CC Minutes 8-14-06
City Council Meeting - August 14,2006
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City
Council approve Liberty on Bluff Creek 2nd Addition:
1) Final Plat Approval.
2) Resolution #2006-62: Approval of Plans & Specifications and
Development Contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Move now to item number 6 under new business. Looking
at the hour, let's take, unless there's objection, let's take a 5 minute recess subject to the
call of the Chair.
LOREN VEL TKAMP. 6724 LOTUS TRAIL. PLANNING CASE 06-25:
VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE SECOND LEVEL
OF A HOME WITH NON-CONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK
VARIANCES WILL BE REQillRED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER
LOT ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Jeff King
Pat & Keith Gunderson
Bruce Johansson
Matt & Liz Tibbetts
Don & Sig Sennes
767 Carver Beach Road
6661 Mohawk Drive
6711 Mohawk Drive
6699 Mohawk Drive
6680 Mohawk Drive
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the council. This item.. .interpretation
of staffs.. . staff interpretation and I'll go through that in a minute. This item first
appeared before the Planning Commission back on June 20th and at that time staff...
There was concern with the Planning Commission the direction.. .and how the property
was being used so they asked us to look a little deeper into actually how the property was
being used so I'll go through that in a minute too. But the critical thing that you're here
tonight to discuss is the variance, and there's some other.. .issues that I'll touch on too.
... and the subject property is located here. There's an existing house that recently
burned, but ordinance does allow to build to the existing structure. There are some non-
36
City Council Meeting - August 14,2006
conforming setbacks. They have requested to go higher in those areas that... I'm not
going to go into the building plan unless you have specific questions tonight but just
for...the area in blue doesn't meet the setback requirements and therefore...residential
height.. .35 feet. The area shown in pink does not meet the setback requirements from
Tamarack... have to stay with the existing structure... So therefore that's the request.
The 22 foot and the 15 foot setback on that setback.. .just some questions about, based on
some testimony, of how the property was being used and the existing conditions so staff
did a little bit more research on that, and that item did go back to the Planning
Commission on July 18th. At that time the staff also had some additional information that
we shared, and also I included in your packet some information from the residents as part
of their testimony as to the condition of the property and some complaints that may have
been researched on regarding... to the property itself. So what I wanted to mention is that
one of the issues that the staff also faced on the evidence that resulted in the investigation
on how the fire, on how the property was being used, we made the interpretation that that
property was being rented, and if you look at your staff report on page 6 of 8, that's the
first interpretation so as a part of the normal code process, anybody aggrieved of the
decision of administrative... to the planning department or myself, the planning
director... And part of the testimony, as it is in your staff report, again dated July 18t\
there is one of the Planning Commissioners was specificall y asked... so that was one of
the findings the Planning Commission felt comfortable.. .Having said that, if the property
is being rented, and the applicant's request, again kind of going through.. .information
that the Planning Commission asked based on some of these questions and information
provided by the residents, that they felt that the additional height was also to allow for
additional income for the rental property. Again.. .and also the testimony the residents
felt like the existing height... add to that and so that was some of the problems that the
Planning Commission felt was a reason to deny... not demonstrated a hardship. That
there's an altemative...in the staff report where we outlined that should the applicant
choose to honor the city code, there is a process if the applicant applies for a variance that
would allow a single family situation... The Planning Commission did discuss this...
more of a dependent, elderly relative that they need to provide a basement or maybe over
a garage. . . and there is a process for that and we felt that if the applicant chose that as a
way to provide that... we included the information from the neighbors. There's some
other ongoing issues on the property and I wanted to stay focused on the issue of the
variance so.. .to know that Josh Metzer on our planning staff did meet with some of the
residents to try to assimilate some of their questions... the variance and what we're here
for tonight. The Planning Commission and the staff did recommend denial of the
variance and that the interpretation that the property is being rented.. .So with that, you
have...
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. At this point. Okay. We may have
some other ones in the future. Okay. At this point, I see the applicant is here. You're
appealing the Planning Commission so why don't you come forward and give us the
information.
Loren Veltkamp: Hi, I'm Loren Veltkamp.
37
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Loren Veltkamp: Good evening. 6724 Lotus Trail. My house was built in 1926 or
started I should say. It's been worked on ever since I think. It's more like a question of
when wasn't it being built. I've been there about 15 years. I've doubled the size of the
house roughly and I see an opportunity now, totally unexpected, to make it a little better.
Perhaps a little bigger. But not much. I don't plan to increase my footprint or anything
like that. I don't want to encroach on anybody. I don't see any need for that. What I
have, and I don't know, it's a little different than what she showed you or what I had
before the fire. If I can just point this out here. As you can see, this little thing here is a
dormer and this is basically the blue part that she had before whereas this is the part that
we're talking about. This is the part that's controlled by setbacks so towards the front of
the house here I had a large room and truss it's called, which is a storage area. And this
was a dormer and this was a deck that came out about 6 feet. Beyond the house here so
the deck survived the fire but the dormer was lost, but I have the right now to rebuild this
dormer so I've already done so. The main issue for me tonight is this little square here
which is about 12 feet by 12 feet. This is behind the dormer here and it's going to go to
waste if I just put a roof over it. I would like to use it for storage or maybe to expand a
bedroom. It's a small area and it doesn't involve anyone's view that I can see. This house
here, this house here is about 44 inches from my property line. It encroaches upon my
property greatly. And it also goes 2 feet into Tamarack Road. This is a rental unit and
has been a rental unit for most of the 15 years that I've been there. Been a wide variety of
people living there. The only other thing on this Tamarack Road is perhaps a garage. It's
a 2 stall garage which is across the road there so this is looking... This garage, I haven't
exactly measured this but if the road here is about 40 feet. I think this road is about 40
feet. The garage is probably within 2 or 3 feet of this road, so the point I'm making here
is that these other properties are either on the road, or they're right next to the road. Now
these are the only, there's only 3 properties involved here because it's a really short street.
This one, this one and this one. And I went to the law library down in Chaska to research
this. Ijust got on West Law and when you punch in setbacks, do a search on setbacks, I
have 32 cases from the Supreme Court, and I looked through all the cases to see if there's
a case like mine and there was a case exactly like mine called Aurora vs. Burnet. And
there's different ways to interpret these cases I know but just briefly, what happened in
this case is that somebody was being set back more than other people on a street, and a
guy that Burnet. The city had him do setbacks and he didn't want to be set back because
he would be set back further than everybody else, and he just went ahead and built and he
defied the city and the city took him to court, as you would expect, and he won because
the Supreme Court ruled that well, you know the proper thing to do in this situation is to
set back the people all the same, you know, and not set anybody back any farther than
anybody else so he won the case. And this seems to me to be very similar to what we're
dealing with here because I'm being put under a new code here, you know 30 foot
setback, which I was never put under before. Now Carver Beach is a very old area. The
oldest housing association in Minnesota, built back in 1898. So the housing association
is still active. It's 108 years old. My house was built in 1926. I built this deck here
against Tamarack Road in the setback, I built this. I got, I think in 2001 I got the
approval to build this deck, which is further out than what I'm asking for now, and that
38
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
was just 5 years ago. So from 1926 to 2001, I had different setbacks on my property. I
had a 30 foot setback with, I'm pointing this out. My house was facing this way for 81
years. Now I find out, after my house is burned, my house is facing this way. Okay.
And this way. This has never happened before and my question to the council is, how
can these setbacks be switched you know in midstream like this. All of a sudden this is
not fair to me because I've been building one way and now all of a sudden it's illegal.
And who knew? So the reason my house was facing south originally is because there
was a road going up like this. And the people who designed this house spaced the garage
and the front door and the 30 foot front yard setback was all faced to a road called
Willow Road. And Willow Road was never built, and I guess that's because Lotus Trail
became the main road but Lotus Trail separates my house from the lake. Okay, it runs
between my house and the lake so they wanted to put that road in there because they
didn't want a road between them on the lake but eventually it happened, you know. So
Willow Road was abandoned and Lotus Trail became the main road because of some
decision somewhere along the line. Now I am forced to put my driveway out to Lotus
Trail then, so then that makes my house face a different direction, through no fault of my
own or the original builders or anything, but my feeling is that, because the house is so
old, that the setbacks should be grandfathered in along with the house, because I can't
have my setbacks switched every 5 years when I'm trying to develop this property. I
don't think that's fair to anyone. I think the city should just stick with a 81 year setback
that we've got going here and then we have no problems. Then I have no building
problems whatsoever. But it's because of that switch that we got into this jam and I
clearly question the legality of that because you know if the city takes control over a new
property that they didn't have before, now they're supposed to compensate the owner or
work something out, and in this particular case I'm kind of being deprived here you know
through no fault of anyone really. It's just you know, it's just the way of the
neighborhood has evolved, so I'm just asking for consideration here because it is an older
house. But anyway, getting back to this Supreme Court case, which is very similar to
-mine. In this case the Supreme Court ruled that the fair way to do this is to set everybody
back according to the average distance that you know the people are away from the road.
So if we're looking for an average here, this house here is 2 feet over and this house is
probably 2 feet off. So the average would be right on the road, and I'm 16 1/2 feet off of
that, and I'm not even asking for that 16 1/2 feet. I'm just trying to build over my existing
footprint so it's very minimal what I'm asking for. It's not even what the Supreme Court
would get by a long shot, so I think this is very fair and it's not blocking anyone's views
because the view this way is already blocked by the dormer and the view this way is
blocked by this part so I don't see that it would have... And the other point I want to
make here is that this road here is not a road. It's just a paper street, like we were talking
about earlier tonight. So I feel like I'm being set back 30 feet from absolutely nothing
when everybody else is over the street. And particularly this part of the street up here.
I've never even been able to use this. It's supposed to be public property but it's been
blocked by trailers for almost the entire 15 years I've lived there, and I've been physically
harassed when I've gone over there to you know kind.. . about this.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
39
City Council Meeting - August 14,2006
Loren Veltkamp: So other people are using the road a lot. I'm using it a little, and just
trying to you know make use of this little square here, and that's, this just concerns the
setback to Tamarack Road so. So you're talking about Tamarack Road setback number.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Kate Aanenson: Can I just make a point of clarification? If you go to page 3 of the staff
report, the way we determine setbacks is any public right-of-way. In this circumstance
there's two public right-of-way. One that's the improved and one is not but it's still
determined as a public right-of-way. So there would be two. Even if you were to vacate
Tamarack, as just suggested, the public street would still be Lotus. There'd still non-
conforming setbacks so the fact that you have two public streets, which we have comer
lots all over town. There's still, we call it two fronts so it'd be 30-30 is a general single
family residential district and then 10 on the other two sides. So, which would be if you
had a front and a back, it'd be 30 in the front, 30 in the rear so in this circumstance we
have two, a comer lot, it'd be the 30-30 so that's been a long, been along for quite a while.
Then also as far as the building permit, I just also wanted to point out, that does go back
to 1998 and the one in 2002, and someone made that incorrect interpretation on those and
those were pointed out in the staff report that those were issues in error. So just wanted
to point that out for the record.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Loren Veltkamp: That is another issue that she brings up. See staff now says that the
allowance of this, the allowance of this deck being built, which I built as a fire egress for
this bedroom up here basically, but they said the permit to build this was given in error.
I'm like, where's the error? I got the same setback for 81 years. There's no error. Now
the staff 5 years ago was simply respecting the original setbacks for this property which I
think is totally proper because you can't just be switching people's orientation on a house
like that developing the property. It's just throws everything up in the air. You can't, you
don't know what to do anymore. So the Carver Beach and these older neighborhoods,
and I would ask the council to you know be understanding to that because it can really
lead to problems when you're trying to build. You have to plan for the house and
building the house... and you can't do it, so it screws up a lot of stuff.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Loren Veltkamp: Alright, so we're done with, that's my proposal, request on Tamarack. I
also requested a setback from Lotus. The same argument applies to Lotus is that it was
not the original front of my property. What I actually have there from the street, if you
take a measuring tape from the comer of my house, which would be here, out to the
street, which is in this area here. If I measure on a slope going down okay from you
know just chest level to the comer of the house, there's a slope there, I get about 24 feet.
Okay. So there's quite a bit of grass and that's at the closest comer. If you look down
here, it is at the 30 feet. So the average, I don't know what the average would be, it'd be
somehow around 27 feet I am from the street right now. Now, the reason that this,
40
City Council Meeting - August 14,2006
they're setting me back so far here is because there is a right-of-way in addition to the
physical pavement and the way the street, you know you've got right-of-way which is
much wider than the street. In this case the street is slammed all the way over to the left
side so I've got like 20 feet of right-of-way and before we even begin to measure the 30
feet, so I'm perfectly willing to stay 30 feet away from the physical road. This is a dead
end road. You know it's never going to be increased or enhanced or anything like that.
I'm perfectly willing to stay 30-35 feet away from that road but putting me 50 feet away
from the curb, you know coming up over the top of my property like this, you're coming
up over my living room and pushing me back 50 feet from the road because they changed
the road. You know I just don't think it's fair. I'm willing to stay 30 feet plus from the
physical road, which if anybody walks down the road they can even look up and they will
not be able to see the second story. They won't see the roof or the second story. I can put
a little deck along here. You know set back. Make this 30 feet here, the closest comer.
You know set that back a little. Nobody would see it and I think that's, you know being
discreet. I feel it's pretty reasonable considering that these setbacks have been jerked
around through the years you know.
Mayor Furlong: Alright.
Loren Veltkamp: That's about all I've got to say about the setback.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Loren Veltkamp: Then there's one other request that Ijust have to ask you. This is a
little more involved. For the last 6 years I've been renting my property. This has been an
issue of great debate. Ijust can't believe how much debate we've had over this, but I've
been renting my property to roommates since I had a divorce, and during my divorce it
was discovered that I had a handicap. A rare mental handicap so I've not really been able
to work, so what I resorted to was, was renting out my property to roommates, and that
was the way I sustained myself for the most part. And at first the city didn't have codes
about this because this was 6 years ago, and then eventually I called the city because I
was wondering if they had any codes, and they said well no, we don't have codes but
we're making some right now you know. So I said okay, I'll wait and send them to me
when you got them, and then they did send them to me. And then there was some
confusion with the city because they felt that I really built apartments in my house and
that I wasn't just having roommates. And you can imagine how you know upset the
planning department was when they thought I was building you know a duplex or triplex
or having apartments in the house, which I never wanted to do. But on the other hand I
want to make my roommates happy, and have space and privacy and all this other stuff
so, I'm kind of caught in the middle here. And anyway, after considerable debate or
whatever, and many letters to the city, I got a letter from the city say it's okay for me to
rent if I didn't have doorways between these different areas of my house. You know so
that it was all one house. Not a rental units but one single house, okay and that was the
way we resolved it. And I got a letter to this effect and they inspected everything and
everything was okay, and we went on this way until the fire. Now after the fire, the
planning department took a new look at it and they felt strongly that I really had
41
City Council Meeting - August 14,2006
apartments in this house after all you know and then they're back on my tail about this.
What I would like to do, I'm not telling you how to resolve this tonight, okay. It's too
complicated of an issue here tonight.. . this is impossible to do now. What I'm asking for
is just some way to have 3 roommates so I can stay in my house. That's what I want.
Just 3 people living with me, and I want to go back to what I had before. And the
planning department has started chipping away at what I had before, which was 3
kitchens and a large, good driveway. You know they started, they don't want me to go
back to that even though it was approved, but it was approved. Just like my original
setback was approved, so I think I should be able to go back to this time. You know
without being evicted from my house. I mean I'm going to lose my house if I can't get
my roommates and I don't want to you know do anything shady or efaithful about this
you know. I just want to find a way to do it and a few years ago during this debate I did
write a letter to the council, a 8 page letter and after quite a few months I got a note back,
and they said thank you for the letter. You know so at least somebody read it but I don't
know if it was any of you but in this 8 page letter I made a point that having roommates
in a house is good for people, especially for the handicap. You know there's a way to
keep a house and I think it's also a way to keep the low cost housing affordable, you
know because my rents are cheaper than anybody's. I can beat any price and you know
the cheapest rooms we have for people are the ones that already exist. So businesses like
it you know because they don't have to pay the employees so much, and you know
businesses benefit from having these people around. There may be some stress on the
neighborhood if you have too many roommates or allow cars, something like that. I
mean I know there's a down side too and I don't want to be any part of that down side. I
can tell you what the down side is sometime, we can sit down and talk about it. But
anyway, it's a very involved question and I'd like to see this area looked at of, and come
up with a viable way for people in Chanhassen to have a few roommates, you know that's
not going to bother anybody. It's just done nicely. And I'd really like to have the council
look at that now. Last time we were together, you know she got the planning department,
or is it the planning.
Kate Aanenson: Commission.
Loren Veltkamp: Commission, to agree that my house should be inspected, and I
actually did have, I actually was written. They asked me if I was renting and I said yes,
I'm renting. I'm charging rent and I don't think that means that I have, I'm admitting to
having rental units. Okay. As far as I know I've never had rental units. Never wanted
them. Just some roommates. And so yeah, I said yes you know. I have you know I was
renting and I want to continue renting... So what I'm asking for now is that this area is
looked at before you know I'm refused the right to have renters, or refused to have a
kitchen or driveway or anything like that. I would just like to have this help at this point.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Loren Veltkamp: Not decided or undecided. I just would like to have it... the legal
questions here are so difficult that I'm having a hard time with it myself, and I've been
thinking about this for 4 years.
42
City Council Meeting - August 14,2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Loren Veltkamp: Suspended and find a good way for, you know to go back to what I
had. I don't want to lose what I had so...
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Any questions for the applicant at this point?
Kate Aanenson: I'd just like to comment, if I may Mayor. Council members.
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Kate Aanenson: Just to kind of, we did believe that there was rentals. We had received
complaints from the neighbors so building inspections went up. The planning department
never investigated that property. They just relied on the approval of the inspections.
Again at that time I think there was some ambiguity if the doors weren't locked. Whether
he's renting or whether the units, they're tenants. They're being charged rent and that's
what the definition in the city code is so. The other concern that we had was that there
was at least 6 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms and there were 3 separate levels with a kitchen
without a permit so to us, that kind of creates the levels, 3 kind of apartment areas,
whatever you want to call it, but there was exchange of payment for tenancy and that, by
our definition meets a rental. So for us to try to solve that rate of problem through this,
we finally had, you know what we would call prima facia evidence to say this is how it's
being used. While we tried to find it before, because we had received complaints, and I
think that's some of the angst with the neighbors but I'm not sure in this format, we did
provide another mechanism for the applicant to go through, which we would with
anybody else to try to resolve. He can have so many people at this point. I think we
really need to take that through a separate process, which is allowed by the code, under a
variance. Economic hardship, to come through that process and that's what the staff
would recommend. I think the Planning Commission really listened hard. It was a long
hearing. I think the neighbors would testify. Several hours, twice to really go through
and dissect exactly how the property was being used and I rely on their wisdom to, how
they formulated, based on the information, the testimony from the residents and the
questions that they asked of how the property was being used.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the, I guess the question is, the effect that would result. If
the first requested motion and to recognize that he meets the definition. What's the effect
of that?
Kate Aanenson: That's a good question and the fact that we have a zoning ordinance is
really to protect property rights. The surrounding properties. When you buy into a
residential district, your expectation is that you have some protection of how the
neighboring properties are being used. So if we were to say anybody, I think that's why, I
know that's one of the reasons why we came up with this rental license as we had some of
the older properties around town. People were starting to rent them and some of them
were nuisances. So we came up with the property maintenance, in combination with the
43
City Council Meeting - August 14,2006
rental license so not only can we go after property that's in ill repair, but we also have
some control of tenants that are in properties and they can lose their ability to rent
property if they're not managing their tenants and the property. It was kind of a two
pronged approach on that, so it would have implications if you're trying to solve that, for
this application and not look at it city wide because there is an expectation of protecting
neighbor's properties.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Mr. Knutson.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, just quickly point out. I'm not going to, under a rental dwelling
license, revision to the city code, a dwelling, rental dwelling is, the term rental dwelling
means any rental dwelling with one or more living units, so even though you have one
living unit, not multiple living units, you can be a rental dwelling. To be a rental
dwelling that means you charge someone, or receive other forms of compensation for the
use of the dwelling. So whether you live there or not is, doesn't matter.
Mayor Furlong: Doesn't matter. It doesn't exclude.
Roger Knutson: If you receive rent from someone or if you receive vegetables from
someone for living there, any kind of compensation, that makes it a rental dwelling. The
fact that you're living there does not change it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Ms. Aanenson, follow up on the comments, both on the
setbacks. There was suggestions made that the setbacks were changing over time. And
the difference between the setback from the street. I know we've heard this, this has been
an issue and point of confusion with a number of people between the street and the right-
of-way.
Kate Aanenson: Right. The setback is taken from the right-of-way, not the improved
surface.
Mayor Furlong: Do you have that picture again? Is that the box that goes across there?
So by that picture, I think that hatched area that goes around the north, east and south
part, is that the deck?
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: On the building. Does that go up and touch the right-of-way at this
point, or approximately touch the right-of-way?
Kate Aanenson: Close.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright.
Kate Aanenson: Again, that goes back to some of the older part...
44
City Council Meeting - August 14, 2006
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the request here is essentially to build a second story over
the entire pink area?
Kate Aanenson: The area in pink is the area that doesn't meet the setbacks. You're
not.. . to this point. ... does not allow you to go into the 35 feet maximum height. Again
there was some concern with the residents that he was, that the applicant was building
higher. That does meet the setback. When the home was destroyed, you can meet
whatever the zoning ordinance allows, 35 feet. It's this area in pink that doesn't meet the
setbacks. I guess the same with the non-conforming portion.
Mayor Furlong: And what, even though it is, his home was non-conforming within
setbacks, because it burned he can still replace what was there.
Kate Aanenson: In the area that meets, correct. Meets all the setback requirements and
that's the...
Mayor Furlong: Okay, but the request here is to build higher within the pink area.
Kate Aanenson: Right. He came in a little bit higher and that was the one we recently
said no, there's...
Mayor Furlong: On the blue he's going higher as well?
Kate Aanenson: Correct...
Mayor Furlong: Okay, but that is not restricted because of any setback issue. It's the area
in the pink where he's requesting to go higher than what was there before, and that's
where, am I understanding that correctly?
Kate Aanenson: Correct. And that doesn't meet, it doesn't meet setbacks so you have to
stay with what was...
Mayor Furlong: Okay, so he can replace what was there before the fire but.
Kate Aanenson: ... the apartment's non-conforming, yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of staff? If not, discussion.
Comments. Alright, I'm going to start calling names. Councilman Lundquist.
Councilman Lundquist: Got the short straw huh. Comments. I think the, my inclination
is to side with staff and Planning Commission. Carver Beach is one, it's hard for us it
seems like to go a month without seeing something. That's an old area of the city and the
lots are small and there's a lot of existing non-conformances and things out there that, I
think myself, you know I look at each one of those individually and the circumstances
surrounding it when they come in for whatever those variances or requests or things are,
and the, whether or not you know in 1929 or whichever what the circumstances were, the
45
City Council Meeting - August 14,2006
fact is that we're allowing this applicant to build to replace what was there. To build
what burned down seems reasonable. Within that footprint. You want to change the
inside? You know lots of options you can do there within that existing footprint, and you
know there's right-of-ways there that define where those setbacks have to be and you
know if the right-of-way's there, that's where you've got to measure from so, you know I
believe my view is that there's some opportunity to increase the height of what's there
now in some areas that are within the setback so that's even in addition to what's there
now. For those areas that were previously non-conforming, I'm not inclined to increase
that non-conformance out there, especially given that essentially he can rebuild the house
in the existing footprint and there is potential to do more than that currently out there that
I'm inclined to deny the variance because I believe that there's reasonable use of the
property and you know in fact can be again made bigger in certain areas of that property.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Other comments.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I agree with Councilman Lundquist. I guess I could repeat
everything he said but I'm really not in favor of taking a non-conforming situation and
amplifying it. And I think he does have the right to rebuild what he does have and he has
reasonable use of that property and when he does rebuild it the way it was. So I also am
going to side with the staff and go on the Planning Commission's recommendation to
deny this.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Peterson.
Councilman Peterson: I concur. I think there's been a lot of discussion about definition
of rental. I guess as I read that and as you listen to our city attorney, there isn't a
question. He's renting. And you can ask a lot of what ifs. Well what if he wasn't
renting? Would that change our perspective? No. The fact is, he is and so I'm not going
to even think about that. You know in, it creates issues and we have an opportunity now
to correct some of the issues that it creates and if he'd like to come back and request the
variance for, to get the zoning variance to do rentals, to do that route as Kate mentioned,
he certainly has every right to do that. But as far as expanding a non-conforming, I don't
see a compelling reason to do it at all.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. I would concur. I think the issues of reasonable use
have been stated. He has reasonable use with rebuilding the property as it was within the
non-conforming area. I think the other issues, having read through the verbatim minutes
of the Planning Commission, actually 2 meetings where this was discussed, I think the
questions and the discussion were very pointed. Very appropriate and revealed
information on how the property's being used, to Councilman Peterson's point, and it is
being rented. I think that is clear. I think you know if we approved that first request,
we'll be stating the obviously on what's been agreed to. And I think the other issue,
because it's being rented, improving the non-conforming creates the opportunity and in
some cases it looks like the desire to increase income on the property as well, which is
another factor that came out in the Planning Commission meeting. And for those reasons
I think it's important for us not to go forward with approving and increasing the non-
46
City Council Meeting - August 14,2006
conforming aspect of it. Being able to rebuild what he had, that is reasonable and I'm
glad that our state statutes allow that because I think that would be a reasonable request.
But to increase the non-conforming and to build more, I think that's unreasonable and
doesn't meet the standards. I think the findings of fact in the staff report are consistent
with what I've heard here and support the Planning Commission's and the staffs
recommendation to deny so. I would concur with other comments and for reasons
additionally stated, that it would not be appropriate for us to go forward with approving
this requested variance. Any other thoughts or comments? If not, is there a motion? We
have 2 motions I believe.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I'll make the first motion. The City Council concurs with the
Planning Commission and planning staffs interpretation that the owner of the property at
6724 Lotus Trail, Loren Veltkamp has been renting the property as defined in the City
Code Article VIII, Rental Dwelling Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City
Council concurs with the Planning Commission and planning staff's interpretation
that the owner of the property at 6724 Lotus Trail, Loren Veltkamp has been
renting the property as defined in the City Code Article VIII, Rental Dwelling
Licenses, Section 10-217, Rental Dwelling. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 4 to O.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Motion 2.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mayor I recommend that the City Council deny the variance
for 22 foot and 15 foot front yard setback area for the expansion of the second level of a
home with non-conforming setbacks in the single family residential district at 6724 Lotus
Trail based on the Findings of Fact contained in the staff report and the following 1
through 3? Okay.
Roger Knutson: Mayor, just to be clear. You're adopting the Planning Commission
finding as your own findings.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Did I read the wrong one?
Roger Knutson: No, you did it just fine. I'm just amplifying.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Lundquist: Second.
47
City Council Meeting - August 14,2006
Mayor Furlong: Any discussion on that motion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City
Council denies the variance for 22 foot and 15 foot front yard setback variances for
the expansion of the second level of a home with non-conforming setbacks in the
Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 6724 Lotus Trail, based on the Findings
of Fact contained in this staff report and the following:
1. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
3. There is an alternative process to secure a rental license.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to o.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you everyone.
COUNCIL PRESENT A TIONS:
Mayor Furlong: Memory serves, we had, I think this is our first council meeting since
National Night Out on August 1 st. Since we're on the 14t\ and I want to thank staff for
their work in organizing it. I also want to recognize and thank members of the Carver
County Sheriffs Department, and particularly the posse who serve on a volunteer basis
and came out in force to meet with our residents and various neighborhood parties. I
think we had, I know we had a presentation at our last council meeting, but it rained that
night. The following night and yet attendance was still very strong and I think that
speaks volumes of not only our residents but also the organization efforts. ... staff and.
Councilman Lundquist: We also had the ladder truck and members of the fire
department.
Mayor Furlong: Absolutely, thank you. Fire department was out there.
Councilman Lundquist: One of our other assistant.
Mayor Furlong: I think we had 3 trucks out there in total from the fire department so
thank you for naming that. But it was a good night. A lot of enthusiasm. A lot of good
questions were raised. So I think everybody.
Todd Gerhardt: Neighborhoods made some makeshift tents between ladders and tarps
and so they had a place to gather to get out of the rain. That was pretty creative.
Mayor Furlong: So congratulations to everybody and especially to those 40
neighborhoods, for all the people that hosted the party. For their efforts and for everyone
that attended, appreciate it. Any other comments or discussion for council members? If
not, Mr. Gerhardt.
48