Loading...
PC Minutes 7-18-06 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 Keith Gunderson Jeff King Bruce Johansson Jim Boeshans Mike Henderson Shelly Berg Liz & Matt Tibbetts Doris Martin Susan Telander Loren Veltkamp 6680 Mohawk Drive 6661 Mohawk Drive 767 Carver Beach Road 6701 Mohawk Drive 6651 Pawnee Drive 6701 Mohawk Drive 6701 Mohawk Drive 6699 Mohawk Drive 6650 Pawnee Drive 11516 Bender Court 6724 Lotus Trail McDonald: With that, staff would you like to give your report or? Aanenson: Sure. Yes, I'd like to start with just a little bit of background and some of the concerns that came up at the last meeting. You did table this item. I apologize but there is some corrections in the revised motion, and I'll go through those. First of all I want to point out, it's the staff s interpretation that this property was being rented, and one of the things that we want to clarify, as stated in city code, is that if the staff makes an opinion of a use or interpretation, that that could be appealed to the Planning Commission. So we are asking you as one of the recommendations, if you go to the handout, that first of all the interpretation that the property is being rented because obviously there's a disagreement ofliving 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 Band C? Aanenson: Yes. Thank you Mr. Chairman, that clarifies that. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else have any questions before I have the staff do a report? Okay. Staff. Metzer: And just to remind Planning Commission and the audience that the site is located on the west shore of Lotus Lake at 6724 Lotus Trail. In February, on February 23rd of this year the roof and majority of the second level of the home were destroyed by fire. State law permits the reconstruction of non-conforming structures destroyed by fire. The existing structure currently has setbacks 8 feet from Lotus trail, and 15 feet from Tamarack Road, which is considered a paper street. Now these are non-conforming setbacks and due to the non-conforming setbacks, the requested second level addition constitutes an intensification of a non-conformity which city code prohibits. Staff is however recommending approval of this request, and again by doing so staff feels that the city will be better able to control or regulate the rental situation on the subj ect 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 1Iz 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, ifC 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! 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! 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: .. . !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: ...1 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 oflaw. 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 oflaw. 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. Ijust 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! 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 V eltkamp: 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 staffs opinion that this is not being operated as a single family residential home. As it's guided. If there's an economic hardship reason, then it needs to go through a separate process because we disagree and we did inspect the property and so I don't want to get into the whole history of that because we could be here another 2 hours. A whole history of that whole thing. But clearly, whether they were people that were married, unmarried, it's our opinion that they were renters. Whether they were families or individuals, we have prima-facie evidence as submitted by the 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: Ifwe 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. Ifwe 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 offs 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 ifhe'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! 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 ifhe 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. Ifhe does not agree with the staffs recommendation, that he doesn't get a third kitchen, he doesn't agree with cutting down on the driveway space, and he just commented that he's not really planning to do that. So granting him the variance, thinking that you're going to get him to abide by these restrictions when he first would stand here and say that he's not planning to do that, doesn't encourage me in thinking that that's the right approach. We're just letting him have larger space and encroach upward and into the, what could be a walking path. And we're going to continue to have the same kind of rental issues that we currently have in a residential neighborhood. That maybe some of the other staff recommendations were making it a rental property and limiting the number of rentals is a completely, sounds like it's a different process. A different plan. But that could be followed whether or not he gets this height variance, so I'm opposed. I don't think that it's going to help the neighborhood at all, and I don't think that there is hardship. You know the fact of stacking your utilities and that kind of thing, to remodel within the existing footprint to get a good architect or a good remodeler, you can figure 36 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2006 out how to change your floorplan, which is a separate issue and not an ongoing hardship. So my husband and I are opposed to giving the variance. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Would anyone else care to come forward please? Mike Henderson: I'm Mike Henderson. I live at 6701, just right behind Mr. Veltkamp. I'm opposed to the height variance, or the variance based on the height I should say. The part that has currently been constructed is over the garage. It's at least twice as big as it was before and completely, there's photos that were passed around. It completely blocks the, there's no view of anything beyond that other than the garage. And in addition to commenting on the aspect of renters in the past, it was mentioned that, something to the effect of a family type of environment. I'd like to pass this around. This is the type of family environment we had going on there. This is the sheriff s report, and that's really about all I have to say. Thank you. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment? Loren Veltkamp : Wondering if I can return. McDonald: Well as soon as the public meeting's over, I'll let you come back up. Okay, seeing no one else come forward, we'll close the public meeting. Before I bring it back up to the commissioners, do you wish to add something sir? Loren Veltkamp : Well yeah. McDonald: Why don't you come up to the podium. Loren Veltkamp: I should add a couple things here. You know as Mr. Johansson got up here and talked, Mr. Johansson has been angry with me because I blocked his view of the lake and. McDonald: Okay, before you get into that. This is the same thing with staff, and I'm going to allow this to become an issue of he said, she said. I really don't care what they've said. You know all we're looking for is input so that we can make a decision. This is not a forum for anybody to get up and start making comments about their neighbors. That is not what this is about. What I would like for you to do is, you have an opportunity if you want to add something that will help us to make our decision, that is fine. Ifwhat 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! 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 ofread 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! 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 VeUkamp 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 O. 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 o. 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 of7? Findings. Aanenson: I'm just on this attachment. I'm not looking. It's just the back side. It's back of7 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 o. 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 O. 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