The free three variances are necessary given the applicant of the street setback requirement on the lot prohibits building location and pool at 7202 Shannon Drive.

Chris, am I am I understanding correctly that because of that access road to 5901 Lee Valley, the property 7202 Shannon is almost is is unbuildable because the setback is actually bigger than the property itself. That's correct.

That has been one of the more frustrating codes that we've had to deal with over time because a property is developed based on the setbacks of homes on either side and they could be much further back.

for me, this is a a clear case where a variance would be required. when we look at a lot like this and I'm so happy that we saw the images of what was the platting prior and the platting now cuz then you could get a sense of how things change over time that then made this lot much more difficult to build on given the zoning code that we have which looks at the averages across the adjacent properties right the setback averages

Other excerpts from the comprehensive plan include talking about missing middle housing, which is a housing type that that we're looking to increase. Again, duplexes fall into that missing middle category. This wouldn't be affordable housing as we talk about, but it is providing an alternative housing type.

Another concern I have is going from single family home which had one occupant for many years to the four which I think it could easily handle. However, five bedrooms each. Um, we're looking at going from anywhere from maybe eight occupants to 28 occupants. And then you're looking at cars. You're looking at parking. You're looking at guests.

I think this is exactly the right use of this land. I think I would like to see more density, but I I understand the concerns of the neighborhood and I think this is the right um baby steps into creating more options of housing for all sorts of people.

Honestly it feels a little random to me when you're talking about the question is just about amending the comp plan for this parcel only. So that's why I don't concern myself so much with some of the other details. But like I'm sitting here just wondering what like why would we just amend the comp plan change this one parcel to low low density attached whatever it was called when it's bordered by single family residential on both sides still it it just it's feeling a little random and inconsistent from a planning perspective.

If the neighboring site was a part of this, it would be a slam dunk in my opinion because you could do so much more and be so much more creative and leverage a better transition and all that. So without that, like it it just doesn't have as much of my support.