##VIDEO ID:na4gX3AYuaw## e e good evening it is now 6 o'clock and I call this me regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order our first order of business is to adopt the agenda for tonight's meeting Commissioners is there a motion to adopt the final agenda I move to uh make a motion to adopt the final agenda second I motion and a second all those in favor I I oppos thank you the motion carries our next order of business is to adopt the minutes from our December 3rd 2024 Planning Commission meeting Commissioners is there a motion to approve the minutes still moved motion can I get a second I'll second got a motion and a second all those in favor I oppose thank you the motion carries we'll now move on to our discussion items we only have one item on our agenda this evening that is an an appeals hearing section 17.5 of the city code says that the Planning Commission shall act as the board of adjustments and appeals and shall have the power and duty of hearing and deciding appeals or requests taken by any property owner or designated represent resentative upon compliance with any reasonable conditions imposed by the zoning ordinance and subject to review by the city council as a board of adjustments and appeals the Planning Commission here and decides an appeal where it is alleged that there is an error in any order requirement decision or determination made by the administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance before we hear the appeal I'd like to review some housekeeping items for this evening first staff has provided me with a list of speakers who would like to speak this on this item this evening if you'd like to speak and your name is not on the list uh please check in with city manager Hardy now this is not a public hearing it's an appeals hearing and we will only be hearing from Mr kepple and those who are on this list of speakers momentarily I will open the floor but before I do I want to lay out the process so everyone here knows what to expect Mr kepple who has filed the appeal will speak first Mr keple will keep his his comments focused on the three items three arguments in the written appeal you filed the board will not consider other arguments after Mr kepple has spoken I will invite the individuals to the podium to speak I will work down the list in order for those who have signed up to speak please keep your comments focused on the three arguments in the written appeal this is not a time to raise outside issues of what is specifically being appealed we are also respectfully asking that your comments be not repeated if somebody else has already said it once everyone on the list has spoken you will not have another turn to speak there will not be an opportunity to ask questions or otherwise engage in a back and forth discussion we also ask everyone to not interrupt speakers when they have have the floor after Mr Keele and the registered speakers have had their turns to speak I will invite City staff to speak once the staff concludes their comments I will open the floor for the Commissioners to discuss Commissioners please keep your discussions and your questions to the three arguments directed in the written appeal once Commissioners have concluded their discussion we will make a decision to approve or deny Mr kep's appeal are there any questions about this process yes I need need time to out what the situation is like my attorney to provide the legal arguments and then I would like to complete with some additional uh less legal arguments so to speak sure any other questions seeing no more questions I will now move we will now move into the appeals hearing there is one matter before us Christopher kepple has has filed an appeal of the city's decision to issue a building permit for the property at 6315 Smithtown Road the details of Mr kep's appeal can be found in your agenda packet for this evening Mr kep's appear appeal focuses on three items the structure is not a single family home rather it's a commercial structure the structure will be taller than 35 ft and the garage should be considered a detached despite a connecting despite the connecting quarter comments or arguments outside of these three items are not part of this hearing and will not be considered as part of this appeal hearing I will now open the hearing and Mr keple ask Mr K to please step forward to the podium I'm I'm so at this point I'm not really aware of of how much you guys have seen this matter how much you've read if if anything I did circulate a letter to the city managers as well as the council uh I'm just going to go through the two most important points that are that were on this letter uh first it they did not appear to apply any standard of size uh for the garage the footprint of the garage appears to hold 27 cars in his in his actual home he has a three car garage that holds six cars in it currently he's got lifts in it my point is is that we believe he's preparing to put as many as 50 cars in this garage the garage alone is 6,000 square ft and a length of 10 52 ft it'll have seven Double Glass garage doors on one side just one side facing my property the or I'm going go to the next section my principal argument here is that this is not a single family home there's not any homes in the entire metropolitan area that compare in this not even close and later I'm going to get I'm going to give you some some illustrations of that right now what I want to do is have the attorney come up I want to have him to make his the legal argument it's specific to this thanks pleas state your name good evening Daniel sa3 I'm with the law firm of hel Ethan Johnson P LLC I represent the appellant Christopher kepple men and women of the board uh we are here to appeal the city of Victoria's approval of building permit application number p2024 0781 this appeal obviously relates to the property located at 6315 Smithtown road before I begin to discuss the the merits of the appeal I I want to be clear uh Mr keple is not here as an adversary to the board or to the city uh he's merely a concerned Citizen and one whom the Minnesota Legislature has made clear as standing to petition the city and the courts to compel the city's compl liance with its own ordinances Mr keple has been a resident of this community for a long time he cares about this community he cares about his neighbors and he feels compelled to be here because Victoria's ordinances simply do not allow for the proposed structures at issue to be built we are not here to ask for special favors or privilege we are here only to ask that the city of Victoria do what is required to do under law that is to revoke and resend the approval of building perent application 224-7812 foot 27 car detached garage that violates Victoria zoning ordinances specifically sections 24-1 d 24-1 e and 18-10 B and O the proposed garage is as a simple matter of statutory interpretation and Common Sense a detached garage detached garage is defined in Victoria's ordinances uh the definition is any garage not attached to a principal use by Common vertical walls the principal use in this case is a residential dwelling uh there is no common vertical wall attached to the garage and dwelling in the permit plant the Breezeway walls or as you refer to it as the the corridor are not a part of the garage nor are they a part of the dwelling the Breezeway is an independent structure consisting of an enclosed walkway with a flat roof not angular is substantially shorter than both the dwelling and the garage and whose exterior is composed of different material and color it is built for a separate purpose than the garage or the residence it is in effect a separate structure although this exact issue has not been addressed by Minnesota Courts at first glance courts in multiple other States including Iowa Connecticut and Pennsylvania have all rejected attempts by land owners to circumvent zoning ordinances by attaching two separate structures via Breezeway and I will get into those examples a little bit later in my presentation to the extent the city of Victoria wants to claim that the dwelling structure Breezeway structure and garage structure are all one combined building which from our perspective belies Common Sense the proposed structure nonetheless is a potential conflicting use which is specifically prohibited under Victoria ordinances section 24-1 now as to the first issue uh there is simply no question that the Victoria ordinances prohibit the proposed detached garage section 24-1 D prohibits detached garages in excess of 9 00 ft the garage in this case exceeds 6,000 squ ft in fact it has 6,12 it has a 6,12 square foot uh footprint while the dwelling structures footprint is just over half that size totaling only 3,614 square feet despite having a footprint that is twice the size of the dwelling in this case the garage is by definition an accessory use under Victoria ordinances accessory use is defined in the ordinance as a use incidental to and customarily associated with a specific principal use located on the same lot or parcel in this case the only permissible principal use of the proposed structure is a single family dwelling a garage is not an approved principle use under Section 24-1 the garage is a use incidental to and customarily associated with the specific principle use of a dwelling however in this case the garage does not satisfy any of the requirements necessary for a permissible accessory structure section 1810b limits accessory structures to 900 square ft section 1810b uh requires a conditional use permit for any accessory structure in excess of 900 square ft there is no conditional use permit requested in this case and there was no conditional use permit that was granted in this case with respect to the garage at issue even if there had been a conditional use permit applied for the city of Victoria uh is limited under its own ordinances to approve any conditional use permit that would allow for an accessory structure to be built that is one and 1 half times the maximum allowable size of 900 square ft uh in this case that would be 1350 Square ft and that is under Section 1810b so even if a conditional use permit had been requested to allow for the detached garage at issue the city of Victoria simply lacks authority to grant that permit under its own ordinances lastly section 1810 5 and six limits the size of accessory structures to 10% of the footprint of the principal structure and provides that the accessory structures cannot exceed 24t in height the garage footprint in this case again is nearly twice the size of the dwelling it exceeds 35 ft in height this is not a permissible accessory structure under Victoria's ordinances and building this structure is simply not permitted the proposed garage uh is a detached garage under the ordinances uh detached garage is defined it's a building or structure not attached to a principal use by Common vertical walls uh the plans is is what I would urge you all to look at the plans make very clear there is no common shared wall between the garage and the dwelling uh the Breezeway walls are not part of the garage nor are they part of the dwelling uh there is no common vertical wall in which one could travel from the garage to the dwelling the pro the proposed garage is by definition a detached garage now common vertical walls the term is not defined in the ordinances however when the courts look at issues like this they use commonly accepted dictionary definitions for these terms uh under the dictionary definitions of common we find shared or belonging equally to under these common dictionary definitions it is undeniable that the dwelling structure and garage structure at issue do not have any common vertical walls to qualify under that definition the two structures must be attached via the same shared wall attached to and supporting both structures equally that's what common means obviously that is not the case here there are no common walls shared by the dwelling and the garage and we urge you to look at the permit plans uh to to determine that because it's quite obvious when you take a look uh the case before us uh presents completely different facts and and here's here they are the garage stands on its own Foundation separate and apart from the dwelling Foundation the garage has four walls none of which is in common at any point with the walls of the dwelling structure the garage has a roof not at any point in common with that of the dwelling structure the Breezeway situated in between the dwelling and garage is substantially shorter than both the separate structures and has its own narrow flat roof which is markedly different than the taller angular roofs of the dwelling than the garage the Breezeway roof meets the roof of the garage and the roof of the dwelling but it is not a part of of either the walls of the Breezeway differ in height color and material as compared to the two structures the Breezeway is approximately 20 ft uh 23 ft long and the open area between the dwelling and the garage is covered with grass and trees except for the concrete of the walkway itself under these facts a reasonable unbiased Observer could not fail to note that he or she was viewing two discreet buildings joined by an enclosed passageway that is not enough under the Victoria ordinances Minnesota courts have been clear that Common Sense must be used in interpreting a zoning regulation that is because it is assumed that the zoning Authority intended to accomplish a reasonable and rational result here it does not comport with common sense to construe the term accessory building so as to exclude a freestanding garage that is unmistakenly a separate building merely because there's a 23t covered walkway in between it and the dwelling again although minesa courts have not yet weighed in on this specific issue uh courts in other states have in Camp V Stevens which is a case uh you can look it up at 517 Northwest 2 227 the Iowa court of appeals and the Iowa district court examined whether connecting a house to a garage via Breezeway converted it into one structure for purposes of applying a 35t maximum height limitation instead of the 15t height limitation applicable to accessories structures upon review the Iowa district court and court of appeals referred to the attempt to convert the two structures into one via Breezeway was not only impermissible but it was defined as a clear effort to and I quote circumvent frustrate and subterfuge applicable zoning ordinances in other words the court saw the connection attempt an argument via bedway a Breezeway as a disingenuous and dishonest attempt to defeat the letter spirit and purpose of the applicable zoning ordinances both Iowa courts found the Breezeway did not convert the dwelling and garage into one structure in ordered that the garage be torn down in a separate Connecticut case this is Daughters of C of St Paul V zoning board of appeals of the of the town of Trumble it's the 17 Connecticut app 53 it's the 1998 case the Connecticut court of appeals considered the argument that a garage must be considered part of the main building because the two were connected via an 18t glass enclosed covered walkway both the Connecticut trial court and the appell court agreed that a separate garage is not converted into an existing structure for zoning purposes simply because it is connected via an enclosed walkway in that case the Conneticut the Connecticut court of appeals held and I quote it does not comport with common sense to construe the term accessory building so as to exclude a freestanding garage that is unmistakably a separate building merely because there's an 18t 6 in Long glass enclosed covered walkway between the garage and the main building it also constructs the meaning of constricts the meaning of accessory building in such a way that plff common law property rights are disparaged to an extent beyond that authorized in the zoning regulations we have the exact same situation here in the third case which is Evans V zoning hearing board that's 732 Atlantic 2 686 it's a 1999 case the Pennsylvania pel Court held that a Breezeway between two de two dwellings did not convert the two dwellings into one one multif family dwelling under applicable zoning ordinances the court there in its own words held that even with an enclosed 50ft Breezeway that the two separate buildings would still not share a vertical party wall required to be considered one single structure the same requirement applies in this case under Victoria's zoning ordinances and warrants the same result due to the absence of any shared common party wall dividing the dwelling from the garage and connecting the two so to briefly conclude our argument on this particular issue there is no question that the Victoria zoning ordinances and Common Sense dictate a finding that the garage is a detached garage and cannot be considered part of a single Standalone structure once that conclusion is reached there is nothing left to do but to declare that the detached garage does not satisfy any of the applicable requirements for a detached garage or accessory structure under Victoria ordinances and therefore it legally cannot be constructed to the extent the city of Victoria wants to claim the dwelling structure Breezeway structure and garage structure are are all one combined building which again from our perspective certainly belies Common Sense the proposed combined structure nonetheless is a potential conflicting use which is specifically prohibited under Victoria ordinances section 24-1 the stated purpose for organizing lowdensity residential R1 under Victoria ordinances is and I quote to recognize relatively low density single family residential areas that have been developed primarily after 1950 together with supporting public and semi-public facilities and to protect the low intensity living environment from encroachment by potential conflicting uses importantly section 241 does not just prohibit conflicting uses uh once they have occurred or once they're capable of being proven with certainty this section prohibits potential conflicting uses as well how the proposed structures will be used obviously is not capable of being definitively proven until the project is completed occupied and used however uh we can review the plans put forth in the permit application to ascertain clear evidence that the potential uses which the city is allowed to look at of this propo of these proposed structures will not be for any permitted principle use under section 24 4-1 again the footprint of the garage is twice the size as Z ported dwelling the garage provides space for 27 cars the purported dwelling has only one bathroom contains one Lounge room and it contains a wet bar the garage itself provides for second floor Lounge area in addition to car storage these facts suggest that the intended principle use of this structure is very likely not to be a single family dwelling I have two kids at home and a wife and I know we can't share one garage between the four of us or I'm sorry one bathroom between the four of us neither do we need 27 uh space for 27 cars uh the potential uses under these facts strongly suggests non-permissible uses such as a private car storage facility a private car club hangout uh perhaps intended to be used for private recreational space private entertainment events and private car meets along with those potential non-conforming es we will have increased noise we will have increased traffic we will have increased crime concerns among who knows what else even if we consider the dwelling garage and Breezeway as one in the same structure taken together they are still a potential conflicting use and are completely impermissible under Victoria ordinance section 24-1 thank you thank you I do have some things I I'd like to hand out is that okay sure I I think I only have 10 copies so I don't think I have quite enough the the images are really important to see I I imagine that you've already seen these but I just want to be more formal about this and have you take a look at these um thank you thank you the first page that you see there um is a little bit of an illusion those doors you see on the front are double doors that gives you an idea of the height of these doors there are glass doors if you would turn the turn to the next page you'll see this you'll see this uh simple graphic and that's shows the car barn and it shows shows my home the little box on the right side on my lot is my pool if you were and by the way you are every one of you are invited to come to my house absolutely any time and stand in my backyard and look at this it's a little challenging because there's as far as I know it hasn't been surveyed and we don't know exactly where this building is but it looks to me like when you're standing at on my pool deck you're looking into this Bank of garages sorry let me interrupt I don't see that page what page is that maybe we didn't get a second page I'm sorry I didn't third page third page I believe it's the third P thank you well there's there's two of so I'm looking at I'm looking at this one just a real simple graphic oh oh okay have that one yeah we got it yeah I also want to point out another item on there you'll see that gray Loop that crosses through the property and through the barn that is an image on the gis and I assume that that's a um a long ago created right away it was created through the the PID of Sunny Shadows I think that's the name of the of P ID Sunny Shadows that's that's the street name there and I don't think it's been vacated I think that's still there if you would go the to the next page this is the more formal drawing that is on the permit and I did highlight on there in yellow my house at the very bottom and you can see from that the size and scale of this thing and you can see the position of this car barn relative to my yard I'm going to have you turn to the last page this is another page of the front of the of the of the side of the carb bar okay again this doesn't face left down Road this faces my property that's about as close as we could come with the proportion the size of the location of it on our lot this picture is taken from the deck on the back door of my house okay and by the way those little PCT the the the trees you see on the right side those trees were imposed on this picture that he created but those are the exact location of my actual trees these trees are only about 20 feet tall that gives you an idea of the size of this thing it's giant you you I can't describe it any other way than it looks like having a Tires Plus in my backyard can you imagine can you imagine sitting in the back of your home or on the back of your property and these garages have their garage lights on at night can you imagine what that would look like by the way in front of those garages is the driveway that wraps around nearly the entire structure so that he can enter from all sides of this thing which also gives you a pretty good indication of the fact that it's a separate building we're just going to point out one last thing I had I um Dan created a petition for us it's a really simple petition the the big bold at the bottom says we're asking you to resend revoke this permit it's been signed at this point by about 35 of the immediate neighbors I intend to spend some more time with this I believe I'll get it I'll double those number of signatures this is a little teeny neighborhood uh okay then one then one last thing if this was my project and if I this was important to me to build some thing like this I'd be here and where is he is it very important to him he he doesn't even live here he doesn't he he has homes across the country he doesn't even live he lives here like six weeks a year we live here all year around this is the only home we own this is our family home you know my my family's come to support us and this it this is a place that we envision living for the rest of our lives and I don't know what we're going to do now it it's so it's such an impossible thing to see this and to see it just sort of disregarded to be handled so so lightly I I don't understand it I'm asking you to revoke this permit we are we've made an argument about the garage and about the the fact that it's a detached garage the primary concern here is this is not a home it's a car barn and by the way that's the um that's the last page on that handout I gave you that page we didn't write that page that page he wrote that page and he put it on Instagram you see what highlighted in yellow on there he called it a Car Bar he didn't he did not call that uh his new home his new home is across the street I don't why would he do that why would he advertise that it's just it's really it's frustrating I'm done folks thanks thank you oh I now invite the individuals who have signed to speak this evening to the podium I will call the speakers to the podium in the order they were registered for those of you who signed up to speak this is a reminder to keep your comments focused to the three arguments on the written appeal this is not a time to raise issues outside of what is specifically being appealed we will also respectfully ask that your comments not be repeated first one on my list after Chris and Dan was Wendy Asin hi my name is Wendy asland I'm a resident at 590 Sunny Shadows um just very close to the proposed property I've been a resident on Sunny Shadows for almost 20 years um this is not our first go with issues pertaining to um changes because we live on Sunny Shadows We have dealt with um almost it seems like annual um construction traffic we have been seriously impacted by it for almost 20 years um but just in when we're talking about the described property um and what is being proposed I don't know if you're familiar with Chanhassen Autoplex but that is a uh structure it is a commercial property and a business park in Chanhassen they call them private garage condos um it is garage Condos for people to store their cars showcase restore collect and enjoy socializing with fellow enthusiasms or enthusiasts there are places for what he's looking to do but just not in our our neighborhood um my husband Greg and I when I first told him um about this last week he said that's it it's time to move we've been here for 20 years we've raised our children here our neighborhood is currently turning over with young new families who have made major investments into these lovely homes in our little neighborhood of not many houses and I think it's a shame that they are now faced with the potential for having a structure that looks very commercial that I'm certain will bring in more traffic um there are young kids there are pets this is our little tiny cold act um and we have dealt and I kid you not I we are the first home right on the corner of Sunny shadows in Smithtown Road they do not allow parking on Smithtown road so all that construction traffic we just survived yet another summer of a of a very large large home across the street from being built and I'm all for people upgrading improving their properties and creating living spaces for their families but I don't agree with this particular situation um and I also think it's important to address what comes with that in our neighborhood All Summer Long my front yard is our street is lined with cars from I mean all the way through our culdesac I don't know if it was was 10 years ago 20 years ago I was here once before because our neighborhood was so congested with with construction traffic covering both sides of our culdesac I literally could not access my own driveway there was construction vehicles blocking my driveway as well they literally parked their trucks in front I had people moving my garbage construction workers moving my garbage cans this summer so they could get them out in the street so my garbage could be picked up 10 15 years ago I don't recall but it got to the point where if there was an emergency in our neighborhood a fir truck or an ambulance would never be able to make it down our street we did finally receive or you guys finally did put in no parking on one side of the street I would love to say that that was the end all BL solution but the construction construction workers do Park on all sides of our street regardless right up to the the stop sign you got to eek out onto Smithtown Road just to see the traffic coming so it's been a major safety concern um we've put up a fence I was concerned for the safety of my children they are now older so I'm less concerned but I have my animals which I do every day have to deal with the workers out front who congregate out front starting at I don't know what 7 a.m. in the morning um they haven't weren't too bad with the garbage this time um but we have had had um our lawn driven on I approached somebody just this past summer who decided to use my front yard to back out he literally pulled forward into my yard to back out to turn around so it is an it is a concern it is an issue I don't know if that's off topic but I'm just saying that it is a major concern and we have literally experienced it firsthand for almost 20 years I know with the structure going in of this magnitude that it will be our street that is where the construction vehicles will park and where they will have to utilize our street um and so that is a major concern I don't agree this is this is a neighborhood this is a community um this is not a place for you know what appears to be a car man cave which I'm certain will likely be hosting social events if they're putting in a wet bar it just nothing about it indicates that this is just simply somebody's residential home it just does not seem like it aligns um and I know that my family and I've spoken with our neighbors and um they will speak as well but um we do not agree with this um and we hope that that is something you will take into consideration in revoking this um proposal all right thank you you um I want to remind you to please keep to the three topics of the appeal um this is is not a nuisance hearing this is not a construction hearing it's an appeal hearing stating the three items that Mr keple has in his appeal um next I have Heidi hello my name is Heidi kho I live at 540 Sunny Shadows um we have been there for 17 years my husband our children are pets and to imagine um I share a property line with this property there is a line of trees and we have our driveway that goes down practically the entire backside to imagine that something of this size 6,000 square feet um 12 feet higher than is allowed in the code at 35 ft I am imag IM ining that I'm going to be boxed in in my own home the sight line is going to be obstructed um I'm concerned about um again small children in the neighborhood with all of the traffic that comes in but also property values if someone would come in here when this project is complete in about a year and a half and saw what their view would be from my driveway they would feel compl completely encased by a a mammoth building and we are not a city it's a small little Community clearly I believe that this individual has also tried to have a permit in the town of Shorewood which was rejected and for good reason we are not a commercial neighborhood this is not a single family dwelling and um I believe it's going to encroach on my enjoyment in my own property and of our neighbors thank you uh Derek DK it's yeah my name is Dum I live at 641 Smithtown Road I'm the next door neighbor to Chris and um I don't have a lot to share uh first I want to say thank you I recognize that you have a unique role in our community to advocate for us us to to create um a place that allows us to to thrive and grow and and have a great place to raise our families and do life and uh there is a very unique aspect of the place that we call home and and with that is not only the beauty of the lakes and the parks and the resources that we have naturally but also uh that which this place draws in people with a lot of resource and uh with that comes a lot of positive um I would make the case that that this particular uh building is one of the challenges that comes uh clearly there's a unique ability that this person has around their resource I don't begrudge that at all that's part of the beauty of in America um but having raised I grew up in minona I moved away in um 89 a long time ago and and moved back in 2006 and raised my family here and uh we've loved living in minaka for many of the wonderful things it brings um what uh when I moved into the place that we you call home um we were looking for a neighborhood we were looking for a place to kind of create identity a sense of connection um we wanted to love our neighbors we wanted to enjoy the the amenities whether that was the parks or the lake and and those different things and we've been able to do that for sure um but a significant part of that Community or the it's just the beauty of the people you live next to it's the chance to spend time in the backyard to go into the you know across these the street and and jump on a boat and and go out to the lake and enjoy that um frankly what what was not in my mindset at all when deciding to buy our place at 6401 Smithtown Road was to to have incorporated into our neighborhood into this place I call home what I think has been appropriately called I don't know if it was discount tire tire store whatever it was um Chris and Louise are in a you know they've spent a lot of effort and time building this beautiful backyard and and if if I was shoes I would I would be petitioning in the same exact fashion that they have um I'm going to be similarly affected because in my backyard uh it's not as beautiful and unique as theirs but I'm going to be seeing the same thing so I'm not super excited about that but I guess the simple point I would make is this is would you want this in your backyard would you want your neighbor to be building this uh the question is not does he have a right to build something like this if he has the research of course he does uh I think the question is is would you want it in your neighborhood would you want it in your neighborhood would you want to be in your backyard having a great time with your wife and kids your husband whatever the case might be and and needing to look at this I don't think anybody would anticipate that in their neighborhood they would find a residential Community member that would have this and so I guess I just appeal to re and I again greatly appreciate uh the opportunity to have this forum to share express our thoughts and um uh again I'm not begrudging his ability to do this I would just ask him to do it in a commercial area where clearly he'll have the opportunity to have the same benefit without the adverse impact on us as neighbors so thanks for your time thank you uh there are no other speakers who have registered uh so that concludes our public comments city planner Brian McCain and our building official Scott mccarth are here to speak on behalf of the staff this evening Mr McCain the floor is yours thank you chair and Commissioners uh looking at the appeal that was submitted to you this evening and the three criteria listed in the staff report I will go through each of those one by one and staff's review of the claim so regarding the first claim as a commercial structure um the appeal from Mr keple states that the structure for commercial use not residential use the building plans that the city reviewed indicated five bedrooms seven bathrooms and a kitchen the zoning code definition for a dwelling satis satisfies the main components of a residential dwelling and the building in question the definition reads as dwelling means a building or part of a building that contains living sleeping cooking accommodations and sanitary facilities for occupancy of one or more more families the second claim is that the building exceeds the allowable height single family residential structures in the R1 District have a maximum height allowance of 35 ft which is measured from the highest ground level point to the average height of the pitched roof the property is within the Shoreland District which provides a visual example in the definition section of that code which was Pro provided to each of you this evening uh based on that criteria the height of the building does not exceed 35 ft we measured the house at approximately 25 ft and 11 1/2 in and the garage at 27 ft and then the third and final claim from Mr keple States the garage is attached by a Breezeway so the structure should be considered detached zoning code definition for detach garage has the following language detach garage means a building or structure not attached to a principal use by Common vertical walls used or designed to be used for the parking and storage of vehicles the structure is attached to the home because it shares common walls with a bathroom and a mudroom including Frost footings as well as mechanical and electrical conduits I do have our building official here Scott mccardy as well as our associate planner Travis brierly to help any questions from the Planning Commission Scott and Travis completed their portions of the building permit review um so if the planing commission has any questions for staff we are available now thank you Commissioners you have heard from the appellant MR Christopher kepple members of the public and City staff this is now your opportunity to discuss as a reminder please keep your discussion and any questions to the three arguments directly related to the written appeal whether the structure is a single family home or commercial structure whether the structure is taller than 35 ft whether the garage should be considered detached despite the connecting corter this is not a time to discuss other issues once we've concluded our discussions I will be looking for a motion on whether to approve or deny Mr kep's appeal commissioner I will now open the floor for your discussion I'll start um first of all thank you to those who spoke um I have great empathy for your situation uh I admire your ability to Rally together um and you know I I can't disagree that if this were my home in my yard uh I would have similar concerns uh you'll understand that the city's job is to enforce the building code and the ordinances of the city and so that's what we're here to do um and it's a challenge because on the other side of this coin is somebody wants to build a structure that you know may not in as far as the city is concerned is not excluded by the building code so that's what we're struggling with uh I will say for me um as a legal uh zoning Court a zoning Cod code matter the only question really is whether the structure is is detached or not if if but for this Breezeway um I think we would all agree that it's within the scope of the ordinances um and so really the question we have to wrestle with is whether having this this Breezeway that's covered in in part makes it somehow detached from the home itself um it it is a large structure no doubt it is it is an opulent garage with an opulent house uh no doubt as well um and so the question that we're wrestling with is whether at least I'm wrestling with is whether the Breezeway makes it somehow detached um and I'm I don't see it quite honestly the only question I would have of the detached portion of it is when the the buildings were designed are the pads designed to be poured as one including the a Breezeway or are they three separate pors so I think I can answer that um as Brian mentioned the the footing and foundation for the quote unquote Breezeway and the garage are one so there is a wall wall that is common between the two portions of that building it actually is where the exterior envelope of the house is so that Breezeway is part of the house it's not separate from the house does that answer your question uh yes it does thank you I would just Echo um commissioner otter st's comments and thank everybody for coming here and coming together that's that's part of uh being a resident in the city I think our our job here is whether we think there was an error and an order or requirement on the code and I um you know I don't I don't see an error by the staff here um and so I don't see any any reason to uh keep the appeal I kind of agree um the fact that whether this it's a single family home or commercial structure until it's built until it's up till it's in use everything according when see a building permit it's hard to tell what they're going to do with it if it says this is what it is and it meets the requirements of our ordinance and our state requirements um you know whether a common wall Breezeway isn't allowed in Iowa or Connecticut kid or wherever we're in Minnesota um and until there's a case that says no it's not then um we kind of work as we do with the city and the state requirements um 35 ft 27 ft um I guess I would assume the plan has the height requirements on it that the city has approved um and it meets those items um so I look at it and I'm looking at it going based off what city was the staff was presented by the property owner whether Instagram is not part of a building permit what the developer what the guys is going to use the house for until it's used then at that point it can you know we don't know and you can only you can only go by what you know and what you're presented the time you're getting the building permit and as long as it meets hard cover requirements um and meets the required ments of our ordinance I believe that the city has done nothing improperly based off the information they were provided if I could just add one point um with respect to the zoning ordinances and and the the use of the property uh should there ever become a time when this is used for commercial purposes renting those stalls for example it it can't become another Car Club commercial undertaking under the zoning ordinances that would be a violation and and I don't know what the enforcement mechanism is uh I won't speak to that they're not going to well I'll just note for the Planning Commission again as the chair mentioned we we aren't engaging in back and forth here but I will note that what M Mr keple please let me finish speaking for for enforcement we will defer to our City attorney about process if it does become a commercial structure in the future any other discussion comments my only my only comment on the precedents were all based uh Connecticut Georgia 1998 1999 um it's difficult for me to choose to Define what a Breezeway is and attachments based on 30-year-old litigation um my research told me that the as we've defined it Breezeway would be an attached vertical wall certainly all of us uh in the uh on the Planning Commission were charged with researching and to go through and to individually research the material the material that that we that we have and that we've been provided at the same time um and and when um and we did that individually at the same time and one goes back to the three the three issues and uh and not necessarily to use the term compliance but the city is is in compliance on those those three issues and that's the that's the key issues now as has been stated many times but there's more to it than that yeah there is there there is more to it than that but here's the three issues and and here's the task of the Planning Commission is to deal with those those three issues individually right I'm the last one to speak on the on the commission I can fully understand where the community is coming from with the perspective of MH what looks to be being built in in your neighborhood and it it but again at the point where like John was saying we've all looked at this with I mean I'm here to call balls and Strikes based on the information that I'm reading observing and and trying not to personalize what is a very personal um situation for the the residents no the point is the point is that z Mr Mr Mr you're supposed to use your own judgment on the because so so please we we've given you the opportunity to speak we've independently looked at that information I would have no problem going against the city if in fact I thought there was something that was contested in terms of the height it's clearly under in terms of the commercial structure structure it's not outside of what that is there's a presumption of what it could be but again that's not within our jurisdiction to make that decision and in terms of it being connected again it looks to be objectively meeting the standard I may not like that but I am interpreting what I'm reading with an honest assessment of that information I can understand understand the perspective that you have absolutely but I don't see anything in terms of where my position is on this that I can go your direction it's it's that I think we're all we've all looked at this any more discussions comments hearing none could I get a motion to either deny or yeah I'll make a motion to deny the appeal filed by Mr Chris Keel second yeah motion made by commissioner sakur seconded by commissioner re all those in favor I oppose the motion carries that concludes our discussion items for this evening Commissioners I get a motion to adjourn so moved second a second all those in favor close thank you the motion carries we are adjourned