I aliance 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. >> All right, I think there's some agendas out there. I got um all of us have an agenda in front of us. Um do we have any um adjustments? Otherwise, I'd uh entertain a motion for approval. >> Move to approve. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second for approval of the agenda tonight. All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Motion passes. >> Uh we should have minutes. I think there's minutes been distributed. Are there any adjustments or changes to the minutes from the January 8th meeting? >> Nope. >> Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. >> I so move to approve the minutes. >> Second. have a motion and a second. Um if there's no discussion, all those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Motion passes. Uh we have no one from the city council tonight, but if we have any department reports tonight, any updates? >> Yep. Uh chair and planning commission members, I can sub in for council member Luligrin. Uh here at the last meeting, pretty straightforward council meeting. The council did approve, if you recall, there was a condo project on stage coach that um the planning commission recommended for approval. ultimately was approved by council. Uh that received an extension to their cup. So they had a cup for parking. They asked for a one-year extension. Uh it sounds like from the petitioner's perspective is that they had some bad soils there. Got to do a little bit more work um on how to remediate that. And so that's what's kind of delayed their their process. Um also from the council um arena, we've reached the max uh for cannabis businesses. We've set the limit at four and so the council has approved four and so I don't anticipate any more coming to the planning commission uh here anytime soon. And then finally, one just general item here city related uh within our newsletter looking for positions here on the planning commission and then also in the parks commission. So we have that out in the newsletter. Um if there's anyone that knows any residents um send them our way. U application is pretty straightforward to fill out. So that's all I had, Mr. Chair. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. No other. All right, we'll move on to the next topic on our agenda tonight. All right, so this is the time for visitors and public comment. Um, this is an opportunity for people to address the commission with questions or comments on issues that are not on the agenda tonight. So, if anyone wants to ask any questions on anything that's not on the agenda, now is your opportunity. All right, seeing none, we will move on to our public hearings tonight. Um, we have a application from Homes by Kimbrandt LLC um to review an application for a variance to allow minor subdivision of one lot into two lots. Um, Mr. Richards. Uh, yes. Thank you, uh, members of the commission and, uh, Mr. Chair. uh the uh two lots um that would be created with this proposal. Uh the original lot is uh uh 15055 Upper 63rd Street and the second lot again if if approved would be uh 15051 upper uh 63rd Street. U the uh site is now one parcel uh 18,290 ft. Um it's zoned R2 low density and medium residential uh district. Um the property line is is they're creating a property line essentially to split these two lots both at 9,45 square feet and um a at the front property line a width of 67.8 ft. Um just a little bit of background uh the R2 district requires lot areas of 10,400 square ft um and a lot width of of 80 ft. So again, uh smaller than what u uh than what uh uh would be required with the full standards. Uh the lot area and width in the surrounding neighborhood. There was a uh diagram uh put together and and uh the administrator has that uh on the board also. Uh the lot directly to the east of the existing lot um is an 8,796 square ft. And uh most of the lots along Upper 63rd Street are compliant. Uh they have at least 80 ft. Um except for that one. Uh there is a a a 40ft uh lot, but that's joined to the 80ft lot at the corner uh there at Paris. Um but there are other lots. Uh if you look at uh 63rd Street, uh some have 50 foot lot widths and lot sizes of less than 9,000 square ft. So there is a variety of lot size sizes. Again um you know just uh goes back to the original platting of the of the city and uh uh an area that was developed um um in some cases before zoning. >> I was going to say it honestly probably predates Oak Park Heights, doesn't it? >> Yeah, it predates it would be township probably at that point. um subdivision process. Uh uh there would be a variance from that in that uh we would not um with this variance. We're saying that they don't have to go through the full uh subdivision final or bonary plat final plat. They could do it as a minor lot subdivision. We have a precedent for that. um uh at 15 uh 2222 uh 62nd Street North. A couple years ago, I guess it was uh 22, more than a couple years ago, mid December of 2022, uh there was a boundary line adjustment uh at 15 uh 222 and 15224 to create uh uh actually it was two lots, but they just moved the boundary line. Uh so the lots were roughly 8,000 square ft and uh the lot widths about 60 ft. So those are smaller uh lots than what uh uh what's being proposed here. Uh one of the uh one of the lots has been constructed on uh the other one uh best my knowledge they have not taken a permit uh out for the other uh for that other lot. The uh the main thing that we'd look at uh if this is approved again with the ex uh house that was existing on on this property uh is uh currently has a building permit to be renovated. are in that process. So the plan is to uh uh build a a second house uh on that second lot that's being created. So uh you would be adding one additional lot uh and and again the uh original house would be uh significantly uh uh updated. Um the uh parking garage uh we have a requirement in our zoning ordinance that requires uh that uh single family uh homes uh have two spaces per unit and both of which are recovered garage structure since they're asking for this. It's a time for the city to bring those up to compliance. I believe there was an existing shed garage uh that has been removed. uh the site plan that uh the uh applicants have provided does show a a garage that's compliant with setbacks and so forth and then a a for the uh new house that would be created uh they would have to do a detached or attached garage also. Uh so with that um uh the uh uh planning report goes through and discusses some of the criteria variance criteria uh for zoning and uh uh there's also some suggested conditions uh for you to consider if you want to move this forward uh this evening. Any questions at this point? >> Any questions for Mr. Richards before I open the public hearing? >> Hearing none. will open the public hearing at 60 >> I have a quick one. >> Yeah. >> Easements splitting the driveway. What's what are they intending to do with the property and will you know are they going to use the same driveway for both lots or how are they going to access >> No, I believe that uh the applicant can answer that but there would be a a separate driveway uh for the uh uh I I guess we haven't discussed the details. uh they have shown for the existing house a garage plan but we would review that time of building permit uh for that secondary house to uh to do that. >> So then that that's the question for the city portion of it. Can you add a new driveway and that easement and everything's fine? There won't be any issues with splitting curb and gutter and >> no driveway. >> There's no curb there. It's a >> okay. >> Yeah, it's a I can tell you that much. >> Anything else for Mitch? Mr. records. >> All right, we'll open the public hearing at 609. Um, so this is the opportunity for the public to address the commission with any um concerns about that and then we'll have the applicant address anything at the end to answer any questions. So, if anybody has any positive or things they'd like to say or negative, uh, please keep your comments under three minutes, please. And then just when you come up to the mic, introduce yourself um, and tell us your address, please, for the people on the telephone. >> Oh, pardon me. Hi, I'm Jennifer Villanu uh 15026 Upper 63rd Street North for Katy Corner from the proposed lot. Um I'm speaking on behalf of a couple of us here. I would like to note that we do have a petition that is respectfully opposing this application request. Currently, we have around 20 homeowners with their signatures on it. We will be emailing this in to the board. Um we were told that now. This is basically just to express our concerns. Uh we didn't get the note until like I didn't get mine till this weekend and so it was just kind of time crunch for us. Um I'm just going to briefly read that to you guys because it pretty much just gives the nuts and the bolts of why we oppose it. Um the neighborhood has been established for over 100 plus years and then defined by consistent lot sizes and spacing between homes. All the ones that you mentioned prior that do not meet this of course it's because there wasn't zoning back there. my my drive or my front steps is way too close. If I were to build now, I wouldn't be able to. Um, property owners have relied on existing zoning standards when purchasing and investing in our homes. The proposal would create two non-conforming lots contrary to the purpose of our ordinance 401. Approval would establish a precedent for additional non-conforming subdivisions. Increased density on substandard lots may negatively impact our privacy, our green space, our drainage, our traffic patterns, and our property values. In addition, city growth and density goals are more appropriately addressed in designated growth areas and new developments. This is a very established plot. Um, looks like they will be doing a driveway. Um, we already have issues with parking on that road when we have children events and everything at the on the um on the soccer fields, but if both of them are going to have driveways, that's not going to really pertain to that. Um, another thing, and I don't really know if this is partner or not, but our all of us have endured a lot with this particular property over the last two years. It has been vacant for the last two years. We have been um more than patient with the yard grass being this high, the crime and everything going on with that and how long it took the city to take over and find out that the person who um inherited the property wasn't able to take care of it on her own. Um and now to have to endure this as well, it's just kind of a slap in the face for us. And so that's all I have. Thank you for listening. >> Thank you. >> Thank you so much. Do we have anyone else from the public? Oh, yeah. Please come up and just introduce yourself and make your stand. >> No. Yeah, come up to the mic because we have a TV recording going on. >> The mic right there. Right there. Yep. There you go. And just introduce yourself and tell us your address, please. >> Yeah. My name is Jane Angland and I live at 1505164th Neat Stor. And I've lived there now oh 35 years and and I hate to see I've got one of those coveted uh beautiful lots that's like double lots. It's just gorgeous. Uh it's it's worth a lot just because I have owned it for so long and it's so unusual. And uh I'm I'm also concern concerned about uh the travel that goes up and down. They're going 40 45 miles an hour and it's it's not being monitored and I feel nervous about these kids that are on their bicycles and stuff. But so for me it's uh I've been there I've been here a long time. I've been in the same place. I don't want to move. I love having a great big lot. Not great. It's not like the, you know, it's it's a it's a big lot. It's double lot. So, don't want to lose it. Thank you. >> Anyone else like to speak? Now, now's your opportunity. >> All right. Hi, I'm Sarah Carlson and uh I'm new to commissioning. Anyway, I live at 6332 Paris Avenue North. I am what, four properties to the east. Um, I have also watched that property be uh abandoned for a long time and I am really thrilled to see the improvements that have been made to it. Um, my concerns with the splitting is that I really want to maintain this as like a single residence, not any multi-residents. um just keep the neighborhood, you know, not packing people in. And really want to ensure that both properties have like garages and driveways and stuff to put all the stuff and keep the neighborhood looking nice and tidy. That's my concern. >> Thank you. >> Thanks, guys. >> There's no one else from the public. if the advocate would want to come up um introduce yourself and then tell us a little bit and answer any questions that the commission has. Awesome. >> Uh sure. My name is Brandt Jackson. I'm the co-owner of Homes by Kim Brandt. Um, we purchased a property and uh, rather than tearing the house down and putting up a big uh, multifamily, which they offered uh, saying it was acceptable to do that, we decided to restore the existing 100 plus year old home, bring it back to its glory and keep the uh, stature of the neighborhood up like that. Um, what we're proposing really fits. Uh, this house is centered on the lefthand lot as you face it, leaving the whole right-hand lot open. Um, everything we're doing is improving. I know, and she did mention uh traffic and such on the road. If this is not approved, uh, the new home owner will all be parking on the road. So, that's all your uh I don't know, however many vehicles, they're going to be parking on the road. If this gets approved, we're adding garages. um and off streetet parking to open the road up. Um it really fits the neighborhood. Obviously, as you said, the uh size of the lots, the lot right behind us and next to us uh smaller than what we're asking for. Uh I I'm thinking all the points I was going to come up with, but uh >> you're fine. >> I I don't know. I mean, obviously, it's not their uh >> that you have a big lot, you know, and doesn't whoever buys the house that if if it stays like this, we'll probably put a huge garage up on that side. Um, that would make sense. And uh rather than uh the garage I'm putting would be tucked behind the house and probably at the new house probably be a tuck under garage or something to leave plenty of room sides of the house behind it. Both lots are real flat so we don't have a drainage issue and the curbs are eased so we can put driveways wherever we want. >> Comply with the drainage. >> Yeah. City. >> Yes. Y >> we working with Julie through the whole process and uh the house has turned out real real nice. So >> um >> so so my question that was first directed >> just for clarification purposes. So, the intent is a lot split. The garage you intend to build behind the home has nothing to do with why we're here today. So, do you intend to sell the property as a whole but have a lot line and that's our goal here or you know cuz why do you need a lot split if you're going to build garages? And >> we're we're the lot split would be to build another home on the secondary lot. >> Okay. Okay. cuz I heard garages is what I heard. >> So there's no garage on the existing home >> and if this does not go through, there won't be one added. Um it'll just be sold as is with a huge lot. The next owner will choose to do whatever they want. Um but part of the requirements with the lot split is to bring both lots to conforming to R2 or >> yeah to the city code, which would either be a twocar garage. We'll add a 24x 24 garage to the existing home that we've uh refurbished and uh put that behind the house with the driveway and get all off streetet parking >> so that you can then sell the lot next to it and then that person can build a home, build a garage. >> That person will probably be us. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> Oh, so your intention is to build on the secondary property and then sell it. >> Yes. >> Thank you for that clarity. >> Oh, okay. So, so you'll build the house and sell the house and all that stuff as well. >> Yep. >> Okay. Thank you for that. Now, I know the vision of what's going on here. >> Yes. And I mean, everything we've done is really just improvement. We've we've taken the old uh maple trees that are been overhanging the houses and we to consider it. We've spent a lot of money on this place to bring it to restore it, you know, and bring the uh the home back up to code working with Julie and and uh it was in pretty rough shape. >> Thank you for the area of the neighborhood. I >> Well, I appreciate your proposal with the garage behind because that's very conforming to what's on 63rd. Yes. Very similar to mean everybody right now must just park on the road. >> So, >> thank you. Is there any other questions for the applicant? >> No. Are you going to keep it like, you know, that's kind of a mixed neighborhood as far as styles, but you're Did you resside the How did you really change the structure? I'm sorry. I didn't drive by. >> Uh the shape of the structure? No. Um roof, siding, windows, doors. Uh we've kept the old uh charm inside, the old staircase, and >> and it's mostly just uh rehabbing, you know. Of course, we've had a lot of plumbing issues, a lot of heating, uh water and such that we've uh been addressing inside, but uh keeping it uh more the old Victorian look. That'd probably be what the uh next house we'd build too would be. >> Okay. Fit the neighborhood. >> That was my question. >> Yeah. Thank you. >> For sure. >> Cool. Any other questions for the applicant? >> Any other comments from the public before >> that I have a question? >> You you can ask a question. Please come up though. Please again. again and introduce yourself so we have it for the people on TV for the >> uh Jennifer Villanu 15026 Upper 63rd Street North. >> Um so when they bought this lot there was a garage on it. They tore the garage down because the garage was an ill repair. However, that should have been part of a permitting process. If they tear a garage down, it the city should have looked at having them put a new one on it. So that would be something that I would bring back to to the city. Well, we don't drive around. >> No, no, no. I understand that. But >> it wasn't a functional garage. I live down the road. >> I understand that. But if we now are making people put garages up if that's part of our code, >> it's only So the the garage code is for any new constructions in the city. And one of the things they're agreeing to as part of this process if this goes through is that they would add the garage to bring the current house up to current code. So if they don't split the lot, they're don't have to do anything to the property. >> The existing the previous structure was of disrepair and that's not part of our code is that that wasn't a garage, it was something else. >> What I'm saying is if they if it's one home on there and the lot's not split and there was a garage, that would be the opportunity where the city would said if you take it down, you have to build a new one. So that there's not on street parking. Now they're trying to use that as this is going to be a really great thing because we're gonna they're going to have street they're going to have off- streetet parking when in fact that could have been done with just the one lot and kept that one beautiful lot the way it is the nature going through there whatever. So it's it's the way it's being spun is what I'm saying. >> Well Mr. Richards here just in I think our conversations just at a staff level if this does not go through they still have to put the garage in there. Correct. >> Yeah. I was going to uh probably defer to the city attorney on that, but I think when we've had previous discussions with the city attorney uh that the uh a garage would be required. >> Okay. Yeah. So, >> so this isn't going to be and and then he was talking about oh or if we don't do it then someone's going to buy and put a huge garage. We have very specific ordinances on the size of our garages in the city as well. And so it would be what it was intended to be is the single home with this the the garage and a driveway with a nice yard and the big beautiful trees where the nature in our in our neighborhood walks through. I just wanted to clarify that because it needed to be clarified and that's all I have. >> Thank you. >> Are we good? >> You have come again. Sorry people are we have it. It's recorded on TV. >> Not uh I would not have considered that a garage. I mean, and the roof was obviously it collapsed in I mean, you could see right up inside of it. Um no driveway and no slab and I would consider it more of a shed. Um, and in our meetings that we've had prior, uh, I think it was brought up that you guys can't really require that we put a garage on just an existing home and and a remodel where we, you said, uh, we can't just walk around the neighborhood door knockocking and say you don't have a garage. >> Again, as I started my answer to that is we would consult again with the city attorney. I mean, because we were headed a different direction with the lot split, we could make those conditions. Again, I think we would defer and we would have the answer before the city. >> Mr. Chair, too, I I'm pretty sure we had that conversation with the city attorney. I'm not sure if the applicant was present or not. And I I'm pretty confident that the garage is required regardless of if the lot split goes through or not. >> We'll confir We'll confer with the city attorney on that. >> Let's take that offline and confer with the city attorney on that. If there's no driveway or no slab, there was never a garage on the on the lot. >> So, regardless and whether the garage was there or was a garage or wasn't a garage or you know there's a curb cut or not. Um that's my understanding of it and I'll confirm it. >> Let's confirm that. That's a needs to be confirmed. >> All right. Is there any other >> close the public hearing? >> I have a motion to close the public hearing. >> Second. >> I have a second. Do I have any other discussion >> hearing? None. All those in favor? >> I I public hearing is now closed. So, just so everyone is aware, the planning commission is going to discuss this at this point. So, our discussions will take place up here. We're going to talk about this. We will make a recommendation and send it to the city council meeting on um Sorry, I always forget, >> Mr. Chair. I think it's uh the 24th of February. Yes. >> Thank you. Thank you. So, it'll go to the plan. It'll go to the city council on the 24th. The city council makes all the decisions in M Park Heights. We are just a recommending body. So please keep that in mind when you hear our discussions here as we talk about this conversation as it goes on and then we will make a recommendation to the city council at that point. But everybody understand >> and and that Mr. Chair just adding for the public's benefit that that is not an a public hearing. So there isn't a public hearing like there was tonight. Certainly you're welcome to attend um the public meeting but there isn't a a public hearing opportunity. >> Okay. All right, guys. Um, who wants to chime in? >> This is my business, right? And so splitting land and subdividing is a common thing that cities do >> and it is unfortunate that surrounding people might oppose it. However, we look out for the best interest of the city and it's my personal opinion that the lot split is a good thing for our city. I based on the neighborhood and walking this road almost every day with my dogs, I I agree with you. This uh if you walk down 63rd Street North, uh all but two properties on that road are smaller than what he's proposing. If you walk down uh upper 63rd, it's like he said, it's a larger road front than the one to the east, >> and it's larger than the one that's directly to the south. So, it's a they're they're not >> too small, >> massively too small. We're talking three feet, I think. What's our code, Mr. Richards? >> What's the standard policy for the city for curb front lot size? Six. It's Is it there? >> It's 80 ft. >> 80 ft. Okay. So, if we're going with 80 ft, there's only I mean two conforming houses on that whole road. I guess the third one on the corner, that's technically three separate lots. So, I think it and that existing house really fits where it's at. Um, it's definitely very nicely laid out on that lap that would be to the east. >> Yeah, there's definitely the quandry because yeah, 63rd and then going further down 63rd toward the river. I'm one of those lots that's probably a 60 foot wide lot. We're pretty packed in there, but it doesn't I would not challenge the conformity question. I think every lot here is beautiful. I think the neighborhood is just grandfathered in for a unique spot. But I think what these folks are doing is going to benefit the neighborhood. Major upgrade, adding another family, filling in the space. It's not a small space and by any stretch of the imagination. Yeah, there's big lots. That would be a really big lot in the neighborhood, but I I feel like it'd be a step in the right direction to add another family to our neighborhood. >> I also like the opportunity of adding a house and not a massively oversized garage eyesore that we have allowed to happen in a few of the properties in the neighborhood that I think actually detract from the value. Mhm. >> So, I think adding a house and a home because if I personally bought that house, I'm putting up a massive garage on that property like that because of the way it's laid out, it would fit the property. So, I would prefer to have a house there personally. Um, owning three properties within a block, I think it would add value to my properties versus another massive garage in the neighborhood. Personally speaking, I know we're not supposed to say that, but I'm being honest. There's also the conformity with, you know, having two single family homes in this neighborhood versus something larger, which would have been applicable for this land zoning. >> Yeah. This could have been a mansion. This could have been a multi-use. This could have been >> Exactly. >> Could it have been a duplex? >> Uh, it could be a duplex or it could even be more. With conditional use, you can do multiple family. You know, there are density uh limitations and I didn't do the calculations, but uh you could probably do a forplex on that uh >> and do it uh do it just with a conditional use permit. So, >> but by splitting it, we're basically tying it to two single family homes. >> Two single family homes with two car garages. >> And that is something I think that's worth stating that that will keep that property to that standard for the future. will not come back as a large lot that something larger could be built on, which I think is important to keep in mind. >> Make a motion to approve. >> I have >> with the conditions in the report. That's >> with the conditions in the report. Thank you. >> So, I have a motion to approve uh with the conditions in the report, which is what we've talked about bringing it up to the two-car garages, two single family homes. >> Yeah. um as Mr. Richards has in the report. Do I have a second? >> I second. >> I have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion um take place tonight, guys? >> Do we have to talk about anything variance versus platting? No, that's in here. Never mind. I think it's commendable for the city to advise the minor subdivision to save them some expenses if this goes through. >> Um, add that to the notes, Mr. Richards, please. >> Uh, this is just the additional discussion. It's all part of approval. So, >> thank you. Um, I would entertain a vote. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. I. >> All those opposed, same sign. Motion carries for approval. So, um, this will go before the city council, like I said, at their upcoming meeting on the 24th. Uh, please feel free to attend. Um, I would highly recommend the applicants be there at the very least. Um, yeah. So, thank you all for your time tonight. We're going to move on with our agenda. Um, seeing no new business, is there anything? We have no new business. We have no old business. Is there anyformational that I missed in my packet. I don't think so. We've got the meeting. >> So, >> I have nothing more, Mr. Chair. >> You have nothing more for us tonight. Move >> we adjourn. >> I have a motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Have a second. Is there any additional discussion? >> Good to see you guys. >> All those in favor say I. >> I seconded that. That all happens. Okay. So, >> thank you for taking notes. >> Thank you.