##VIDEO ID:s9_88LibAa0## Wai for a red light perfect ask uh good evening everybody we'll call this November 13 2024 chasa City uh Planning Commission meeting to order um roll call please yep commissioner Austin here baswa here brass Campbell here gy here Kerber here Olson here herie and vice chair here all right call is made um do we have any additions or anything being removed from the agenda nothing all right make a motion there I'll accept the motion to adopt the agenda make a motion to adopt the agenda Mo bson second motion and seconded to adopt the agenda all in favor say I I oppos carries um visitor presentation now so if you have something that you'd like to discuss that is not on the agenda tonight we've got time for that right now anybody online that we could see all right perfect we'll then move on to um item number five are approve approval of previous meeting minutes um from the October 9th 2024 chasa Planning Commission meeting were they posted were they actually attached the packet should have been did you not see them in there no I didn't see them in there okay I didn't see him either UMES you carry that over to the next meeting we can yeah I think that's what we'll have to do we need a motion for that or I think effectively you're not making a motion I I think maybe what you could do just to formalize it just say motion to carry uh the October meeting minutes into the December meeting um and that'll be in the record and then we can somebody make that motion I'll make a motion to carry the uh October 9th Planning Commission minutes to the no to the December meeting second second motion made in seconded all in favor say I opposed motion carries um move in number six consent items which we have none tonight um which brings us to our one action item tonight number seven uh public hearing recommended denial of a ma major variance for 2979 Hilltop Drive to encroach into the rear yard set back for Joan Michelle Highland PC number 20 24-19 am I up there y yep okay thank you all right we've got a request this evening for a major variance uh for the address at 2979 Hilltop Drive uh this is being requested by the property owners Joe and Michelle Highland um and it's specifically for a variance request to uh deviate from the rear rear yard setback that applies to the which is uh per section 15.2.2 200 so to give you an idea of where the site is located um the site in question is highlighted in blue here on this zoomed out aerial exhibit uh the property is located on the western edge of the city of chasa it borders on the edge of uh the city of chasa and with what is known as our orderly annexation area of the lak Town Township um so that line is defined in the orang and purple on this aerial here uh the lot in question is technically within the city of chasa um and then the purple line is where that orderly annexation area exists with within the city um the property is uh within a subdivision known as Town course Heights uh which is highlighted in kind of this salmon color on this screen here so it includes detached single family and attached town home units within that subdivision uh the zoning is PRD 42 plan residential district 42 um the surrounding uses and proximities uh to the site uh we have Pioneer Trail on the southern end of that development uh we have uh chasa Town course the gulf course um to the east of the property um we have additional detach single family uh directly north um and Rural residential and a church on the western side uh here's a more zoomed in aerial view of the property if we need to refer back to it for any reason um in terms of background and some existing conditions related to this property um previous approvals um specifically with the subdivision Town course Heights uh the plat and then as well as the annexation into the city of chasa was formally approved in April of 2002 um and then subsequently the subdivision was rezoned to PRD 42 as um coded by ordinance number 746 in May of 2003 um within that ordinance uh which codifies the zoning uh for the property it does reference the city's standard r1a uh standards for setbacks that would apply to this lot uh specifically and other Lots within the subdivision uh which is formerly known as section 15.2.2 200 uh the setbacks defined within that section um require a 30ft front yard setback a 30ft uh rear yard setback um and then uh it varies for attached unenclosed decks which need to adhere to a 20 foot rear yard setback and then a side setback of 10 feet for the house and 7 feet for the garage side in terms of existing conditions of this property in question this evening um the property total 0 .26 acres in size which amounts to 11,325 square ft in area um in terms of what exists on the property today there is a drainage and utility easement on the rear portion of the property that I I'll show in a later exhibit um you will see that um there is a slight um what looks like an encroachment over that drainage and utility easement however it's just a twoot Canever within that easement um so in terms terms of um obstruction to the easement there is no obstruction um based on the layout of those elements um currently the uh lot consists of a two-story home um and then a partially built three season porch on the rear uh portion of the property uh currently the porch is set back approximately 22 feet from that rear property line um which uh encroaches roughly 8 F feet into that 30 foot building set back um the three season porch uh did start construction approximately in May of 2024 of this year um with no building permit um and it was basically constructed over the where the former attached unenclosed deck was so um per this aerial here the um attached deck is shown on the North side on the rear portion of the lot um so again as noted before uh attached unenclosed decks uh uh require a 20 foot rear yard setback um and the former deck uh that was there was compliant with that as it was setback 22 feet from the rear property line so with the conversion of an enclosed three season porch over the existing deck um requires a 30-ft setback for buildings um it did not comply with that 30ft setback that is um referenced uh for this zoning District so in essence the existing porch as it sits today is non-compliant and encroaches into that rear yard setback 8 feet excuse me um here is that aerial exhibit again just marked up with um the dimension out there so there is a 20 foot 22t rear setback from the rear property line to the attached deck as shown in this 2024 aerial and this is showing what it looked like prior to the porch inversion um and then this is a survey drawing just colorized to make it a little bit more readable in terms of some of the elements uh at play here as well as where the existing three season porch sits um the yellow area is that drainage and utility easement um that I noted before um and then the new 3 season porch sat over a portion of that former attached uh deck area which is shown in uh the blue here um and again that 22t setb is to that um North edge of that thre season porch uh the 30 foot setback is shown in this red line here and as you can see it uh bifurcates um almost through the middle of the uh thre season porch um and the existing home is shown in Gray are grayed out here and there is a portion of some deck um still remaining as a part of uh E3 Susan porch design um so wanted to go over uh the sequence of events and what has led up to this variance application um the full sequence is laid it out in the staff report and I'm just going to mention kind of more of the significant uh events that have occurred up until this point um just in terms of timing and communication that has been um completed between uh City staff and uh the uh contractor and the property owners um it does date back to March of this year but more of the significant uh communication occurred or started in April of this year um and that's when the uh plans that were needed for the building permit review process to start uh were uh given to the city and that was on April 22nd and then our building inspector uh responded on May 3rd um and did send an email that initially gave him approval um verbally through that email in an invoice um but that was before they checked the setbacks but uh not even a minute minute later our inspector did uh send another email uh retracting the per contractor the permit was not approved due to the setback encroachment of the three season porch um and about a couple weeks later after that communication was sent out to the contractor uh the contractor uh did come into City Hall to pay for a building permit um and he was greeted by Tony at that time that the building permit was not approved as per the email that was sent on May 3rd um and then it was July middle of July July 18th and 19th to be exact um that the city was notified of the porch construction underway um and did go out to the property to inspect and did observe that the project was nearly complete um at that time a stop work order was issued on the property by our um building inspector Tony which was also followed by an email to the contractor to inform them inform them of the stop work order um uh the property owner Joe Highland was also copied at that time uh to inform them of that information um and then July 22nd um the contractor did come to City Hall to uh further discussed the stockwork order with Tony um and he was reminded that the building permit was not approved and at that time he did admit to uh the fact that the work had started uh before they came in to pay for the permit um at the end of May um and that they admitted to continuing work without a permit and not getting the necessary inspections that are required on that onset side of work um at that time myself uh was included in that conversation with the contractor to discuss corrective options uh for the property uh which uh evolved to uh looking at tearing down or sizing down the porch to be compliant with the setback uh or the other option would be to apply for a variance to um get the deviation um approved uh at that time I did inform the contractor that the variance application should only be applied for if they feel that the Practical difficulty standard as defined by our variance um ordinance and state statute is met um and due to the sequence of events and not obtaining a permit um that going through a variance application um would be a difficult process to get approved uh but it is still the right of the property owner to do that um and then July uh 29 is when the property owner um emailed staff for setback information and we did respond at that time um and then a little less than a month later we did reach out to the property owner to get an update on the porch removal Andor correction um and then it was September 12th that the property owner responded um stating that they uh were going to pursue a variance application a day after that we did Supply the variance application materials um and again restated uh that they should only pursue the variance application if they feel there's a strong case a of practical difficulty being met um and then uh the 1 of October that's when the official application came in for the variant and that is where we are today and this evening is reviewing that application uh so the request uh this evening um is for a variance from section 15.12 to 100 which states that there is a 30ft rear yard setback requirement uh applied to r1a uh zoning uh districts um which the PRD 42 references in ordinance number 746 um the applicant is proposing to maintain their rear yard porch Edition that encroaches into the rear yard building setback uh right now the porch is 22 ft from the rear property line which is an 8ot encroachment um and then uh the porch again was constructed without a building permit um so in uh planning terminology this is the a this is considered an after the fat variance so after it's been looked at or been constructed or constructed partially in this instance um the images on this slide show the existing uh layout or what's existing on the property today with what's been constructed with three season porch uh the two images show um the East and West views of the porch from the property um again the uh porch itself sits 22 ft away from their rear property line um they do have uh a retaining wall and Arbor B um screen uh on the rear portion of the property there um but it is open on either side to their neighboring property um getting into the facts of the variance and how we uh review variance applications um it really gets down to uh Minnesota State Statute requirement um which speaks to practical difficulty uh the definition of practical diff difficulty is um used in connection with granting of a variance means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance the plate of the land owner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner and the variance of granted will not alter the essential character of the locality economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties um and they are uh to include but are not limited to INE inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems um there is a um that criteria is kind of split into three uh criteria as listed in the definition um but gets to reasonable development um conditions on the property that create a practical difficulty that are not present on similar siiz Lots in the same area and Zoning district and relationships with budding property that will not be adversely affected by the variance or alter the essential character of locality and then these are another list of questions that um can be used towards evaluating a variance request but the three criteria listed um ahead of this slide um are kind of the the bread and butter of a variance request review um so in terms of staff's evaluation we we look to each criteria and how request um either meets or does not meet uh those criteria uh as it relates to CR criteria one uh which is um to the reasonable use of what's being proposed um the applicant's request for a porch tradition is a reasonable use however encroachment into the rear yard building setback is unreasonable um the 30 foot rear yard setback is a common setback is found in um most of the city's standard residential zoning districts um such as R1 and r1a uh so this is not a unique um setback that's being applied to this property um nor does it prohibit reasonable development on the property or the surrounding properties um getting to the after the fact variance um uh classification um the Minnesota Supreme Court um had a similar case um which laid out uh factors that can be considered for after the fact variance requests um the ones kind of um more relevant um is uh looking to whether or not the non-compliance was willful or intentional or whether it was unintentional mistake um including whether the applicant Faith or attempted to comply with the ordinance um also looking at whether the construction was completed whether there were similar structures in the area um and whether the governing body's benefits were outweighed by the applicant's burden if the applicant were required to comply with ordinance um related to those pieces um the city did promptly notify the applicant on at least two different occasions of the setback encroachment um and a building permit was never issued um um so in that instance the city believes the construction of the porch was done consciously without a permit um which is pretty critical in terms of uh starting work um and then regardless of those factors uh the city still retains discretion in deciding whether to Grant a variance so long as the facts in the record reasonably support the city's interpretation of practical difficulty standards so it really again puts the discretion on the city to weigh in um how the request uh meets the Practical difficulty definition as stated in the three criteria um in some uh for criteria one um staff believes it is not being met uh getting to Criterion two um which generally relates to unique circumstances not created by the land owner on the property staff's opinion is that unique circumstance es do not appear to exist on the property that impact the request to build a page um the only observed unique circumstances that is not controlled uh by the applicant or the property owner uh is the drainage and utility easement that exists on the rear portion of the property however uh this easement is not more restrictive than the rear yard setback um in other words it falls outside of the the 30 foot um rear yard setback so doesn't prohibit um or it's not more restrictive than that rear yard uh the subdivision Town course Heights um contains similar size Lots within the development um and has the same uh rear yard setback of 30 ft uh the lot in question is 0.26 Acres um and is not uniquely smaller than the other Lots in the subdivision uh the graphic shown on this screen here shows the averaging acreage of the surrounding Lots within uh the detached single family portion of this uh subdivision um there are smaller Lots within the subdivision um so uh in staff's opinion it does not evoke uh unique uh characteristics compared to other Lots within the area and additionally the non-conformance is a result of actions of the applicants through the contractor as their acting agent um so the circumstance that uh is a result of this variance request has been created by the applicant so in some um staff believes Criterion number two is not met and then Criterion three essential character um essential character of the locality uh staff beliefs is altered uh granting a variance to encroach um into the rear yard setback can set a negative precedence to uh the neighborhood into the community not based on a substantial uh characteristics that set it apart um in essence other properties within this neighborhood or with similar conditions of the of this property could seek a variance request for um a similar uh request related to the rear yard set back um and generally the spatial relationships with uh neighboring properties would be altered as a result of granting this variance and potentially other similar variances um if the variance is granted this evening so in some uh Criterion number three uh is not met um just a couple other comments uh related uh to the variance request um because uh the project did not receive a building permit um granting the variance could send a bad message that variances are a tool to remedy the result of creating a non-conformity from the result of not obtaining a building permit um the request that in front of us um does not stem from uniqueness of the property rather a result of unfortunate circumstances um that were controlled uh the city is not obligated to Grant a variance for a completed project that did not receive a building permit uh the request uh still needs to adhere to Varian standards um such as practical difficulty as defined by State Statute and the City Zoning code um if the variance is denied um by city council the applicant uh will be responsible to correct the setback encroachment uh in other words uh tear down the porch or the section of the porch that is in violation um in staff's opinion um we don't believe there is a practical difficulty um ex this uh on the property or for the request um and therefore a variance should not be granted based on the following findings um the property in question can be put to reasonable use under the current regulations and setbacks uh there are no unique physical constraints on the property which would put put the applicant in a position of not reasonably using their property per this request uh the variance is greater than necessary to reasonably use the property there are reasonable alternatives for a building addition uh meeting setbacks that should be explored uh the variance of granted will alter the essential character of the area by allowing a smaller rear yard setback a rear building addition encroaching into the minimum uh building setback would set a negative pre precedence for other homes that have the same rear rear yard setback or similar um lot sizes within within the area uh the variance of granted is contrary to the city's zoning ordinance section 15122 200 uh which requires a 30 foot rear yard setback uh and then lastly the variance of granted would set a negative precedence for projects that do not obtain a building permit uh so with that uh staff is is making a motion to recommend denial of the major variance request encroach into the rear yard setback 8 ft um as per zoning ordinance 15122 200 for the purpose of an existing porch addition that did not receive a building permit uh to the and then this motion to for your recommendation um would be would go to the city council um based on the findings listed on the last slide and and uh defined in the staff report um if this moves forward this evening whether that's recommendation of denial or recommendation of approval um it would go to City Council on Monday November 18th um happy to answer any questions we do have the applicants in the audience too to help answer questions if you have any for them thank you um so this is a public hearing but before we get to that does anybody have any questions for Liz I have one um Liz for city tax purposes is the space of a three season porch considered living space yes so it's called it's considered livable space yes per per building code it is I can't really say in terms of tax purposes so that would be more of a county question to them but per building code yeah any other questions for Liz no um do we want to have the applicants up or open the public hearing or um it's up to you I think the procedure I'd recommend is you open the public hearing and then applicants can come up as part of that public anyone else who wants to speak so at 7:30 p.m. we will open the public hearing now and ask that the app applicants come up and their story thank you very much Elizabeth thank you for the uh um synopsis I can toss out half my speech um good evening members of the Planning Commission my name is Joe Highland and along with my wife Michelle here we are asking for the city of chesa to consider approving a variance request that will allow us to complete a three season porch addition on the back of our home at 2979 Hilltop Drive in the town cor sites neighborhood where we have been resident since 2003 um you heard the synopsis of how things went down as far as the perment application to denial I just want to provide some input as far to that uh as the homeowners we had never been notified by our contractor or the city that the permit for the porch was not approved until until Tony Zappa's arrival at our home on July 18th we've been acting in good faith that all necessary permits were sorted out between our contractor ens and the city if we had been made aware of the permit status on May 3rd we would have put a stop to the project and explored other options however at the time of the stop workk order being issued the porch was approximately 80 to 90% completed we feel that the city council has the ability to approve our variance requests without creating a precedent for future variances as an example the mar County California variance process states that because each variance is based upon special circumstances related to relating to the site for which it is proposed the past Grant or denial or variances for other properties in the area does not mandate similar action on the part of the hearing body the smaller lot sizes per mitted in our town course Heights neighborhood due to the passing of ordinance 746 have put our Lots at a disadvantage when it comes to meeting the 30-foot setback requirement this disadvantage was not created by us the property owners coupled with the fact that we were not aware of the permit status until the porch was near completion we feel that there are special circumstances applicable to our property that should allow for the granting of the variants we thank you all for the opportunity to meet with you tonight and look forward to our discussion and exploring what options are available to move forward any questions for for Joe or Michelle how long have you been planning the three season porch or the transition from the deck that's a story it started around the beginning of co uh we started taking the deck apart and just intending to replace the floorboards with a maintenance-free uh product um and uh talking with some friends in the construction industry they had floated the idea of a three season porch our backyard as you've seen by the photos is quite Limited in space we thought we would uh uh maximize the space as much as possible and have a space that we could use in the spring and fall months uh so we started kind of do do it-yourself project just replacing the floorboards Co hit material prices went through the roof and that kind of stayed in a a unfinished mode until this spring when we finally made the decision to reach out to a contractor and and complete are you the original owner of the property yes so built the home in 2003 when you when you purchased it correct okay so lot size and all that you were aware of the or the um 30 foot set back we were like 24 25 I saw this like lot that wasn't built on I'm like this is amazing and then when the house went up just being ignorant like not thinking of how like big the house would be I was super disappointed with uh the end result of the yard but I mean that was our own or my own ignorance just not understanding the 30 foot setback is not a new thing it's been around for yeah how long I think it was established to the year that we 2003 thank you on the onset of building out there that was part of that PUD right um I'm sure you guys don't want to be here tonight I know none of us are looking forward to dealing with this one either um what's your contractor say on this be um on Zoom um see there's a couple people on he was going to try to join and just so you know that we did all the um letters of of support support were in our file we all letters from all of our neighbors who could actually see it surrounding us and they're all in support um I mean I know this isn't like legal jargon of of making the case but I mean we've put a lot of money into this which I know isn't matter but like from our standpoint we've invested tens of thousands of dollars and it just seems like really sad to take the porch down at this point and be out that kind of money like if this was we you know in the very beginning and we were told no it would just been a non-issue but like we didn't know and we've invested a ton of money and I just like can't imagine tearing it down at this point so you weren't aware until July you said that yeah you you don't dispute the fact that your contractor knew that much earlier oh yeah yeah we've yeah afterwards yeah um yeah I think he was going in good faith though initially because I think and I if he's online he should speak because I don't I'm probably not going to get the story straight I mean I know initially he thought it was approved and he went ahead and even got the engineering drawings which are like $1,000 because he thought the permit was approved so he actually paid for the th engineering drawings or whatever um I think at some point though in the building process he did find out and then you know there was still work done after that which uh was not our intent at all from the beginning we had every intention that the communications with our contractor was that permits were taken care of um in hindsight I I really wish I would have had him physically show that to me when start the project but that's that's my bad I I thought it was all taken care of any other questions for the applicants here anything else for us I don't I don't think so I think just as you're considering it just put yourself in our shoes in the situation and how how would you feel I guess is kind of kind of what we want to get across so thank you and we thank you for your time thanks so contractors not yeah is do we have somebody online as a contractor there is one guest I'm not sure if it's the contractor so if the guest or if um the contractor is online you can raise your hand um and give you the ability to speak I'm not I'm not seeing anything so anybody else he does have a child in the hospital so it wasn't just a no show because okay he didn't want to show he didn't want to be here but that children's daughter that Children's Hospital okay um anybody else want to speak during the public hearing please identify yourself and and your address please good evening chair Commissioners my name is Brian wisdorf w s d o r I live at 2997 Hilltop Drive just up the street from the islands here I received my card in the mail indicating of the tonight's hearing and decided that I would take a look at the material submitted in your packet as well as um check out the situation myself I reviewed the materials and I'm here in support of the variance that is requested I respectfully disagree with the analysis and recommendation contained in the staff report and this is based upon my 20 years of real estate experience dealing with variances since back dating from February of of this year I used to represent Property Owners as well as cities associate in dealing with and addressing variance requests either pre or after the fact um in reviewing the city code as well as a statute the Practical difficulties issue staff used is tasa Heights development was associated with the plaids that the developer used in order to build the number of lots or building residential units on this lot on these lots that um would allow them to maximize obviously uh the number of they could sell when it comes to practical difficulty the Flight of the land owners you know has to be due to circumstances unique to the property staff focused again on this particular plan unit development and the interesting thing about the ordinance itself uh that was ordinance 746 is it appears that that was passed after the platting of the properties um usually they go hand inand I'm not quite sure why that is but ultimately when we look at these City's ordinance requirements for for this area the ultimately it's under the current code it's a minimum of 11,500 square fet with an average of 15,000 square feet that's what one would anticipate in looking at Lots in the city of chesco when this ordinance 746 was passed they allow the developer to create smaller lots of 11,200 for 20 Lots within block five which includes my lot which includes the highlands lot and it also even allowed even smaller Lots uh to be R in the R1 District so ultimately when they approved this development they ultimately said we're going to allow allow you to put houses on smaller parts of property now when you have the R1 in the r1a in this case when you allowed when the city approved the ordinance and said well we're going to allow you to have uh Lots with smaller square footage that It ultimately allowed the property owners or the developer to allow the property owners to put in there a houses that didn't didn't meet the square footage that would otherwise be required in this development there are 20 Lots that are identified as r18 six of those lots are below the 11,500 that are current code would otherwise required okay that in and of itself makes the prop unique okay and that wasn't a situation created by the property owner when they approved it yes they kept the the required setbacks of 30 ft But ultimately by making it a smaller smaller lot or allowing the smaller lot and keeping the setbacks as what would normally apply to the 11,500 foot minimum requirement created a crunching of the property for purposes of the property owner making it more difficult for them to build what they're seeking to build that what's which makes it practically a practical unique situation not created by the property owner for those reasons I think you as the Planning Commission and and city council have a have a basis to find a unique situation here for the highlands and permit them to uh move forward with their three season porch um and going to the unique circumstances of this case relied upon by staff the issue of the Highlands being informed through their contractor it's not that I think they've pointed out that they they weren't informed in May when the contractor or when the building inspector informed the contractor that one your permit was approved and then two your P permit isn't approved anymore because you looked at the setback nor was anyone ever coming out to the property that based upon the sequence events in their report is to inform the highlands that hey look don't be doing anything on your property because we've now determined that nothing can be done according to the plan that was submitted as Mr Highland uh presented tonight it was news to him when the building inspector showed up in his uh driveway and asked him questions about it um that too makes it somewhat unique I don't think it happens very often where a contractor or property owner are informed that your your your permit's been granted and then later on inform that it's not so it's some UNC uh unfortunate circumstances that have Arisen here uh based upon the sequence events that did occur uh ultimately at the end of the day you're left dealing with and after the effect variance and an after Thea variance is not ideal for anybody it's not something that is preferred obviously uh and is not to be promoted however when there is unique circumstances associated with the parcel itself that would otherwise permit that variance to be granted had they come in in the beginning if you go back in time and you looked at it in those sit circumstances and said is this a unique situation for the highlands who who who were before you in that at that point in time there is a basis to make it unique to this situation to make it unique to them that would not necessarily promote uh people like myself who would also arguably is on a small lot under the uh 11,200 square feet according to the the uh County records but ultimately in any of those cases whether it's me that's on that small lot we would still have to come before you and state our case as to what it is we wanted to do why why is it a practical difficulty how does it meet those other other guidelines that by by you approving theirs doesn't rubber stamp anything for me or any of the other property owners when it comes to variances we still would have to go through the process um for purposes of obtaining any such variance thank you any questions for Brian before he leaves thank you Brian anybody else online you're online and you wish to speak you can raise hand function and we can unmute nothing right we'll close the public hearing at 7:49 p.m. and uh Mark more discussion with our commission here when they get issued a permit isn't there a um signage that gets put on the site and it has to be signed off for every like electrical or Plumbing or footing stuff like that so there wasn't you didn't see one of these you didn't know that those are usually applied on we've seen it done before but weren't aware that it was a requirement to have it physically posted outside that was we've done one project in our house finished basement and then we had per appli for that and yeah I CH it up to uh I guess life and the speed of things moving too fast so not ask those questions but he so he knew there was no permit but he decided to go on his own and finish the construction that's all Liz um what romped the the TW month gap between the visit between the contract pay and the building inspector going out on the 18th of July contractor came in middle of May to pay for and he said no and so then two months later the buildings inspector goes to the site and sees and obviously puts the stop order so what spurred the visit and the twomon gap for that yeah I I mean between that and I can only speak on indirectly but um once the message was given to the contractor that the building permit was not approved when they came in to pick it up um the ball was back in their cour to correct their plans to resubmit to the city um I don't know if that was uh something that was mentioned by the contractor at that time that they would work on that um but ultimately the city was notified by an electrical inspector that the work was being completed there and they were following up with the city to see if there was a permit on file for that and so that's when the city was notified that the work was happening I mean yeah first of all it's really sad to see like after spending a lot of money and they wanted to come go through this process I'm really sorry for that but like suppose if we are uh considering all these this particular lot is a special or like all these criterias are met or whatever the reason it's not about like someone else is coming in yeah definitely there is a there's like opening a can of WS I mean someone else can e easily build something else and say yeah I have some other difficulties and my my neighbors are okay to build whatever I wanted because most of the time like some of the neighbor maybe uh my neighbor is my friend because generally they live together for a long time they don't want it to oppose or anything if it is not bothering them right that is one thing and another thing it's not about residents because at the end of the day residents that's okay we can consider their request but we might give the free hand to the contractors who are like actually going to do these similar kind of things to other residents and just ignoring about the process and simply go and build whatever they wanted to and just try to I mean do whatever the way they wanted to build it that is more things we need to consider here like we definitely need to make sure like contractor is responsible for whatever the actions we had here in this case rather than like I mean we definitely have to see in that perspective more than like the resident perspective that's what I feel what are the what are the Alternatives that staff has provided versus tear it all down tear it half down um what else what else is there um I'm trying I'ma what creative things can happen here that still fall in line that because I'm I want to I I want to but at the same time it's the you know it's not so much UNS setting the precedent it's I'm I I got past that one long ago because we last last month so need justes to say um we go by the whim so but I'm looking for what is the solution how can we get through this without getting to the point of because a 7 foot a 7 foot three season porch is nothing I mean right nobody's nobody is going to do that no I mean nobody I mean so what alternatives are there because they're putting it on the same footprint of the deck that was there it's just that now it has walls in a ro and I'm just trying to get my head around the concept of what is materially different from a deck to a three season porch and put aside it's already built if this was coming to us as a plan for for a request for a variance as a plan what is really different and and now I'm kind of pushing on city code what is really different between a 3season porch and a deck because it doesn't have foot I mean besides it it's it's still going to be on footing the same footings of a deck it's not going to be have a foundation so it's not going to have a basement it's it's it's still going to be on stilt but I think it's a structure so I think that's what you were trying to say in and and I and I read that as into more of a permanent thing but a deck is a permanent thing as well too so I mean you still have to maintain it so I'm I'm I'm trying to get my head around that side of it and that that's where I was like I said I was putting aside the fact that it was already built and just kind of going with the why why is there a distinction between a deck and an enclosed forch and if it was is there a difference between something that's just got screens versus so where's where's the where's the delineation between an enclosed porch versus a three season porch versus a deck where what qualifies for the foot what qualifies for the right you just maybe explain that right yeah I mean the deck is an unenclosed deck so something that does not have a a roof and walls is technically what is considered for that 20 foot setback so roof and walls roof and walls whether it's screen or walled puts it into that 30 foot setback requirement so if somebody had a deck and put a Pergola on top of it that would be an enclosed deck a Pergola yeah no that's just a that's an open structure yeah like I said I'm going through the creative side of things as into what what is and what isn't so I believe that's what they had before on their deck was a perola no you didn't you didn't okay there are examples looks it looks deceiving on the on the aerial exhibit yeah looking at just the fres okay okay original so coming to that like what are the other options contractor uh actually provided to you like if it is not going in the right direction I mean they are they going to provide any additional options like this might be the next step or anything like that yeah I mean like you mentioned I think the if you can come up to the microphone sorry they don't pick up everything on audio thank you yeah I don't think there are any real good options I mean we could shorten it by eight feet but like you mentioned it's going to be six or seven feet long so we can make it like six or seven feet and then make it like way wider but that's not interesting to me I mean I want to like have a table you know eat dinner out there and it just wouldn't be something like I wouldn't like it you know that would be like absolute Last Resort but it wouldn't be something I would want um I don't know someone mentioned to us like if you unattach it so just take off however it is tied to the house then it just becomes a independent structure I don't know it sounds crazy but like I don't know if that's an option like you just detach it from the house and then doesn't anymore I don't know if that's true or not but kids playhouse is there any other IDE I Tony zap brought that up the day he showed up in my driveway I we didn't explore that path because you know we we we at first started communicating when we found this out and we had heard from Liz and team um we had asked what options are available and uh step number one was the variance um and that's the route that we took um haven't really explored any other options with the with the contractor yet all right thank you commissioner Campbell you have something was the deck original on the house or did you have that built somewhere built shortly after what I would say yeah a couple years after okay you do it yourself or went through the building permit process uh we did pull a permit but it was kind of done uh with the assistance of a friend of mine who was in the construction trade at that time so you knew what setbacks were for that deck yes okay y we were aware that not Chang when once a okay I get that part yeah we had thought same footprint there shouldn't be any issues but here we are we have seen similar case like someone wanted to put a sports quot or something under the uh deck they wanted to take off the deck or something like that right I mean I remember like couple of years back yeah they thought the same thing like they just wanted to tear the deck off and just put exact same size of the Sports Court behind their home and um one of thing so there was a letter from the house directly behind said the arbores the sight Lines no big deal what about the other homes on the other sides of you I didn't see those letters there was one there should be a total three letter submitted in the packet I believe I saw them online yeah we we received letters of support from behind our our home as well as to the left and right of us as well I also included photos of uh shots from their backyards towards our yard to just kind of give you uh a feel for what the visibility uh would be like with the neighboring properties as well I'm going to think outside the box here a little bit um would it be possible for the highlands to purchase land from the house behind them yeah extend the lot but that's a different township there also it's and then everything would have to be replanted yes um I mean that technically yes but I also were their setback set in relation to their deck and building the Reconstruction put them in violation more expensive to go that route then too okay just wanted to ask a question thank you um any other comments what happens with the insurance when there's no permit yes I think that's a good question for the insurance company no disrespect um yeah I that interesting question I I guess we're not prepared to answer add square footage to the house correct excuse me added square footage to the house correct yeah my thought was is if there's no permit the insurance company may pull the insurance they would call now they're going now they're going through theal so and until they get the denial so um and I think this is the part where I'm I'm I'm gonna I'm going to go back to where I started which is the um it feels like staff has two different Lanes one for residential and one for Industrial and Commercial when it comes to um VAR and I'll say variances some doing something different for the property at hand um you knew I was going to say this so um last month with about HQ the property was zoned for 36 foot building they knew it City staff we approved something larger we approved something larger that was that property was zoned and it was written for something smaller somebody else came and said I want to build something bigger and we let it because they asked and and and I sit here in the very next meeting and yes the contractor did what the contractor did but they're asking to put a three-season porch on the same footprint of a deck that they had on the back of their house it's not changing the character of the neighborhood it's not impacting anything their neighbors are all in support of it and it's only because it's going from a an open deck to something that's got four walls that it changes in the code and that's the part where I have the biggest heartburn and but going to and going back to like we can look at this in it's just and say that this request can be viewed just like the one we looked at last year with the Sports Court can be looked at at itself on its merits to be able to say can it be approved or not okay so uh use first okay go ahead yeah I mean definitely everything is a different case but I mean I strongly disagree with whatever the point we make it here I mean the cloud HQ building yes I understand it's 36 foot uh size but like uh there is a mitigation plan in place which we are like the which presented to the staff and presented to us and we are we uh we have the option to say yes or no based on our discretion and we thought like because they are they are providing another see if they wanted to build a a simple math like if they wanted they have some structure here this height and uh they wanted to build a 30 foot uh BM to compensate whatever the extra height they are asking for I mean if they are not just simply okay with the 36 ft and someone whoever is uh having a house behind that they see like 36 ft but now they are building another 30 foot to make exactly whatever the whatever the variance they are asking they are trying to uh make it right to make the exact building size whatever it looks uh like that so and at the same time I mean uh at least my understanding staff can provide whatever the information they can provide at the end of the day we are the ones to take the decision I think we did talk about we did have conversations a lot of conversations on that I understand I mean we it's not like exactly so whatever the point we are coming here uh see I feel for the homeowners they they are blindsided but at the same time tomorrow or the next month we shouldn't be hearing the same thing like yeah we we came to know that last month someone got the variance why not me why not my property right we just I mean that property was different this property was different that uh decision was different this was different it's not like I mean staff provided for that I feel like we shouldn't be blaming on them because they are just providing the facts it's again we are taking the decision based on whatever the facts we understand so I mean it's it's again it's a today again at the same time we all decided to have what against it or against the staff recommendation it's up to us right I mean because we had a conversation we shouldn't be again bringing the same thing and saying blaming that makes the discussion whatever and whatever the time we put in it's not in a good faith that's what I feel thank you I know you you were not overly um I know concerned about the precedent so much um but again okay 8 foot okay you know somebody else with a you know you know a smaller lot size okay I want you know my my 10 foot you know my my porch you know so that's the concern is um you know okay where do we draw the line on that and we're talking about houses you know within close proximity to each other versus you know as he rightly said about the the cloud HQ discussion um you know that's my concern is is these houses and I you know did my little drive-thru and took a look at the the spaces we're talking about and and I think it's incredibly unfortunate that the contractor was not um you know up front with you that's that's very unfortunate um but again I you know I I kind of have to look at the Precedence as well as as you said is okay the next person comes along or the next contractor comes along and say Hey you know I got a good way to get you you know an even bigger P not that that you know but so 10 foot 12 feet you know so I you know I can't get past that piece of it so thank you um my thoughts on this and you know I I look at there wasn't a mistake made here there was a decision made and you guys didn't make the decision right um and there were two decisions made one on May 3rd when he decided to disregard the email and one when three weeks later when he came in to pay for the permit um he made a decision not to tell you guys that the permit was denied and just kind of rolled the dice hoping that it wasn't TI my issue here is if we approve this we basically give all contractors across the city the right to come in build something and come back later and say well we're sorry we we probably should have done this differently and we'll do it right next time um it does open a precedent that way so I'm absolutely um I think we can fix the issue going forward if we include as part of the communication process with the city in the permit application um like no notification from anybody in May or or July or whatever the whatever the time frames were when the city communicated with the contractor there was never any communication from either parties to us and the city isn't tasked with making sure that if uh if we don't give a permit it's not our job to come out to a house and see what's going on on the back side of a house we didn't give the permit the permit is there so that we can do the inspections during that four to8 we building process to make sure the framing is correct make sure windows are installed correctly make sure the decks attached to the house make sure the roof is installed properly none of that was done none of your inspections were done either then um and it again my big thing with this is the precedent that it would set for the rest of the city that way I'm sorry um any other thoughts or comments if not I'll look for a motion to either approve or deny the variants what wants to speak up yeah okay this is this is this really sucks because I totally feel for we're the ones that are be penalized like he's going to be out some money we're going to be out money you know so I feel like we're being penalized and that well I I'm I you at least have some legal unfortunately there's going to be cost to that as well too so unfortunately but that's a long road to go so I'm going to make a motion to recommend denial to the major variance request for the encroachment on the backyard setback for eight feet for the purpose of existing porch Edition zoning orance 15.2.2 did not receive re building permit to the city council based on the following findings not second perfect motion made and seconded all in favor say I I opposed motion carries sorry so next steps is is this it or because my understanding is it goes to the council correct y I'll have you so if I me um so this is the Planning Commission is reviewing um and making a recommendation to city council um so you know the next step will be is it next Monday yeah it's next Monday next Monday is is the city council meeting um this will be brought forward to them Council makes the ultimate decision so they'll consider planning commission's recommendation staff's presentation it won't be a public hearing so there's no obligation for Council to take comment um they typically do so you know it'd be you'd be you know well positioned to be prepared to to speak them if you want to I'm sure they'll hear you out thanks guys good luck um moving on to number eight other business any other business that anybody wants to talk about no okay uh number nine receive other meeting minutes from September 16th and October 7th city council meeting minutes those are also not on our agenda or not attached so I'll need a motion from somebody to we just rece not received it yeah looks like Rob gets to do a lot um can we just carry those over to the next meeting please yeah we can do that I mean that particular item you know you know we'll bring them forward those minutes are posted in the other agendas and as they're receiving them and things this is more of a courtesy for you all so stay a tuned as to what's going on they were not received yeah so you can acknowledge they were not received um and we'll you know catch up to speed next month so perfect sorry about that y apologies thanks for letting us know see when we actually started looking yeah yeah I'm impressed you're noticing so we appreciate some other Pages um any anything else from anybody if not I'll look for an motion toour motion to adjourn first second all in favor say I easier