Loading...
PC Minutes 6-20-06 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Larson: I'll give it a shot. Planning Commission, staff. Okay is this what I'm supposed to read? Planning Commission, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. The Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached access structure restriction in a single family residential district at 3 891 West 62nd Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following, 1 through 3. Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove three storage buildings. That's it? Okay. McDonald: Do I have a second? Keefe: Second. Larson moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot front yard setback for an existing four-stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 3891 West 62nd Street, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The applicant will be able to continue the non-conforming agricultural use without the three storage buildings which were constructed without building permits. The Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three storage buildings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. McDonald: What I need to tell the applicant is that you have the ability to appeal. Please don't forget this time... and good luck. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: LOREN VELTKAMP: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF SECOND LEVEL OF HOME WITH NON-CONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK VARIANCES WILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 6724 LOTUS TRAIL. PLANNING CASE 06-25. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Public Present: Name Address Sig & Don Sennes Pat & Keith Gunderson Jeff King Bruce Johansson Jim Boeshans Mike Henderson Shelly Berg 6680 Mohawk Drive 6661 Mohawk Drive 767 Carver Beach Road 6701 Mohawk Drive 6651 Pawnee Drive 6701 Mohawk Drive 6701 Mohawk Drive Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Before you go on there, I've got a question. If you're saying that he was renting, what's the City's position on that? If this is rental property with apartments within it, what's the code? Is he supposed to have a license? Generous: He would need a rental license. McDonald: And at this point he does not have one. Metzer: Correct. McDonald: And I take it that is in dispute between the City and the applicant as to whether or not he was renting. Metzer: Correct. Staff is however recommending approval of the request. We feel that by recommending approval of this variance we'll be able to better enforce ordinances on the property. And so we have some conditions of approval attached in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Can you explain how granting a variance will help to be able to enforce? Metzer: It's mainly the condition that they'd be required to get a rental license. Kind of allow us to restrict parking in the area. Things like that. Keefe: And so, you can't do that without getting the variance? Metzer: From what we've been told, no. It was just. Keefe: It was just conditions of approval, conditions of approval for reconstruction? For expansIOn. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Metzer: Of the second level. Keefe: Would incorporate certain conditions which would restrict the use of the building. Metzer: Right, and would not allow the kitchen on the second level. Restrict it to two kitchens with the home. Keefe: And the City cannot control the uses in the building without? Metzer: Without that condition of approval, right. Keefe: Okay. Dillon: What's the status of the building today? Metzer: They have received a permit to rebuild what they had, without the proposed addition. So they're in the process ofre-building the roof right now. Dillon: Is it inhabited? Metzer: I don't believe so. It shouldn't be. McDonald: Debbie. Kurt. Papke: Yeah, I've got a couple. On page 3 of the staff report, you mentioned that in the building permit history here there were two building permits issued and that they were issued in error. Could you shed some light on that? What was? Metzer: It was basically, there must have been confusion on the setback to the north, that paper street. Requires a 30 foot setback. My only guess is that, whichever staff members approved the permits were under the impression that it was a 10 foot setback to that. Papke: Okay. The other question was, we're attaching a couple conditions here and I just want to make sure I'm clear how they line up with city code. So the hard surface coverage is clear. Four vehicles parked outdoors at all times. Where does that, is this part of city code for rental property? For single family residential. Where does that, how does that line up with city code. Metzer: It was my understanding that you know it's the intention but not to allow the property to become you know a humongous rental property. And it was thought that by limiting the number of vehicles you park in the driveway. Papke: Is there a limit for residential single family? Metzer: There's not. Papke: Okay. And how about, the same question about the two licensed dogs. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Metzer: It's just to make sure that. Papke: Is there a restriction for residential single family for how many dogs you can have without a kennel permit? Metzer: Yes. Papke: What is it? Generous: If you have more than 2. Papke: More than 2, okay. So this one is basically in keeping with city code whereas the number of parked cars there we're actually restricting the applicant to something tighter than existing city code for residential single family. With sort of the tacit assumption that it's rental property and okay. Got it. McDonald: I have a question for you. Okay, this is a non-conforming use and to approve this we're going to intensify a non-conforming use. And the reason we want to do that is that we're able to put some restrictions on his use. Papke: Correct. McDonald: Whereas if we denied this and said that what he's allowed to do by law is to replace what was currently there, then he doesn't get the second story addition. And then we're back to okay, no rental license but can't city code enforce that if he is renting without a license? Metzer: Well part of it was the. McDonald: You'll get your opportunity sir. We're just asking questions. Metzer: Part of it was the sheriff s report that was taken when the home was burnt down. Tenants... stating that they were renting. Sheriff s report said that there was at least three family units living there. McDonald: Three kitchens, that would make sense. Metzer: So, and as we were going with, by doing this we can disallow a third kitchen. We can restrict parking space, or number of parked vehicles. Which in turn would I believe restrict number of renters. Papke: How are we normally, kind of a follow up question. How would we, if in normal circumstance we found that someone was renting out, you know most of their house to, as rental units. How would we normally get compliance for a rental license? How would we normally enforce that under those circumstances? 63 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Metzer: I'm not totally familiar with it. Generous: It's through the building department. They have a rental license inspection requirement and licensing requirement, so they would go in and determine that the units complied with all building and safety code. Papke: And how would we determine that indeed this was a rental property? Generous: Through investigation. Either the applicant admits that they're renting the property or the tenant admits that they're renting the property. Or you know we see an advertisement in the paper, things like that. If someone can say no, I don't. These are my roommates and, then the issue becomes how do you disprove that because the burden of proof is on the city. Papke: Okay. Larson: Is it, the gentleman that was here before when they had the rental for the care keeper for his daughter. I somehow remember there was something that there is a restriction on how many people can rent in a certain. Metzer: That was for use of a single family home as a two family home. Larson: Okay. So this is a completely different? Generous: Right. Larson: It's a single family home rented by several family units... Metzer: Rent is allowed as long as a rental license is you know in place and is applied for. Larson: Okay. So there's no restriction on the amount of family units that can be within a single building? Generous: Theoretically. Larson: Okay. McDonald: Okay, I guess the problem I'm having with all of this is that, we've got a non- conforming use. We just had a non-conforming use case. We turned that down because of the way the code and everything is written. Now you're coming before us, you're asking us to approve something that we just turned down and I'm at a loss to see what the advantage is because again, you know we just went through all this with Mr. Carlson about what he's offering to do and the compromises, back and forth. I don't see yet why I should do this. I haven't heard anything actually from staff that would convince me, and that's what I'm looking for. Why are you in favor of this? Metzer: It's like we said, the requirement of the rental license. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 McDonald: Okay but again you have city code to do that. You can enforce that. I understand the problem of yes, the burden of proof is upon the city but I mean at some point it would seem pretty easy to prove that if you have so many people going in and out, they all can't be living there for free. I'm just, I'm at a loss. You've got to help me here to show where we're really getting an advantage here. Dillon: Yeah, if you take the rental thing off the table, would you say to approve this? Given your recommendation on the previous two variances. Metzer: Just allowing the kitchen on the third level and restrict the number of parking spaces. The number of parked vehicles outside. And that was part of the reason that the driveway became so large we believe is to allow for parking spaces. Larson: So you'd allow two kitchens, but not three? Metzer: Right. McDonald: Well ifhe rebuilds though, does he get to go back to three kitchens and the wide driveway? I mean if we don't approve this. He is allowed to rebuild the non-conforming because of the fire. Does he get the three kitchens back and the driveway if we were to disallow this? Metzer: Well he doesn't get the driveway, no. I mean he doesn't get the 25%. He has to reduce 25%. Part of that was the reason the driveway became so big we believe is because of the parking spaces. They need parking spaces. McDonald: Okay, and again the third kitchen was built without permits, so wouldn't he have to get permits to build a kitchen if he wanted to, even if it's non-conforming, it was there before, it was there illegally. Metzer: Right. Generous: It depends. McDonald: Okay, so he would still be limited to two kitchens. Metzer: Right. McDonald: Okay. I'm having trouble seeing where if we disallow it, we're gaining anything but, are you the applicant sir? Loren Veltkamp : Yes I am. McDonald: Why don't you come forward and you can, I'll give you your turn and then we'll ask you questions. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Loren Veltkamp: I can clarify a lot of this very quickly. These issues came up about 5 years ago when I started to work on this house and we did spend a lot of time. Oh, my name is Loren Veltkamp. 6724 Lotus Trail. I've lived there for about 15 years and during the time I've added a lot to the house. And I did this all without a variance and after my divorce I was deemed handicapped by the court and I was not able to make a regular living due to certain problems. But anyway I resorted to renting my home out and we got into this with the city over a long period of time and it, this was before Josh was hired by the City, and we went through it with a number of people and it went all the way up to the city attorney and I eventually got a letter from the city attorney saying that I did not have rental units. And this is what I said from the beginning, you know I have a single family home. It's a very nice home, and I don't want rental units. I don't want to have apartments or a triplex or a duplex or anything like that. I've never set out to do this, and the problem we got into was that the code defining what an apartment is, is a little vague. You know it says if you have 5 particular amenities, like cooking. A place to eat, sleeping, a bathroom and a living space, those 5 things, then you have an apartment. Okay, but it also says you have to have a separate unit, okay, and that's where it was determined that I did not have apartments because they were not separate okay, and that there was no door between them. There was certainly no locking door, so it never became a definable, rentable space. And it's confusing, I was very confused about this for a long time, and I ended up writing an 8 page letter to City Council about this, which I believe they still have and you can look at it. I call these, instead of a rental unit, I called it a mila which stood for mother-in-law apartment. And that's what I thought I was building was just mother-in-law apartments that extended families could use in the future, and roommates can use today. And so that's what I set out to build and the kitchen for example, I did get, I didn't exactly get a permit to build a kitchen but I included the kitchen on my plan and because I put a bathroom up there, the kitchen was included under the plumbing permit. And the kitchen was thoroughly inspected and approved and my house was visited 5 times on 5 separate occasions by city inspectors. Five different times now they went through my house from top to bottom to determine that there were not apartments in this building. And that's exactly what I wanted from the beginning. I don't want apartments, but I needed to have people live with me in order to afford the house because I just, there's just no way I can stay there. So I think maybe they cut me some slack you know because of the handicap thing. I'm thinking that's what they might have done. And I did have trouble you know when I built the house writing in the plans you know, I changed the plans as I went. They started off just building a garage and then I got up on top of the garage and I said this is really nice living space so I built a room up there. And then I extended it into the house and then I put in a bathroom and it was all done kind of piecemeal, and I changed the windows three times and I did this over a number of years, which is why the records and I submitted hand drawings on some of the stuff and I believe some of it was lost. You know some of it was just misplaced, but in the end everything I did was you know rigorously inspected and I had all the paperwork for that. I pulled all the necessary permits and even the city attorney spent a great deal of time looking into this. And it is a complicated issue. You know the difference between an apartment and having roommates, and especially when you have the five amenities but you don't have significant separation of the units. So I was totally confused about it, and I don't blame other people for being confused about it too. But I didn't do anything without a permit, and I didn't do anything without a permit and you know the work is not all perfect and all that stuff. I did a lot of it myself but I was thoroughly inspected and we had this all set. I did have roommates in my 66 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 house and you know we went on this way for 5 years you know and it's been fine. And I'd like to continue it just the way it was. With a couple little alterations but I think that the city after some time made the right decision you know. And everything I think has been pretty good, and I would just like to continue it. This variance request is not really born out of hardship. You know what actually happened here is that the roof burned off and I had some builders come over and say you know, what do I do you know, and they said why are you building out over the garage when you should be building out over your house, you know. Because then you can stack the bathrooms and you can put the storage over the garage and everything is much cleaner and neater and you know more economical. So for purely practical reasons I said well, maybe I should apply for this variance you know. I'm not going to get another chance to do it so. This is probably the right thing to do for a house. I'll give it a shot. And in terms of hardship, you know I'm not going to exaggerate hardship here. There's a certain amount of hardship in having a poorly designed house and paying more utilities because things are spread out more and this kind of thing, and I suppose over the life of the house that probably goes into the tens of thousands of dollars. There is some hardship here with having a poorly designed house, that kind of thing but it's nothing that we can't understand. It's pretty clear. So there is some hardship here and there is some opportunity here and I basically just want to build the house a little differently. I don't want to add square feet or anything like that. I don't want to add anything to bother anybody here. By just cleaning up the design of the house a little bit, and make it a little more livable and get things where they belong and put in a different heat system and things like that, then you know I'm good to go. McDonald: Okay. Any questions? Kurt? Keefe: I've got a question in regards to, you know locating the kitchen on the second level, if you were to grant this variance, you're okay with that? Loren Veltkamp: Actually I can't survive in the house with that because the roommates that I had used the kitchen, and I used it too. The kitchens were a common area as the City determined. When you have roommates the City, you know they. . . hard and fast ordinance was the City wrote me a letter saying that bedrooms in this situation are private, okay. You can't have people walking into other people's bedrooms. So they're considered private. All of the areas are common. Are held in common. So anybody can walk into anybody's kitchen or you know into any of the living areas or decks or you know, I had everything in the house. I mean hot tub and spa and everything, and everybody, exercise room. You know just everything that anybody would want almost. We had large screen TV's and entertainment rooms and it was wonderful. And people loved it and all the people that lived there as part of the fire losing stuff, they all want to come back you know. They all signed six month sub leases and they all want to come back in August. And I said I'll do whatever I can to get you back you know. So it's a happy family. It's more like an extended family than a bunch of you know rental units. I mean I don't even like rental dwellings. I wouldn't even have a rental if it was up to me. Roommates is the only way to go. But that's the state of things today. But I want to emphasize that we went through a great deal of trouble talking about this 5 years ago and it was all agreed and determined in writing and cleared up finally. And now, since the fire, this whole issue has just exploded again. You know and it's because we got new people working the city and the reason they told us very little and you know the people before that didn't read them that literally. And 67 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 there's another issue here that I need to bring up and this is even weirder. I've been in this house for 15 years you know working on it and I've had I think 5 surveys done on this house in the time that I've lived there. After the fire my survey was done again by the same guy for I think maybe the eighth time, and it was rejected 4 times because he couldn't get it right. You know I agreed with staff that it wasn't really done right. It's crazy but in spite of all this, I still don't even know which way my house is facing. I've been there 15 years and I don't know which way my house is facing. It used to face south and the driveway went south and the front door went south and there was a paper road out there that's going to be developed, which was the fastest way out of the, you know away from the lake there. And also the guy that owned by lot owns another lot which was on this road you know going out so the house originally had defined setbacks. You know it was 30 feet, 10 and 10, which was the way that they did things back then. But now the city decides Lotus is the main road, and they have new setbacks you know. 30 and 30 and 15 and 15 on the sides. This just kills me you know. If my house had burned, it's a very serious problem. If my house had burned for another 10 minutes, I would have been past the 50% destruction level, and I would have lost everything. This scared the bejeebies out of me you know. I totaled up what my loses would have been, and I would have lost a half a million dollars. That's what I would have lost after I got all my insurance and everything else. Just because of that one code. I had no idea that code existed. So I think the city's got to look at this a little more carefully because people don't have insurance for their house and the lot in case they can't ever rebuild it. You know I certainly can't. So that's a side issue but getting back to this more important issue of which way we're facing. I talked to some lawyers about this and they felt, both lawyers felt that the city really shouldn't be imposing these setbacks on me because they're the ones who changed the street, okay. If! had built it wrong, it'd be another issue but since the City changed the street there and then changed the setback in such a way that I no longer have a buildable lot. I've got literally a 10 foot strip down the middle of my lot that is buildable. Which is of course not buildable. So they said that this is land grabbing.. . You know not intentional land grabbing but land grabbing just the same because you know the city can change the streets any time and then change the variances any time and people like me, completely unaware have a calamity in their lives and we end up losing everything. So I think if this went to court, I think a jury of my peers might have a little trouble with that you know. I think this needs to be researched. I don't know what the answer is but it doesn't seem right to me you know that a person can lose their lot just because the city changes which road is you know going to service their land. So that's a very basic issue in this case, which is still unresolved. And the lawyers want is the $300 an hour to research it, and I thought well maybe they just want my money you know. I don't know. But that's an issue and hope we can look at that further. And I would specifically request, you know I say it all the time but I'm very pro roommates for the city. I don't like apartments. I like roommates and I think it's a good thing. I put this in my letter to the City Council. I think it's a good thing for people to have roommates because if you fall ill or you know the kids need more of a house, or you have some other calamity, roommates can come in and give you the extra money to keep your house, which is what happened in my case. I was able to keep the house and finish the house and develop the house and I think that's a good thing for me and the roommates seem to like it too, and we were able to do it with, you know right in front of the eyes of the city and work this out, you know. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Undestad: I've just got one question for you. He keeps going back to the rental thing and rental units. What issue are there that, I mean if you want to put the three kitchens and things in there, what issues do you have with the city and... Loren Veltkamp: ... you know there's the 5 amenities that make an apartment. Obviously they don't like having tenants in my house. They've never, you know they never liked that. They think it's apartments you know. Undestad: But getting a rental license, you wouldn't do that? Loren Veltkamp: I got a rental license. That's another funny thing. I applied for a rental license and then they determined that I didn't need a rental license because I don't have apartments you see. So I put my, I gave my money and I never got my money back. You know they still have my money but I don't have a license because I don't need one. I said screw it okay. I'm happy. And I don't have more than 2 dogs either. I don't know why that comes up you know. And the driveway, you know staff implied that the driveway was built to accommodate renters but the driveway was built before I was even divorced and the fact is we had two snowmobiles. A large boat. A motorcycle and two cars and we needed the driveway just to turn the boat around because there was no parking on Lotus Trail so. Undestad: You mentioned you might you know, this might need more research or might need more time. That may very. . . Loren Veltkamp: The code's about rent, you know apartments versus roommates. They need to be re-written because I've been through this twice now. And it's gone on for, I think this is the sixth year now that this has been an issue, and we had it quiet for 2 years. Dillon: We're not going to do that here tonight though. Loren Veltkamp: I know. I know but it's vague you know and it's just a little too vague. And to me the key issue with an apartment is a locking door, you know. If you've got a locking door and the people are renting that space and controlling that space, that's an apartment regardless of whether it has 2 toilets or 3 toilets and whatever. McDonald: Well I guess we're getting a little bit off par here but I do have a question for staff but I, the purpose of all this is so you can bring roommates back in. Loren Veltkamp: No, not at all. I can bring the roommates back anyway, and they all, they do want to come back and the only reason I have applied for a variance is to make the house more livable and it's cleaner. It's a better design and it's cheaper to build per square footage, and it's just more practical for me to do it that way. It's really just a matter of practicality. Now whether impracticality equals a hardship, you know a certain amount of screwed up design. For example, in the old house the storage was through a person's bedroom. Okay, but under the city code you know that bedroom was a private bedroom so I couldn't go into my storage you know without getting written consent you know, so this is an impracticality. So I said. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 McDonald: Well, before you go on with that, I mean that brings up a question and I don't think we have an answer for it but I do have a question for staff. I know in the City of Minneapolis in a situation such as this, this is viewed as a boarding house. You take a residence and you let people have the bedrooms and you have the common areas and those things. Do we have a comparable ordinance that would deal with boarding houses? I mean it seems as though he's being treated as an apartment. Yeah, maybe he's not an apartment house but it's definitely a boarding house. Metzer: I think that's been part of the problem in the past years is the definition of what's what. I don't know if it' s finding ways around the definitions or what but. McDonald: Well I guess I'd like to see something there because I'm sorry, I'm still having a problem with all of this. It all comes down to the fact that you're asking for a variance and I'm just not sure why I'm doing this and I need to know something there. After telling two other gentlemen that sorry, you have to tear it down or pull it up and you know, both of them are saying a great financial hardships. Understanding you've got one too but I would just like to know what's going on so I would like staff to do something. I'd like to know what's, if all we have is an ordinance for rental, for apartments, then he's probably got a point. Ifwe view this as a boarding house, which is different, then is there something else that he falls under? Loren Veltkamp: The staff has repeatedly told me that they like roommates. They want to encourage roommates. Roommates are fine but you've got to stay within the line. McDonald: Well I understand that and that's perfectly fine. That's why I say, what you've got is a boarding house. That's the rules of a boarding house. It's not apartments. You've got the common areas. I've seen a lot of these in Minneapolis. Loren Veltkamp: I don't know what a boarding house is so I can't. McDonald: Well you've got one. Yeah, you meet the definition and that's what I want to find out is you know, does the City address a boarding house differently than it does an apartment. And that's something to look at because what you're defining and what you're saying is going on is the same thing that goes on in downtown Minneapolis, around the University. A lot of people take their homes, the old homes down there. They convert them into boarding houses. They rent them out to students. They rent them out to individuals. They have the common areas the City of Minneapolis, also because of the fire 3 or 4 years ago where a couple students were killed, started cracking down on boarding houses. That they do fall under an ordinance. There are requirements. Loren Veltkamp: Are the owners living in these houses with the students? McDonald: Huh? Loren Veltkamp: Are the owners living in the houses? 70 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 McDonald: In some cases they were. In some cases they weren't, and that's what creates the problem, and that's why I'd like to know what it is you've got. Maybe at that point it does justify the variance. But if staff can't answer that right now, one of the things I would ask him to do is come up with something. Papke: Would you accept a motion to table this? McDonald: I would accept a motion to table this. Papke: Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we table this application until we can come back with something that clearly delineates the legal ramifications here and doesn't attempt to enforce something that seems to be ill defined by granting a variance. Dillon: Second. Loren Veltkamp: Can I make one small request? McDonald: Well first of all let us vote on the motion. Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission table the variance request for 6724 Lotus Trail, Planning Case 06-25, until staff can come back with something that clearly delineates the legal ramifications and doesn't attempt to enforce something that seems to be ill defined by granting a variance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to o. McDonald: Did you wish to add something? Loren Veltkamp: I would like to just put a rush on it because my house is getting rained on every day. I don't have a roof you know. McDonald: I understand that and staff is under certain constraints. It will be dealt with in an expeditious fashion. I'm sure that they will contact you about, we will, what is the time? Can we come back on the calendar at our next? Generous: Yeah, the next one unfortunately, our next scheduled meeting will be the 4th. Loren Veltkamp: I just can't wait that long. I, you know, I'm under a certain time limits on the insurance company. They only pay for me to be out of the house for a certain period of time, you know. I mean it's a hardship for me to drag this out. I've got people lined up to work on the house. I've got a roof. Papke: Can you proceed with reconstructing under your current? Loren Veltkamp: I can do what I can. Put the roof over the garage and did some second story decking. You know we've got tarps up. Our tarps have ripped off again with this last you know deluge we had and. I would just like to rush it. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 McDonald: Yeah, well we'll have it back by the 18th. And that's about 3 weeks away. In the meantime, if this goes up before us for a vote, I'm afraid you'll be turned down and you're still looking at going before City Council. Nothing is going to happen before then anyway so at least by doing this, I think we're only throwing maybe a 2 week delay into anything. It's just, this doesn't make sense and I cannot in good faith vote for it after denial of two other variances. Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and I just haven't heard it tonight. Okay, with that then we will move on to the next agenda item. Resident: Excuse me. Will we get notification of the July 18th meeting because we're all waiting to see? Generous: I can send out a notice. McDonald: Yep. Notices will be sent out again. I apologize for everybody coming in but I'm afraid at this point we just don't have enough information. And that's part of what we're going to try to do is unconfuse all of this so that everybody understands what's going on and we do finally make a recommendation that makes sense to everybody. So I appreciate everyone coming in. I understand the late hour and everything, but thanks very much and thank you for your patience and I'm sorry if this is going to cause any kind of a hardship but again, as I said to the gentlemen, two before, financial burden is not something that we can look at. We have certain rules to follow and without this making sense within those rules, we can't vote. So we will adjourn with that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 6, 2006 as presented. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 72