Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

I'll call the meeting to order. This is the regular meeting of the Garden City Zoning Board of Appeals. It's Wednesday, April 23rd, 2025 at 6:32 p.m. Our first order of business is a pledge of allegiance to the flag. If everyone would stand. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Be seated. Does the secretary take the roll call, please? Chairperson may here. Commissioner Price here. Mr. Richard here. Commissioner Hickman here. Commissioner Smith here. Commissioner Martin is not here. And Bullock is not here either. You do have a quorum. Uh, next we need approval of the agenda. Someone cares to make a motion. Yeah. I make a motion that we uh approve the agenda from our last meeting and for this meeting or mean this meeting? What do you mean? We have to approve this agenda. Oh, I thought it was the one from last Oh, that's the minutes. We had a 50-50 shot. Oh, well then we approved the men for this meeting's agenda then. Yes. Does someone want to support that? Second. Thought I was last. All right, I'll give to take the role, please. Commissioner Price, yes. Commissioner Hickman, I. Uh, Commissioner Smith, here. Commissioner Richard, hi. Chairperson, I. Motion passes. Now we have approval of minutes from the special meeting of October 2nd, 2024. Need a motion to approve the minutes. I make a motion we approve the minutes of the special meeting of October 2nd,

2024. I'll second that one. Any questions or corrections on the motion? Hearing none, take the role, please. Commissioner Hickman. Mr. Abra. Hi. Commissioner Richard. Hi. Commissioner Smith. Hi. Commissioner Price. Hi. Chippers. I. Motion passes. Okay, next item is public comment on non-aggenda items only. Does anyone wish to come forward and make a comment or a statement on a non-aggenda item? Seeing no one, we'll move on to our first business item. This is PP D25-00002. This is 125 or 1125 Brandt. It's consideration of requests for two-dimensional variances for the construction of a new single family residential structure on the vacant lot. And we will be having a public hearing to uh allow the public to speak concerning this issue. Uh Mr. Ortega, do you care to start us out, please? Yes, Mr. Chair. Good evening, everyone. Uh we're here tonight to consider these two variances uh for this uh particular site. Um this site is 17 145 ft in width along Bra Street uh which is the front property line and then it is 76 ft depth from so it's totally approximately about square feet area. It is located on the west side of R just north of Market Avenue and as noted the site is currently a vacant unimproved lot and it is located in our R1 one family residential building and is proposing to construct a brand new single family residential

structure which of course right in that I'm repeating that I'm sorry I didn't catch you is proposing a single family home and that and those single family homes are the principal use in the district. So use permitted by right in the district but as proposed uh the new single family residence does require two variances. So to go over those specifically the first is a front yard setback variance zoning ordinance requires a 30 foot setback in front line uh and the proposing the structure to be located 20 ft from line. So then the actually requesting a 10ft variance from our standards. Secondly, then in uh for the rear yard setbacks, the zoning requires a 35 ft setback. The applicant is proposing that this structure be located 26.8 ft from that rear line. So, the applicant is actually requesting an 8.2 foot variance from the normal standard. So, we're looking at this with regards to the uh various different approval criteria. in the zoning ordinance. I'm just going to highlight some of those issues. In summary, the number one thing we look at is practical difficulty. Practical difficulties do exist when a strict application of the dimensional requirements may unreasonably prevent the use of the property from being. This request for a front and rear yard setback is is less than was required mainly due to the fact of the last lot's lack of depth. Strict compliance with that 30 foot front yard set back and strict compliance of 35t rear yard set back it results in an 11 foot deep building. So construction of an structure that's 11 foot deep is just

it's not practical. One thing we wanted to note is that the is proposing a structure that is wider than it is deeper in an attempt to better utilize that width of the lot. It's basically located in the center of the lot structure um if this if you if the structure was deeper than wire then the structure would be closer to brains and would have a much smaller yard. So, and one other aspect that's proposed, this 20 foot front yard that's being requested is actually further away from Brandt Street right now from the rightway than the houses in the immediate area. That's due to the fact that these houses in the immediate area do front on Marquad and the front on. But in effect, this house will still be less won't be as close to Grand as the sideards of these other structures. So, Again, we believe that given the the configuration of the lot, we proposed and in the fact that the that the building envelope would only be 11 ft wide that you know strict compliance with that setback requirement. We can be determined to be unreasonably prevent also strict compliance with the setbacks could be found to be unnecessary burden upon the property. Another aspect look at whether a variance is warranted is substantial justice. So at the bottom of page two fact that um granting a variance would be more consistent with the justice to other property granted. Um there are other instances in the city where a home is actually closer than 30 foot to the front and in those

situations typically they they impact the other adjacent properties and so allowing these variance would provide substantial justice to this applicant property owner that's similar to the other resial property similar situation configuration necessitates closer to the street as required and then that 30 foot there are this is a more extreme cases some of because this line is about 76 ft deps in the city that are closer they're about like 100 ft deep 100 ft deep but in effect some of them are closer to the front. So substantial justice would be granted because those were allowed to be developed as single family. So this lot would then also be developed single family. Some other aspects just to factor in is the fact that um the permitting request variances would not negatively impact public health safety and welfare. uh you know this proposed configuration will allow for that 20 foot front yard. will have 26 foot rear yard and then the structure is going to be a sufficient distance from any other building that does not require uh any increased uh construction standards for fire. If this structure was requesting something that was closer to another structure, they might have to build it to a higher standard, but they're still requesting a substantial distance from those sideyards on the north and south side of the house. And they're still having a sufficient distance on the front and rear so that there's it will not negatively it will it's not going to impact the public health by allowing there are other factors to

consider this in the ordinance one other aspect to just point out is 11 when it comes to traffic flow the applicant is proposing one curve traffic driveway approach for a single driveway to access garage this is similar to other adjacent lots uh in the area which they also one driveway for access and parking uh in the proposed act. So we we believe the proposed variances will not make traffic any more hazardous than any other single family residential construction in the city. They just have one access point intersection with the road. So therefore it's not more egregious than any other single family structure. One other look at we might want to consider is the impact on adjacent properties of this based on its location. We believe that granting the variance will not interfere with or discourage the appropriate development or continued use of adjacent properties mainly because all other adjacent properties have been developed in this area and the proposed use will be the same use that's currently occupying all the other adjacent lots. It's a single family residence. All the other uh lots in the area have been developed So by developing an additional single resative [Applause] impact it's a similar type. So in the end uh zoning board appeals shall only grant a variance from the requirements of the zoning upon finding that the criteria described above have been that the variances that are requested. So in making your determinations relative to the requested variances uh you should specify the grounds for your decision. But we find the proposed development satisfies requirements of the criteria and

recommend that the ZBA grant variances as requested by the questions. The configuration of this lot is due to a previous lot split. Is that correct? Yes, that's correct. So, wouldn't that make it self? So, the did not create well if he sold half of it, wouldn't it create the problem? I'm sorry. If he had, from what I understand, it went down brand and they got them the houses on their streets and then they got the long lots that are part of their property. in order to split it. That means the person on the corner of uh Brandt or not Brandt but Marquette would have had to sold off his part is in other words shorten up his own lot to make money or whatever you want to call it. Wouldn't that be selfinduced? So if it wasn't the property of that person that created that went through the African lot is not the owner anymore. They sold it to current and so they so they aren't involved. So when it but it didn't get so when he sold it the person that bought it didn't get the whole thing. He only bought half of it. Correct. Because the the current the property owner at the corner that owns the house went through the lot split process created this lot and then they sold that lot to the current property. the gentleman here tonight. So, the Dufol the Duval family the seller of this property still lives next door. Yes. To my knowledge. I'm not Do we have anything in writing from them any objections to where the structure is going to be placed? Could I I don't see them here today. They haven't objected

to anything. We uh to the best of my knowledge, we have not received any notification or any comments from them. They they did receive a notice in the mail just as any other property owner. They didn't back. Okay. I got my Well, I got another question. I've been down that whole street from one end of Brandt all the way to the other end. You only got two houses that are on Brandt. One is off of Hannipan. And that house is just off of Hennipin back a little bit, you know, down towards Ford Road. And they got a handy pin address with a frontage facing Brandt. That's not right. You're supposed to have a frontage. If you're up frontage, should you be frontish should be facing the frontage of your street. But that has no effect on this. Well, it's just that I had that situation happen right on the corner of my house and people are still upset about it. But and then uh then there's another one further down that has 29 something that has the only house is the only two on that one. But I was just wondering, you know, with the depth and all that and the width, is that going to be conducive? Well, obviously when the lot was split, it created a non-conforming lot as far as our ordinances go. And maybe that needs to be addressed in the future. Absolutely. But, uh, it's Mr. Ortega's content contention that uh since the applicant isn't the one that split the lot, he didn't create the Oh, so the applicant Okay. He's different from the one that owns the corner of the house. Yeah. He's the one that created the problem when he split the lot. When he sold it, but he's gone. Well, he's not involved in this now. Yeah. So, that means you can do that all through Garden City. All these ones got the long lots, they can all Why we should be talking about that, right? I mean as a I'm just

I think one thing this speaks to is that somehow this got proved whereas we have a situation in other parts of the city and it hasn't occurred as of yet. There have been some instances where lot splits occur but then they typically occur in concert with the adjacent property. So then it's a split join application is what I typically call it. Two property owners agree then they both do a split join and create lots that are deep enough to create a viable building and it occurs in in in different places and usually it's for both lots. There are some other uh configurations where it doesn't go all the way back but like I like I mentioned some of them go back about 100 ft but then even if it goes back 100 ft you still you got 30 on the front 35 on the back it's a smaller footprint but you can still get get a house in that you can still put the average size ranch on that property. Yeah. And so that's what's occurred in the past, but it still seems a little wonky to me how that ever happened because then why is it that the rest of the lot doesn't get included with those 100 footers and get additional additional depth? For some reason, it didn't could have been back in the day they were on different standards or like maybe a width to depth ratio. as long as they w Oh, I couldn't I looked and I couldn't find a standard for lot depth. That's the thing. We don't have I mean, excuse forgive me. I I don't know if we've ever had one in the past. Uh some communities when they originally plotted, they were plotted with adequate depth. Exactly. But when you talk about lot splits, that changes the whole ball game. Exactly. A lot of time, you know, We're kind of unique in in that majority of the city

has has been and the blocks created are about 120 to 135ish deep by about 60 foot wide. But then we have what I call some of the larger super blocks like the ones where you have the lots that are 300 ft deep. We've got several blocks like that. And this is one of those instances where one of those averageiz blocks right up against like a super side a super line. And so that's why the houses at Front Marquette go 300 ft deep on the west side of R. But on the east side of R they only go about 120 ft because then you get the next street have brown court brown court and even the fact that it's called brown court is kind of unique because you know back in the day when they originally planning it in theory they should have push brown through going westward and connect with the rest of the side of but they didn't. But they never did. Yeah. And that's that's occurred in other other aspects of the city and that's just delving a little deep into the development pattern of the city uh that you know might not be that relevant. The only and honestly that looking at other lots in the area. I only found a few that were of this situation. There's some on Harrison on the west side of Harrison north where there are these It's not one. I guess in theory that when they were planted, they created these lesser deps. Like I said, these are about 100 ft deep. Um, but because they back up they back up to deep lots. Correct. Yeah. Back up to deep lots. There's another bridge in Hartell. It was split one one yard turned into three and it it got squas in there pretty good. There's a few of the newer homes down.

birch lawn maybe far side. There was one that was split into three and they were kind of crammed in. Yeah. We're talking 15 years ago. So there's there's some other situations like that, but I think we should look at addressing future problems, right? this issue somehow this through but you're right to see if we need to bring back certain things such as a width depth ratio requirement. Yeah, we we currently have a a width requirement but no depth requirement and we have a square footage requirement. But when you get really wide lots, you end up with making the square footage requirement but not having any lot depth. Right. Exactly. Yeah. We need to look at uh creating a but you're going to have this mess all over the place. Well, there's several areas where it can happen. Yeah. The good thing is we haven't seen this very often and I think a lot of it in the past was under previous paying whoever. Yeah. Well, I think I think there are some lots for sale in this situation that that could have the same issue. Yes. So, I think something should be done to uh eliminate creating lots that don't conform. Yeah. Because we'll just have a whole lot of houses and no land if everything's going to be on top of everything. Yeah. And that's that's not going to make garden in this in this situation. We've got a lot of sideyard and because the neighbors lot is deep and there's nothing really behind that where this house would be going. It creates the illusion of having a lot of space back there. Right. But and there's no other houses on brand to

so you don't have a sighteline problem where this one's closer than all the other houses. Well, that's the wonder. Now, this going to be setting back so you won't have a sight line. When somebody looks down the fence line, they're not going to see a house sticking out. Well, there's no other houses to compare it to there. There's two. There's one on that faces Henipin and one that faces Marquette and they're both close to Brand. They're sideyards. Well, there's the one that's on Hennipin, which actually which I said was the address is on Hennipin, which is on the side of their house, not even on the front of their house. They're using that Hennipin as an address, which how can they do that? And the one further down which is almost two blocks south of of Joy Road on the right hand side which is 1740 something and that one's a house that's the only house there besides the white one that's so you know if you go to put a house you put it up front you look down the the fence line where people can walk and that and see feel like more country type thing. Nice. Now, if you got a house sticking out in there, that sort of I don't know if that would cover that far up. It doesn't stick out in front of any other houses. So, it won't. Yeah. And if the if the neighbors don't care, you know, well, the other point right here is like because the rest of the houses in the area that are closer actually front, the lots go north south. So, they their front yards are down on. So the houses like down are much closer to Brandt than what this home's going to be, right? Yeah. The ones across the street. Yeah. They're they're But you don't have a sight line problem when you're going across the street. It's only when you look down the same side of the street. That's what I was. And those two houses, you just have their sideyard. Yeah. But did they have public information on that? Did Did it go out

to the public? Cuz I know this came to us within a day. This didn't we didn't get the notices out the holiday. I was just wondering if the neighborhood was privy to this. Yes. And we I did receive one phone call from the setbacks in what the front yard was that sort of thing. Okay. Well, let's uh let's continue our discussion later and uh move on with the uh presentation by the applicant. Uh sir, if you'd like to come forward and uh make your presentation houses love the community and love working here. Um, I think it was you, Fred, that brought up the house across the street on Brand. That's 11 foot setback to the curb. Um, this one would be 268, I believe. No, 20, sorry. So, it would be farther back than the one across the street. And they're both running the same way, north and south. So going down Brand, I think it would just look like the right house. And the house is on the east, the houses on the west. Plenty of yard in the front. I see 58 ft if you want to call it front. And uh you got a good 36 on the other side. Again, here speak. Uh it seems like this house here has plenty of yard space once you're in it. the circumference of it. This house was originally designed for 40 foot lots, so

it fits good on a garden city lot, per se. Another thing, I designed this house years ago for a The old houses were ranches with shotgun um garages in the back, which gave you no backyard. This house has a garage in the front, so it gives you a lot of backyard. You could take a look at a few of them. I just finished one on Rosland, one on Pierce, and before CO, I built a few, three or four of them on Elmwood. So, we do the same house pretty much conform to the area. And uh we build nice houses. Um we're hoping you grant it because I think it's going to I think it's going to look good on that street. Put the sharp. Another thing is when we bought this off of Charles Dval, he was to we were told that he split the lot, went through the city and uh was approved to build. So I thought, well, you know, two real estate agents here, no problem. Submitted my plans. Mario gave me a call and uh Mark and them all just took the plans and we were ready to go. And then I got a call and he was like, "Hey, you got a couple issues here." originally was going to face the house facing Grant and he said, "No, I flipped it this way." And uh to meet setbacks a little bit better and I was like, "Whoa, I thought this house was buildable." I was told this lot. So he said, "Now you got to go to zoning." I said, "Okay, well, I'll go to zoning then." So that this is where I'm at. I'm at zoning. Yeah. I was told it was a buildable lot. I would already had that house halfway built by now. But I had a roadblock. Well, they they got approval for the lot split, but I don't think they ever got approval to build a house on it. Well, that's what he told us. But anyway, that's besides the point. We've

followed the rules and that's why we're here right now. I appreciate that. Well, we appreciate you guys. You uh I built houses in a lot of cities. This is a very, very professional and smooth transition city. You always got your bumps, you know, out there. But I don't have any problems with Garden City. I like Garden City. I can't say that for a lot of municipalities, let me tell you right now. But Garden City is a good city. Well, I we appreciate your business in Garden City, and we would continue to do business in Garden City, but there's no more lots. So, I like your discussion. I think that uh you guys could do something. And uh my houses are very remember they're designed for 40 foot lots and they conform to areas. I used to build them in Leavonia. That's where we started in the lower parts of Leavonia. But uh I don't know things don't people come back people come in and they're not as good of people. So you got to take your business somewhere else and we're over here now. Okay. So, we just hope you grant it so we can uh build a nice house for you here on Grant Street. Move a couple in there. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate you guys. Uh were there any uh written communications? You receive any Mark? Oh, well, I'm sorry. I got to get into the public hearing first. So, we'll do that. We'll open the public hearing now at uh 7 o'clock. Does anyone here wish to make a comment? No. Did they say anything on that phone call? We'll get to that in a minute. Okay. Seeing no one, uh we'll close the public hearing at

7:01. But first, we'd like to uh hear about the written communications if we have any. So, my office did not receive any in the clerk's office to my knowledge. Although, was this included in their packet, Mario, from Okay. All right. So, no, we have no written communications at this time. Okay. Well, did you receive anything else? Did not receive any communications. I did receive one phone call from the Jason property owner to the west. He had questions about where the house was going to be located. The the setbacks informed him the branch is as he would have 26. Then he asked about requirements for fences and I said that's up to the property owner if they wish to apply for property own but it's not a requirement and I I told them that typically that's not anything that require someone to install as part of he didn't offer for an opinion as to what he thought about believe there's nothing I can do about it. Oh, okay. All right, then we'll close the uh public hearing at uh 7:03 and open this up for discussion on the board. Anyone have any comments or questions? Actually, one re um more so regarding the neighbor. Have you spoke to the neighbor about his sheds being on your property line? Oh,

he's the guy that sold us the propert. Right. I I just noticed that looking at the overhead because it's the sheds here. It doesn't show a distance, but looking at it on the aerial, those sheds are right on the property line, which creates another headache for us. No, I think it's actually Okay. And then all the oaks, possibly walnut, whatever you have in the back. We're not tearing none of that down. You're keeping that, which would be on the western property. not adding any kind of fencing. So, no encouragement upon that to where we're going to need a variance to come back off of that. We have room to push that house forward, too. Okay. So, we're not so close to the shed. Awesome. But I figured I'd back that up, give them a bigger front. Gotcha. But it could be moved in that. But that house, that lot's huge. This house is only fit. Yeah. My biggest concern was the trees going landscaping. That way we're not back here in six months for another variance that well we moved a little bit further to the west and so everything was thought out. He doesn't have any problems. He's the one. Yeah, he lives at 299. There any other uh comments or questions? Everybody good? The uh I mean while while it it does seem like it was a self-created problem, it wasn't created by the current owner. It was created by a previous owner and probably uh contributed to by the city by split

allowing a lot split. So I don't think it's going to be have much of an impact on the surrounding houses. it uh doesn't appear to me like it's going to uh have a ne negative impact at all in the area and all the other you know issues side issues here you know should be addressed but elsewhere than here you know with what we're considering right now this this lot owner probably shouldn't be penalized for you know an indiscretion by the city for not having requirements proper requirements on these lots I agree I think it opens opens our eyes moving forward. Yeah. You know, talk to other departments. Any others? Uh, anything else? Anyone want to make a motion? Yeah. We have uh we'll get language for We need two motions. I make the motion to approve of and grant parcel 35-16-2-323-301 more commonly known as 11125 Brandt Road a 10-ft variance for from the gardens or city of Gardens city zoning ordinance appendix A schedule of regulation R1 one family residential district minimum front yard setback requirement. This variance is granted based on the zoning board of appeals making the determination that the site meets the approval criteria of section 154.4453A. Specifically, we find the following criteria have been met. Public safety, the chosen configuration will suit the neighborhood and will not harm uh neighbors. extraordin extraordinary circumstances. The lot was purchased in an irregular um layout which uh the owner did not create the problem. In impact on value by moving

the 10-ft we will have no negative impact to the value of the land or adjoining neighbors. support. Supported. Motion's made and supported. Any comments on the motion. Take the role, please. Commissioner Richard, I. Commissioner Price. I. Commissioner Smith. I. Commissioner Hickman. I. Chairperson Bay. I. That motion passes. Okay. Now we need a second motion for the U rear yard. Or no, that was for the yard. This is for the U 8.2 would be for the front yard or the backyard. I thought it's rocket. I'll make a motion. Make a motion. Go ahead. Yeah, we're doing good. Make a motion to approve a grant parcel 35-16-2-323-301, more commonly known as 1125 Brandt Road, an 8.2 foot variance from the city of Garden City zoning ordinance. Appendix A, schedule of regulations R11 family residential district minimum rear yard setback requirement. This variance is granted based on the zoning board of appeals making the determination that the site meets approval criteria of section 154.453A. Specifically, we find the following criteria have been met. It creates no safety hazard to this property or adjoining properties. There is no negative impact of land values and extraordin uh extraordinary circumstances as with the purchase of this property. They took delivery of the property with said uh dimensions

report. Second. Any questions, comments on the motion? Take the roll, please. Commissioner Richard. Hi. Mr. Hickman. Hi. Commissioner Smith. Hi. Commissioner Price. Hi. Chippers. May. I. Your motion passes. Okay. Both of your motions for variance have passed and uh you can contact Mr. Ortega to uh move ahead with your filming. No, I like them. Oh, yeah. No, Mario had them. He's got copies of it. Good guys. Give me one. good guys. Even if you should approve it, it's okay. I'm not new to copies of it. Hey, if you're still looking for property, you might want to you might want to talk to the powers that be. And instead of us waiting until she's married and has great great grandchildren, talk about maybe getting that property uh that our future future future library may sit on. Wink wink nudge nudge. That would be nice over there. Little jab from over here. You don't want to get into that. Yeah. Stay away from that. That's a That's a That's a We've got a beautiful sign that's been there for about 8 years and that sign's going to age gracefully for about another 80. Yeah, they they did eradicate but forgot about the library. What the hell? Yeah, they have a piece of property and uh they're not doing anything with it. Yeah, I got a 10x10 section down on the beach in Florida that I want to build 80story condos in also. What point is they have they put all that money in Radcliffe and then they've ignored the library and the library was way up before the Radcliffe. Well, the library is kind of on its own. Get the get the wheels turning and uh let them know money now works better than bills later. Well, we don't got a lot of

money. We're small builders. We're small builders. And we're not talking like a Toll Brothers type development. The property would probably hold two, possibly three residents. Well situated, room to grow. Start with one. I'm comfortable with the situation now that I've been in here because I don't think you guys are going to do nothing to make anything move. We like to we like to see progress. They build a lot of dumb stuff in some cities like in I live out there. We went out there years ago. I built when the kids were little and now they're just building stupid stuff everywhere. the the commission down there, the zoning board. I I don't even understand. If it looks big and it has pretty shrubs, approved. That's about it, too. I'll see you. Okay. Good night. Okay. Next item is other business and discussion. Uh maybe we can uh discuss what would be necessary to eliminate the problem of uh splitting lots that don't conform and maybe we need to add some more uh regulations to the schedule of regulations. I think in the normal process the uh whenever last submitted excuse me they go to the the city do come to uh the zoning administrator for review and I'll be honest when it comes to this one I I recall talking to the property owner that variances would be required and it's not anything that can get approved and it must have gone to the council to get approval but we can I wasn't aware that the council had to approve slot splits do they um you know I'm not exactly sure when we do

what triggers that because there's a couple different kinds. There's a split join sometimes when there's combinations. I don't believe combinations go to council, but uh is discussed. But I think you're right at the planning commission level, we can look at amendments to the zoning orders that that codify what the policies are because right now the policies are not artificial in the zoning orders. put them in the zoning orders and also take a look at um the land division regulations. Typically that's something that is in technically it's not in the zoning or it's in the general regulations and typically unfortunately what happens is a lot of them are related to clatted and the original plat but obviously as mature community we're not getting a lot of plats anymore. Usually it's about amendments to those plats and making sure that whatever verbage is in the general regulations or it's about amending the flats because technically this is whenever a split is done it's amending the flat because like that legal definition of that lot like if that was lot 22 then the legal definition is the southern half of lot 22 and the northern half lot 22. Yeah. meaning well maybe the only thing we need to do is along with the lot width and the square footage of a lot maybe we need to add something that says what the lot depth must be the minimum depth of the lot what would the legal what would legalities be in moving forward we talk to the powers of be whoever it may be if a lot split is warranted it comes before a zoning board or somebody else first it the zoning board, whoever's on it at that time, they can give the okay to give the variance for that property moving forward and it avoids this. So, it comes before they're allowed. That's a self-created problem then, but before they split that lot, they got to allow it, then that's a

self-created thing, not to the new buyer. But I think what the key would be is just to make, you know, if they came and we said, "This is a variance that we're willing to give you. If you still want to split that lot, this is what it's going to have to be." And if they don't feel comfortable selling it with that, can't they only do this with the corner lots anyway? Well, it's it's only available with the Yeah. the deep lots that set on a side street. Yeah. Yeah. Well, no, not so much cuz I I think there's two properties that we have that there's two residents and the lot is split to where there's a home in the back. There's a driveway that goes up. I believe there's two that that I'm aware of. One that sits behind it. Yeah. Yeah. which creates even more of a headache, right? And one or two problems. And this is a great conversation because actually the planning commission right now is going through uh doing a master plan amendment to deal with residential lot uh configuration and also different residential housing types. We had a public open house to talk about the different type of housing types we allow. And one of the next things we're discussing going to be discussing is where we can have different types of housing. and what part of that discussion is uh at the planning commission level and at the city level. So obviously as CBA members you're more than welcome to attend I'll make sure that uh you're you're advised of any other future meetings the idea of also possibly given the current configuration of the lots and given the current options what are the where in the city could we create other housing opportunities because we've talked about the idea of making sure that people if they needed a different housing type, if they don't wanted to, they didn't want to mow the lawn anymore, if they didn't want to uh shovel snow anymore, where what type of housing they have in the city, stay part of the city community and not necessarily be forced to move to another place outside of the city. So that's just a broader discussion about before

we get into the nitty-gritty of something like this. I think that address this issue we do look to look at the ordinance to make sure where where the uh lap depth situation exists and making sure there's minimum minimums for that or something that because one of the things that spurred the planning commission's concern about housing was the fact that the current master plan amended. There was some discussion about what to do with these deep blocks, what to do with these 300 foot deep blocks. And there are different options. Some of them talked about putting the streets through them like like we were just talking about. But obviously something like that is even if you put in a master plan, it's very very very difficult task. It's difficult because you'd have to convince every property owner along the way to sell their back 150 foot and then be willing to have a road go behind them and another house built in. Yeah, I don't think that we can't afford to build potholes, let alone put in new streets and infrastructure. Yeah, exactly. That's what the planning commission said, but we have to come up with other alternatives. So something talking about this what to do with these lots that are on the 300T lead that are adjacent to a side street lazy river. What do we do with that if I mean building on them is is fine but they should conform to minimum standards to do that. Yeah. We be here all the time or we'll have this situation over and over again constantly. Yeah. So, at a minimum, we have to make sure that the situation doesn't happen. Okay, then. Well, any other uh business or discussions? Yeah, good seeing you guys after 6 months. Been a while, huh? Good seeing you after 6 months. I thought you joined

the Marines with that haircut. Anything? I like my couch too much. I like your couch. You guys have anything? Yeah. Any zoning uh what's that? Any zoning discussions you want to talk about? No. Can I get rid of that house on the corner that uses? That was with Jim Barker's situation back in those days. Oh jeez. They they they put the same thing like they did this one. But there was in that one they they they rubbed it underneath the rug totally. They put that house on on Catherine and garden right on the corner there. It's a modular home and it's more like a trailer. Yeah. And we were pissed because it's 10 foot off the house at guy's bedroom. He was so pissed and uh they built that house there and nobody knew about it. None. We never were informed about it. All a sudden we had cranes and sections in the middle of our road. Right. Yeah. Wait, where at? Didn't it have a foundation or basement first and then had a foundation or basement first and then it had that modular home put on and then what they did when they put that on there when they built that thing they couldn't use a garden address garden street address because there is no houses on Garden Street. There's only two house thing right. So what they did, there's a big oak tree right beside it and they put the address and the main door. They call it the main door is the side door of the trailer and it's 5 foot from the big tree and he's got a little deck that he goes out that way but the frontage he made it this way on the southwest corner by our daughter's house. Mr. Corser's house. Your daughter-in-law is that who do you know who did it? We were so passed. I mean, okay. Very well. I was going to mention earlier, guys, uh, about when someone said a house behind a house. My wife grew up in a house on Henipin, between Brandt and Henry Ruff

on the north side of the street where the house was halfway between Henipin and Bach, way back in the woods there. And it had a driveway going all the way up between the houses really on Henipin. And that's where she grew up in that house that was behind. If you look in that window that that trailer house that there is no backyard there is only like 4 foot and they're 10 foot from the other house and he and he and to the side of the house he's only got a short period to the street of Catherine and he's got a little bit where he's got his little shed type thing there. It's like it looks like crap and it's way out of sync of the whole neighborhood. I mean, the guy's working on I mean, give him credit on that, but it wasn't I don't think it was him that did it first because that's been a while since Yeah. And it was sold I think two years ago. That was Jim Barker's little slide thing with the zoning and all that crap. That's just what we're going through right now with the Radcliffe. All that crap that's being done when it should have been before they built the inside. They should have did the outside, the roof and everything. Mhm. And I don't know what's going on with people and these council meetings and that they just do what they want to do and hail with the people, you know, right circles. Yeah. Okay. Well, the next regular keeps going around. Yeah. Do we have anything for next? I saw that that's just if something comes up, is there anything in the works right now? You wouldn't have any we don't have any variances or anything. I'm going to have a discussion with development director. I might have a question for other Oh, really? Okay. Well, next regular meeting is Wednesday, May 28th, if needed. Well, we know that. We'll see you in six months. Uh, do I have a motion to adjurnn? Motion to

adjurnn. All in favor? I I motion's adjourned or meetings adjourned. Motion is adjourned. Motion is adjourned, too.