PC 2006 07 18
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 18, 2006
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, Dan
Keefe and Kevin Dillon
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Deborah Zorn
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Josh Metzer, Planner I
McDonald: Okay with that I will open up the hearing tonight. We had the Loren Veltkamp case
before us and this is a variance request for relief from 30 foot front yard setbacks, requirements
for the expansion of the second level with non-conforming setbacks. Two setback variances will
be required because the property is a corner lot. The site is located in the single family
residential district at 6724 Lotus Trail. This is Planning Case 06-25. Staff your report please.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, before we start, just point of order. I don’t believe the applicant is here on
this one. I believe there’s people here that are interested in it, so that’s the first. And then I’d
like to give some background before we go back and review the variance so, I’ll leave it up to
you.
McDonald: Would you like us to proceed to the next case on our agenda?
Aanenson: That’s one option. Otherwise we still could proceed. There is a right to appeal
whatever your recommendation is so.
McDonald: Has the applicant contacted you about the meeting?
Metzer: Not today, no.
McDonald: Any indication of whether he did not intend to appear?
Metzer: He did not let us know that he wouldn’t be here. He was given verbal indications about
this meeting and also written notice that this hearing was going to be tonight.
McDonald: Well I guess as Chair what I would prefer to do then is bypass this one. We’ll bring
up the second case before us. If the applicant has not appeared by the time the second case is
completed, we will proceed. So at this point then what I would like to do is we will proceed to
the second case on our agenda.
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING:
WAYTEK, INC.: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW APPROVAL FOR A 100,000
SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 2440 GALPIN COURT IN CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK,
PLANNING CASE 06-27, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION.
Public Present:
Name Address
LuAnn & Peter Sidney 2431 Bridle Creek Trail
Bill Olson 2403 Bridle Creek Trail
Ben Merriman 8155 Mallory Court
Sue Marlock 2325 Boulder Road
Bob Lamoreaux 7660 Quattro Drive
Mike, Peter, John, Wayne & Mark Larson 7660 Quattro Drive
Barry LaBounty 2421 Bridle Creek Trail
Rod Zivkovich 2337 Boulder Road
Laura Sp
Mark Undestad removed himself from the Planning Commission for this item. Bob
Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Thank you. Debra?
Larson: I don’t have any questions.
McDonald: Go ahead.
Dillon: Just one comment. I mean in terms of the proposed trees near the parking lot. There
were quite a few less trees proposed from what the regular guidelines are. So looking at some of
the other areas, there are more trees but you know why, what was the deal with that?
Generous: That’s just how they originally designed it. The conditions that they’ll need to
comply. I think the parking lot, with the additional parking lot islands on the south side, we can
get some more trees in there. However we are also looking at the potential for revegetating the
open space in Outlot C with more native trees and where that berm extends into the open area,
we’d like to see additional trees planted in that also so. We think it’s a win/win because Outlot C
is part of this development was a common outlot for all the lots and so if they needed to get
additional green space, they could take it from that property. And so now we get some
additional landscaping in that.
McDonald: Mr. Keefe?
Keefe: On a related note. Just, what is the height of the berm. I recall from when we looked at
this before, didn’t we have some language in there that talked about visual height and what the
2
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
view, particularly I think from the north side and I’m just wondering if that was considered or, I
thought that was made part of the design requirements. And so I guess you know I just want to
get a full understanding of what the height of the berm is and where the trees are and what sort of
the visual will look like from the north end. Can you give us any sense on that?
Generous: Well Alyson can talk about the height of that I believe.
Fauske: Commissioner Keefe, as far as your question of the height of the berm, it ranges from 4
to 10 feet high. And then I can, I don’t have a cross section available that would give you any
idea as far as elevation. Just looking at the grading plan here, if you look at the back yards of the
homes to the north, it’s approximately 10 feet high from the ground of their back yard to the top
of the berm.
Keefe: Okay, and then types of trees. It will be a mix of.
Generous: It will be deciduous and conifers in there. And also they originally showed that
buffer immediately adjacent to the property line. One of our recommendations is that they
spread that out, as well as provide additional trees up next to the building.
Keefe: So you get this kind of stand.
Generous: Yeah, you get a little depth to your screening and as they grow, they sort of fill in.
It’s a little better than just a narrow row of landscaping. As well as we think they can raise the
elevation of that berm a couple more feet by, when they do the extension. They have plenty of
dirt out on the development so.
Keefe: And then on the east side, it’s only landscaping? No berm?
Generous: It will come down, in the northeast corner of the site there’s that existing stand of
vegetation and we really prefer that that remain. It’s pretty dense in there. It may not be year
round but it is you know right now you can’t see through that area and we’d prefer that that not
come out.
Keefe: Okay.
McDonald: With that, is the applicant present? I have no questions by the way, so if the
applicant wishes to come forward.
Ben Merriman: Good evening. I’m Ben Merriman. I’m with Eden Trace Corporation, and I’ll
just briefly go through the project. I think Bob’s done a real good job of explaining. There’s a
couple of things I’d like to go into with regard to the berm. A couple of other things of details on
the plan. On the building itself, we’ve used a number of different materials. We’ve got, it’s a
pre-cast or poured wall, but they’re exposed aggregate and we’ve used a couple of different types
of exposed aggregate, and then we’ve also used some smooth faced areas in it as well. The
smooth faced areas you can see are in these areas here, over the entryways, and these columns.
These are actually fake columns and they’re used in there. We’ve also got a lot of cornices
3
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
through in here, so we’ve got a lot of architectural to the building. We’ve given a lot of breaks
because it is a fairly long building. We’ve given it a fair number of breaks throughout there with
the entries and these column posts. Waytek is the company that’s going to be moving into the
facility and they’re currently in Chanhassen. They’re on Quattro Drive. They’ve expanded once
in their current facility and now they’ve outgrown it and so the building is for them and they feel
it will serve them for years to come. We do have, as Bob pointed out, office area that Waytek’s
main entrance is in the southeast corner, and this is a view of their entrance, and they will have
office in this corner of the building. It’s 110,000 square feet. It’s on 7.9 acres. We have about
31% green area, and the balance is asphalt and building, so we’re in compliance there. I’d kind
of like to talk a little bit about the berm area because that’s probably an area that we’re going to
do a little bit more work in. We’re going to have about a 4 to 9 foot berm, which we can
increase some along in here, but we’d like to make some few corrections. As Bob pointed out,
there’s a stand of trees in this corner down here, and there’s a house back in here and he’s going
to be facing pretty much towards this parking lot and so I think he’s here tonight, but we could
increase the berm right through this area to hide the parking and the corner of this building. If
we take out a few of these trees in the corner, we could also increase the berm and then plant
perhaps some evergreen trees and those which, these are deciduous trees and they’re going to
lose their leaves during the winter. The evergreens would hold and so we could do that for this
corner of the building. As we pointed out, there’s a wing wall that’s going to extend out into this
area here, and we’ll extend that wing out and then the berm will extend out this way and it may
meander a little bit. There’s a large tree here, and you can see it’s hard on this drawing but you
can see the drip line of that tree. We may change this corner a little bit to try to stay away from
the center of this tree. Try to save that tree, and then extend maybe the berm in here. Most of
the trees that you see are all lined up right on the property line down here, and that probably will
not be the end result. We’ll move a lot of these onto this berm here. If it exceeds 9 or 10 feet in
height, we may have some problems trying to keep trees on that berm. We can plant bushes but
if you plant trees on the top of a berm, it gets a little bit tricky in trying to keep them alive, but
there is a, we can plant additional trees up in here and extend that berm and maybe raise it up a
little bit. With regard to sight line. Do you have full scale plans here?
Generous: The revised one?
Ben Merriman: Well I think either one. If you’ll look, it will be, can you get this detail? Here’s
a detail of the berm. This is the north wall of the building itself, and then the berm comes up to
approximately 9 to 10 feet and then slopes back down. This is the sight line from the property
line, so if you’re right here in 6 foot of height, here’s what you were looking at. Now this berm
goes back. This wall, this comes up a little bit and then the homes sit in here so, you were asking
about the a sight line and this is a sight line that the architect has prepared. And that’s with a 9
foot berm, and we’re going to play that with a little bit. So just to give you an idea of what that
looks like. On the east side we’ve got a number of trees that are being planted here. There’s a
large grove of trees that continue in here. We’re going to put a retaining wall along on one
section through in here, and then parking. But this is a fairly significant drop off and doesn’t
taper down to grade with Galpin until you get down into this area in through here. So we think
we’ve done an adequate job of lining up trees, with the existing to mitigate any view of the
building from the neighborhood that exists over in here. This area, we’ve hidden the loading
docks with these two. The wing walls here and it faces out into Outlot C, which is never to be
4
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
developed. So that should work out quite well. I think that’s pretty much it unless you have
some, oh lighting. I’d like to cover lighting a little bit. There are no lights on the north wall of
this building. There are wall packs throughout the building and they face downward and they’re
for security and safety reasons. We’re going to eliminate any pole lighting that was originally
planned in the parking lots and just go with the wall lighting. This will help in deferring light off
into the neighborhood so we think that will help a great deal.
Keefe: What height are those placed on the building?
Ben Merriman: You know I don’t think it’s actually been determined exactly what height but I
would suspect that they’re probably going to be 15 feet in the air. On the building. Facing
downward. They’re kind of a can light, or not a can light but a covered light that faces
downward so it doesn’t reflect and light directly out. There is no paint on this building. It’s
entirely pre-cast or exposed aggregate, metal and then all aluminum windows and doors. I think
that pretty much covers it. Is there any questions I might be able to answer?
McDonald: We’ll find out.
Keefe: Just one quick question. Is there a single, you said Waytek is going to be the tenant. Is,
or the owner I presume.
Ben Merriman: They are the owners.
Keefe: And is it anticipated it will be a single user?
Ben Merriman: They may lease out some of the space for a time. They haven’t made out the
final decision. The owners of the company are here and so I’m sure I can get one of them to
come up and answer any questions about their plans for the building. The complete ownership.
McDonald: Kevin, any questions?
Dillon: On the roof of the building, are there like air conditioners or you know that type of
things? And if so, how will they be intrusive or how is that going to be screened?
Ben Merriman: Yes there are. If we get back to this drawing again down here, it kind of gives
you an idea. Can you zoom in just a bit? Okay, great. This is actually an air conditioning unit
right here. And this is a parapet and so the wall comes up and the roof attaches here and the
parapet extends beyond the roof. What that does is take care of any sight lines, so those air
conditioners units are set far enough back from the parapet, or the edge of those buildings that
they’re not visible.
McDonald: No questions? The only question I had was a comment you made about the lighting
in that front parking lot. You said that there will not be lighting there. Only on the building
itself. Is that going to be sufficient for the safety of that parking area at night?
5
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
Ben Merriman: Yes. Well, the lighting can be increased. The number of lights and the intensity
of the lights can be increased so that it covers the parking area but doesn’t extend beyond the
parking area. And so that’s quite easily accomplished, and the other alternative is to go with
poles. Put poles out and then put, it’s called a shoe box light on there and then it floods light
downward. It’d be a little bit more intrusive to…pole lights than with a shoe box, even though it
defers light straight down and we do a study of the lights so it doesn’t penetrate past the
boundary of the property, it’s still going to be more of a view than if they were wall packs on the
building itself.
McDonald: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that at least the parking lot’s going to be
illuminated enough at night so that employees can go in and out safely.
Ben Merriman: Yes, there will be.
McDonald: Okay. That’s all the questions that I have. At this point then I would open it up to
the public and ask anyone to come forward with comments and again, state your name and
address and please address the Chair. Okay, seeing no one come forward.
Peter Sidney: Sorry.
McDonald: Okay, I’ll unring the bell.
Peter Sidney: I was waiting to see if anyone else would come up. I’m Peter Sidney. I live at
2431 Bridle Creek Trail, and so we are about here. On the corner of the building and the parking
lot and the Outlot C. There are a few concerns and questions that I wanted to raise. One has to
do with the berm height, and I don’t know, I’m obviously not an expert so I don’t know what is
possible but I recall that in the earlier discussions of this property there had been talk of a berm
of 15 feet high or something like that because we have expressed concerns about shielding the
residential properties on the north side of the building. So I would ask about that. And in terms
of extension of the berm to the west, we have a tree that is near the lot line and we would ask that
any extension of the berm does not go within the drip line of this tree, which does, the drip line
does go into Outlot C and so we would want that not to, not to interfere with the roots of that
tree. We have a little bit of concern with the northwest corner of the parking area and Ben has
addressed it to a certain extent, but there are some very large oak trees near the property line that
are in Outlot C, which according to this plan looks like they’re going to be lost and we would
want to encourage the developer and the owner to minimize the loss of trees there. I’d also like
to emphasize that in terms of the roof top equipment, the parapet will apparently screen the sight
of the equipment on top and the view, but we also have concerns about screening for the sound
and if there’s anything that can be done in terms of screening the equipment itself to mitigate any
sounds from that. And I just wanted to confirm, it sounded from what Ben said that the, on the
north side there will be no lighting, and I just want to confirm that. Also a question to the
owners of Waytek. What will the hours of operation be for the new building, or what are they
the current hours of operation? And then I noticed that in the plan, in the document from the
staff that this can be a multi tenant building, and I wanted to ask about what plans there might be
related to that, and on the plan it looks like there are multiple entrances all along the building and
I just wanted to confirm that that was the case. Finally related to the northeast corner wing wall,
6
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
on the plan here I’d be curious how far out 10 feet goes and then also how high that wing wall
would be. And I think those are all the concerns and questions that I wanted to raise. Thank you
Mr. Chairman.
McDonald: Okay. Does anyone else wish to come forward? Come on up.
Laura K.: I’m Laura...and we’re at 2384 Stone Creek Lane West. And my question involves
the 18 wheelers that are going to be running out of there and I’m curious about how many are
expected to run up Galpin. I mean there’s Bluff Creek School is right there, and then you’ve got
plans for a Chanhassen High School, and those big semi trucks, which I’m understanding are
going to be the result of this company, don’t seem to go along with kids driving and also the fact
that there’s schools there, so I’m wondering if any concerns were addressed along those lines.
McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment?
Bill Olson: My name’s Bill Olson. I’m at 2403 Bridle Creek Trail. We just moved in in March,
and have subsequent been absorbed into this rather fast. I guess my question to the council and
belief in the council is just that in your best taste and interest to the community that that wall that
they’re proposing on the northeast side, to add that and take out some of those bigger trees,
whether it’s summer or winter, still a 30 year old tree does provide nice coverage and would
rather see as many of those stay as possible. Other than that, that’s it.
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Barry LaBounty: Hello. My name’s Barry LaBounty. I live at 2421 Bridle Creek Trail, which
is the house that will be directly facing the development here, and I guess my concerns tonight
are primarily is the height of the building. It’s pretty significant and if the parapet that’s planned
is not tall enough, I’ll actually be looking right out from my bedroom window and be able to see
a sea of air conditioning units across a very large building, and so I’d like to have hopefully
some consideration there along with as Peter Sidney mentioned, the sound screening for those
fans that will be running constantly. Today we can hear the Chaska development with all the
businesses over there from my house. You can hear those quite significant. Also if possible
have the owner of the business maybe give some sort of statement on the amount of shipments
that go out daily. The hours of operation. Kind of the type of shipments that go out. Is it
typically LTL shipments? Is it UPS? FedEx? What hours are they picking up during the day
and night? And as far as the berm height goes, again it was mentioned at one time possibly
getting a berm height as high as 15 feet. I think as well the higher that berm height is, the more
sound that’s going to absorb. As you can see now, the berm height’s probably 30 plus feet. We
do not hear much sound today so it’s certainly when they lower that, the sound is much greater.
And again reiterate that the wing wall being of enough length and height to hopefully block any
significant truck traffic that would be moving in and out of the area at those times. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Okay,
seeing no one, this time I will close the public meeting and will bring the issue back before the
commissioners for discussion. Kurt, I’ll start with you.
7
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
Papke: So just, so we’re not going to allow the owners to come up and answer any of the
questions about hours of operation? Does that make sense to continue that at all?
McDonald: That would be perfectly fine at this point. I’m okay with that.
Papke: I think there were a number of the residents raised concerns about shipments and hours
of operation and stuff like that. I think it’s probably worth touching on.
Bob Lamoreaux: Good evening council. My name’s Bob Lamoreaux. I’m President of Waytek.
There are four owners. They are here. I’m the President. Right now we’ve been a corporation
resident of Chanhassen since ’88?
Wayne Larson: ’89.
Bob Lamoreaux: Since ’89. Right now our hours of operation are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. General rule of thumb, we do not work weekends. On occasions
someone might be in, in the office doing something but general rule of thumb we don’t. As far
as the number of shipments. A majority of our shipments are going out UPS, FedEx. One
pickup from each truck. We do probably about 10 or 15 other semi’s might come in deliver or
pick up during the day.
Papke: Are these 18 wheeler sized semi’s or are these more the UPS size trucks or some mixture
of the two?
Bob Lamoreaux: Mixture of the two, yeah. Right now we only have 3 loading docks so.
Papke: How many employees do you expect to peak out at?
Bob Lamoreaux: Oh boy, peak out at? I’d love to peak out at 100 or so. Right now we have 48
employees.
Papke: Okay. Okay. So you expect to eventually double in size would be.
Bob Lamoreaux: Yeah, right now we’re a 49,000 square foot building. When we moved into
the building it was.
Wayne Larson: 25.
Bob Lamoreaux: 25? Thanks Wayne. So 25 and we added 10 employees. Now we’re at 50 and
we are at 48.
Papke: Okay.
Keefe: Are you anticipating sub-leasing part of the building then?
8
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
Bob Lamoreaux: Initially right now we’re not. The building is kind of designed if we had to or
something happened, we can. Right now we’re not planning on it. But if we did, it would be at
the north end of the building because we are, our offices and everything at the south end.
Actually the north end of the building right now will not have any air conditioning units on the
roof. All the air conditioning units will be at the north, south end. The inside the warehouse will
all be hanging furnaces. No air conditioning in the warehouse. So that’s kind of the plan right
now. The only air conditioning will be in the offices at the south end. Are there any other
questions on this?
Keefe: I’ve got just a couple questions on the site plan, and I’m not sure if you’d be the right
person. Maybe the staff can help out but you know there’s a comment around the oak trees on
the certain northwest corner. You know given that they’re expanding the parking on the south
end, does the pavement need to continue out as far as it did? It’d be a way to potentially retain
some of those trees or?
Generous: Well you could cut back on the parking lot in that area. And also there’s construction
techniques to make less of an impact to the trees. And we’ll work with them on revising that, and
they’re up for it. Like with the revisions to that parking area on the south, over…
Keefe: Yeah, that’s what I was wondering. I mean you really need to have the asphalt going out
as far as it is on that north end, taking out more trees presumably. That’s what’s happening.
Generous: Yeah, they’re pretty close to the elevation they’d be in out there so.
Ben Merriman: As long as you don’t object to parking, that’s fine with us. We have that there
because we needed parking spots to meet code, and Bob knows more about it than I do.
Keefe: Right, yeah so the addition on the south end would you know mean that you tend to cut
back a little bit on that northwest corner possibly. Maybe consider you know…
Ben Merriman: The odds of anyone parking up there are very slim because all the employees are
going to be down in this area.
Keefe: I mean it looks like there’s a couple of trees that may exist there, at least from the, those
2 that are just to the left there.
Ben Merriman: Yeah, these here.
Keefe: Yeah, right. Would those come out or are they, would you save a quarter of the tree or?
Ben Merriman: …we could leave those as proof of parking, okay so that they’re not, they’re not
developed now. If they’re needed in the future, we could, we have the liberty of going in there
and adding them but we leave them as proof of parking and then curve the radius point here, and
just do a radius. We need to be able to get semi trucks and so that needs to be able to work, but
the architect can make this work in this corner so that this tree can be saved and we’ll try to stay
9
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
out of the drip line as much as we can of this, and then we can mitigate the damage through
construction techniques so, that shouldn’t be too much of a problem.
Keefe: There was also one comment that I heard, I think on one significant one on the east side.
I’m not aware of what that might have been but.
Ben Merriman: On the northeast?
Keefe: Yeah. I thought there might have been.
Ben Merriman: And I have to, on one hand sit down with the owner and go through this and
he’s here tonight and he expressed an interest here. We can leave this grove of trees the way it is
right now pretty much, primarily. Or we could put in a retaining wall. Take out some of the
trees and put in some spruce trees, which you know hold cover during the winter. It’s kind of his
option, and we’ll work with them. The same as we’d like to work with the residents back here
about how this berm is constructed and what it looks like and how it undulates through here.
Keefe: That’s good to hear. Get some input from the local residents. Okay.
McDonald: Okay? Thank you very much for coming forward. Debbie.
Larson: A couple of the residents brought up the berm height. Was it 15 feet? I don’t remember
that.
Keefe: I thought we put in language.
Papke: Yeah, I suggested some language that we try to prevent sight line issues which, you
know judging from the drawing that we saw, I don’t recall the exact language of it but it at least
satisfied the spirit of what we were trying to get to when the PUD was approved, which is to try
to permit you know, obviously the, you know if you’re up on a second story bedroom looking
down, you’re going to see some portion of the building. I don’t know that we can put a building
in this location and say you’re not going to see the building at all but.
Larson: Right. Well I mean and, Ben made a point. Is it Ben? Ben. No, you just made a point
that the higher the berm, that it’s harder to keep trees alive and so I understand and I think that
it’s best that we don’t. I’ve seen them before with a row of dead trees sitting on top of them.
Papke: Yeah, that was going to be my, one of my primary comments was you know, I think
we’re going to have to let city staff and the developer mediate out so that we maximize the
screening here and not end up with a 15 foot berm with a row of naked trees.
Larson: Dead trees, right.
Papke: Yeah, that’s not a great sight. We’ll entrust the developer and city staff to work through
that.
10
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
Larson: Okay, that’s all I have.
Papke: Other than that, my main concern with this development was just the scale of the
building. You know going from 3 buildings in this, in what we originally approved when we
approved the PUD to 2, this one is bigger and it’s physical presence from Galpin is going to be a
little bit more substantial. But I think developers have done a great job with working on the
aesthetics of the building. With providing visual contours, parapets, columns, etc so I think
they’ve done, you know I don’t know that you could do a lot more with an industrial building to
break it up and provide visual appeal than what they’ve done, so I think they’ve done a great job
with that. I don’t have any reservations. You know certainly when we approved the PUD there
was a lot of discussion about the screening. There was a lot of discussion about the traffic, but I
think the design meets the spirit of what we approved when we approved the PUD so I have no
concerns.
McDonald: Okay.
Keefe: I think the developer’s done a great job here and I really like the attitude of working with
the local residents, particularly with the berm and the screening. I commend you for doing that.
That’s terrific. Sometimes we don’t get development teams in here who are willing to
necessarily do that and be proactive that way. That’s great so. Look forward to this building
going up and continuing your work in the city. Appreciate it.
McDonald: Kevin.
Dillon: The only, one of the residents talked about the traffic with the trucks and all that and we
haven’t heard a lot about that you know from other people tonight, and the new school and
everything is going in nearby. I mean was, being a relatively new member of this commission I
haven’t heard any previous discussions about what do the people in the school think about you
know traffic from trucks, because this is a business park area and so this is nothing new. I mean
were there concerns about placing a school with the trucks?
McDonald: Well all of this was discussed when we did the initial PUD and we asked for a
traffic study and we looked at the way the roads were going to be put together and actually
Lyman Boulevard is scheduled for an upgrade because it is going to be an access road off of 312
or 212, so all of this was evaluated. In fact we even asked about another entrance so that there
would be two entrances instead of one, and I guess we were shot down by the County on that, as
I recall. That because of what they want to do with Lyman, it wasn’t possible. We also looked
at maybe an entrance and an exit through the park going through the Chaska area, and again
because of different ownership, that wasn’t possible either. So we did address the issue of
traffic, and the school came up at that point. It was more of a rumor I think than anything. It
was a possible site, which has now become more solidified. So we did discuss all that at that
point and I think we have pretty much exhausted all of our remedies for that but.
Papke: The only thing I’d add to that, if you look at our existing schools on Pioneer Trail, lots of
truck traffic on that so I think the school system is, you know got a fair amount of experience
with coping with that.
11
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
Dillon: Other than that, I mean the aesthetics of the building and I agree the attitude of,
willingness to collaborate with others is positive so, don’t have any other questions or comments.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. I guess the only comment I would add is to kind of echo that it is
nice for a developer who’s willing to listen to the residents. I know that this has been a long and
drawn out development and there were a number of individual meetings. There were a number
of issues that I have not heard come back today, and the ones that did come back I believe that
you have addressed them but the comment I would make to everyone who came up to the mic is
that if you wish, you may contact city staff about any of the details of this and that they would be
able to fill you in but I think from what the developer’s told us tonight, that your concerns have
been addressed as best we can I believe so from that standpoint I am, you know again grateful
for the fact that we do have a developer that is willing to listen to the neighborhood. With that,
does anyone want to make a motion?
Larson: Okay. Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case Site Plan 06-27
for one story approximately 110,000 square foot office-warehouse building, plans prepared by
Houwman Architects dated 6-16-06, subject to the following conditions 1 through 31. Okay?
McDonald: Yes, 1 through 31.
Papke: Second.
Larson moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Planning Case Site Plan #06-27 for a one story, approximately 110,000 square foot office-
warehouse building, plans prepared by Houwman Architects, dated 6-16-06, subject to the
following conditions:
1.The developer shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary
security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
2.The developer shall extend the sidewalk from the building to the sidewalk on Galpin Court
and include pedestrian ramps at all curbs.
3.The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
4.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
5.The developer shall heighten the retaining wall on the south side of the northerly drive-in
overhead door to create a wing wall that is a least 10 feet above the grade of the loading dock
area. This wall shall extend from the building westerly at least 15 feet then may be stepped
downward as it continues west.
6.A temporary cover of seed and mulch shall be established on all areas of exposed soils not
actively worked within a 14-day time period and within 14 days of achieving final grade.
12
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
7.The plans shall show temporary inlet control details for all proposed catch basins, including
beehive catch basins. Existing catch basins immediately adjacent to the project shall be
protected as well. Plans shall indicate that inlet protection shall be installed within 24 hours
of inlet installation.
8.All sediment tracked upon paved surfaces shall be scraped and swept within 24 hours. Plans
shall include a designated concrete washout area and/or plans on how the development will
handle the concrete wash water.
9.An NPDES Construction Site Permit shall be applied for and received from the MPCA by
the owner/operator of the site.
10.The area in which the rain garden is proposed shall be part of a project sequencing plan that
will protect the rain garden site from compaction. The rain garden shall not be built until at
least 70% of the contributing area is stabilized. The applicant shall submit a planting plan for
the garden.
11.High overhead windows shall be added on the northern building elevation between the
smooth bands.
12.Overstory trees shall be added every 40 feet along the north building elevation.
13.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a total of 39 overstory trees within the
vehicular use area. Trees may be added to the west side within Outlot C if their installation
does not damage root systems of existing trees within that area.
14.A row of four conifer trees shall be added north of the parking spaces in the northwest corner
of the loading dock area.
15.Tree preservation fencing is required to be installed prior to any construction around existing
trees along Galpin Boulevard, Outlot C and any trees preserved along the north property line.
16.All landscape plantings along Galpin Boulevard shall be field located as to not damage
existing plantings.
17.The bufferyard plantings along the north property line shall be spread out between the
property line and the building to provide screening in depth.
18.Areas proposed for the preservation of existing trees shall not be sodded.
19.The developer must install a storm sewer stub south of CBMH 6.
20.The storm sewer downstream of CBMH 6 will not be owned or maintained by the City since
it will not convey runoff from a public right-of-way.
13
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
21.The developers of Parcels A and B must enter into a maintenance agreement for this segment
of storm sewer.
22.The outstanding balance of the Park Dedication Fees for Parcels A and B must be paid with
the building permit. The amounts are $82,600.14 for Parcel A and $29,579.78 for Parcel B.
23.The height of the berm shall be increased and extended to the west to provide additional
screening for the existing single-family homes to the north.
24.A revised grading plan must be submitted with the building permit application.
25.Retaining walls four feet high or higher require a building permit and must be designed by an
engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
26.Eight-inch watermain must be looped around the building. This watermain shall be privately
owned and maintained.
27.Sanitary sewer and water hookup are due for this site. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is
$1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. These fees may be specially assessed
against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance.
28.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
29.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
30.Builder must comply with Fire Prevention policies numbers 4, 6, 7, 29, 84, 36, 40, 49 and 52.
31.Drive aisle widths shall be a minimum of 26 feet.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Aanenson: Mr. Chair, just for the record, this is going forward to the City Council on August
th
14. So anybody that wants to follow the item. And then we’d also ask that the applicant work
with the property owners prior to that meeting so we have a little bit more definitive resolution
on some of those issues before the council meeting.
McDonald: Okay, with that we will go back to the first agenda item. Is the owner, Mr. Loren
Veltkamp present?
Aanenson: Yes he is.
14
Planning Commission Meeting – July 18, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING:
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 DISTRICT (RSF) AT 6724
LOTUS TRAIL, PLANNING CASE 06-25.
Public Present:
Name Address
Sig & Don Sennes 6680 Mohawk Drive
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
Liz & Matt Tibbetts 6699 Mohawk Drive
Doris Martin 6650 Pawnee Drive
Susan Telander 11516 Bender Court
Loren Veltkamp 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
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
rd
west shore of Lotus Lake at 6724 Lotus Trail. In February, on February 23 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 ½ 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.
18
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 staff’s 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 I.
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?
20
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.
26
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
corners 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.
28
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 staff’s
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
sheriff’s 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.
29
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.
31
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. I
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 back yard. 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 staff’s 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: Or in.
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 to me 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 a real 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.
40
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 staff’s 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 staff’s 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:
1. 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.
44
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 Nann Opheim
45