that bothers me here is that you know staff knows perfectly well that when people, when people pull a building permit, they don't pull a building permit for every room that they're going to build. You know kitchen, bedroom, living room. You know nobody does this. I didn't do this. Nobody does this. There's not a builder in the world that does this. So yeah what I did is I said, I defined the space that I was going to build in, you know as best I could, and then when I got a deal on cabinets, I took the cabinets and I set them up in the kitchen and then it became the kitchen. And later on I did, you know once I designed it, you know I put it on drawings and I submitted it to the City and they came out and they checked the plumbing and all these other things many, many times. And I have to have special electrical in a kitchen. You have to have special circuitry. All this was inspected with a special plumbing, venting going out the roof. All these things had to be done, and they were done. Right in front of the City the whole time. For years and years and years. Now they say I snuck in a kitchen. I should be pissed off you know. It's lies. So I have done everything from the beginning with the City. I've done everything and I created a nice property. It's way better than what it was when I found and I bought in 1990. It's way, way better. And roommates have helped to develop this property. Roommate money. And you know I think it's better for the neighborhood. I'm sure the neighbors have had you know some problems. You know I suppose it's unavoidable, you know. I certainly have house rules and I tell all the renters that they've got to get along with the neighbors no matter what, you know. There's no fighting with neighbors and no problems with any neighbors. That's the house rule. It's not going to create for a perfect thing, but that's what I tell them. So I don't have families living in my house. I did not install an illegal kitchen. Like she said, there is no, there was no codes against three kitchens you know so. Aanenson: That's not what I said. I said you can have an additional kitchen. I didn't say three. I said one additional kitchen. Loren Veltkamp: Well there are people with more than three. You know in town already. Many people. And you know you have a kitchen on every floor like you have a bathroom on every floor for the same reasons. McDonald: Actually if I could interrupt you there for a second. You know it doesn't do any good to argue about what staff said and what staff didn't say. What we're here for is to hear an 23 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 argument based upon why we should be granting a variance, and the kitchen right now is not part of that. I really don't care how many kitchens you've got. There are rules, well let me finish. Loren Veltkamp: ...I told them that. McDonald: Let me finish because I want you to understand what you need to focus on. You know the rules about that, and that's part of any permit you pull or anything, and that's a separate issue. What we're here for is why should we be granting this variance because you are wanting to expand your house and you need to explain to us why you want to do that. So that's what you need to focus on. It doesn't do any good to try to tell us that staff is making mistakes or even more egregious than that. That does not go into our decision. All we have before us is what you are requesting and that's what we're going to vote on. So please, keep your comments to that. Loren Veltkamp: ... I don't think the rental issue really has anything to do with the variance either, and we spent a lot of time on that last week. Last month. So yeah, I would just as soon forget about all that and get to the real point. Concerning the variance, I did some research at the law library with West Law and I looked up some cases that had gone before the Supreme Court and a couple of cases I'll mention here because they are similar to the one I'm dealing with here. In particular there's one, it's a pretty famous case. It's City of Aura vs. Burns and in this particular case the Supreme Court of Minnesota ruled that the location of buildings already constructed may properly be used in the fixing of setback lines. I'll read it again. The location of buildings already constructed may properly be used in the fixing of setback lines. This is their way of saying I think, I mean you can read these cases for yourself, but they're saying if you have an established building there, that's pretty much the setback. And I complained about this last week where the City changed the roads here and now they changed the setback, and now they're telling me I can't build in my footprint, like everybody else can. You know to me this would not stand up in front of the Supreme Court. McDonald: Okay, I'm not sure that we're on the same thing at this point. No one is saying anything I think about the property or the footprint of the house, and I think we've all pretty much come to the conclusion that under statute you're allowed to rebuild within your footprint. What is happening. Loren Veltkamp: That's what I'm trying to do. McDonald: Well what has happened here though is you're trying to go outside of your footprint. Loren Veltkamp: No, I'm trying to go up on the existing footprint. McDonald: Well again that's what gets us into getting outside of what your footprint is. I don't think we're looking at changing lines. We've all pretty much agreed what the lines are. What the issue is before us is, you know you're trying to build something back on a non -conforming property that increases the non -conformity, and we're looking for reasons why you should be allowed to do that, and under statute there are certain hardships that have to be looked at, or there are certain rules that have to be looked at, and we have to make findings based upon that. So I think that's the issue. It's not that we're trying to do anything with the lines of the house. That's 24 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 never come up so, I don't think it does a lot of good to quote cases to us. Again this is not a court of law. What we have are ordinances that we have to go by. We're not going to make an interpretation based upon what the Supreme Court said. I'm sorry, that's just not within our charter. Loren Veltkamp: Well I just think that it should be. McDonald: I'm afraid it's not. We're also governed by what the Supreme Court says, and the Supreme Court has said, that a Planning Commission can basically apply the rules as they exist. We cannot look at changing those rules. All we can do is apply them and make a recommendation to the City Council which is a legislative body which can change rules. So that's where any of this discussion, if you're looking at changing rules, has got to go, but before you get there, you're going to have to allow us to make a recommendation based upon the rules. Loren Veltkamp: So maybe I should save that for later then. McDonald: Yes, much later. Loren Veltkamp: But I thought I would bring it up now because I brought it up last time you know that my house was originally fine. The setbacks were fine until they changed the road. Now they're coming up over the top of the house and saying I can't build on my existing footprint, which is horizontal. You know it's not vertical. I never heard of a footprint being vertical. McDonald: Okay well, what the statute says is you can rebuild exactly what was there before. You can't do anything to change that going up, out or anything. Exactly what was there. This is the same problem people that buy cabins on the lake have where they had to, they're making improvements and it has to be within the footprint of an existing house. That's the statute that we're concerned with. You're trying to improve going up. Under those rules you know, we have a right to look at this and to say that's a non -conforming use and we're not going to approve variances. Now if you want to build back exactly what was there, that was destroyed by the fire, we don't even end up having any of this discussion. Am I correct staff with that? But that's not what you're wanting to do. So that's why we're here is to look at do you meet the hardship requirements for us to grant you the variance. Or do you not meet the hardship requirements. Loren Veltkamp: Well I thought I would meet the hardship requirements too, but I also think I meet the Supreme Court requirement... McDonald: Okay, I'm not going to argue the Supreme Court with you because again this is not a court of law. We're not going to go into that. What I would like you to do is if you feel you meet the hardship requirements. Loren Veltkamp: I have a question whether, are you bound by the Supreme Court or are you above the Supreme Court? 25 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 McDonald: We're again, I told you how all this comes down. Our decision is to interpret the city rules. We cannot, or not interpret. Apply the city rules. We do not have the power to make interpretations and as I said, there is nothing here before us that says anything about prop, or footprint lines, where the setbacks are. All that is the existing house and I don't hear an argument about that. What the argument is, is what you're wanting to rebuild and you're trying to get a variance from us so that you can build and improve the second story. That is changing the footprint, whether you want to look at it going out, up or whatever but you're changing the footprint. Loren Veltkamp: I didn't know a footprint went vertical like that. I never heard that before. McDonald: Then what you should do is you know read, there are cases concerning this. Read what people have done. As long as you rebuild what was existing exactly, you're okay. And that's not what you've requested before us today. Loren Veltkamp: Well, just to put an end to this, you know this particular case I'm citing here was a horizontal footprint. And there's other cases like this where you know the Supreme Court, when these issues get all the way up to the Supreme Court, they basically go with the landowner and the existing setbacks and say okay, this has been here since 1926 you know. It's good enough. It's good enough setback. So I think that is important for any decision in any application of Chanhassen code you know, the Supreme Court has been around a while. Talking about just hardship here. Okay. I have a hardship with this house in that things are not stacked properly. Okay, we have storage over living space and I have living space over storage space. The problem is you can't get to stuff right, and it's hard to heat. So that's the kind of hardship that you have to deal with every day, okay. You're not, you don't have proper access to stuff and you're paying too much for utilities. Other codes, you know particularly the new energy codes, try very hard to keep people at a low energy rate and the proper way to do that is to stack the different floors and the living spaces so that the heating and the cooling you know are closer together. So I think that's a hardship. You know it feels like a hardship to me you know to have things disorganized and to pay extra for something for the same amount of living space which is what I'm going to end up here. I'm not trying to increase the living space. So that is one hardship. Utility bills, those would be another hardship. And not being able to have a second floor like most of the other people, houses on the lake. To me that is a hardship. You know it's very similar to not having a garage or something like that. So those are the kind of hardships that I would list as being the hardships in this case. I believe I made a list in here of a couple other things. But there's a certain amount of hardship here but to me that really wasn't the focus of my request here you know. I think that my property, my property footprint has been established since 1926. It was valid. I should be able to build on it and I think if I took this all the way to the Supreme Court, I would be able to build on it more because that's my footprint. And it shouldn't be taken away just because the roads are changed. So that's my real feeling here about this but there is some hardship too which I hope you will recognize. I don't think the renting has anything to do with this so I don't know if we want to talk about that any more. I think I can, you know for the neighbors, I think I can build a better looking house here than I had before if I get this variance, and I think that views will be better for all the neighbors. It will be a little bit more streamlined and I think it will look better. I think it will improve property values and be you know just generally a good thing. OW Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 McDonald: Okay. Is that all then? Loren Veltkamp: Unless you have some questions. McDonald: Oh yeah, we've got questions. I just want to make sure that you're given an opportunity to speak and to get the issues out before us and then we'll ask questions. Same way we asked staff but I want to make sure that you're given every opportunity to present. Loren Veltkamp: Yeah, I just had a couple more things. I'm not trying to increase the square footage of this house. I'm really not doing that because what I'm, I had about, this upper story had a room and truss here that I'm going to expand into, and that was a storage area. So the second story originally, and I used about 80% of it. You know the part I could use was the comers of the roof came down you know. So I had about, I was using about 80% of this already, and now I'm trying to use 100% of it. So it's really a very little bit that I'm asking for here but even though it would create you know a bigger second story. But then I moved the storage over the garage where it really belongs and then I don't have to heat that area. So that's the advantage to me is I just get storage where storage should be, including space where the living space should be and this creates a better house for me and relieves some of the hardship of not having stuff not stacked properly. When it comes to building, you know if you stack your bathrooms, just your bathrooms alone, you save a lot of money there and that to me is another hardship. If I have to build the old way, I have to run the bathroom plumbing in a very stringed way which took me a long time to do, and the plumbing inspector didn't exactly like it. You know we finally got it done so, there's a lot of hardship in the building if you're not stacking things properly, you know, and I'm faced here with building and I have to you know do the crux of that and I have to ... which I know what that will be because I've lived in this house the way it used to be, and I had a lot of problems with it, and I don't want to repeat those problems. So those are you know the hardships that I felt every day. I'd like to fix it. You know I'm not going to get another chance. You know houses don't burn down very often. I just want to do the best thing for the house here and for all future owners and I'm very open to suggestions about this. I'll work with staff and neighbors and whatever just to get you know the best house here that we can get. McDonald: Okay. Take questions. Mark, want to start? No? Debbie? Larson: Well, really what you're trying to do is basically make the house make more sense, which I think... Loren Veltkamp: Yeah ... floor plan and a little better utility build you know. Larson: And the problem that the City seems to have with it is the fact that what you're doing is you're building in air space that wasn't built in before. And therefore you're improving and making the property larger, which is non -conforming and it's acerbating the issue. Loren Veltkamp: From their point of view it's an intensification you know of the. Larson: Right. 27 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 Loren Veltkamp: Of that area that they want for the setback but my view hasn't changed on this. I mean if they want to change the roads and then come over the top of my house and come in the back yard 30 feet too, I mean they've left me with a buildable sliver. I have a 10 foot buildable sliver now that they've changed the road, and my opinion as homeowner is if you're going to do that to me, you can buy the fricken property. Larson: When did you purchase the property? Loren Veltkamp: Back in 1990, yeah. You know and what they're doing here is so grievace. I mean you know they've left me with nothing to build on. I've got a 10 foot sliver. It's not even a 10 foot sliver. It's like a diamond. Larson: Then why'd you buy it then? Loren Veltkamp: When I bought it it was legal. They changed the roads and then they changed the setbacks. Larson: You know I've lived in Chanhassen for 22 years, not far from you actually, and I don't know if it's changed all that much back there... Loren Veltkamp: Well I don't ... changed either you know because this road was here when I moved in, but you know Josh was talking about how this deck got built on the back of my house, which was in error. Larson; Okay, so wait a minute. It changed since you bought it or no? Loren Veltkamp: It's changed 3 times as far as I know since I bought it. Larson: Is that right? Loren Veltkamp: You know when I asked to install a deck. Metzer: From my understanding this whole subdivision was platted in 1918. No right-of-ways have changed to my knowledge since 1918. Other than road right-of-ways being vacated. No new right-of-way has been created. Tamarack Road to the north and Lotus Trail to the east have been in existence to my knowledge since 1918. Larson: Okay, and since 1918. Loren Veltkamp: And Willow Road to the south. Willow Road to the south which is what. Larson: Well I'm familiar with the area. I understand. I've got kids and dogs that will go down to the beach all the time. I know the area. I don't think a lot has changed since 1990, and I've been there a lot longer than that. Okay, that's all I have at this point. W Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kevin. Dillon: So, if the Planning Commission were to approve the variance for the 22 foot and the 15 foot front yard setback variances, so on and so forth, how do you feel about all the restrictions that are a part of that? I mean are you willing to comply with them? Loren Veltkamp: I would like to, I would love to get out of building this third floor kitchen. You know I would comply with any of it but the issue that I have is that, without the renters I can't afford the place. That's my problem. You know so I just want a place where I can have 3 renters like I've had before. Three roommates. I don't want families in there. I just want 3 roommates. You know middle aged roommates who can help me afford the place, and I've just got to get to that, it's really a dollar point I've got to get to you know. My expenses are over $2,000 a month and that's why I'm concerned about utilities and building costs and all these other issues. I mean I have to be or I'm going to lose this place very quickly. Dillon: So I guess my understanding of this is that you can have one other renter, or right? Aanenson: That's correct. Loren Veltkamp: ... with one so I really have to have three because you know they're not going to pay any more than that. Aanenson: Herein lies the crux. I'm sorry to interrupt. The crux of the issue is that it's staffs opinion that this is not being operated as a single family residential home. As it's guided. If there's an economic hardship reason, then it needs to go through a separate process because we disagree and we did inspect the property and so I don't want to get into the whole history of that because we could be here another 2 hours. A whole history of that whole thing. But clearly, whether they were people that were married, unmarried, it's our opinion that they were renters. Whether they were families or individuals, we have prima -facie evidence as submitted by the sheriffs office, that there were renters on the property. So that's our opinion, and our concern is that it's going to continue to be used that way. That was why we did recommend approval with the limitation. And I want to make sure that he understands that that was the intent also. For that the variance for the reasonable attachment, that there'd be limitations with that. And if there's an economic issue, the code does allow for that process and that's a separate process to come back through. Dillon: Do you get that? Loren Veltkamp: No I don't. It's the first time I've ever heard this before. You know I heard about the rental applications you know and I went to get one, and then you know other things developed from that. So this is kind of new information and the options they're putting on the table here don't give me enough money to keep the house. Dillon: Well okay so then there's, so like Kate did talk about some other options. I mean. 0 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 Loren Veltkamp: I was trying to understand Kate. I couldn't heard her at first and I've got some information when I came in here. I'm perfectly willing to discuss this, you know after this. Work something out with the thing. My only issue is that we have a nice house. I don't really want to go the duplex route. I don't think that neighborhood needs a duplex. I just wouldn't want a duplex down there if I was there. Aanenson: Well herein lies the problem because there's more than duplex going on right now, and that's the problem. And we've tried to work this. As you can see, the reason why we're here today is we want this to be on the public record and it's documented, get an interpretation. McDonald: I understand. Aanenson: Yeah. Because there is a difference of opinion of how we've handled it in the past and there hasn't been concurrence so it's good that it's in a public forum to get this cleared up. Loren Veltkamp: And I would emphasize again that the City's already ruled on this and I have letters to that effect from the City Attorney saying that it's not a triplex or duplex or anything of the sort. It's simply a house with three kitchens and some roommates. Aanenson: We respectfully disagree on that. Loren Veltkamp: Well this is the first I've heard of this. Honestly. McDonald: Well that was part of the reason why we wanted this tabled because I personally felt that there was more to the ordinance than what we were being told and what we've gotten back is yes, there is. And I think that was part of the missing piece of all this. You know I have questions dealing with that that I will get into when it's my turn but I want you to know that yes, we asked staff to table this and come back with more information. They have done their job at this point. And whether it's new information to you or not, it's new information to me. I mean this is the first time I've seen it too but that's why we asked for it because there were missing pieces to all of this. This is a complicated issue. There are a lot of things that are going on here and we have to sort them out and we can't do that without the proper information, so. Loren Veltkamp: I believe we spent 9 months on this last time we went through it. I think it was a 9 month process. McDonald: Hopefully it won't be 9 again but. Loren Veltkamp: I'd rather not do that again. McDonald: Are you okay? You have any questions though? Keefe: No. Not yet. McDonald: Okay. Kurt. 30 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 Papke: Disregarding what we call them right now, renters or roommates or whatever, how do you manage your financial relationship with them? Do you have a written rental agreement or how do you determine what rent they pay? Is it in writing? Loren Veltkamp: ... agreement. Papke: It's a verbal agreement? Loren Veltkamp: It's legal in Minnesota if you have less than 12 people you're dealing with, and there's no lease so if anybody's unhappy with anything they can go at any time. I have house rules that everybody must comply with. Papke: Are they in writing? Loren Veltkamp: Yes. Yes, and it's the stuff you would expect. No noise. No fighting. No drinking. No anything like that. And you know the other agreement is I tell them you know that you're a roommate here. That's part of the rental agreement too. You cannot call yourself, you know these are not apartments. Papke: Do you keep a record of payments of your roommates or renters? Who paid what when? Loren Veltkamp: Well there's only 3 of them so I mean. Papke: But you keep some kind of record that they've paid their rent on time and things of that nature? Loren Veltkamp: Yeah usually but I can keep that in my head pretty much. I mean it's just month to month you know, and people contribute and sometimes they frankly can't pay. And I've let people do work on the house in exchange and things like that and I took one lady in with a digital camera. You know because she was destitute and within 2 years she's making $80,000. Papke: If we grant the variances and you proceed to improve the second story, it looks like a couple of the bedrooms will get substantially larger. It's quite common with rental properties that the rent is often correlated with the amount that's charged for rent. Would you expect to increase the amount of rent you charge your roommates or tenants as a result? Loren Veltkamp: I would like to increase it slightly just to cover the rise in utility bills. You know I've been losing. Papke: So what you're saying, you said before that you have a hardship on the basis of the energy efficiency but you expect utility bills to go up when you do this? Loren Veltkamp: Seems like they're still going up. Yeah, they have gone up considerably. Papke: But you just said that as a result of putting this expansion on, your utility bills will go up. 911 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 Loren Veltkamp: No, they will go down I think. Because I'll be stacking this properly. Papke: Okay, that's not what you just said but. Loren Veltkamp: Didn't I? Papke: Yeah. Loren Veltkamp: Well I think utility bills for the world are going to go up. Okay, for me if with a variance I believe the utility bills will go down. I mean so it'd be a money saving thing, because I'm not heating over the garage. That killed me when I put that room out over the garage and tried to heat that thing, that was pretty hard. Papke: Okay, that's all I have. Keefe: Just and one, I do have one quick question. Are you in agreement with the police report, you know what they stated in there that there were renters in your? Are you in agreement with that or...? Loren Veltkamp: Well yeah, I told forever, I told the City forever that I had renters in there. tell everybody. I've never hidden this. Keefe: Except last time you stated they were roommates but today you're saying they're definitely renters. Loren Veltkamp: Yeah, I don't know what the difference between a roommate and a renter is. I use the terms interchangeably, I mean. If there is a difference, let me know. You know I specifically have roommates and my agreement, my rent agreement with them says you're a roommate. You know we're going to share this house. You have to live according to the house rules and you're going to live like a family. You know that's what we're doing here. McDonald: Okay. I guess the whole thing about whether they're renters or roommates, you would agree that you accept money. It does sound as though they are on a month to month lease. Legally under the state statutes, that's the way it is. If you do not have a written lease, you're on a 30 day month to month lease and there are protections for you within the statute as there are protections for the renters. Statute doesn't make a difference between roommates, renters. It makes a difference between an exchange of money between individuals. You own a piece of property and what you give out to those individuals is a place to live. So under the statute, you're going to fit the definition of landlord and renters. Loren Veltkamp: That's true. They just group us all together. McDonald: So, yes. And that's what we have to go by. As you say, you bring up the state Supreme Court cases. There have been many cases on that and the definitions have changed via statute because of that so, you are renting people. You would, renting to people and you would agree to that. 32 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 Loren Veltkamp: I said this all along. I don't know why it's become a point. McDonald: Okay. And your intention would be that as part of all this is to get the 3 couples, individuals, the people who were living there before would like to come back and you would need this to help as far as maintaining the house. To me that's monthly expenses. Loren Veltkamp: Ah yeah, I can't do without it. I can't do, I have not worked. I've not been able to work a full time job in over 20 years now, and this came out in the divorce too. McDonald: Okay. How much of this expansion is driven by the fact that you're trying to make a better place for people to live in? The second story. Loren Veltkamp: Absolutely none of it. McDonald: Well who lived on the second floor? Loren Veltkamp: One lady. Her name was Kathy. You know she primarily, she had her bedroom up there, which blocked by access to the storage, which caused me you know trouble. You know, because the City told me that the bedrooms must be regarded as private and I have to give written permission to go into somebody's bedroom and Kathy is working and you know this kind of thing. I really don't need to expand the square footage or anything like that. I just, you know I just need to have 3 renters to make the mortgage. McDonald: Okay, so what this is really coming down to is you really need the individuals to help you stay in the house. If we were to deny your application, you could still move those people back in the way it was. Loren Veltkamp: Well I could but there, you know the staff is also interested in reducing my driveway and taking out that third story kitchen. You know the second story kitchen and these kinds of things. If they're successful in doing that, and I don't think that they can be, but if they're successful somehow in doing that, then that might you know hurt me just enough to force me to sell you know. I'm really losing, I've been losing money every year here you know but I happen to have some money when I divorced and I'm getting a little bit better so I was working again last year because I had the house done so I went out and took some you know construction jobs. So I'm working a little more now and I had some, you know I had some money to go through but I was basically losing money. I was losing maybe $1,200 a year. About a $100 a month. And then when utility bills went up you know, doubled, I mean that now this coming year I could lose you know a lot more than that. So you know I'm on the edge here. My renters on the edge too. They're really on the edge. McDonald: Okay, well one of the things in all of these applications when people come up before us and you're asking for variances, we do look for trade off's because again we're trying not to intensify any of the I guess reasons for the variances themselves, and right now your hard surface coverage area, according to the calculations, is 31%. So if you were to bring the driveway back down to 25%, that meets the requirements for you to be able to put I think 2 cars in the driveway, 33 Planning Commission Meeting —July 18, 2006 which is again, remember you're in a single family residential district and that would meet the requirements within that particular district. If what you're looking at is that again you need to do this in order to have facilities for the renters, then that's what begins to complicate this. What is this? A single family house or is this going to be a rental property? That's what I guess we're trying to decide today. I really, I guess at this point I don't have any further questions for you on this but I do want to wait until after we've heard on the public meeting. We may have some more questions for you at that point. Loren Veltkamp: Yeah, regarding the surface coverage thing, when I did that originally that was okay but the code on that has changed again too and they include retaining walls now as part of the, and I have gazillions of retaining walls because the whole property slopes down toward the lake. So I think that they might be adding in retaining walls here, you know and that's why it's more now. McDonald: Well I can't, again because you're not building exactly what was there, you open up everything for review and scrutiny and that is all part of this process. At that point we do look at everything. So you know that's why the question was asked about could you just re -build the way it was and live with that or if you actually need all this for either economic reasons or those things, then there are things that we need to apply in our decision making process and hard surface coverage area is one of them. And that is one of the things that we would look at in all of this. Loren Veltkamp: Two more things I could say about the hard coverage is that, we can vacate Tamarack Road, which they were ready to do years ago. I investigated this. We could vacate Tamarack Road and then that would be fine. That would probably settle this problem, and that should be vacated anyway. We can keep the trail going through there you know for people if they want to have it, it doesn't matter to me. Another thing that can be done now is you can get 100% pervious pavers which allow the water to go through them 100%. And you can purchase those now. They make them in Wisconsin. You know you could take up some of the brick and put that in you know as another way to solve this problem. That's not a big problem. We can work with that one. I'm willing to. I've got nothing against these codes. I'm just trying to stay in the house. McDonald: Okay. Well let me go ahead and open it up the public meeting and let's see what comes out of that. We'll take it from there. So at this point I will open up the floor for comments from the public. I ask that you come up to the podium. State your name and address and then address the Chair. Jeff King: I live at 767 Carver Beach Road, just basically up the hill from the property. I have three concerns. The way the construction's going right now, I just want to make sure every code is upheld. I looked in the staff report they wanted structural you know okay on everything. You know I don't know, whether they give a variance or not, I'd kind of like to see that upheld. There's reasons why there's stuff that was damaged in the fire. As a you know resident and neighbor I want to see the level of quality of the homes when they're being redone kept as high as possible. You know from what I understand, if you're plumbing you need to have a licensed plumber do it. You know not a do it yourselfer. That should all be done licensed, so I'd just like 34 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 to see the quality when the house goes back to be done to you know normal construction standards. Second issue is, it's right adjacent to the public beach. You know I just want to make sure if he's adding space on the second floor, you know there's not a lot of windows over looking the beach where there's kids and you know, people in swimming suits basically. You know the beach, you know it's public land and I'd like to see ways to make that more private from you know, it's right across the street from this house and my third issue is that road. I do not want to see the City vacate that. I don't think the City should ever be giving back land. I'd like to see that you know be expanded if anything for a walkway or something, so those are my three issues and I just hope we can work around those three things. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Next. Bruce Johansson: Hello. My name is Bruce Johansson. I own two properties directly west to Mr. Veltkamp's. 6701 Mohawk which is 4 feet from his property line, and I also own 6711 Mohawk, former Zelda and Herman Giegler property, which I bought a couple years ago, and I have a number of issues in listening to Mr. Veltkamp both tonight and last week and I'd like to address some things. I'm opposed to his request for a variance on a number of reasons. The simplest is I don't think he has a hardship and I don't think he qualifies for it. I have some pictures that if we're going to start talking hardship, is it possible to pass pictures around? Aanenson: Sure. Bruce Johansson: Okay. These are pictures. This first one is currently out my backyard. All you see is a. McDonald: Excuse me. Before you do that, do we have a requirement that these have to be shown on? Aanenson: No. McDonald: Okay. Aanenson: We'll make them part of the record though. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Bruce Johansson: Well the point I'm trying to make is, one of the pictures that you'll see in there, you just see a mass of black roof, and that used to be my totally unobstructed view of Lotus Lake, so if there's hardship, I've felt hardship a lot in the devaluing of my property and I think it's unfortunate. I think Mr. Veltkamp has a right to rebuild the house. He doubled the size about 6-7 years ago as he states. I know that because I was living there then and now he wants to make it even larger and I think it's going to have, I don't think it's going to improve the property, and I think from what it sounds like, is that he's relying on this property as his income source. And if you do give him a variance, I'd like one too. If we could just pack in, maybe we could have a condominium development. I mean if we're going to carry this line of thinking to just. I'm a single man and I pay all the bills myself and I've had to work. I work every day so, 35 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 an inconvenience I think is different than a hardship. A person can rebuild the house. He didn't talk to his neighbor. I'm the closest. You'll see some pictures on there of some nail spikes sticking out of the fence that's directly on my property. I don't know how it passed code. He has fake iron denotating the property line, and so I think there's some fudging going on. And then as far as the vacating of Tamarack. I've gone around and talked to a great number of the neighbors in the 500 foot radius specifically about creating a walkway down Tamarack Road, which borders my, both of my properties. Mr. Veltkamp and Mr. and Mrs. Tibbetts, and I've had really unanimous support. I presented this to the Park and Rec Commission last, a couple weeks ago. I'd just like to pass this around if I could. And Mr. Veltkamp hasn't talked to me or any of our neighbors about his plans and so I don't know if it really shows a sense of neighborliness. I think if maybe he would have come in with a plan that had a low roof and you know, would work. I know Mr. and Mrs. Sennes, they're doing beautiful remodel right across the street from me and fits in great. They haven't bothered anybody and they aren't requesting anything and they would have liked to have had a variance. I would have been immediately backing them up. I think it's the way a person goes about it and from my reading of the ordinance, it just doesn't seem like he has a valid hardship. That's my reason for opposing it. Thank you. McDonald: Okay, thank you sir. Does anyone else wish to come forward? Liz Tibbetts: Hi. My name's Liz Tibbetts and I, what do we live to the northwest? Steve Tibbetts: 6699. Liz Tibbetts: 6699 Mohawk. And in the winter when the trees are not full of leaves we can see Mr. Veltkamp's property. His decks that he added on. Blue tarps after the fire and now more of our view of trees and lake will be blocked if he is allowed this variance to go up. Another concern I have is just because there were some variances granted in the past, right or wrong, does not mean that we should continue down that path and give him additional variances that are more egregious or more aggressive or whatever term we're using. I also feel great concern over the fact that he has expressed last month at the meeting and again tonight the fact that he does not, if he's granted the variance, he does not plan to abide by the restrictions that the staff is recommending. If he does not agree with the staffs recommendation, that he doesn't get a third kitchen, he doesn't agree with cutting down on the driveway space, and he just commented that he's not really planning to do that. So granting him the variance, thinking that you're going to get him to abide by these restrictions when he first would stand here and say that he's not planning to do that, doesn't encourage me in thinking that that's the right approach. We're just letting him have larger space and encroach upward and into the, what could be a walking path. And we're going to continue to have the same kind of rental issues that we currently have in a residential neighborhood. That maybe some of the other staff recommendations were making it a rental property and limiting the number of rentals is a completely, sounds like it's a different process. A different plan. But that could be followed whether or not he gets this height variance, so I'm opposed. I don't think that it's going to help the neighborhood at all, and I don't think that there is hardship. You know the fact of stacking your utilities and that kind of thing, to remodel within the existing footprint to get a good architect or a good remodeler, you can figure 36 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 out how to change your floorplan, which is a separate issue and not an ongoing hardship. So my husband and I are opposed to giving the variance. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else care to come forward please? Mike Henderson: I'm Mike Henderson. I live at 6701, just right behind Mr. Veltkamp. I'm opposed to the height variance, or the variance based on the height I should say. The part that has currently been constructed is over the garage. It's at least twice as big as it was before and completely, there's photos that were passed around. It completely blocks the, there's no view of anything beyond that other than the garage. And in addition to commenting on the aspect of renters in the past, it was mentioned that, something to the effect of a family type of environment. I'd like to pass this around. This is the type of family environment we had going on there. This is the sheriff's report, and that's really about all I have to say. Thank you. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment? Loren Veltkamp: Wondering if I can return. McDonald: Well as soon as the public meeting's over, I'll let you come back up. Okay, seeing no one else come forward, we'll close the public meeting. Before I bring it back up to the commissioners, do you wish to add something sir? Loren Veltkamp: Well yeah. McDonald: Why don't you come up to the podium. Loren Veltkamp: I should add a couple things here. You know as Mr. Johansson got up here and talked, Mr. Johansson has been angry with me because I blocked his view of the lake and. McDonald: Okay, before you get into that. This is the same thing with staff, and I'm going to allow this to become an issue of he said, she said. I really don't care what they've said. You know all we're looking for is input so that we can make a decision. This is not a forum for anybody to get up and start making comments about their neighbors. That is not what this is about. What I would like for you to do is, you have an opportunity if you want to add something that will help us to make our decision, that is fine. If what you want to do is talk about your neighbors, I can't help you. That's not what this forum is for. Loren Veltkamp: I'll just add then that the roof on the new plan is sloped in such a way that it provides the house behind me a better view then they had before. Okay. I realize that the roof is a little steeper this time, but the way it's sloped will provide a better view for that property. Not worst. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Keefe: One quick question of staff. What is being constructed right now? 37 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 Metzer: The only work that's been done since the house, since the fire is reconstruction of the garage. Keefe: Okay. Just the garage. Metzer: And that portion of the home. Keefe: Has been left as it was or? Aanenson: Correct. Keefe: Orin. Metzer: If he wanted to build out to the max height at that portion of the home, he could because it meets setbacks. Keefe: Okay, so that is in line with the way it was before. Aanenson: That's correct. Can I just make one other clarification for the neighbors. When you have a homeowner building a house, it's definitely more tedious to inspect, but just to be clear, as the supervisor of the building inspection department, we do try to check on a regular basis what's going out there. There is mechanical requirements, as special inspections are already being required. Those are all written. Whether or not he gets a variance, we still want to make sure that it's followed to the T. Again it's a little bit different when you have a homeowner building the home and it takes longer, which is, can be a little bit of a nuisance for the neighborhood but that is a right that the homeowner has to do. As long as there's continuous activity, they can do that and we are monitoring that. McDonald: Okay. And with that I'll bring it back up the commissioners for comment and discussion. Want to start Kurt? Papke: Okay. As to recommendation A, I think it's pretty clear to us all that he has been renting the property. A dwelling unit as one or more rooms with, for one or more persons basically with a bedroom and a kitchen and a bathroom, which is basically what he's got, so clearly I'd have to support staff here that, on their interpretation that he has been renting the property. As to the variances, this one is really unusual because you know if we really bound by the findings of fact here, and if we just ignore everything else and just look at the findings of fact, the staff findings, does not cause undue hardship. It's applicable to all properties. Increases the value of the property. Self created. You know you go right on down the line and there's nothing in the findings of fact to support a variance here. And so it's highly unusual for me to have staff come back with findings of fact that don't support a variance, but yet to recommend the variance. Now I understand there's extenuating factors in this case. There's other issues at play but as Planning Commission member, I feel somewhat compelled to follow the findings of fact and say we should do what we're supposed to do, which is to interpret the findings of fact and the code and make that recommendation to City Council. In regards to kind of the indirect consequences of our actions, I'm just very concerned that if we grant this variance, if we would ignore the 38 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 findings of fact and grant the variance, it would provide a compelling inducement for the applicant to continue or even intensify the rental use of his property, which is exactly what we're trying to avoid. So I think we have to be very careful that sometimes what we stipulate in our recommendations and our conditions for granting a variance, that's one thing. Those have to be enforced but there is another, if we make it so compelling that he can perhaps get a better rental price for his units and so on, I just think that fights what we're trying to do with our, with trying to control the situation. And then lastly, I think there is a pretty good plan C here in that if we, if we really read through the conditions for use of single family dwellings as a two family dwelling, clearly I think the applicant has demonstrated there's some financial hardships here and so on and if I read it, the way I interpret it is, is here in Section 20-59, it really seems to signal that this is a way to accommodate people to take a single family home. Open up a second unit for people under conditions of financial hardship which you know we would have to, it would have to be concurred to, and that's really what the code outlines that really should be followed under these kind of circumstances so I, everything seems to point tame in that general direction of going for pursuit of this two family dwelling alternative so that's all. Keefe: You know in regards to the renting piece, you know it's my opinion that staff is correct on this that he's been renting and looking at, he stated so himself and then also the police report I think gives enough evidence that he's currently renting so I'd be in support of A. In regards to B, I'm concerned about it really expansion of the property given you know what he's doing with it and the fact that he appears to sort of, kind of flaunt the code and kind of do what he wants to do anyway on his own so, I just have areal concern about making an expansion despite all the best intentions of the staff to try and control it through a variance, but you know, I really don't want to see an expansion of it and I also have a hard time finding hardship associated with it so, I think really our role would really sort of compel us to deny, to deny that variance based upon hardship reasons. So that's kind of where I come down on it. McDonald: Okay. Kevin. Dillon: Yeah, I think I'm going to concur with these two guys on A. I, you know also would just agree with everything Kurt said regarding B plus, I mean the comments from the neighbors in terms of like the views and everything that will be disturbed if this was allowed to go through as proposed so, I don't like that. And then the Plan C, I mean kind of you know it gets back down to the what seems to have been a pretty blatant disregard for codes and guidelines and all that sort of stuff before. I mean if you go through the process of hardship and you know get two family thing but that's you know, I mean I think we're kind of right back to where it was. I mean and you know unless there's someone you know totally you know riding herd on the situation every day, I don't know how you're ever going to get around you know. Is it two families could soon be three and three could be four. Aanenson: Right, I think what, sure. McDonald: Let me ask a question about that because I wanted this. If you have this, under this statute you have enforcement powers, is that correct? 39 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 Aanenson: That's correct, and again that's why, this is a public process where we're getting it on the record but also the disagreement came in regarding the rental license. There is disagreement on why there wasn't a licensed approved, but this, whether you grant it with a variance or it comes back to the other one, on the process of the hardship case, we would require a rental license. Therefore we're in every other year to inspect the property to see how it's being managed. Who's living there. The requirements regarding parking. Whatever reasonable conditions so there would be more control, and that's where there was a disagreement before of how it was being used. Who was in there. When it kept being added onto. Clearly it went under the, trying to go under the radar what the rules were, and now we're trying to say we want to clarify that. McDonald: Right. Aanenson: And to get a rental license, which we would for anybody else. McDonald: Anything else? Dillon: I'm done. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: I also concur with A. As far as, it's very obvious that there's renters there and the fact that he says there's no families there, the police report, maybe they're not married but still there's a gentleman, his girlfriend and a baby. To me that sounds like a family. And it's mentioned a couple of times. I don't know if the police officer, I'm sure he didn't miss that. Some of the things that the citizens of the neighborhood brought up, kind of demonstrated to me there's a little bit of a disregard for, for the concerns of the neighborhood. And then also too, one of the things that I saw reading the police report as to when the house was burning down, some of the actions that went on was actually quite interesting to read and kind of read like a good TV show in some parts. I really honestly have a problem with the fact that we want to block the views and go up further from what we had. I would like to see the house layout improved, if that's possible without changing things too much. I mean I can certainly understand having a bedroom on top of the garage is not energy efficient. I'd like to see energy efficiency and I don't know how we can work that into this, but that may be a completely different issue. But as it stands, I don't want to see the same house put up because it sounds like it's sort of piece meal. But I'm not sure I want to see it be expanded either, so I don't know. I'm struggling with this one. McDonald: Okay. Mark. Undestad: I too would agree with A. It is a rental. Even by the applicant's own admission, it is a rental. Rental units there. I also think that again our role here, looking for hardships or variances, things like that, I mean we have to look at it and truly there isn't a hardship. He still has reasonable use of the property so I think no matter how much we try or hear how the people kind of twist and turn, try to come up with our own phrases here, I think bottom line is, it doesn't fit the hardship issue on there. 0 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 McDonald: Okay. I guess my comments back to the same reason why I was in favor of tabling this and why I asked staff to come up with something a little bit better as far as the rules as to how to deal with this. On that particular night we were asked to review two variances, which we denied. If anything we have been very consistent I think in the way that we have applied the rules, and my problem that night was we were being asked to basically look the other way and not apply the rules, and I had a problem with that. I have a problem with that because again, people have come in here. We have denied variances for individuals on Lake Riley trying to build their home. They wanted access for handicap. It didn't fit within the requirements of what the hardship was and they also intensified into an area that would have made variances and setbacks worst. We ended up with a good compromise there in the fact that there was some give and take and I believe that the home they wound up with, they're quite happy with. We also have problems with other individuals who have gone out and decided to build things. We're now in the process of telling those individuals they have to tear it down, and there is a lot of money involved in tearing things down. We have told people to dig up sport courts. They too have come in and tried to say that the hardship is again, you have to understand what we're looking at for a hardship. Your high utility bills is not a hardship. It is an inconvenience. A hardship would mean that you cannot occupy your residence without the variance. You cannot take advantage of what the residence would afford you as a living space. I have not seen anything here tonight that says you are being denied any of those things. The neighbors have come back and again this gets us back into the issue of the intensification. You're asking to build up, which at that point begins to block individual's views. We do have a right to look at that because again you've come to us and you've asked us for waivers against an existing non- conforming residence. As I mentioned up here before, if you had built it back the way it was, we probably wouldn't be here tonight. But however you are wanting to make changes, I can understand the need for those changes in your circumstances. But I'm afraid what it comes down to is we must apply the rules and that's one of the things I've tried to get across here tonight is that we need input that will help us to basically apply the rules and the statutes of the city so that we can make a decision. And unfortunately, you know individuals do come to us with some very compelling reasons as to why we should grant variances, but we can't unless they meet again, what the law lays out as far as hardship and all these points that staff has gone through. I think based upon that, you know we are probably at a point where we can make a decision on this and we will go forward from there, but I do need the applicant to understand that the process that we're going through is we are applying the rules. As part of those rules you have the right to disagree with us. We're not the final word. Again we make a recommendation and it is based upon our interpretation of the law as it is given to us. So with that I guess I'm looking for some motions and as I kind of understand this, we will probably need to do all three of these and vote on them. Keefe: Two. Aanenson: If I could just, the two. One that, the interpretation one. McDonald: On Part A. 41 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 Aanenson: Yep, and then either B or C. And then Mr. Chair, if I could just refer you to Findings of Fact, depending on which way you go, that we, I don't want to steer you on that vote. If you do modify and go with C, then we'd want to, I've got some changes in the Findings of Fact so they would correlate to a denial recommendation if you get to that point. I'd be happy to help you. McDonald: Okay. Papke: Alright Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission moves to concur with the planning staffs interpretation that the owner of property at 6724 Lotus Trail, Loren Veltkamp has been renting the property as defined in the City Code Article VIII, Rental Dwelling Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling. Aanenson: Is it 20 or 10? It's 10, I'm sorry. That's correct. Papke: And then I make a second motion that we deny the variance for 22 foot and 15 foot front yard setback variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with non -conforming setbacks in the single family residential district at 6724 Lotus Trail based on the following. One, the applicant has reasonable use of the property. Two, the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. And three, there's an alternative process to secure a rental license. Keefe: Second. McDonald: Okay. On the motion, on the first motion. Motion A. All in favor signify, well first of all, does anyone wish to add any amendments? Okay. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission moves to concur with the planning staffs interpretation that the owner of property at 6724 Lotus Trail, Loren Veltkamp has been renting the property as defined in the City Code Article VIII, Rental Dwelling Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission deny the variance for 22 foot and 15 foot front yard setback variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with non -conforming setbacks in the single family residential district at 6724 Lotus Trail based on the following: I. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 3, There's an alternative process to secure a rental license. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. McDonald: So the recommendation of the Planning Commission. 42 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 Aanenson: Mr. Chair can I just also have you adopt the Findings of Fact as a part of our record. McDonald: Yes. Aanenson: And then if we could just go through those real quick. They're in your staff report. Modified to match the motion. McDonald: Okay, which ones? Aanenson: I'd recommend under 4(d). The purpose of the variation is based on a desire to increase the value. I'm assuming that matches, I'll wait til you get done, sorry. McDonald: Okay. You're on page 5 of 7? Findings. Aanenson: I'm just on this attachment. I'm not looking. It's just the back side. It's back of 7 of 7. McDonald: Okay. Aanenson: So if you go to 4 (c). Again this is to match the motion. That the variation is based on a desire to increase hardship. That would correlate to the findings. The alleged difficulty of hardship is self created. Again that would match. And then the granting of variance will be detriment to the public, injurious and again that was talking about the view sheds. That's correct. And then we would add the conditions that Commissioner Papke read as a part of that too. That there's an alternative. If that's acceptable, and I would ask that the commission adopt those then as the findings. Papke: Okay, I make a motion that we adopt the amended Findings of Fact as stated by the Planning Director. McDonald: Do I hear a second? Larson: I'd second. Papke moved, Larson seconded to adopt the amended Findings of Fact as stated by the Planning Director. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. McDonald: So at this point what the Planning Commission has done tonight is we have agreed with the city staff that their interpretation that the owner of the property at 6724 Lotus Trail has been renting the property. And that under the code we have adopted their recommendation C, that it is an alternative to this that what the applicant should do is now apply for a rental license so that what we can look at is a two family rental on the dwelling and at that point we will apply, based upon those standards, whether or not the variances would be approved. 43 Planning Commission Meeting — July 18, 2006 Aanenson: Can I just state one other thing for the record? Just a point of order. Anybody aggrieved of this decision has the right to appeal, so Mr. Veltkamp still has the right to appeal this decision to the City Council, and that has to be done in. Metzer: Within 4 days. Aanenson: 4 days. So. McDonald: I was going to say that. Aanenson: Yeah, I'm sorry, okay. McDonald: Just want to make sure I've got it right, but thank you. Aanenson: Yep. McDonald: Okay, yes ma'am. Audience: When it says here that a single family dwelling as a two family dwelling, does that mean a duplex? Aanenson: It wouldn't, not necessarily. There are conditions in the city code, and if you want to give Josh a call, we can go through that with you but it doesn't have to be separate entrances or anything. It's just, how it's being used. McDonald: It's more of a condition of how the property is actually being used. Audience: It limits the amount of people that he can. Aanenson: Correct. There would also be a public hearing on that process, so again there'd be an opportunity for public comment on any reasonable conditions that we'd want to attach to make that work, and that might be outdoor storage, car parking, etc.. McDonald: Right, at that point the whole issue of variances can be re -addressed upon the new classification. Audience: And when would that be? Aanenson: He hasn't applied for it yet. McDonald: He has to apply for it. Keefe: There'll be another notice that goes out. Aanenson: That's correct. till Planning Commission Meeting —July 18, 2006 McDonald: Okay. So at that point then we are complete with that issue and we will now move on. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Keefe moved, Commissioner Larson seconded to note the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 20, 2006 as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nano Opheim TO: Josh Metzer, Planner 1 FROM: Jerritt Mohn, Building Official DATE: August 10, 2006 SUBJ: Building Inspection Division response to "Talking Points" submitted by neighbors of the Loren Veltkamp property. (see attached) Item #1 There is a legal survey of the property on file. Moving or re -setting stakes does not constitute redefining the property. Item #2 Access to lake. Not a building code issue. Item #3 Debris. (On city property?) May be a property maintenance issue. Item #4 Altered drainage pattern? Not a building code issue. (Refer to Eng. Dept.?) Item #5 Erosion control, as required by the Eng. Dept., must be maintained until the site is vegetated. Building Inspections will investigate. Item #6 Building codes will be enforced. Work outside of allowed timeframe — refer to CSO or deputy. No on -site burning allowed without Fire Marshal approval. Pets must be controlled — refer to CSO. Building under construction — no licenses applied for or in effect. Item #7 "Intimidating behavior." Not a building code issue — perhaps refer to deputy? Use of beach. Not a building code issue. Item #8 Re -construction of house must meet building code and city ordinances, at this time the design meets these requirements. Item #9 Question of mental competence. Not a building code issue. City attorney's opinion was that a building permit could not be denied. Item # 10 Lowered property values? Cost to neighborhood? Steals property? No effective response to these opinions. Item #11 Would like to see house tom down. Not a legal possibility (to the best of my knowledge). Item # 12 Want L. Veltkamp to leave Lotus Trail. Not a building code issue. Item #13 Feel the city has allowed L. Veltkamp to "get away" with something. What something? Property files shows numerous occasions he has been required to get permits and numerous reports requiring corrective action during his various constructions. Staff (Planning and Inspections) required corrective measures and licensing if he wished to provide rental living units. G/safety n /memos2W6/vettkampneighbors.doc joy Cr�K✓c32 1= Gem So °S u5 I� "t6o2Sjvc bF ----- •e i eves 675:n—v s keD �3 -a- YE�45 Gew YLUc7(`Lt� _GtTNv i T.+ac z ! 6� �T%Gorn� .q(srrs�ila'�Xircf� � s Ckossm�v /S /•v%/Atr r 407,wl forAWf/-,7,r C/-- ��vL o��•�r �d{is .�i'ff�s �G¢v�so�� %Z �lL/�% �-aaWr �L �Dsfi�iC�r1j 4-4 h/GG�Z sC•�. !S /Gi'!r/�/ J�r/Gdsst (_ _d Cad_ Wf %iG!/C.�,e� -_ �_ -• COST .�/l o<'ys - I1>E/��if�s� C�Ty .�l �e-%� -- -- A46F oel-PAII 11kb',r11e*1 K2 rtF p 7 t -- - f �bGT40 .. --- �b �tZ�t/o2 l� tS 1N1 SfiT�✓f'ciC Zoe _ - --- _ .f� a�asveoC Va--- - -- � �//6�G .A►! G�iAt� ws�i/r' fs�`1� ✓� ��OC' wo �vra �Cdi Y�si fFrrmsr G7o1smdi 7 �meus}G v Rt "IAA vjl lvoo.uS o� ls2ot G3zvTgo � .z� �� W1Q'lG6H �t3 — _ Qj U�-- V?L � s +Shbu« he cQeool 9-/O-a<0 3, —14 w�d l� TFy2-M .s a T CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Loren Veltkamp for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback Variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. Two setback variances will be required because the property is a corner lot. The site is located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District — Planning Case No. 06-25. On June 20, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Loren Veltkamp for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback Variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. Two setback variances will be required because the property is a corner lot. The site is located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District at 6724 Lotus Trail. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variances that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre). 3. The legal description of the property is: See Attached Register Land Survey. 4. 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. Literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. b. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other properties in the Single Family Residential district. c. That the purpose of the variation is based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. e. That the granting of the variance will be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. SCANNED f. The proposed variation will impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #06-25 Variance dated June 20, 2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission approves the request for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback Variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 20t' day of June, 2006. CHANHASSEN PLANNING Its gAplan\2006 planning cases\06-25 veltkamp vanmec tindings of fact.doc IAt4,4IVA • Y' lffi�; C1 +T :_z Pkl -6 a5 4 conL,Ur A- .Z ^-d a �n-1 0-)-t -4 01 y �K I.rJ5 C - -e - © dQ�ffc Cat ✓j,—, eS V//, ,�C4- F, I MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director uu11I1C��I��TuuY��OF CI111SEN DATE: July 18, 2006 U!(z 77001krkrl tipierad vO Po Box 147 SUBJ: UPDATE — Loren Veltkamp request for front yard setback Variances Chanhassen, MN 55317 Planning Case 06-25 Administration Phone: 952227.1100 Fax 952.227.1110 The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 20, 2006, to review the Building Inspections proposed variances. The Planning Commission moved to table the proposed Phone %M7,1180 variance request. The Planning Commission minutes are attached to this report as Far 952.227.1190 item la. Engineering hone :952227.1160 At the June 2& meeting it appeared there that was some confusion regarding the Fax: 952.227.1170 use of the Veltkamp home as a rental/boarding house. Staff has taken the position Finance that the home was being rented. Attached is the Sheriff's Office Report stating Pl one: 952.2271140 that in addition to Mr. Veltkamp there were three separate family units "renting" Fax. 962.2271110 at the subject property. Mr. Veltkamp's position is that the house is inhabited by Park & Recreation roommates, not renters, and that the entire home is considered common area; Phone:952.227.1120 therefore, he believes he is exempt from rental license requirements. Fax: 952227.1110 Recreation Center Section 20-28 of the Chanhassen City Code states that an interpretation made by 2310 l52ter 227,140d an administrative officer (staff opinion that the home is rented) be interpreted by Phone: Phone: 952227.1400 Fax 952.227.1404 the Planning Commission. Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission make a finding either upholding or opposing staff's interpretation regarding the Planning a rental status of the subject property. This interpretation will be one of our Natural Resources Phone: 952227,1130 recommendations in the staff report. Fax: 952.227.1110 Staff has provided an alterative for the applicant should the Planning Commission Public works 1591 Park Road choose to den the variance request (see page 7 of the staff report). City Code Phone:952.227.1300 Section 20-59 establishes conditions for the granting of a variance to use a single- Fax:952.227.1310 family home as a two-family dwelling. Should the applicant choose to seek such Senior center a variance, a separate application must be filed but would provide a legal means Phone: 952.2271125 for the use of one additional rental unit. Fax: 952.2271110 Web Site ATTACHMENTS www.a chanhassen.rn.us 1. Applicable Regulations. 2. Revised Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 18, 2006. 3. June 20, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes. g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-25 veltkamp varianceXpc update memorandum.doc The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools. a charming downtown, thriving businesses. winding [rails, and beautilul parks. A geat place to live. work, and play. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20 Zoning Sec. 20-28. Board of appeals and adjustments. (a) Board designation. The planning commission shall act as the board of appeals and adjustments. (b) Powers. Pursuant to M.S. § 462.357, subd. 6, the board shall have the following powers: (1) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city administrative officer in the enforcement of this chapter; (2) To hear requests for variances from the literal provisions of this chapter in instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter; and (3) To grant permits or approvals for appeals authorized under M.S. § 462.359. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1, 12-15-86; Ord. No. 131, § 1, 7-9-90; Ord. No. 292, § 1, 4-26- 99; Ord. No. 377, § 4, 5-24-04) State law references: Board of appeals and adjustments, M.S. § 462.354, subd. 2. City Code Chapter 1 Sec 1-2 Dermitions Dwelling means a building or portion thereof designed, occupied or intended to be occupied exclusively for residential purposes, but not including hotels, motels, nursing homes, travel trailers, motorhomes or bed and breakfast tourist homes. (20) Dwelling unit means one or more rooms which are connected together as a single unit constituting complete, separate and independent living quarters for one or more persons, physically separated from any other room or dwelling unit which may be in the same building and containing permanent cooking, eating, sleeping and sanitary facilities for the exclusive use of a single family maintaining a household. (7)(20) Dwelling, manufactured, also called mobile home, means a factory -built structure which is transportable in one or more sections on its own running gear or chassis, and which is equipped with necessary utility service connections and designed to be used for single- family occupancy with or without a permanent foundation. Such dwellings measure 20 feet or more in width and 40 feet or more in length, exclusive of supporting members or hitches. (20) Dwelling, multifamily means a detached building containing three or more dwelling units. Apartment buildings, condominiums, manor homes, quad -duplexes, and cooperatively owned buildings containing three or more dwelling units are multifamily dwellings. (20) Dwelling, residential means any single building consisting of two or less dwelling units with individual kitchen facilities for each. (16) Dwelling, single-family means a building containing one dwelling unit. A) Dwelling, Single-family attached. A residential building containing one dwelling unit, including detached, semi-detached and attached dwellings. B) Dwelling, Single-family detached. One dwelling unit having open space on all four sides. (20) Dwelling, townhouse means a single-family attached dwelling in a row of at least three such units in which each unit has its own front and rear access to the outside, no unit is located over another unit and each unit is separated from the adjoining unit by one or more common fire resistant walls having no openings and extending from the basement to the roof. (20) Dwelling, two-family means a detached building containing two dwelling units. Two- family (attached) dwelling is a type of low density dwelling. (20) ARTICLE VIII. RENTAL DWELLING LICENSES Sec.10-216. Purpose. It is the purpose of this article to protect the public health, safety and welfare of citizens of the city who have as their place of abode a living unit furnished to them for the payment of a rental charge to another by adopting licensing regulations for all rental dwellings in the city. (Ord. No. 341, § 1, 10-14-02) Sec.10-217. Definitions. For the purposes of this article, the terms defined in this section shall have the meanings given them as follows: Compliance official. As used in this article, the term "compliance official' shall mean the city manager or his or her designee. Operate. As used in this article, the term 'operate" means to charge a rental charge or other form of compensation for the use of a unit in a rental dwelling. Rental dwelling. As used in this article, the term "rental dwelling" shall mean any rental dwelling with one or more living units. "Rental dwelling' does not include hotels, motels, hospitals and homes for aged. (Ord. No. 341, § 1, 10-14-02) Cross references: Rules of construction and definitions, § 1-2. See.10-218. License required. No person, firm, partnership, corporation or other legal entity shall operate a rental dwelling in the city without first obtaining a license. The license is issued for a two-year period and is valid until the date of expiration. (Ord. No. 341, § 1, 10-14-02; Ord. No. 358, § 1, 12-8-03) Sec.10-219. Application for licenses. Applications for licenses shall be made in writing on forms provided by the city and accompanied by the fee amounts as established in Chapter 4 of the Chanhassen City Code. Such application shall be submitted at least 60 days prior to the expiration date of the license, and shall specify the following: (1) Provisional license. Dwellings required to be licensed, which are existing and in operation prior to the effective date of this ordinance, may continue to operate with a provisional license. A provisional license will be issued upon receipt of application and payment of fees. The provisional license shall be valid until a license is issued or it is determined that license requirements have not been met and the city will not issue a license. (2) Name and address of the owner of the rental dwelling. (3) Name and address of any operator or agent actively managing said rental dwelling. (4) Name and address of all partners if the registrant is a partnership. (5) Name and address of all officers of the corporation if the registrant is a corporation. (6) Name and address of the vendee if the rental dwelling is owned or being sold on a contract for deed. (7) Legal address of the rental dwelling. (8) Number and kind of units within the rental dwelling classified as dwelling units, tenement units, or rooming units or other. (9) Name and address of on site operating manager if any. 3 (Ord. No. 341, § 1, 10-14-02; Ord. No. 371, § 19, 4-12-04) See.10-220. Reserved. Editor's note: Ord. No. 371, § 20, adopted Apr. 12, 2004, repealed § 10-220, which pertained to execution of license applications and derived from Ord. No. 341, § 1, adopted Oct. 14, 2002. Sec.10-221. License renewal. Notwithstanding the application signature requirements, renewals of the license as required biannually by this Code may be made by filling out the required renewal form furnished by the city manager to the owner, operator or agent of a rental dwelling and mailing said form together with the required registration fee to the city manager. (Ord. No. 341, § 1, 10-14-02; Ord. No. 358, § 2, 12-8-03) See.10-222. License fees. Such license fees shall be in the amount established in chapter 4 of this Code. (Ord. No. 341, § 1, 10-14-02; Ord. No. 358, § 3, 12-8-03) Sec.10-223. Posting. Every registrant of a rental dwelling shall post the annual license issued by the city manager. The annual license shall be conspicuously posted (in a frame with a glass covering) by the registrant, in a public corridor, hallway or lobby of the rental dwelling for which they are issued. (Ord. No. 341, § 1, 10-14-02) Sec. 10-224. Maintenance standards. Every rental dwelling shall maintain the standards in chapter 7, Housing Maintenance Code, in addition to any other requirement of the ordinance of the city or special permits issued by the city, or the laws of the State of Minnesota. (Ord. No. 341, § 1, 10-14-02) Cross references: Buildings and building regulations, Ch. 7; property maintenance, §§ 7-50--7-89. Sec.10-225. Revocation or suspension. 0 (a) Every license or permit issued under this article is subject to the right, which is hereby expressly reserved, to suspend or revoke the same should the license holder or their agents, employees, representatives or lessees directly or indirectly operate or maintain rental dwellings contrary to the provisions of this article or any other City Code provision, or any permit issued by the city or the laws of the State of Minnesota. (b) The license may be suspended or revoked by the city council after a written notice is sent to the license holder specifying the ordinance or law violations with which they are charged. This notice shall also specify the date for hearing before the city council, which shall not be less than ten days from the date of the notice. (c) At such hearing before the city council, the license holder or their attorneys may submit and present witnesses on their behalf. (d) After a hearing the city council may suspend or revoke the license if they deem it necessary to protect the public health, safety or general welfare. (Ord. No. 341, § 1, 10-14-02) Sec.10-226. Summary action. (a) When the condition of the rental dwelling of any license holder or their agent, representative, employee or lessee is detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare as to constitute a nuisance, fire hazard or other unsafe or dangerous condition and thus give rise to an emergency, the compliance official shall have the authority to summarily condemn or close off such area of the rental dwelling. (b) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the compliance official to cease business or revoke or suspend the license or permit shall be entitled to appeal to the city council immediately, by filing a notice of appeal. The manager shall schedule a date for hearing before the city council and notify the aggrieved person of the date. (c) The hearing shall be conducted in the same manner as if the aggrieved person had not received summary action. (d) The decision of the compliance official shall not be voided by the filing of such appeal. Only after the city council has held its hearing will the decision of the compliance official be affected. (Ord. No. 341, § 1, 10-14-02) Sec.10-227. Applicable laws. Licenses shall be subject to all of the ordinances of the city and the State of Minnesota relating to rental dwellings; and this article shall not be construed or interpreted to supersede or limit any other such applicable ordinance or law. 5 (Ord. No. 341, § 1, 10-14-02) Sec.10-228. Rental dwelling licenses; conduct on licensed premises. It shall be the responsibility of the rental license holder to take appropriate action to prevent conduct by tenants or their guests on the licensed premises which is hereby deemed to be disorderly, in violation of any of the following statutes or ordinances: (1) Minnesota Statutes §§ 609.75 through 609.76, which prohibit gambling; (2) Minnesota Statutes §§ 609.321 through 609.324, which prohibit prostitution and acts relating thereto; (3) Minnesota Statutes §§ 152.01 through 152.025, and 152.027, subd. 1 and 2, which prohibit the unlawful sale or possession of controlled substances; (4) Minnesota Statutes § 340A.401, which prohibit the unlawful sale of alcoholic beverages; (5) Chapter 13, Article I of this Code, which prohibit nuisances; (6) Minnesota Statutes §§ 9713.021, 97B.045, 609.66 through 609.67 and 624.712 through 624.716, and § 930 of this code, which prohibit the unlawful possession, transportation, sale or use of a weapon; (7) Minnesota Statutes § 609.72, which prohibit disorderly conduct, when the violation disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of at least one unit on the licensed premises or other premises, other than the unit occupied by the person(s) committing the violation; (8) Minnesota Statutes §§ 609.185, 609.19, 609.195, 609.20, and 609.205 which prohibit murder and manslaughter; (9) Minnesota Statutes §§ 609.221, 609.222, 609.223, and 609.2231 which prohibit assault; (10) Minnesota Statutes §§ 609.342, 609.343, 609.344, 609.345, and 609.3451 which prohibit criminal sexual conduct; (11) Minnesota Statutes §§ 609.52 which prohibit theft; (12) Minnesota Statutes §§ 609.561, 609.562, 609.563, 609.5631, and 609.5632 which prohibit arson; (13) Minnesota Statutes § 609.582 which prohibit burglary; (14) Minnesota Statutes § 609.595 which prohibit damage to property; and 0 (15) Section 11-2 of the Chanhassen City Code which prohibit the discharge of a firearm. (Ord. No. 341, § 1, 10-14-02; Ord. No. 371, § 18, 4-12-04; Ord. No. 395, § 3, 5-9-05) Sec.10-229. Disorderly use violations. (a) Upon determination by the compliance official that a disorderly use violation occurred on the licensed premises, as described in section 10-228 above, the city shall notify the licensee by certified mail of the violation and direct the licensee to take appropriate action to prevent further violations. (b) If a second disorderly use violation occurs on the licensed premises by the same tenant, a family member, a roommate, or a guest of the tenant occurs within 12 months of an incident for which the notice in subsection 10-228(1) above was given, the city shall notify the licensee by certified mail of the violation and shall also require the licensee to submit a written report of the actions taken, and proposed to be taken, by the licensee to prevent further disorderly use of the premises. This written reportshall be submitted to the city within seven days of receipt of the notice (excluding holidays) of disorderly use of the premises. (c) If a third disorderly use violation occurs on the licensed premises by the same tenant, a family member, a roommate, or a guest of the tenant occurs within 12 months after the second of any two previous instances of disorderly use for which notices were sent to the licensee pursuant to this section, the rental dwelling license for the unit occupied by the involved tenant shall be suspended by the city council. The initial suspension shall be for up to 60 days. If another disorderly use violation occurs on the licensed premises by the same tenant, a family member, a roommate, or a guest of the tenant within 12 months after the end of a suspension period, the city council may suspend the rental dwelling license for the unit occupied by the involved tenant for up to 120 days. In lieu of a suspension, the city council may impose a fine equivalent to the rent for the suspension period. (d) It shall not be considered an instance of disorderly use if the tenant is evicted or voluntarily vacates the licensed premises prior to the hearing before the city council and within two full calendar months after the determination by the compliance official that disorderly use has occurred and notice of the determination has been sent to the licensee. (Ord. No. 341, § 1, 10-14-02) Sec.10-230. Multiple suspensions. If the license of more than one dwelling unit in a licensed premises is suspended within 12 months, the period of suspension for the second and subsequent dwelling units 7 licensed that are suspended may be doubled for the suspension period specified in section 10-229. (Ord. No. 341, § 1, 10-14-02) CHAPTER 20 ZONING See. 20-59. Conditions for Use of Single -Family Dwelling as Two -Family Dwelling. A variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling may only be allowed under the following circumstances: (1) There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship. (2) The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the maintenance of one driveway and one main entry. (3) Separate utility services are not established (e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.). (4) The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter. (Ord. No. 80, Art. III, § 1(3-1-3(3)), 12-15-86) CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: ;one 20 July 18, 2006 CC DATE: ie® August 14, 2006 REVIEW DEADLINE: 3a15+18 CASE #: 06-25 BY: JM September 16, 2006 PROPOSAL: Request for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback Variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. LOCATION: 6724 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT: Loren Veltkamp 6724 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.35 acres DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback Variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. Staff is recommending approval of the request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 dheree-38 July 18, 2006 Page 2 of 7 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting variances to expand a second story of a nonconforming structure. The site is a corner lot located west of Lotus Lake at 6724 Lotus Trail and is zoned Residential Single Family, RSF. Access to the site is gained via Lotus Trail. The existing structure has an 8- foot setback from Lotus Trail and a 15-foot setback from Tamarack Road (paper street). The ordinance requires a 30-foot setback from all front property lines. The requested addition constitutes the intensification of nonconformity. Section 20-72(a) states, "There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity." Tamarack Road serves as a pedestrian access to Lotus Lake for the Carver Beach neighborhood. There are no plans for future improvement of Tamarack Road for use as a public street. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming uses and structures. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (6) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, 30 feet. M.S. 462.357 Subd. le. Nonconformities (a) Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: (2) any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, the city may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. Dwelling unit means one or more rooms which are connected together as a single unit constituting complete, separate and independent living quarters for one or more persons, physically separated from any other room or dwelling unit which may be in the same building and containing permanent cooking, eating, sleeping and sanitary facilities for the exclusive use of a single family maintaining a household. Rental dwelling. As used in this article, the term "rental dwelling" shall mean any rental dwelling with one or more living units. Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 "m&e W July 18, 2006 Page 3 of 7 BACKGROUND The subject property is composed of portions of 12 separate lots which were created as part of the Carver Beach subdivision which was recorded in 1927. These lots have been combined under one parcel identification number with Carver County. The home was built in 1927 and has nonconforming setbacks. On June 24, 1991, the City Council approved the combination of three substandard lots into two lots with lot areas of 13,550 and 11,326 (subject property) square feet and to allow the construction of a single-family home on the 13,550 square -foot lot. On February 23, 2006 the roof and majority of the second level of the existing home were destroyed by fire. Chanhassen City Code and Minnesota State Statute permit the reconstruction of nonconforming structures destroyed by fire. As long as the structure is rebuilt as it existed before fire damage, no variance is required. Building Permit History:, Permit #9700952: Garage Addition, Second Level Addition, Front Deck. Approved and issued 7-23-98. Permit #0201836: Second Level Egress Dormer & Balcony Addition. Approved and issued 9-26-02. These permits were issued in error in that the additions intensify the existing nonconforming 30-foot setback from Tamarack Road. The home contains at least six bedrooms, three bathrooms and three kitchens (there is one bathroom and one kitchen on each level of the home). The kitchen on the second level of the home was installed without permits. The City has become aware that the applicant is renting bedrooms in the home to numerous tenants. The sheriff's report regarding the fire noted that three family units were living in the home for a total of five full-time tenants and one part-time tenant. The City feels the only need for the use of three kitchens is to allow the applicant the ability to rent to as many tenants as possible. Staff has informed the applicant that the kitchen on the second level will not be permitted as part of the home reconstruction. If the applicant is granted the variance for the expansion of the second level, staff is recommending a condition of approval be added stating that the applicant shall be required to obtain a rental license. In addition, the applicant shall comply with City animal regulations and licensing requirements. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting two front yard setback variances for a second -level addition to an existing home with nonconforming setbacks. The proposed second -level addition is located on a portion of the home which encroaches upon the front yard setbacks of Lotus Trail and Tamarack Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 3 opee 2 July 18, 2006 Page 4 of 7 Road; therefore, two front yard setback variances are required in order to complete the proposed addition. Staff is recommending approval of this request. By recommending approval of the variance request the City will be better able to enforce the City Code through the attachment of conditions approval of the variance. VARIANCES GRANTED WTl HIN 500 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Address Variance File Number Variance 6699 Hopi Road 849 17-foot and 30-foot front yard setback variances for the construction of a home and garage addition 6800 Ringo 85 8 12.7-foot front and 6.9-foot rear yard variances Drive for the construction of a single-family home 25-foot front yard setback variance for the 6728 Lotus Trail 86-7 construction of a garage and a 10-foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a deck Combination of three substandard lots into two 6724 Lotus Trail 91-6 lots with lot areas of 13,550 and 11,326 square feet and to allow the construction of a single family home on the 13,550 square foot lot Request for an 8-foot front yard setback and 6724 Lotus Trail 94-7 hard surface coverage variance for the construction of an attached garage DENIED 6711 Hopi Road 97-12 2-foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a detached garage 5.2-foot side yard, 1.2-foot side yard and I % hard 6640 Lotus Trail 98-14 surface coverage variances for the construction of a home addition 6712 Hopi Road 00-3 16.5-foot rear yard setback variance for a garage addition 767 Carver 6-foot front yard setback and 8.33% hard surface Beach Road 03-2 coverage variances for the construction of a single- family home The revised registered land survey submitted as a part of this variance application revealed that the current hard surface coverage on the subject property is 31.29%. The ordinance allows a maximum of 25% coverage in the RSF district. The cause of the nonconforming hard surface Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 dune39 July 18, 2006 Page 5 of 7 coverage is expansion of the driveway over the past ten years. This expansion was likely made to accommodate the parking of tenants' vehicles. Staff is recommending the applicant be required to reduce the hard surface coverage of the lot to 25% or less to comply with ordinance. 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: 1. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, 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 in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The literal enforcement of this chapter allows the applicant to rebuild the home without the need for a variance as it existed before the fire damage. 2. That 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 conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The proposed improvements increase the value of the property. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The applicant will be able to rebuild the home as it was constructed before the fire damage; therefore, the alleged hardship is self-created. 5. That 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 of land is located. Finding: The granting of a 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 due to the nearness of the structure to the public street. With conditions of approval the City will be better able to enforce the City Code. 6. That 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 decrease visibility Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 Aeree-36 July 18, 2006 Page 6 of 7 or site distances, 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 will not impair an adequate supply of light to adjacent property or increase the danger of fire within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves the variance for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 6724 lotus Trail based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. A building permit is required 2. Application for a building permit must include: a. Building plans and documents of sufficient detail to allow plan review and show compliance with current building codes. b. Given the previous structure's extent of fire damage, such documents must include a structural engineer's evaluation and approval of the re -use of any of the remaining structure or materials. Side -note: A structural engineer did evaluate the remaining structure (see attached report from "Ulteig Engineers"), however, the purpose of their report is only to determine the possibility of rebuilding the structure with a second story over a portion of it. The report contains no specific approvals of any existing materials or assemblies nor any designs for those areas requiring corrective measures (such approvals and designs, by a structural engineer, are required). Further, the report requires any second story to be designed by a structural engineer. c. Structural engineer must design any reconstruction, remediation, repair or augmentation, they consider necessary, of the existing structure. d. A structural engineer's design, opinion, consideration or approval may be required throughout the construction process. 3. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all exposed slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 ahoplo 39 July 18, 2006 Page 7 of 7 Tyoe of Slone Steeper than 3:1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10:1 Time (Maximum time an area can 7 days remain open when the area 14 days is not actively being worked.) 21 days 4. Disturbed areas shall have compacted soils ripped or tilled to a depth of greater than 6 inches and should have a minimum of 4" of topsoil or black dirt prior to stabilization. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 6. Construction crews and vehicles shall keep construction waste on site. This includes construction waste in the form of debris, erosion and concrete washout from trucks and tools. 7. The applicant shall be required to obtain a rental license. 8. The applicant must reduce the property's hard surface coverage to 25% or less. 9. The property may have a maximum of four vehicles parked outdoors at all times. 10. The applicant must permanently remove all kitchen and cooking equipment from the second level. 11. A maximum of two licensed dogs may be permitted on the property." Should the Planning Commission choose to deny this request the applicant does have the alternative to apply for a variance to use a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Should the applicant choose to seek such a variance, a separate application must be filed but would provide a legal means for the use of one additional rental unit. The ordinance regulating the use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling can be found on page 8 of the "Applicable Regulations" attachment. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Loren Veltkamp stamped "Received May 19, 2006." 4. Registered Land Survey. 5. Building Plans. 6. Structural Engineer Report by Ulteig Engineers stamped, "Received May 5, 2006." 7. Structural Engineer Report by Ulteig Engineers stamped, "Received May 26, 2006" 8. Carver County Sheriff's Report. 9. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. gAplan\2006 planning cases\06-25 veltkamp variance\pc staff report update.doc FRANK R. CARDARELLE \(S1'�2) 941-3031 Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 11 Survey For Lorenyelt7camp Book 341 Paged F(1e 2 6724 Lotus Trail Ch4nba,9s_en,.. MN_.. —7 Fd avmrete mon D Surfnce Drainage Arrows rota�l Land Area: Houle Area: Garage: Total Deck: 822 sq.ft. Driveway:2245 sq 15,373 sq.ft. 1, 875 sq.ft. 69a- og.ft. 2565 ft. Grand Total Land Cover 5632 sq. ft. 36.6% Description; Lots 1170 through and inclusive of Lot 1178 and that part of Lot 1179 lying Northerly of a line running from the North�est corner of said Lot 1179 to a point on the East line 15.0 feet §cluth,f!rom the Northeast corner of said Lot 1179; also that part of the Zest W;.0 feet of Lot 1168 and all of Lot 1169 lying Northerly of a lice ruppiig from a point on the East line of said Lot 1169, a distance of 180.0',';feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 1169 to a point on the W,ppt line of the East 10 feet of said Lot 1168 a. distance of 60.0 feet Soutbj of the Northwest corner of said East 10 feet of Lot 1168 and there, terllnlinating, Carver County, Minnesota. r— ..I hereby o nify that this Is a true and corteal represenlaUon of a survey of Ina bounddes of a D QV e ulltl C Carver County, Minnesota and the lo/peration of /sN� /buildings also I alb ancroac ma , It any on said Iwo- County, byins on IN% 2nd day of September ,,e 97 /!ev '�- /-. 5 g dE rank R. Cardarella State Reg. No. 6508 SCANT I CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: June 20, 2006 CC DATE: July 10, 2006 REVIEW DEADLINE: July 18, 2006 CASE #: 06-25 BY: JM PROPOSAL: Request for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback Variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. LOCATION: 6724 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT: Loren Veltkamp v' 6724 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.35 acres DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Request for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback Variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. Staff is recommending approval of the request. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION -MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 June 20, 2006 Page 2 of 7 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is requesting variances to expand a second story of a nonconforming structure. The site is a comer lot located west of Lotus Lake at 6724 Lotus Trail and is zoned Residential Single Family, RSF. Access to the site is gained via Lotus Trail. The existing structure has an 8- foot setback from Lotus Trail and a 15-foot setback from Tamarack Road (paper street). The ordinance requires a 30-foot setback from all front property lines. The requested addition constitutes the intensification of nonconformity. Section 20-72(a) states, "There shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, structural change, or relocation of any nonconforming use or nonconforming structure except to lessen or eliminate the nonconformity." Tamarack Road serves as a pedestrian access to Lotus Lake for the Carver Beach neighborhood. There are no plans for future improvement of Tamarack Road for use as a public street. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 20-72. Nonconforming uses and structures. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (6) The setbacks are as follows: a. For front yards, 30 feet. M.S. 462.357 Subd. le. Nonconformities (a) Any nonconformity, including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement, but not including expansion, unless: (2) any nonconforming use is destroyed by fire or other peril to the extent of greater than 50 percent of its market value, and no building permit has been applied for within 180 days of when the property is damaged. In this case, the city may impose reasonable conditions upon a building permit in order to mitigate any newly created impact on adjacent property. Dwelling unit means one or more rooms which are connected together as a single unit constituting complete, separate and independent living quarters for one or more persons, physically separated from any other room or dwelling unit which may be in the same building and containing permanent cooking, eating, sleeping and sanitary facilities for the exclusive use of a single family maintaining a household. Rental dwelling. As used in this article, the term "rental dwelling" shall mean any rental dwelling with one or more living units. Yeltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 June 20, 2006 Page 3 of 7 BACKGROUND The subject property is composed of portions of 12 separate lots which were created as part of the Carver Beach subdivision which was recorded in 1927. These lots have been combined under one parcel identification number with Carver County. The home was built in 1927 and has nonconforming setbacks. On June 24, 1991, the City Council approved the combination of three substandard lots into two lots with lot areas of 13,550 and 11,326 (subject property) square feet and to allow the construction of a single-family home on the 13,550 square -foot lot. On February 23, 2006 the roof and majority of the second level of the existing home were destroyed by fire. Chanhassen City Code and Minnesota State Statute permit the reconstruction of nonconforming structures destroyed by fire. As long as the structure is rebuilt as it existed before fire damage, no variance is required. Building Permit History: ■ Permit #9700952: Garage Addition, Second Level Addition, Front Deck. Approved and issued 7-23-98. ■ Permit #0201836: Second Level Egress Donner & Balcony Addition. Approved and issued 9-26-02. These permits were issued in error in that the additions intensify the existing nonconforming 30-foot setback from Tamarack Road. The home contains at least six bedrooms, three bathrooms and three kitchens (there is one bathroom and one kitchen on each level of the home). The kitchen on the second level of the home was installed without permits. The City has become aware that the applicant is renting bedrooms in the home to numerous tenants. The sheriffs report regarding the fire noted that three family units were living in the home for a total of five full-time tenants and one part-time tenant. The City feels the only need for the use of three kitchens is to allow the applicant the ability to rent to as many tenants as possible. Staff has informed the applicant that the kitchen on the second level will not be permitted as part of the home reconstruction. If the applicant is granted the variance for the expansion of the second level, staff is recommending a condition of approval be added stating that the applicant shall be required to obtain a rental license. In addition, the applicant shall comply with City animal regulations and licensing requirements. ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting two front yard setback variances for a second -level addition to an existing home with nonconforming setbacks. The proposed second -level addition is located on a portion of the home which encroaches upon the front yard setbacks of Lotus Trail and Tamarack Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 June 20, 2006 Page 4 of 7 Road; therefore, two front yard setback variances are required in order to complete the proposed addition. Staff is recommending approval of this request. By recommending approval of the variance request the City will be better able to enforce the City Code through the attachment of conditions approval of the variance. VARIANCES GRANTED WITHIN 500 FEET OF SUBJECT PROPERTY Address Variance File Number Variance 6699 Hopi Road 84-9 17-foot and 30-foot front yard setback variances for the construction of a home and garage addition 6800 Ringo 85-8 12.7-foot front and 6.9-foot rear yard variances Drive for the construction of a single-family home 25-foot front yard setback variance for the 6728 Lotus Trail 86-7 construction of a garage and a 10-foot front yard setback variance for the construction of a deck Combination of three substandard lots into two 6724 Lotus Trail 91-6 lots with lot areas of 13,550 and 11,326 square feet and to allow the construction of a single family home on the 13,550 square foot lot Request for an 8-foot front yard setback and 6724 Lotus Trail 94-7 hard surface coverage variance for the construction of an attached garage DENIED 6711 Hopi Road 97-12 2-foot side yard setback variance for the construction of a detached garage 5.2-foot side yard, 1.2-foot side yard and 1% hard 6640 Lotus Trail 98-14 surface coverage variances for the construction of a home addition 6712 Hopi Road 00-3 16.5-foot rear yard setback variance for a garage addition 767 Carver (-foot front yard setback and 8.33% hard surface Beach Road 03-2 coverage variances for the construction of a single- family home The revised registered land survey submitted as a part of this variance application revealed that the current hard surface coverage on the subject property is 31.29%. The ordinance allows a maximum of 25% coverage in the RSF district. The cause of the nonconforming hard surface Yeltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 June 20, 2006 Page 5 of 7 coverage is expansion of the driveway over the past ten years. This expansion was likely made to accommodate the parking of tenants' vehicles. Staff is recommending the applicant be required to reduce the hard surface coverage of the lot to 25% or less to comply with ordinance. 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: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. For purposes of the definition of undue hardship, 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 in developed neighborhoods preexisting standards exist. Variances that blend with these preexisting standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause undue hardship. The literal enforcement of this chapter allows the applicant to rebuild the home without the need for a variance as it existed before the fire damage. 2. That 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 conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties that lie within the Single Family Residential District. 3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The proposed improvements increase the value of the property. 4. That the alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The applicant will be able to rebuild the home as it was constructed before the fire damage; therefore, the alleged hardship is self-created. That 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 of land is located. Finding: The granting of a 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 due to the nearness of the structure to the public street. With conditions of approval the City will be better able to enforce the City Code. 6. That 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 decrease visibility Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 June 20, 2006 Page 6 of 7 or site distances, or increases the danger of fire, or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. blinding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light to adjacent property or increase the danger of fire within the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves the variance for 22-foot and 15-foot front yard setback variances for the expansion of the second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 6724 Lotus Trail based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. A building permit is required. 2. Application for a building permit must include: a. Building plans and documents of sufficient detail to allow plan review and show compliance with current building codes. b. Given the previous structure's extent of fire damage, such documents must include a structural engineer's evaluation and approval of the re -use of any of the remaining structure or materials. Side -note: A structural engineer did evaluate the remaining structure (see attached report from "Ulteig Engineers'), however, the purpose of their report is only to determine the possibility of rebuilding the structure with a second story over a portion of it. The report contains no specific approvals of any existing materials or assemblies nor any designs for those areas requiring corrective measures (such approvals and designs, by a structural engineer, are required). Further, the report requires any second story to be designed by a structural engineer. c. Structural engineer must design any reconstruction, remediation, repair or augmentation, they consider necessary, of the existing structure. d. A structural engineer's design, opinion, consideration or approval may be required throughout the construction process. 3. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all exposed slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Veltkamp Variance Planning Case #06-25 June 20, 2006 Page 7 of 7 Type of Slone Steeper than 3:1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10:1 Time (Maximum time an area can 7 days remain open when the area 14 days is not actively being worked.) 21 days 4. Disturbed areas shall have compacted soils ripped or tilled to a depth of greater than 6 inches and should have a minimum of 4" of topsoil or black dirt prior to stabilization. 5. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 6. Construction crews and vehicles shall keep construction waste on site. This includes construction waste in the form of debris, erosion and concrete washout from trucks and tools. 7. The applicant shall be required to obtain a rental license. 8. The applicant must reduce the property's hard surface coverage to 25% or less. 9. The property may have a maximum of four vehicles parked outdoors at all times. 10. The applicant must permanently remove all kitchen and cooking equipment from the second level. 11. A maximum of two licensed dogs may be permitted on the property. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Loren Veltkamp stamped "Received May 19, 2006." 4. Registered Land Survey. 5. Building Plans. 6. Structural Engineer Report by Ulteig Engineers stamped, "Received May 5, 2006." 7. Structural Engineer Report by Ulteig Engineers stamped, "Received May 26, 2006." 8. Carver County Sheriffs Report. 9. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing. gAplan\2006 planning ca \06-25 veltkamp variance\stafrreportAm p(0-�)s Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Larson: I'll give it a shot. Planning Commission, staff. Okay is this what I'm supposed to read? Planning Commission, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. The Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached access structure restriction in a single family residential district at 3891 West 62°d Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following, 1 through 3. Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove three storage buildings. That's it? Okay. McDonald: Do I have a second? Keefe: Second. Larson moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot front yard setback for an existing four -stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 3891 West 62°d Street, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The applicant will be able to continue the non -conforming agricultural use without the three storage buildings which were constructed without building permits. The Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three storage buildings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. McDonald: What I need to tell the applicant is that you have the ability to appeal. Please don't forget this time...and good luck. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: HOME WITH NON -CONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK VARIANCES LOTUS TRAIL. PLANNING CASE 06-25. 60 scANNN Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Public Present: Name Address Sig & Don Sennes Pat & Keith Gunderson Jeff King Bruce Johansson Jim Boeshans Mike Henderson Shelly Berg 6680 Mohawk Drive 6661 Mohawk Drive 767 Carver Beach Road 6701 Mohawk Drive 6651 Pawnee Drive 6701 Mohawk Drive 6701 Mohawk Drive Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Before you go on there, I've got a question. If you're saying that he was renting, what's the City's position on that? If this is rental property with apartments within it, what's the code? Is he supposed to have a license? Generous: He would need a rental license. McDonald: And at this point he does not have one. Metzer: Correct. McDonald: And I take it that is in dispute between the City and the applicant as to whether or not he was renting. Metzer: Correct. Staff is however recommending approval of the request. We feel that by recommending approval of this variance we'll be able to better enforce ordinances on the property. And so we have some conditions of approval attached in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Can you explain how granting a variance will help to be able to enforce? Metzer: It's mainly the condition that they'd be required to get a rental license. Kind of allow us to restrict parking in the area. Things like that. Keefe: And so, you can't do that without getting the variance? Metzer: From what we've been told, no. It was just. Keefe: It was just conditions of approval, conditions of approval for reconstruction? For expansion. 61 I Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Metzer: Of the second level. Keefe: Would incorporate certain conditions which would restrict the use of the building. Metzer: Right, and would not allow the kitchen on the second level. Restrict it to two kitchens with the home. Keefe: And the City cannot control the uses in the building without? Metzer: Without that condition of approval, right. Keefe: Okay. Dillon: What's the status of the building today? Metzer: They have received a permit to rebuild what they had, without the proposed addition. So they're in the process of re -building the roof right now. Dillon: Is it inhabited? Metzer: I don't believe so. It shouldn't be. McDonald: Debbie. Kurt. Papke: Yeah, I've got a couple. On page 3 of the staff report, you mentioned that in the building permit history here there were two building permits issued and that they were issued in error. Could you shed some light on that? What was? Metzer: It was basically, there must have been confusion on the setback to the north, that paper street. Requires a 30 foot setback. My only guess is that, whichever staff members approved the permits were under the impression that it was a 10 foot setback to that. Papke: Okay. The other question was, we're attaching a couple conditions here and I just want to make sure I'm clear how they line up with city code. So the hard surface coverage is clear. Four vehicles parked outdoors at all times. Where does that, is this part of city code for rental property? For single family residential. Where does that, how does that line up with city code. Metzer: It was my understanding that you know it's the intention but not to allow the property to become you know a humongous rental property. And it was thought that by limiting the number of vehicles you park in the driveway. Papke: Is there a limit for residential single family? Metzer: There's not. Papke: Okay. And how about, the same question about the two licensed dogs. 62 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Metzer: It's just to make sure that. Papke: Is there a restriction for residential single family for how many dogs you can have without a kennel permit? Metzer: Yes. Papke: What is it? Generous: If you have more than 2. Papke: More than 2, okay. So this one is basically in keeping with city code whereas the number of parked cars there we're actually restricting the applicant to something tighter than existing city code for residential single family. With sort of the tacit assumption that it's rental property and okay. Got it. McDonald: I have a question for you. Okay, this is a non -conforming use and to approve this we're going to intensify a non -conforming use. And the reason we want to do that is that we're able to put some restrictions on his use. Papke: Correct. McDonald: Whereas if we denied this and said that what he's allowed to do by law is to replace what was currently there, then he doesn't get the second story addition. And then we're back to okay, no rental license but can't city code enforce that if he is renting without a license? Metzer: Well part of it was the. McDonald: You'll get your opportunity sir. We're just asking questions. Metzer: Part of it was the sheriff's report that was taken when the home was burnt down. Tenants... stating that they were renting. Sheriff's report said that there was at least three family units living there. McDonald: Three kitchens, that would make sense. Metzer: So, and as we were going with, by doing this we can disallow a third kitchen. We can restrict parking space, or number of parked vehicles. Which in turn would I believe restrict number of renters. Papke: How are we normally, kind of a follow up question. How would we, if in normal circumstance we found that someone was renting out, you know most of their house to, as rental units. How would we normally get compliance for a rental license? How would we normally enforce that under those circumstances? 63 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Metzer: I'm not totally familiar with it Generous: It's through the building department. They have a rental license inspection requirement and licensing requirement, so they would go in and determine that the units complied with all building and safety code. Papke: And how would we determine that indeed this was a rental property? Generous: Through investigation. Either the applicant admits that they're renting the property or the tenant admits that they're renting the property. Or you know we see an advertisement in the paper, things like that. If someone can say no, I don't. These are my roommates and, then the issue becomes how do you disprove that because the burden of proof is on the city. Papke: Okay. Larson: Is it, the gentleman that was here before when they had the rental for the care keeper for his daughter. I somehow remember there was something that there is a restriction on how many people can rent in a certain. Metzer: That was for use of a single family home as a two family home. Larson: Okay. So this is a completely different? Generous: Right. Larson: It's a single family home rented by several family units... Metzer: Rent is allowed as long as a rental license is you know in place and is applied for. Larson: Okay. So there's no restriction on the amount of family units that can be within a single building? Generous: Theoretically. Larson: Okay. McDonald: Okay, I guess the problem I'm having with all of this is that, we've got a non- conforming use. We just had a non -conforming use case. We turned that down because of the way the code and everything is written. Now you're coming before us, you're asking us to approve something that we just turned down and I'm at a loss to see what the advantage is because again, you know we just went through all this with Mr. Carlson about what he's offering to do and the compromises, back and forth. I don't see yet why I should do this. I haven't heard anything actually from staff that would convince me, and that's what I'm looking for. Why are you in favor of this? Metzer: It's like we said, the requirement of the rental license M Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 McDonald: Okay but again you have city code to do that. You can enforce that. I understand the problem of yes, the burden of proof is upon the city but I mean at some point it would seem pretty easy to prove that if you have so many people going in and out, they all can't be living there for free. I'm just, I'm at a loss. You've got to help me here to show where we're really getting an advantage here. Dillon: Yeah, if you take the rental thing off the table, would you say to approve this? Given your recommendation on the previous two variances. Metzer: Just allowing the kitchen on the third level and restrict the number of parking spaces. The number of parked vehicles outside. And that was part of the reason that the driveway became so large we believe is to allow for parking spaces. Larson: So you'd allow two kitchens, but not three? Metzer: Right. McDonald: Well if he rebuilds though, does he get to go back to three kitchens and the wide driveway? I mean if we don't approve this. He is allowed to rebuild the non -conforming because of the fire. Does he get the three kitchens back and the driveway if we were to disallow this? Metzer: Well he doesn't get the driveway, no. I mean he doesn't get the 25%. He has to reduce 25%. Part of that was the reason the driveway became so big we believe is because of the parking spaces. They need parking spaces. McDonald: Okay, and again the third kitchen was built without permits, so wouldn't he have to get permits to build a kitchen if he wanted to, even if it's non -conforming, it was there before, it was there illegally. Metzer: Right. Generous: It depends. McDonald: Okay, so he would still be limited to two kitchens. Metzer: Right. McDonald: Okay. I'm having trouble seeing where if we disallow it, we're gaining anything but, are you the applicant sir? Loren Veltkamp: Yes I am. McDonald: Why don't you come forward and you can, I'll give you your turn and then we'll ask you questions. Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Loren Veltkamp: I can clarify a lot of this very quickly. These issues came up about 5 years ago when I started to work on this house and we did spend a lot of time. Oh, my name is Loren Veltkamp. 6724 Lotus Trail. I've lived there for about 15 years and during the time I've added a lot to the house. And I did this all without a variance and after my divorce I was deemed handicapped by the court and I was not able to make a regular living due to certain problems. But anyway I resorted to renting my home out and we got into this with the city over a long period of time and it, this was before Josh was hired by the City, and we went through it with a number of people and it went all the way up to the city attorney and I eventually got a letter from the city attorney saying that I did not have rental units. And this is what I said from the beginning, you know I have a single family home. It's a very nice home, and I don't want rental units. I don't want to have apartments or a triplex or a duplex or anything like that. I've never set out to do this, and the problem we got into was that the code defining what an apartment is, is a little vague. You know it says if you have 5 particular amenities, like cooking. A place to eat, sleeping, a bathroom and a living space, those 5 things, then you have an apartment. Okay, but it also says you have to have a separate unit, okay, and that's where it was determined that I did not have apartments because they were not separate okay, and that there was no door between them. There was certainly no locking door, so it never became a definable, rentable space. And it's confusing, I was very confused about this for a long time, and I ended up writing an S page letter to City Council about this, which I believe they still have and you can look at it. I call these, instead of a rental unit, I called it a mila which stood for mother-in-law apartment. And that's what I thought I was building was just mother-in-law apartments that extended families could use in the future, and roommates can use today. And so that's what I set out to build and the kitchen for example, I did get, I didn't exactly get a permit to build a kitchen but I included the kitchen on my plan and because I put a bathroom up there, the kitchen was included under the plumbing permit. And the kitchen was thoroughly inspected and approved and my house was visited 5 times on 5 separate occasions by city inspectors. Five different times now they went through my house from top to bottom to determine that there were not apartments in this building. And that's exactly what I wanted from the beginning. I don't want apartments, but I needed to have people live with me in order to afford the house because I just, there's just no way I can stay there. So I think maybe they cut me some slack you know because of the handicap thing. I'm thinking that's what they might have done. And I did have trouble you know when I built the house writing in the plans you know, I changed the plans as I went. They started off just building a garage and then I got up on top of the garage and I said this is really nice living space so I built a room up there. And then I extended it into the house and then I put in a bathroom and it was all done kind of piecemeal, and I changed the windows three times and I did this over a number of years, which is why the records and I submitted hand drawings on some of the stuff and I believe some of it was lost. You know some of it was just misplaced, but in the end everything I did was you know rigorously inspected and I had all the paperwork for that. I pulled all the necessary permits and even the city attorney spent a great deal of time looking into this. And it is a complicated issue. You know the difference between an apartment and having roommates, and especially when you have the five amenities but you don't have significant separation of the units. So I was totally confused about it, and I don't blame other people for being confused about it too. But I didn't do anything without a permit, and I didn't do anything without a permit and you know the work is not all perfect and all that stuff. I did a lot of it myself but I was thoroughly inspected and we had this all set. I did have roommates in my Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 house and you know we went on this way for 5 years you know and it's been fine. And I'd like to continue it just the way it was. With a couple little alterations but I think that the city after some time made the right decision you know. And everything I think has been pretty good, and I would just like to continue it. This variance request is not really born out of hardship. You know what actually happened here is that the roof burned off and I had some builders come over and say you know, what do I do you know, and they said why are you building out over the garage when you should be building out over your house, you know. Because then you can stack the bathrooms and you can put the storage over the garage and everything is much cleaner and neater and you know more economical. So for purely practical reasons I said well, maybe I should apply for this variance you know. I'm not going to get another chance to do it so. This is probably the right thing to do for a house. I'll give it a shot. And in terms of hardship, you know I'm not going to exaggerate hardship here. There's a certain amount of hardship in having a poorly designed house and paying more utilities because things are spread out more and this kind of thing, and I suppose over the life of the house that probably goes into the tens of thousands of dollars. There is some hardship here with having a poorly designed house, that kind of thing but it's nothing that we can't understand. It's pretty clear. So there is some hardship here and there is some opportunity here and I basically just want to build the house a little differently. I don't want to add square feet or anything like that. I don't want to add anything to bother anybody here. By just cleaning up the design of the house a little bit, and make it a little more livable and get things where they belong and put in a different heat system and things like that, then you know I'm good to go. McDonald: Okay. Any questions? Kurt? Keefe: I've got a question in regards to, you know locating the kitchen on the second level, if you were to grant this variance, you're okay with that? Loren Veltkamp: Actually I can't survive in the house with that because the roommates that I had used the kitchen, and I used it too. The kitchens were a common area as the City determined. When you have roommates the City, you know they ... hard and fast ordinance was the City wrote me a letter saying that bedrooms in this situation are private, okay. You can't have people walking into other people's bedrooms. So, they're considered private. All of the areas are common. Are held in common. So anybody can walk into anybody's kitchen or you know into any of the living areas or decks or you know, I had everything in the house. I mean hot tub and spa and everything, and everybody, exercise room. You know just everything that anybody would want almost. We had large screen TV's and entertainment rooms and it was wonderful. And people loved it and all the people that lived there as part of the fire losing stuff, they all want to come back you know. They all signed six month sub leases and they all want to come back in August. And I said I'll do whatever I can to get you back you know. So it's a happy family. It's more like an extended family than a bunch of you know rental units. I mean I don't even like rental dwellings. I wouldn't even have a rental if it was up to me. Roommates is the only way to go. But that's the state of things today. But I want to emphasize that we went through a great deal of trouble talking about this 5 years ago and it was all agreed and determined in writing and cleared up finally. And now, since the fire, this whole issue has just exploded again. You know and it's because we got new people working the city and the reason they told us very little and you know the people before that didn't read them that literally. And 67 V Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 there's another issue here that I need to bring up and this is even weirder. I've been in this house for 15 years you know working on it and I've had I think 5 surveys done on this house in the time that I've lived there. After the fire my survey was done again by the same guy for I think maybe the eighth time, and it was rejected 4 times because he couldn't get it right. You know I agreed with staff that it wasn't really done right. It's crazy but in spite of all this, I still don't even know which way my house is facing. I've been there 15 years and I don't know which way my house is facing. It used to face south and the driveway went south and the front door went south and there was a paper road out there that's going to be developed, which was the fastest way out of the, you know away from the lake there. And also the guy that owned by lot owns another lot which was on this road you know going out so the house originally had defined setbacks. You know it was 30 feet, 10 and 10, which was the way that they did things back then. But now the city decides Lotus is the main road, and they have new setbacks you know. 30 and 30 and 15 and 15 on the sides. This just kills me you know. If my house had burned, it's a very serious problem. If my house had burned for another 10 minutes, I would have been past the 50% destruction level, and I would have lost everything. This scared the bejeebies out of me you know. I totaled up what my loses would have been, and I would have lost a half a million dollars. That's what I would have lost after I got all my insurance and everything else. Just because of that one code. I had no idea that code existed. So I think the city's got to look at this a little more carefully because people don't have insurance for their house and the lot in case they can't ever rebuild it. You know I certainly can't. So that's a side issue but getting back to this more important issue of which way we're facing. I talked to some lawyers about this and they felt, both lawyers felt that the city really shouldn't be imposing these setbacks on me because they're the ones who changed the street, okay. If I had built it wrong, it'd be another issue but since the City changed the street there and then changed the setback in such a way that I no longer have a buildable lot. I've got literally a 10 foot strip down the middle of my lot that is buildable. Which is of course not buildable. So they said that this is land grabbing... You know not intentional land grabbing but land grabbing just the same because you know the city can change the streets any time and then change the variances any time and people like me, completely unaware have a calamity in their lives and we end up losing everything. So I think if this went to court, I think a jury of my peers might have a little trouble with that you know. I think this needs to be researched. I don't know what the answer is but it doesn't seem right to me you know that a person can lose their lot just because the city changes which road is you know going to service their land. So that's a very basic issue in this case, which is still unresolved. And the lawyers want is the $300 an hour to research it, and I thought well maybe they just want my money you know. I don't know. But that's an issue and hope we can look at that further. And I would specifically request, you know I say it all the time but I'm very pro roommates for the city. I don't like apartments. I like roommates and I think it's a good thing. I put this in my letter to the City Council. I think it's a good thing for people to have roommates because if you fall ill or you know the kids need more of a house, or you have some other calamity, roommates can come in and give you the extra money to keep your house, which is what happened in my case. I was able to keep the house and finish the house and develop the house and I think that's a good thing for me and the roommates seem to like it too, and we were able to do it with, you know right in front of the eyes of the city and work this out, you know. NT-? Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 Undestad: I've just got one question for you. He keeps going back to the rental thing and rental units. What issue are there that, I mean if you want to put the three kitchens and things in there, what issues do you have with the city and... Loren Veltkamp: ... you know there's the 5 amenities that make an apartment. Obviously they don't like having tenants in my house. They've never, you know they never liked that. They think it's apartments you know. Undestad: But getting a rental license, you wouldn't do that? Loren Veltkamp: I got a rental license. That's another funny thing. I applied for a rental license and then they determined that I didn't need a rental license because I don't have apartments you see. So I put my, I gave my money and I never got my money back. You know they still have my money but I don't have a license because I don't need one. I said screw it okay. I'm happy. And I don't have more than 2 dogs either. I don't know why that comes up you know. And the driveway, you know staff implied that the driveway was built to accommodate renters but the driveway was built before I was even divorced and the fact is we had two snowmobiles. A large boat. A motorcycle and two cars and we needed the driveway just to turn the boat around because there was no parking on Lotus Trail so. Undestad: You mentioned you might you know, this might need more research or might need more time. That may very... Loren Veltkamp: The code's about rent, you know apartments versus roommates. They need to be re -written because I've been through this twice now. And it's gone on for, I think this is the sixth year now that this has been an issue, and we had it quiet for 2 years. Dillon: We're not going to do that here tonight though. Loren Veltkamp: I know. I know but it's vague you know and it's just a little too vague. And tc me the key issue with an apartment is a locking door, you know. If you've got a locking door and the people are renting that space and controlling that space, that's an apartment regardless of whether it has 2 toilets or 3 toilets and whatever. McDonald: Well I guess we're getting a little bit off par here but I do have a question for staff but I, the purpose of all this is so you can bring roommates back in. Loren Veltkamp: No, not at all. I can bring the roommates back anyway, and they all, they do want to come back and the only reason I have applied for a variance is to make the house more livable and it's cleaner. It's a better design and it's cheaper to build per square footage, and it's just more practical for me to do it that way. It's really just a matter of practicality. Now whether impracticality equals a hardship, you know a certain amount of screwed up design. For example, in the old house the storage was through a person's bedroom. Okay, but under the city code you know that bedroom was a private bedroom so I couldn't go into my storage you know without getting written consent you know, so this is an impracticality. So I said. rM Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 McDonald: Well, before you go on with that, I mean that brings up a question and I don't think we have an answer for it but I do have a question for staff. I know in the City of Minneapolis in a situation such as this, this is viewed as a boarding house. You take a residence and you let people have the bedrooms and you have the common areas and those things. Do we have a comparable ordinance that would deal with boarding houses? I mean it seems as though he's being treated as an apartment. Yeah, maybe he's not an apartment house but it's definitely a boarding house. Metzer: I think that's been part of the problem in the past years is the definition of what's what. I don't know if it's finding ways around the definitions or what but. McDonald: Well I guess I'd like to see something there because I'm sorry, I'm still having a problem with all of this. It all comes down to the fact that you're asking for a variance and I'm just not sure why I'm doing this and I need to know something there. After telling two other gentlemen that sorry, you have to tear it down or pull it up and you know, both of them are saying a great financial hardships. Understanding you've got one too but I would just like to know what's going on so I would like staff to do something. I'd like to know what's, if all we have is an ordinance for rental, for apartments, then he's probably got a point. If we view this as a boarding house, which is different, then is there something else that he falls under? Loren Veltkamp: The staff has repeatedly told me that they like roommates. They want to encourage roommates. Roommates are fine but you've got to stay within the line. McDonald: Well I understand that and that's perfectly fine. That's why I say, what you've got is a boarding house. That's the rules of a boarding house. It's not apartments. You've got the common areas. I've seen a lot of these in Minneapolis. Loren Veltkamp: I don't know what a boarding house is so I can't. McDonald: Well you've got one. Yeah, you meet the definition and that's what I want to find out is you know, does the City address a boarding house differently than it does an apartment. And that's something to look at because what you're defining and what you're saying is going on is the same thing that goes on in downtown Minneapolis, around the University. A lot of people take their homes, the old homes down there. They convert them into boarding houses. They rent them out to students. They rent them out to individuals. They have the common areas the City of Minneapolis, also because of the fire 3 or 4 years ago where a couple students were killed, started cracking down on boarding houses. That they do fall under an ordinance. There are requirements. Loren Veltkamp: Are the owners living in these houses with the students? McDonald: Huh? Loren Veltkamp: Are the owners living in the houses? 70 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 McDonald: In some cases they were. In some cases they weren't, and that's what creates the problem, and that's why I'd like to know what it is you've got. Maybe at that point it does justify the variance. But if staff can't answer that right now, one of the things I would ask him to do is come up with something. Papke: Would you accept a motion to table this? McDonald: I would accept a motion to table this. Papke: Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we table this application until we can come back with something that clearly delineates the legal ramifications here and doesn't attempt to enforce something that seems to be ill defined by granting a variance. Dillon: Second. Loren Veltkamp: Can I make one small request? McDonald: Well first of all let us vote on the motion. Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission table the variance request for 6724 Lotus Trail, Planning Case 06-25, until staff can come back with something that clearly delineates the legal ramifications and doesn't attempt to enforce something that seems to be ill defined by granting a variance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. McDonald: Did you wish to add something? Loren Veltkamp: I would like to just put a rush on it because my house is getting rained on every day. I don't have a roof you know. McDonald: I understand that and staff is under certain constraints. It will be dealt with in an expeditious fashion. I'm sure that they will contact you about, we will, what is the time? Can we come back on the calendar at our next? Generous: Yeah, the next one unfortunately, our next scheduled meeting will be the 0 Loren Veltkamp: I just can't wait that long. I, you know, I'm under a certain time limits on the insurance company. They only pay for me to be out of the house for a certain period of time, you know. I mean it's a hardship for me to drag this out. I've got people lined up to work on the house. I've got a roof. Papke: Can you proceed with reconstructing under your current? Loren Veltkamp: I can do what I can. Put the roof over the garage and dial some second story decking. You know we've got tarps up. Our tarps have ripped off again with this last you know deluge we had and. I would just like to rush it. 71 Planning Commission Meeting — June 20, 2006 McDonald: Yeah, well we'll have it back by the 18'h. And that's about 3 weeks away. In the meantime, if this goes up before us for a vote, I'm afraid you'll be turned down and you're still looking at going before City Council. Nothing is going to happen before then anyway so at least by doing this, I think we're only throwing maybe a 2 week delay into anything. It's just, this doesn't make sense and I cannot in good faith vote for it after denial of two other variances. Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and I just haven't heard it tonight. Okay, with that then we will move on to the next agenda item. Resident: Excuse me. Will we get notification of the July 18'h meeting because we're all waiting to see? Generous: I can send out a notice. McDonald: Yep. Notices will be sent out again. I apologize for everybody coming in but I'm afraid at this point we just don't have enough information. And that's part of what we're going to try to do is unconfuse all of this so that everybody understands what's going on and we do finally make a recommendation that makes sense to everybody. So I appreciate everyone coming in. I understand the late hour and everything, but thanks very much and thank you for your patience and I'm sorry if this is going to cause any kind of a hardship but again, as I said to the gentlemen, two before, financial burden is not something that we can look at. We have certain rules to follow and without this making sense within those rules, we can't vote. So we will adjourn with that. APPROVAL OF M NUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 6, 2006 as presented. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 72 CITY OF P 0 BOX CHANHAS: 06/21/2( Receipt CLERK: } PAYEE: 6724 LO' CHANHAS: PLANNIN( GIS LIS' GIS Lisi Recordii Total Cash Check Change SCANNED City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 00F (952) 227-1100 To: Loren Veltkamp 6724 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM June 8, 2006 upon receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 42 Property Owners List within 500' of 6724 Lotus Trail (42 labels) $3.00 $126.00 TOTAL DUE $126.00 NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached) and must be paid prior to the public hearing scheduled for 6120/06. Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #06-25. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESSI SCANNED 6�,-,)S CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.06-25 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, June 20, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The propose of this hearing is to consider a Variance request for relief from the 30-foot front yard setback requirement for the expansion of second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. Two setback variances will be required because the property is a corner lot. The site is located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District at 6724 Lotus Trail. Applicant: Loren Veltkamp. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.nm.us/sery/plan/06-25.huffl or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: jmetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on June 8, 2006) $CANNED a -as � CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO.0625 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearingon Tuesday, June 20, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a Variance request for relieffrom the 30-foot front yard setback requirement for the expansion of second level of a home with nonconforming setbacks. Two setback variances will be required because the property is a comer lot. Thesite islocated inthe Single -Family Residential (RS F) D istrict at 6724 Lotus Trail. Applicant: Loren Veltkamp. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www,ci.chanbawmxan.us/sery/i)lanZ 0625.htmloratCityHallduringregular businesshours. All interested persons areinvited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions withrespect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I EmailA t. rna i h nha s n. n-+a Phone: 952227-1132 (Published inthe Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, June 8, 2006; No. 0676) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. / /, n/ (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghuklmnopgtst/uvvvwwl�x�y(�z/�t,��,tp- Laurie A. Hartmann Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of 2006 Notary Public dS RATE INFORMATION GWEN M. RADUENZ NOTARY PUSUC - MINNESOTA MY Commssbn Ezpet Jat 31, Z010 Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $40.00 per column inch Maximmn rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $40.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $11.51 per column inch SCANNED CITY OF CHA NSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952,227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227,1180 Fax: 952,227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227,1150 Fax: 952.227,1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952.2271110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227,1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone:952227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone:952.227.1300 Far 952.227.1310 Senior Coiner Plane: %2.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site wwwachanhassennn.us June 21, 2006 Loren Veltkamp 6724 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Variance Request - Planning Case #06-25 Dear Mr. Veltkamp: This letter is to notify you that the City will be.unable to complete the review of your variance request within the 60-day review period that ends July 18, 2006 due to the delay in Planning Commission review and the change in the Planning Commission meeting dates. Therefore, I am notifying you that the City is extending its review period for up to an additional 60 days, through September 16, 2006. We have scheduled this item for a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission on July 18, 2006. If you have, any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227-1132 or imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely osh Metzer Tanner I• g.\plan\2006 planning cases\06-25 veltkamp varianc6extension noticeAm SCANNED The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play , " Go"-1 V 1��, w�s� 74V 06/22/2006 14:34 FAX 952 361 1229 CARVER CNTY SHERIFF DEPT 16001 4 Fax TRANsMisSION CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE SHERIFF BUD OLSON 606 EAST 4TH STREET CHASKA, MN 55318.2102 952.361-1212 Fax:952.361.1229 JAIL 952.361-1150 WARRANTS:952-361-1143 INVESTIGATION:952- 361.1139 DISPATCH: 952-361-1273 COLOGNE SHOP: 952-466-5239 To: -10 Date: 6 Dept Fax #: Pages:-4 , Including this cover street. From: CARVER UNTJ— -� SHERIFF'S OMCJ. I wA Q l S a ki (952) 361-1212 Subject: q$a - ;?,�%- /6b/ COMMENTS: THE DOCUMENT THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS FAX MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION THAT IS LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. THE INFORMATION IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF TILE INTENDED RECIPIENT NAMED ABOVE, IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY ACTION IN RELIANCE ON THE CONTENTS OF THUS TELECOPIED INFORMATION, EXCEPT ITS DIRECT DELIVERY TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT NAME ABOVE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS FAX IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE TO ARRANGE FOR TIM RETURN OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS TO US. NONCOMPLIANCE COULD RESULT IN CRIhIINAL OR CIVIL ACTION, THANK YOU N O O CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ICR Number Date/Time Reported Address 200500009462 16-Apr-2005 11:23 6724 Lotus Tri Remarks: check the welfare / all is fine ICR Number 200500010031 a Remarks: w a ICR Number 200500019470 Remarks: v, ICR Number 200500022879 c� ac Remarks: ICR Number 200500023800 Remarks: ICR Number N 200500023946 N Remarks: m ICR Number 200500034380 Remarks; t" ICR Number n 200500034407 a Remarks: m 0 I o N N � � i N oPage 1 i Date/rime Reported Address 22-Apr-2005 17:45 6724 LotusTrl pre -registered death / me notified / info only Date/rime Reported Address 13-Jul-2005 23:54 6724 Lotus Trl theft of vehicle / no rpt advised / son has vehicle Dale/Time Reported Address 09-Aug-2005 14:57 6724 Lotus Tri Poss house fire / Unfounded rec fire Date/Time Reported Address 16-Aug-2005 14:37 6724 Lotus Tri assault -occurred a couple weeks ago CIVIL MATTER/ UNFOUNDED Date/rime Reported Address 17-Aug-2005 15:25 6724 Lotus TrI welfare check / message delivered Date/Time Renorted Address 22-Nov-2005 9:37 6724 Lotus Trl problems with room mate / advised Date/Time Renorted Address 22-Nov-2005 14:06 6724 Lotus Trl questions for officer on sus activity w/ roommates /advised 6724 Lotus Trail Ant # Citv/rwsD Chanhassen Ant # Ci /Tws Chanhassen Apt # Ci /Tws Chanhassen Apt # Citv/Twsp Chanhassen Apt # Citv/Twsp Chanhassen Apt # Citv/Twsp Chanhassen Ant # City/ ws Chanhassen Ant # Citvfrwso Chanhassen Activity Misc/Non Criminal Activity Medical Activity Vehicle Theft Activity Fire Call Activity Misc/Non Criminal Activity Misc/Non Criminal Activitv Misc/Non Criminal Activi Suspicious Activity Disposition AA Disposition IF DISDOsition UN Disposition UN Disposition UN Disposition AA Disposition AA Disposition AA 06/22/2006 Unit IBII Unit 00009323 Unit 21121 Unit 21312 Unit 2BII 21113 21321 Unit 2B12 Unit 21312 ICR Number Date/Time Reported Address 200500034505 23-Nov-2005 12:50 6724 Lotus Trl Remarks: 0 ICR Number 200500037861 Remarks: ICR Number 200600000299 Remarks: ICR Number 200600003087 Remarks: t a ICR Number u 200600005422 w a Remarks: ICR Number 200600005478 Remarks: ICR Number 200600007215 Remarks: A x Number rn 200600008965 N N -+ Remarks: .a ICR Number N 200600010769 N Remarks: �u. ICR Number « 200600012907 Remarks: .a ro ' 0 0 N \ r N � N disorderly roommate / advised Apt N Citv/Twsu Activity Disposition Chanhassen Disturbing Peace/Privac AA Date/Time Reported Address Apt t1 City/Twsp Activity Disposition 27-Dec-2005 0:09 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen Miscellaneous Criminal tried kicking male down the stairs / clr advised AA Date/Time Reported Address Ant tl Citvf wso Activity Disposition 03-Jan-2006 22:50 6724 Lotus TrI Chanhassen juvenile was supposed to return to Lodge group home at 2200 and did not. Juvenile is at Chanhassen AA address, which is his mother's house/advised Date/Time Reported Address Apt 9 CitvfFwso Activity Disposition 31-Jan-2006 11:44 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen Theft possible theft civil matter no rpt Date/Time Reported Address Ant # CitviTwsp 23-Feb-2006 13:13 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen fire in attic/report by 827/follow up report by 841 Date/Time Reported Address Apt it Citv/Twso 24-Feb-2006 8:05 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen rekindle see icr 06005422 Date/Time RODarted Address Apt li Citv/Twsn 12-Mar-2006 14:58 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen theft complaint / advised civil Datefnme Reported Address Ant q Citv/Twsp 28-Mar-2006 17:03 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen smoke coming from where fire was a couple of weeks ago / small rec fire / advised DateMme Reported Address Ant # Citv/Twsp 14-Apr-2006 14:37 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen clear, help on the way DateMme Reported Address Apt 9 Clty/Twsp 04-May-2006 15:32 6724 Lotus Trl Chanhassen ordinance violation/ clear party advised Activity Fire Call Activity Fire Call Activity MiscJNon Criminal Activi Fire Call Activity MiseMon Criminal Activity Misc/Non Criminal UN Disposition RP Disposition IF Disposition AA Disposition AA Disposition AA Disposition AA Unit 21313 Unit 2A31 21332 Unit 2A31 Unit 2B1I Unit 2Bi3 5F63 6A67 6D24 Unit 2B11 Unit 2B11 2B12 Unit 21311 Unit 2811 5F63 Unit IC21 5F63 c Page: 2 ICR Number Date/Time Reported Address 200600014829 22-May-2006 17:51 6724 Lotus Trl c Remarks: two terriers running loose 0 Q ICR Number Date/Time Reported Address 200600017301 11-Jun-2006 13:10 6724 Lotus Trl Remarks: VIOLATION OR'HOLD' ORDER RE: BUILDING PERMIT Count:20 1 AW k Ci /I'ws Chanhassen Apt N Citv/Twsp Chanhassen Activity Animal Activi Misc/Non Criminal Disposition Unio AA 5F63 Disposition Unit AA 21311 2B12 3 Carver County .\I v"- r�ieeK Trap view Line Ct Circle .;40untain`Na1 vJG 5uPPePtT RroD`� ►Ti.o� A�-►'Ep� rc► i :FRot►1`y1FE CuftvE Pr' mogA•,Ajk. Dvc. 4 Vt0Le'1"'ro 6T��"t�ft►L. eT a carver county Piedmont /,,ap LL'n (. ?ass. ..y.�P�ct a� —�� Q• Mountain'-. Q Trap view Line CI Circle 4iGuntain Nay I ) "C' 5uep&<7 RND?c-'tTi, 3 A'?6 DAFr, R t W 767+{wt'�/ ::FRofn-1kc CuftvE FfT movfAvik. Vvz. 4 VlGLt'; r `Tro 16TO5'rKf lL- C)A'AV6a, $�`� ` Af,\C, �,VUr.s �i 4 G ral 'j'hl5 {AwAy VVi{I twi�K0UL f61)CSTeiAVO S 61Y uAtLx� of rust ��NQ�9 n L 3 ,A NZ a fl V � a ,U a 1 C 4� NO N 4A- 0 Q _0 FRANK R. CARDARELLE \(612) 941-3031 Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 `"� Survey For LorenyelticamD Book 391 Page_5 a_File QL22 6724 Lotus Trail Chanbaos.en. MN .... _T Fti Concrete- mon ftnct Ilnt � /�� s.4•��:P ts'jtli © JAwl MV) t §t o Bsmt. m {4 Located s.t �� ; 5/2/2006 EJ91 6723 S a m ti1-4 i_ i 12a � � � r� Scale. Ine30f Surface Drainage Arrows Alnluor Total Land Area: 15,373 sq.rt. oa House Area: 1,875 Aq . ft . �zof7 Garage: 690r sq.ft. Total 2565 Deck: 822 sq.ft. Driveway:2245 sq.ft. Grand Total Land Cover 5632 sq. ft. 36.6% Description: Lots 1170 through and inclusive of Lot 1178 and hat part of Lot 1179 lying Northerly of a line running from the Northwest corner of said Lot 1179 to a point on the East line 15.0 feet $c�uth;f!roM the Northeast corner of said Lot 1179; also that part of the $ast 1;0;.0 feet of Lot 1166 and all of Lot 1169 lying Northerly of a 1i, e r4pping from a point on the East line of said Lot 1169, a distance of 180.0'feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 1169 to a point on the Wept line of the East 10 feet of said Lot 1168 a. distance of 60.0 feet Sou � of the Northwest corner of said East 10 feet of Lot 1168 and there, terllnnating, Carver County, Minnesota. I hereby oortly that this Is a Uwe and ooneol repraeenWon of a survey of the bounddas of cl tuv u --- C 8 rV e r ,County, Mlmesola and the Ioeatlon of ail bulldlnpe are o . d I alb onoroacl me , If my on said land. flurvoyedby ineanthla 2nd deyef_ September .,o 97 R V, rank R. Cardarella iC�EY, /l ia-�T 'roF p�Urcl ©eG , 5-S cab . ;I State Reg. No. 0508 Dear Mr. Metzer and City Planning Commission, We are neighbors of Mr. Veltkamp and are writing to voice our opinion on the requested variance for Mr. Veltkamp's addition. We do not know him personally, but he is notorious in our neighborhood as being one whose bad side we should try not to be on. For that reason, we ask that you keep our names and identifying information from this letter confidential. We object to these variances being approved. Mr. Veltkamp obviously does not care about following the rules of this community. He built his house taller than the city allows in the first place, then caused danger to our community by installing a wood stove in an unsafe and unapproved manner (causing major damage to his house), and has now completed quite a lot of his addition without a permit. (Our understanding is that construction is not allowed to start prior to the building permit being issued, and that permits are not issued if the variances have not been approved.) We do not think it would be a responsible action for the planning commission or city council to approve these variances when the applicant is breaking the rules repeatedly. Such an action would send the message that rules are only there for people who want to follow them. Thank you for your consideration. Anonymous CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Address: 1_'n,, d(e�jjk(Au cti.��4z MN Phone: 4�� err 3 Fax: Saw. Email: i:ft^ C4(?aA 0_ D�rStzr rn Phone: Email: Planning Case No. rJt'.� - CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED MAY 1 9 2006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPr Address: Fax: NOTE: Consultation with City staff is required prior to submittal, including review of development plans Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Interim Use Permit (IUP) Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review (SPR)* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC) X Variance (VAR) Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign — $200 (City to install and remove) X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost' - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VARIWAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB 4 TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8'/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: 6724 lhD�yS�J i. r jL KCS�W 3�� LOCATION: 4¢72 4 C—ot-'s LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TOTAL ACREAGE: �? WETLANDS PRESENT: PRESENT ZONING: S REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: YES k NO REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: 5.;� REASON FOR REQUEST: ^eta tD hul(& 2 c(�,jRU_ C Sew c� �Dc1� f(A.0 �f a'� �� 31 j ��` Sf r_,". -( \ (1"OVY en �d L weSE S\.6-0- L'"rt S dam` C c t set4Q;3c This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly pfinted 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 speck ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of 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 Title 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 I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. L11 �- - Signaty a of Applic nt // Z;2>rAc Signature of Fee Owner Date Date dApLAWf "s\Development Review Application.DOC Rev. 12/05 Variance request for6724 Lotus Trail, Chanhassen. History: Owner Loren Veltkamp has lived in Chanhassen for 15 years and previously doubled the square footage of his home without needing a variance. This request for variance arises from a fire where the roof and half of the second story was consumed. Now we are left with an opportunity to make changes if it seems good to do so. This request does not seek to expand owner's buildable foot print by even one foot, or increase his liveable square footage. It only asks that owner be able to use his present building footprint to hold a full second story, instead of a partial second story, as many, if not most, surrounding homes do. The home in question is a lakeshore home, 80 feet from the water, so it may make more sense to compare it to the other lakeshore type homes on Lotus Lake where it resides and faces these other homes around the north bay. Written justification for variance: a. Literal enforcement of existing codes will cause the following hardships: 1. Owners will not have full and regular use of their upper story. Owners will never have full use of the property as owners with more modem setback property do. Owners in older areas that predate city codes should not suffer for having invested in these older homes. They should be able to build a others do. 2. Owners will not be able to heat and cool home efficiently costing the owners tens of thousands of dollars over the life of the home. This is due to not stacking the living spaces and the storage space properly. Without the variance, living and storage spaces are staggered allowing for heating and cooling to escape from six directions instead of the usual four. 3. Owner will not have a convenient floor plan, particularly concerning storage issues over garage. This causes a lot of small problems with personal projects and access to belongs for the rest of the homes existence. Numerous small hassles add up to hardship. 4. Owner will not have access to the best views of the lake from his own property. This is a hardship if you live on a beautiful lake like Lotus. I personally would rather have good views than an attached garage, but to each his own..... 5. Owners will never be able to do the right thing with their home that builders are now telling me to do. 6. The set back from Tamarack road is imaginary and completely unnecessary, as Tamarack has been rendered unusable, but for easements, and soon to be vacated. b. Carver Beach area was built without any codes originally. Imposing modem codes now creates endless and weird problems which these older and innocent properties were never designed to accommodate. Building a regular 2 story house with stacking bathrooms and bedrooms should not require a variance and normally wouldn't except in Carver Beach the anti -plotting capitol of the universe. The real problem here is that the city has had so many paper roads on the books that no one back then knew how to build to stay out of there way. Carver Beach really needs its own set of codes. As for zoning classifications. This is a regular 2"" story on a regular single family home so there is nothing crossing the zoning goals. c. The variance would have never been sought except for the fire that burned the roof off. Now we should do the best thing for the property and get this behind us. d. Problems were created by fire and too many paper roads on city books and the shear age of the pro 3erty dating back to 1926. e. The granting of this variance will hardly be noticed by anyone. We are going from a single story with roof to a 2 story with roof. All of which are behind trees most of the year. Traditional neighborhood views are left about 99% intact. No trees are threatened. f. There is no encroachment in any direction from proposed second story. No light or air issues. No more congestion, no height problems, just a regular type second story on an older rambler. SCANNED J r�� 5 I j I � | � � | �■ q: | | ~ § § | t ® / �uo� F �{ s o LL NORTH ELEVATION 0o 0� 1 0 0 IM? F- WALL SECTION .5 SHEETROCK R19 INSULATII 5/8 SHEETING TYVEK - CEDAR SIDING SOUTH ELEVATION FOR 6724 LOTUS TRAIL FIRE RESTORATION /10 MF TRUSS SASH. SHINGLES/158 T.P, 6 'I.DAM C= CLASS A CHIMNEY �ILJIy 6'W,2-2X10 H. gF,EXISTINGWINDOW MP138' W,2-2X10 H. STORAGE RAIL, <4' SP. AREA V-EXISTING 36' D R DOOR, Pj10 H. 010101010101 +2' CIER BLOCK FOUND I -BEAM H. SCANNLD 646-F Ef-6VAT I o N DECK SCANNED I h 1,N�sT E�Ev�fiTIoN 7,946 W rc 0 a j or, m W WU a N � � b � N 0 V E l 0 Land Surveyor Eden Prairie, MN 55344 FRANK R. CARDARELLE \(612) 941-3031 (Urtiiitat� Of 0 Survey For Lorenyelt7camp Book U Page_"_File A a2- 6724 Lotus Trail Qhanbassen,.. MN .... — j Fd evr,crett mon as-,c-M,..-s6-,:x:w--aE--i4.... x .... •�� , h oW ftnet lint �F tAd a q �< ae!F� SICFR``kl"tsi��aT 5 l I i , 4q4- I'h0 o lismt. Located. 5/2/2006 I 6Z2 3— Surface DrAinage Arrows YUM \Mqi'IVL!{� Tota'l Land Area: 15,373 sq.ft. o t", Housle Area: 1,875 sq.ft. �zp 7 Garage: 690- sgeft. Total 2565 Deck: 822 sq.ft. Driveway:2245 sq.ft. Grand Total Land Cover 5632 sq. ft. 36.6% Description: Lots 1170 through and inclusive of Lot 1178 and hat Part of Lot 1179 lying Northerly of a line running from the Northx est corner of said Lot 1179 to a point on the East line 15.0 feet gcluth;firom the Northeast corner of said Lot 1179, also' that part of the East ]Qj.O feet of Lot 1168 and all of Lot 1169 lying Northerly of a life running from a point on the East line of said Lot 1169, a distance of IBO.O;feet South of the Northeast corner of said Lot 1169 to a point on the Wept line of the Bast 10 feet of said Lot 1168 a.distance of 60.0 feet South of the Northwest corner of said East 10 feet of Lot 1168 and there, terimLnating, Carver County, Minnesota. .. I hereby osrdy that this is a Uwe and oeneot rap rasentwl.n of a survey of the bound,les of goove u au -- �' Carver :Ceuny, Mlrvtmota and the location ql a i 60lldlnps erao , d 1 sib ancrm ma , If sry on Wd Isnd. •6urvsysd by ins an In 2nd tlay of 5eptemk9]i'r .,e 97 /` v'�� rank R. Cardarelle State Reg. No. 6506 MEMORANDUM TO: Josh Metzer, Planner I FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Don Asleson, Natural Resource Technician DATE: June 1, 2006 RE: Loren Veltkamp (Planning Case 06-25) Upon review of the plans and documents submitted by Loren Veltkamp on May 19, 2006 we have the following comments and recommendations: Erosion Control and Drainage Erosion Control Erosion control blanket should be installed on all exposed slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas should have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of SloN Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 21 days Disturbed areas should have compacted soils ripped or tilled to a depth of greater than 6 inches and should have a minimum of 4" of topsoil or black dirt prior to stabilization. Silt fencing should be installed on eastern and northern sides of the property using City of Chanhassen detail plate 5300. If soil is tracked onto public streets construction crews should include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed during construction. Construction crews and vehicles shall keep construction waste on site. This includes construction waste in the form of debris, erosion and concrete wash -out from trucks and tools. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all exposed slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Lpe of Slone Time (Maximum time an area can remain open Steeper than 3:1 7 days when the area is not actively being worked.) 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days Disturbed areas shall have compacted soils ripped or tilled to a depth of greater than 6 inches and should have a minimum of 4" of topsoil or black dirt prior to stabilization. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as -needed. Construction crews and vehicles shall keep construction waste on site. This includes construction waste in the form of debris, erosion and concrete wash -out from trucks and tools. MEMORANDUM TO: Josh Metzer, Planner I FROM: Jerrin Mohn, Building Official DATE: May 25, 2006 SUBJ: Review of a request for set -back variance(s) at 6724 Lotus Trail. Planning Case: 06-25 I have reviewed the above request for a variance. The following conditions would be required: 1. A building permit is required. 2. Application for a building permit must include: A. Building plans and documents of sufficient detail to allow plan review and show compliance with current building codes. B. Given the previous structure's extent of fire damage, such documents must include a structural engineer's evaluation and approval of the re -use of any of the remaining structure or materials. Side -note: A structural engineer did evaluate the remaining structure (see attached report from "Ulteig Engineers"), however, the purpose of their report is only to determine the possibility of rebuilding the structure with a second story over a portion of it. The report contains no specific approvals of any existing materials or assemblies nor any designs for those areas requiring corrective measures (such approvals and designs, by a structural engineer, are required). Further, the report requires any second story to be designed by a structural engineer. C. Structural engineer must design any reconstruction, remediation, repair or augmentation, they consider necessary, of the existing structure. D. A structural engineer's design, opinion, consideration or approval may be required through -out the construction process. GAPLAN\2006 Planning Cases\06-25 Veltkamp Varianc6building officialcomments ,AY-05-2006 14:15 ULTEIG MPLS mvensinem oKw.pbdm rrpd MEMORANDUM 5201 E. River Road, Suite 308 Minneapolis, MN 55421-1027 Phone: 763.571.2500 Fax. 763.571.1168 TO: Loren Veltkamp 6724 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN, 55317 DATE: May 5, 2006 FROM: N6 Neil Groon, PE PROJECT NUMBER 206.0557 RE: Veltkamp Residence 7635711168 P.02 I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota Neil A. Groon, PE Minnesota Registration No. 44774 Date; 05/05/06 At the request of Loren Veltkamp, Ulteig was asked to perform a structural engineering inspection of the remaining house structure after a fire damaged the roof, upper, and main floor of the residence located at 6724 Lotus Trail in Chanhassen, MN. The purpose of this memo is to report on the fire damaged areas and determine if the house structure can be rebuilt with a second story over the east end. Neil Groon of Ulteig walked through the entire remaining structure on May 1, 2006, observing exposed elements and those accessible with minimal removal of finished materials, and noted the following items: a. The entire remaining second floor sheathing above the west half of the house is damaged from the fire and water and must be removed and replaced. Also, any other floor sheathing that is damaged by water must be replaced, b. Any wood member including wall studs, beams, floor joists, sill plates, etc. that have more than '/4" deep penetration of fire damage must be replaced, Some specific instances include, but are not limited to, the south header over the patio doors in the main level, the cantilevered second floor joists over the west exterior wall (over the main level master bedroom), the second floor framing joists around the stair opening, the main level exterior west wall studs and top sill plate below the damaged cantilever joists, and some west exterior wall studs for the upper floor above the garage. c. Other areas requiring corrective measures include cracks in the west block foundation wall, inadequate connection of the deck to the support columns, and verification of grouted cores below the steel beam bearing points in the cast wall. It is our professional engineering opinion that all members with '/a' deep penetration of fire damage must be replaced. It is also determined that an addition may be built over the east half of the existing structure as long as it is reviewed/designed by a structural engineer and that it follows all applicable Codes. The structure may experience new settlements under a new loading configuration which should be accounted for in the layout. Ulteig is available to assist in the design process of rebuilding and adding on to the existing structure, and offer recommendations for corrective measures to the west foundation wall, deck support and steel beam bearing cases. Please contact me if you have any questions, Thank you. MV dF CHANHASSEN MAY 0 5 2C106 Minneapolis, MN • Detroit Lakes, MN • Fargo, ND • Bismarck, ND • Sioux VkOft Db'hKiwitNT www.ulteig.com TOTAL P.02 Meuwissen, Kim From: Generous, Bob Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 3:53 PM To: Lorendean@popstar.com Cc: Aanenson, Kate; Gerhardt, Todd; Meuwissen, Kim Subject: Variance Request Loren: You did not sign the application, nor fill out the back side of the application. You need to be specific about your request, e.g., a 15 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback. Please come in to our offices and complete the application by 12:00 p.m. (noon) on Tuesday, May 23, 2006. Also, please provide a revised alternate second story floor plan sheet without the profanity. If the application is not complete, I can not schedule your request for a public hearing. Robert Generous 5/23/2006 engineers Get the job data right 5201 E River Road, Suite 308 Mirmeapolis, MN 55421-1027 Phone: 763.571.2500 Fax: 763.571.1168 TO: MEMORANDUM Loren Veltkamp 6724 Lotus Trail Chanhassen, MN, 55317 DATE: May 26, 2006 FROM- Neil Groon, PE PROJECT NUMBER: 206.0557 RE: Veltkamp Residence I hereby certify that this plan, sp ecification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed professional engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesotp. Neil A. Groon, PE - Minnesota Registration No. 44774 Date: 05/26/06 At the request of Loren Veltkamp, Ulteig was asked to perform a follow-up structural engineering inspection of the remaining house structure after replacing fire damaged portions of the residence located at 6724 Lotus Trail in Chanhassen, MN. Neil Groon, PE of Ulteig first visited this site on May 1, 2006, and wrote a memo dated May 5, 2006 listing fire damaged areas and instructed the homeowner to replace members with more than'/4" deep penetration of fire damage. The purpose of this memo is to ensure that the required members were replaced. Neil Groon, PE of Ulteig walked through the entire remaining structure on May 26, 2006 and noted the following items: A The 0oe.41% Iltgof r ortr flu i(rnr^rA drnrl M +Lr /wain tLrel tvinq v- Tla Z�wV If 114 � .j -, toor �6 K!S o ee 41,4 5�r.� rw�Gi� were r[ll..le.1 m S -e% Sc[ 1. p �} V etak ore t-rner oA 4,U ^4:r Fepsr -er� G 7p rIL Wl!"� r T44 c rrt 1 Cs .t F r4 a t /6Mf a-G a. z'f%!5 L �r ill rig vF krt�. _� Aa a %et rinlct� aS �L SFy[� �fi�liNw(/ r!i ![EONS �L r �f�+• i!— t•roe t.�A o�wall! 4i bnf�r'+c'l�en nrr[(l.1 jr CITY OF CHANHASSEN Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you. MAY 2 6 2006 Minneapolis, MN • Detroit Lakes, MN • Fargo, ND • Bismarck, NI7 Jyi,FEj� www.ufteig.com MENT 02/24/2006 15:12 FAX 952 361 1229 CARVER CNrY SHERIFF DEPT 1a002 -CARVER COUNTY S E-R1FP% OFFICE FOLLOW-UP REPORT ICR: 06005422 Date of Original Report: Incident: Date of This Report: 2-23-06 Residential Fire 2-23-06 Owner: Lawrence Dean Veltkamp,*DOB .Homeowner of residential fire Address: 6724 Lotus Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: 11� PENTER'S MENTIONED: Mentioned: Kathleen Mary Lindmeyer� Address: 6724 Lotus Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone- unknown Mentioned/Couple: Emory Earl Ames, Jr. / DOB Tracy Lynn Surratt, DOB Juvenile Mentioned: (daughter a es Surratt) Address: 6724 Lotus Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone_ Mentioned: Georgia Kay Tiffany Address 6724 Lotus Trail, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: DETAILS: On 2-23-06 at approximately 1314 hours, Dispatch put out a call in the Chanhassen area of a residential fire in the attic area of a home at 6724 Lotus Trail. Deputies Jim Gamlin badge #827 and Rian Thiele badge #850 had initially responded to the call as well as Chanhassen CSO Brett Lawler badge #763. Once I realized the address listed to a Lawrence Veltkamp and the fact that it's been known that there are a number of renters that could possibly be within that residence. I advised Dispatch that I would be assisting as well. While en route to the fire scene, I did advise Dispatch that I observed visible smoke above the trees coming from the vicinity of the Veltkamp residence. 2. I had arrived within a couple minutes of the call which was seconds after the arrival of Deputies Gamlin and Thiele. I observed Deputy Thiele marking off area fire hydrants I had gone immediately to the residence where I met with a female holding a dog later identified as Kathleen Lindmeyer. Ms. Lindmeyer was shouting that the homeowner was still inside the house. It should be noted that the three-story house upon my arrival had a large amount of smoke and visible flames shooting out of the roof area of the third level of the home. I then asked Follow-up Page t of 7 02/24/2006 15:13 FAX 952 361 1229 C.9RVER CNTY SHERIFF DEPT Q 003 SHERIFF'S OFME P REPORT ` ICR: 06005422 Ms. J indmeyer if the homeowner was Lawrence Veltkamp and she confirmed that it was. 3. I then had entered into the residence and found Mr. Veltkamp inside the main front glass door and he was attempting to hook up a black residential type garden hose. I told him that the fire was too big and be needed to get out of the house and he pleaded for my assistance to try to help him get his hose hooked up so he could start to put some water on the fire. i then once again told him we needed to get out of the house. At this point, once the hose was hooked up Mr. Veltkamp ran up a flight of steps and to the right where I then pursued him. He attempted to utilize the hose but it was later determined that the hose did not work due to the possibility of water being frozen in the hose. When Mr. Veltkamp was attempting to utilize the hose we were in what appeared to be a kitchen area as I saw a number of kitchen appliances such as a stove, refrigerator, etc. 4. 1 could see that Mr. Veltkamp was standing within feet of a fire up along the center wall. I observed that fire appeared to be rolling along the ceiling area and that some of the ceiling structure was starting to fall down. It should also be noted at this point that it was hard to breathe and that the smoke had come down to about four feet above the ground so I had to duck down just to maintain fresher air. I then pleaded for Veltkamp to get out of the house as the fire department was on their way and they would be best suited to fight this fire. 5. We then walked back downstairs where the garden hose was near the front door. I then went to walk outside however Mr. Veltkamp again tried to plead that he wanted to save his house. I then had initially told him that if there was something in the immediate area that he wanted to grab that was important to him, let's grab it and get out. At this point, he then took off and I pursued him around the comer and down a hallway to a back office area. He stated he wanted to start hauling some of his equipment out the window and he wanted my assistance in tossing stuff out. I then advised Mr. Veltkamp that we did not have time for that as the fire was just above us and the mid -level was now starting to fill with smoke where we were at I could also hear the crackling of the timber as it was burning. I advised Mr. Veltkamp that if we had time we could put some plastic over the stuff to protect it from the water damage but we didn't have that luxury of time. 6. As we then went to leave the residence, Mr. Veltkamp then stated he wanted to try to find a plastic tarp to put over his computer. At this point, Dale Gregory with the fire department had just entered the front door and yelled for everybody to "Get Out of the House Now!" At this point, I advised Mr. Veltkamp that we needed to get out and even the fire department was telling us that we can't stay here at this point. It should be noted that I tried to work the best I could with Mr. Veltkamp. He then agreed and we had exited the home out into the driveway area where I observed that Dale Gregory was on his portable radio tying to get equipment and manpower to the fire scene. Follow -Up Page 2 of 7 02/24/2006 15:13 FA% 952 361 1229 CARVER CNTI SHERIFF DEPT M CARVER°COUNTY 9HERIFPSOFFIC " - FOLLOW*UP REPORT'" :.. ICR: 06005422 7. It was then that Mr. Veltkamp who was obviously very upset was yelling, "Where is the water? And Where are the fire trucks?. —They need to get here now!" Mr" Veltkamp then pleaded that he needed one specific computer that had a lot of important things to him on it. I advised him that once the fire department got here we would have them go after that computer. I also spoke momentarily with Veltkamp to insure that there were no people or pets in the residence. I was told that the only dog that was in the residence was the dog that Ms- Lindmeyer was holding at the end of the driveway. At this point, Mr. Veltkamp yelled out something that I couldn't tell what he was saying and he bolted running back towards the house. Deputy Thiele and, I pursued him and while pursuing him Veltkamp grabbed a hold of a gray garbage container and pulled it down in our path in an attempt to trip us up. He then had gotten into the front door that had a glass front on it as I had described earlier and he attempted to lock this door. He then pulled an aquarium over as another object to block our path. It was at this point that Deputy Thiele had advised Veltkamp if he didn't stop that he would tale him. Immediately, I thought although I did not have a taser in my possession that this would be a very effective tool in overcoming the resident for his own safety to stop him rather than to physically fight with him within the fire scene so I too yelled out that he needed to stop or he would be tased. It should be noted at this point that the second time that I had gone into the residence, in looking up the stairs where I earlier mentioned where the garden hose was and the fire was in the kitchen area, now the fire was visible from the bottom of the stairs into the living room area as all I could see was fire rolling along the ceiling area and heavy black smoke filling the second floor level- 9. As I pursued Mr. Veltkamp it was obvious that he was going back to that office area_ It should be noted that to enter the office area there used to be a stairwell which still existed going to the lower or third level however there was a carpeted board or plywood that was put across covering the stairwell except for maybe a couple feet that was exposed or open along the right side. As I had rounded the comer I had observed that Mr" Veltkamp had either fallen into that hole to the stairwell area or he was trying to evade our capture and was trying to get away from us by crawling down the lower stairwell area. At this point I did not feel comfortable in pursuing Mr. Veltkamp as the fire was just above our heads at this point and within the wall next to us. I was uncomfortable also in pursuing Mr. Veltkamp as I did not want to be in a position where I didn't know the layout of the house and I wasn't able to exit. I knew that I could just get around the comer and back out the front door the way we had come in. 10" At this point, both Deputy Thiele and I had exited the house. I personally felt frustration that I had exited the burning house a second time but this time not with the homeowner with me. I was contemplating put a call out on my radio to the fire department with the urgency that they needed to wear their air packs because Follow -Up Page 3 of 7 V72- �S%oc,��d2 Gee �QP.n�ofiSh�Q-� (� q— r 4 tj& �j ti (r&dd a � 7DUCI f ` ( l �4L��/ l� 7Tj2M Pc1,A-) i s Uffar Date: May 24, 2006 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Josh Metzer, Planner I Subject: LOREN VELTKAMP: Variance request for relief from 30-foot front yard setback requirement for the expansion of second level of home with nonconforming setbacks. Two setback variances will be required because the property is a corner lot. The site is located in the Single -Family Residential (RSF) District at 6724 Lotus Trail — Planning Case 06-25 The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on May 19, 2006. The 60-day review period ends July 18, 2006. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on June 20, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than June 9, 2006. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments: a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official E Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Carver Soil & Water Conservation District 3. MN Dept. of Transportation 4. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 7. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 8. Watershed District Engineer a. Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek b. Lower Minnesota River c. Minnehaha Creek 9. Telephone Company (Qwest or Sprint(United) 10. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 11. Mediacom 12. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 6. U.S. Fish & Wildlife 13. Other 14. Other CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 05/30/2006 3:17:56 PM Receipt No. 0011696 CLERK: katie PAYEE: LOREN VELTKAMP 6724 LOTUS TRAIL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LOREN VELTKAMP- PLANNING CASE 06/25 ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 200.00 Total Cash Check 3005 Change 200.00 0.00 200.00 0.00 {CANNEL LOREN VELTKAMP - PLANNING CASE 06-25 $200 Variance $200 $200 Loren Veltkamp Check 3005 SCANNED 02/24/2006 15:13 FAX 952 361 1229 CARVER CNTY SHERIFF DEPT I had a homeowner that was very reluctant to leave his home. Before I could get this message out to the fire department I heard Mr. Veltkamp's voice outside on the lower third level say "Hey guys, I'm outside of the house, I'm down here '- It was at this point that I advised Mr. Veltkamp that he could very well be charged with some type of an obstructing charge at this point for jeopardizing people lives to include his own by running back in that house. I thou put handcuffs on Mr. Veltkamp and told him that due to his emotional state he was going to be placed in the rear of a squad car. I then placed him in the rear of Deputy Gamlin's squad. At this point with the fact that Mr. Veltkamp was safely secured and the fact that everyone else was out of the house we could focus our attention on getting fire personnel as well as other resources quickly to the fire scene. 11. While the fire department hooked up their equipment and started to fight the fire I then contacted my supervisor Sergeant Jim Olson badge #818 and relayed to him what was taking place within the city of Chanhassen. I also made a phone call to the on -duty road sergeant Dave Potts badge #819 as well as to the Chief Deputy Bob Vandenbroeke at the office. 12. When I spoke with Deputy Potts, I requested that he come routine to the scene. I advised him what had taken place with the homeowner. Once Sergeant Potts had arrived on scene and within a half hour to an hour's time that Mr. Veltkamp was secured in the back of the squad, I advised Sergeant Potts that I wanted to attempt to speak with Mr. Veltkamp to see if he was calmed down because I preferred to have released him from the handcuffs and from the squad as long as he agreed not to interfere with the firefighting efforts and wouldn't make an attempt at going back into the residence. This was in fact done and he was promptly removed from the squad. At this point although being obviously upset that his house was burning he was very understanding with the fact that we needed to get him out of the house because he presented a danger to himself and to the officers for having to pursue him into the house. 13. While he was outside of the squad we then learned that there was possibly another dog and two cats belonging to a renter within the house_ This information was promptly relayed to Fire and they were able to remove a dog and a large green kennel as well as a cat. At the time of this report later there is still a second cat missing. It should be noted that the dog and cat that were rescued were transported by CSO Lawler to be checked for smoke inhalation and they are owned by Georgia Tiffany. 14. While speaking with Mr. Veltkamp, I learned that he had some frustration when he tried to call 911. He stated that he had some phone company service through, I believe, Vonage which I understood was something to do with an internet service. He stated that it took some delay in him getting the message out to the fire department. Because of the fire apparently he had to relay information to these people who which in turn then apparently called the fire department. In asking Follow -Up Page 4 of 7 UZ/24/ZUUU N'A1 952 3U1 1229 CARVER CNTY SHERRIFF DEPT IQ 006 COUNTY' lCR: 06005422 Mr. Veltkamp about the fire and how it may have started, he stated that in the lower third level he had a fire burning in a fireplace that had a Class A chimney going out through the roof. He stated that he was burning some old oak that may have been wet. He stated that he thought the chimney had gotten hot up in the roof area or the attic area. 15. It was my understanding in speaking with Deputy Gamlin that Mr. Veltkamp was home alone at the time but when renter Kathleen Lindmeyer came home she noted the fire alarms sounding and smoke in the residence and she contacted Mr. Veltkamp. bAr. Veltkamp stated that this was after be had been notified by the renter this was when he attempted to take a hose from the lower level and started the water to flow and placed the end of the hose inside of the wood burning stove to try to put the fire out on the bottom end. At the same time he was attempting to hook up another garden hose to in his opinion poke a hole up through the ceiling to spray water up into the roof area. 16. While on. scene, I was approached by a male and female who were carrying a child I believe less than one year -old. I identified them as renters Tracy Surratt and Emory Ames along with their I learned that they had left at 10:30 a.m.- or 10:45 a m. anwere merely returning home at this time to get some things done before they went to their afternoon or evening jobs when they noted that the house that they rent within was on fire. I advised the couple that it was best for them to stay warm in their car and that it would be some time before they could obviously re-enter the house and gather any of their possessions and the fact that it probably wouldn't occur on today's date. They did ask some questions about whether or not as renters if any of their items were covered by the homeowner's insurance as they stated that they did not have renter's insurance themselves. I told them that I did not have an answer for their question. 17. While on scene besides the Chanhassen Fire Department I noted four other fire departments were assisting they were from Eden Prairie, Chaska, Victoria, and Excelsior. 18. It was about 1420 hours that I had spoke briefly with one of the fire personnel and told them that I was going to put a call in through Dispatch to Red Cross due to the fact that we had five adults including the homeowner and a baby that would most likely need some emergency assistance. It was later at 1505 hours that Red Cross workers Bill Standke and Virginia Standke had arrived on scene and started to speak with the homeowner Lawrence Veltkamp as well as the renter present Kathleen Lindmeyer. A third unknown named Red Cross worker had eventually arrived on scene and I learned from her that she bad contact with Tracy Surratt and her boyfriend Emory Ames and they and their baby were safe at a friend's house and they were told to stay there until this Red Cross worker would come out and meet with them personally. Follow-up Page 5 Uf 7 IRJ 007 "`kEV toJW fS}ERfS.OFFICE FOI30.I 4)p ORT ICR: 06005422 19. With the assistance of the Chanhassen CSO Brett Lawler, we had obtained information off of the dog tag about the owner of the animals Georgia Tiffany. We had trouble trying to locate her as Lawrence Veltkamp and the other renters did not know much about her and where she worked. I was able to speak with her mother at a phone number through the dog tags and learned that her daughter worked at Pro -Tech in Chanhassen. I was then able to get a hold of Ms. Tiffany and advised her that there had been a fire at her rental property and that we were able to rescue a dog and a cat however one cat was still missing_ I then requested that she come to the scene so that she could meet with the Red Cross workers which she did in fact do. 20. While on scene, it should be noted that Larry Baer from the Chanhassen Villager who also assists the Chanhassen Fire Department with photos was on scene and I had given him permission to sboot as many photos as he could from a safe distance from all angles of the residence as the firefighters attempted to put the fire out. He later advised me that any photos would be available after a couple of days from him which I in fact thanked him for taking the photos. 21. Eventually while on location 1 spoke with Sergeant Dave Potts and he asked if I would stay on scene until the fire department cleared. It should be noted that, although understandable, Mr. Veltkamp attempted to cross under the yellow tape on a couple of occasions as he wanted to gain entry into his residence while fire personnel was still putting out some hotspots and while Investigators were investigating the source of the fire. I along with Detective Pat Murphy asked that he please assist with staying out of the danger zone by not entering his home. 22. Investigators on scene were Detective Pat Murphy badge #859, Detective John Bramwell badge 9867 as well as Chanhassen Fire Marshals Mark Litfin and Ed Coppersmith, 23. Numerous media representatives had arrived on scene and they were directed to contact our office to speak with Chief Deputy Bob Vandenbroeke for any press release information. I did assist the media by going through the Assistant Chanhassen Fire Chief Randy Wahl to find a spokesperson from the fire department to speak with the media personnel that were waiting on scene for a statement. Chanhassen Fire Marshal Mark Litfin was then assigned to speak with the media. 24. In conclusion, I then remained on scene for security until approximately 1.830 hours when the last of the fire personnel and Investigators had left the scene with the house perimeter secured merely with yellow Sheriff's crime scene tape. Prior to our leaving, Detective Murphy did request that Mr. Veltkamp who was still on scene not enter into the home for safety's sake until tomorrow's date and then he should enter with preferably a representative with his insurance company. Follow -Up Page 6 of 7 02/24/2008 15:14 FAX 952 061 1229 CARVER CNTY SHERIFF DEPT [1008 CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE FOLLOW-UP REPORT ICR: 06005422 25. This should end this report at this time with no further information. Evidence Type / Location: None End of Report Deputy Keith Walgrave #841 2-24-06jdc Follow -Up Page 7 of 7