May 26, 2026 Board of Zoning Appeals

[A. Call to Order]

[00:00:09]

>> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING FOR TUESDAY, MAY 26TH.

I AM CALLING THE MEETING TO ORDER AND LET'S START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, PLEASE.

>> THANK YOU. BRICK. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> MS. LOCKWOOD. >> PRESENT. >> LEAH YORK.

>> PRESENT. >> KEVIN WRITER. >> PRESENT.

>> CHRISTINE SIGOLA. >> PRESENT. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

[D. Approval of Minutes and Findings of Facts of Previous Meetings]

THE LAST WAS FROM JANUARY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? >> APPROVE.

>> FIRST AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOUR? >> AYE.

>> AND ALSO OUR FINDINGS OF FACT FROM OUR PREVIOUS MEETINGINGS. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?

>> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> THANK YOU.

ALL IN FAVOUR. >> AYE. >> ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING UNDER

[F. Reports, Announcements, Legal Counsel Report, and Department Concerns]

>> YEAH. THE ONLY LEGAL COUNCIL REPORTS FROM MY END IS THAT THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ORDINANCE HAS PASSED, COUNCIL. SO WE DO HAVE A DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK OPERATIONAL AS SOON AS THAT ORDINANCE IS PUBLISHED WHICH WE EXPECT TO BE.

SO AFTER THAT, OUR SHORT GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS WILL BE LARGELY WITH STATES ST.

CATHARINES, AND I WILL BE SENDING OUT A STATEMENT TO YOU ALL HOW IT CHANGES YOUR DETERMINATION. STILL A SPECIAL APPLICATION FOR OWNER OCCUPIED RESIDENCE OF OUR ENTITIES FOR OTHER WHO WOULD LIKE TO APPLY FOR SHORT-TERM RENTAL, SO THE FRAMEWORK HAS SHIFTED DRAMATICALLY IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON THE SMITH THOMPSON ADU AND ELLIOTT SHORT-TERM RESIDENTIAL ON MY AGENDA?

>> I DO HAVE AN UPDATE FOR ELLIOTT SHORT-TERM RENTAL THAT LITIGATION WAS PAUSED UNTIL THE COUNCIL'S ACTION. NOW IT WILL MOST LIKELY BE DISMISSED, AND THAT INDIVIDUAL WILL BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR A PERMIT RATHER THAN SPECIAL EXCEPTION BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DO SO AFTER THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. AND THE SMITH THOMPSON ADU I DO NOT HAVE AN UPDATE AS OF YET UNLESS YOU DO. YEAH.

STILL 30 DAYS TO RESPOND SO I'M NOT SURE IF A RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

I DOUBT IT HAS. MOST LIKELY WILL BE CONTINUANCE FILES ON OUR END AND THERE'S A CHANCE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO RESOLVE IT WITHOUT GOING FORWARD AS WELL.

SO STAY TUNED ON THIS ONE. THIS ONE IS IN VERY EARLY STAGES.

[G. (UV), (V) 755 E. 104th St Triplex Use Variance and Variances. ]

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. NOW WE MOVE TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. FIRST ONE ON THE AGENDA IS FOR 755 EAST 104TH STREET TRIPLEX USE VARIANCE AND OTHER VARIANCES. AND YOUR MIC IS ALREADY ON.

>> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DAVE COUTS LOCATED AT 255 EAST CARAMEL DRIVE. I AM REPRESENTING WZ ENTERPRISES WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF A PROPERTY AT 104TH STREET 755 EAST 104TH STREET IN THE HOME PLACE AREA.

AND WE'RE ASKING FOR A USE VARIANCE AND TWO DEVELOPMENTAL& STANDARDS VARIATIONS AT THAT LOCATION. THE USE VARIANCE WOULD PERMIT THE EXPANSION OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY FROM A DUPLEX TO A TRIPLEX. AND THEY WILL ACCOMPLISH THAT BY CONVERTING THE GARAGE INTO A DWELLING UNIT. THE DUPLEX UNITS ALREADY EXIST.

THEY ARE EACH SLIGHTLY MORE THAN A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET IN SIZE THE GARAGE WILL BE 900 SQUARE

[00:05:01]

SO FROM THE VISUAL PERSPECTIVE THERE WON'T BE ANYTHING HAPPENING TO THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING. AND IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THAT AREA, THIS IS A LOT THAT IS ALMOST A DOUBLE WIDE LOT IF YOU WILL. IT'S 233 FEET ALONG SOUTH SIDE OF 104TH STREET THE DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS VARIANCES, THE FIRST IS THE DENSITY OF ADDING AN ADDITIONAL UNIT USE ON THE EXISTING LOT. THE ORDINANCE PERMITS A DENSITY OF 2.9 UNITS PER ACRE. THIS ACRE IS .51 ACRES, SO IT'S A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF AN ACRE.

AND THAT CALCULATED OUT WOULD PERMIT ONE AND A HALF UNITS, AND WE SEEK THREE.

SO THAT DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS VARIANCE IS REQUIRED TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.

THE SECOND DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS VIER I CAN'T UNDERSTAND WE SEEK IS TO ELIMINATE SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT OF A THOROUGHFARE PLAN ON 104TH STREET.

THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE ORANGE SUBDIVISION PRESENTLY.

THIS SUBDIVISION WAS PLOTTED WHEN DEVELOPMENT BEGAN IN 1914. THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1961 I BELIEVE IT WAS. AND SO THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION HAS EVOLVED OVER THE COURSE OF TIME.

MOST IF NOT ALL OF THE DWELLINGS NOW ARE DUPLEXES. AS YOU HAVE SEEN FROM THE MAILING WE SENT OUT WITH THE NOTICE, A GOOD MANY OF THEM ARE OWNED BY ENTITIES OTHER THAN INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS. I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY HOMEOWNERS PRESENT HERE THIS EVENING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, BUT BASED ON MY EXAMINATION OF THE PUBLICATION RECORDS, MOST OF THESE HOMES ARE INVESTMENTS OWNED BY OTHERS. THIS ONE WILL NOT BE A SHORT-TERM RENTAL. IT IS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE IN THE AREA WHICH WE THINK IS A NEEDED ITEM. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE USE VARIANCE THE USE WILL NOT PUT INTO SAFETY THE AREA BECAUSE THE BUILDING SIMPLY EXISTS. WE ARE SIMPLY MAKING MORE USE OF IT BY ADDING A DWELLING WITHIN IT. THE USE AND VALUE OF AREAS ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED AGAIN BECAUSE WHAT'S THERE WILL REMAIN. THE ONLY ADDITION IS AN ADDITIONAL FAMILY.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WILL HAVE A CONSIDERABLE IMPACT GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE LOT, THE YARD, THE OPEN SPACE, TEST. THE VARIANCE ARISES FROM SOME CONDITIONS PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED BECAUSE THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE AND ITS LOCATION ON 104TH STREET ACCOMMODATE THE ADDITION OF AN ADDITIONAL DWELLING SPACE. THE GARAGE HAS NOT BEEN USED FOR GARAGE PURPOSES IN TEN OR MORE YEARS. AND SO BASICALLY THE OWNER HARASS DETERMINEDDED TO MAKE USE OF IT BY CONVERTING IT INTO A DWELLING SPACE.

THIS ITEM HAS BEEN ON YOUR AGENDA FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AS YOU KNOW.

MRS. KHAN HAS BEEN VERY PATIENT WITH ME IN GETTING THIS TO THIS POINT.

AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS BECAUSE WE'RE CONVERTING OR SEEKING TO ADD A THIRD DWELLING UNIT WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING,S WE HAD TO GO THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY TO GET SPRINKLER APPROVAL. AND THAT TOOK MONTH. A, TO GET A DESIGN TORQUES GET IT APPROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, AND FINALLY GET IT BACK TO PRESENT TO YOU ALL. THAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE WILL CONSTITUTE A HARDSHIP ON THIS OWNER IF THIS VARIANCE IS NOT PERMITTED.

[00:10:01]

IF AND WHEN SIDEWALKS ARE PROPOSED FOR THIS SUBDIVISION, THIS OWNER HAS NO -- FOR THE PURPOSES OF THOSE SIDEWALKS THAT TODAY CONSTRUCTING 233 FEET OF CITY STANDARD SIDEWALKS WILL COST ABOUT 11, $12,000. THAT WE ARE SEEKING TO DEFER THAT EXPENSE.

A FURTHER COMMENT AS TO THE NECESSITY OF INSTALLING SIDEWALKS.

THERE ARE NO CURBS OR DRAINAGE FAULTS IN THE JESSOP SUBDIVISION.

IT'S ALL SWALE DRAINAGE ROAD SIDE, AND REQUIRING US TO INSTALL SIDEWALKS WOULD COMPROMISE THE DRAINAGE NOT ONLY FOR OUR LOT BUT FOR THOSE EAST AND SOUTH OF OUR LOT, AND SO WE WOULD ASK THAT THE DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS VARIANCE ELIMINATING THE NEED FOR SIDEWALKS LIKEWISE BE PERMITTED. WITH THAT, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU APPROVE OUR USE VARIANCE REQUEST AND ALSO OUR TWO DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS VARIANCES, VARIANCE REQUEST.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I REALIZE I DID NOT READ THE DOCKET NUMBERS INTO THE RECORD. DO I NEED TO DO THAT? SHOULD I DO THAT NOW? YEAH, OKAY. WE HAVEN'T DONE THIS FOR A WHILE.

SO THANK YOU. THESE ARE DOCKETS NUMBER PZ2025, 00048UV, 00051V, AND OOO43V.

THANKS. DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF OR AGAINST THIS PETITION? OKAY. I THINK WE CAN MOVE THEN TO THE

DEPARTMENT REPORT PLEASE. >> THANK YOU. I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS IN SUPPORT OF THE USE VARIANCE REQUEST AND THE DENSITY REQUEST AND PLANNING STAFF IS NOT IN FAVOUR OF THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN COMPLIANCE VARIANCE.

THERE THERE IS A PROVISION THAT DOES ALLOW SOMEONE TO PAY INTO THE THOROUGHFARE FUND FOR WHAT IT WOULD COST TO BUILD SIDEWALKS INSTEAD OF BUILDING IT THEMSELVES.

SO AT A FUTURE DATE IF THE CITY WAS DOING A SIDEWALK PROJECT THEN THE CITY WOULD JUST USE THAT MONEY IN THE FUND TO BUILD THE SIDEWALK. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES TALK ABOUT DIVERSITY OF HOUSING SO IT'S SUPPORTIVE OF THAT, BUT IT DOES ALSO TALK ABOUT BEING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FRIENDLY FOR THE CITY IN THIS AREA. SO THAT IS WHY WE ARE ALSO AGAINST THE VARIANCE FOR THE PETITIONER TO NOT INSTALL A SIDEWALK.

WE HOPE YOU TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION IN YOUR VOTE THIS EVENING.

SO WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE USE VARIANCE AND DENSITY VARIANCE.

AND WE DO RECOMMEND NEGATIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN COMPLIANCE VARIANCE. AND WE ASK THAT YOU DIRECT THE BZA ATTORNEY TO WRITE UP THOSE

NEGATIVE FINDINGS OFICFACT. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

COMMENT OR QUESTIONS, BOARD MEMBERS. GO AHEAD.

>> I'LL GO AHEAD. I'LL START WITH THE TRANSPORTATION VARIANCE.

THE I SUPPORT THE DEPARTMENT'S POSITION ON THAT. YOU KNOW, WE SPENT A LONG TIME THE CITY OF CARMEL PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL ON UPDATING OUR PLAN, AND THE

[00:15:07]

SO I SUPPORT THE STAFF WITH REGARDS TO THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN AND WON'T BE SUPPORTING THAT PARTICULAR VARIANCE. IN REGARDS TO THE OTHER TWO VARIANCE, JUST ANOTHER QUICK QUESTION. WHEN WE DROVE BY THE HOUSE THE OTHER DAY THERE HAPPENED TO BE TWO OTHER CARS IN THAT DRIVEWAY. IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THERE WAS MUCH ROOM FOR THE TWO MORE CAR THAT WERE THERE. MAYBE YOU COULD SQUEEZE IN A THIRD.

I THINK FOR THE REQUIREMENTS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE PARKING FOR SIX IF IT'S A TRIPLEX.

ARE YOU GOING TO ADD ON A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF ASPHALT TO MAKE IT ROOM FOR SIX PARKING

SPOT? >> YES. >> AND WHERE WOULD THAT BE.

>> THEY WILL WIDEN THE EXISTING PARKING APRON,TIOUS AND THEN IT WILL ACCOMMODATE TWO CARS IN

DEPTH. SO THE SIX WILL BE 3 AND 3. >> SO YOU'LL BECAUSE OFLY HAVE

ONE SET OF CARS BLOCKING IN THE OTHER SET OF CARS. >> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, YES.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS MY INITIAL QUESTION.

I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE REST OF YOU. >> I ALSO HAD A LAR CONCERN LIKE YOU HAD ABOUT THE PARKING BUT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S ADDRESSED. RELATIVE TO THE THOROUGHFARE ISSUE, I DON'T THINK ANYONE LIKES TO REALLY PAY FOR SIDEWALKS, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN IN OUR ORDINANCE FOR QUITE A LONG TIME. BUT NOW MY QUESTION IS AGAIN YOU GOT A VERY LONG SITE ACROSS THE FRONTAGE THERE. AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY CAUSE FOR THEIR CONCERN BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE PAYING A LOT MORE FOR A SIDEWALK JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LONGER LOT. IS THERE A PROVISION FOR PAYMENTS TO BE MADE ACROSS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED.

I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS THERE A WAY TO ALLEVIATE THEIR ISSUE THERE.

>> YEAH. I THINK IF THE VARIANCE WERE TO BE GRANTED TO NOT HAVE SIDEWALKS, YOU COULD MAYBE AMEND IT SO THAT THEY WOULD JUST COORDINATE WITH THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR AN ACCEPTABLE MONETARY DONATION THAT COULD BE POSSIBLE RATHER THAN THE HE TIGGER SAID THEY THINK IT WOULD COME OUT TO BE ABOUT $11,000 SO MAYBE THERE'S

SOME MIDDLEGROUND THERE. >> THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO PURSUE WITH THEM THEN.

>> HAPPY TO DO THAT. >> I GOT THIS STATUTE WITH ME. BASICALLY IT'S INSTEAD OF BUILDING IT THEY CAN ELECT TO EQUAL TO THE VALUE TO OBSTRUCT THE IMPROVEMENTS AND WILL WORK WITH OUR DEPARTMENT ENGINEER AND THAT THEY WOULD TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE DIFFERENT EFFECTS AND THE OVERALL BURDEN ON THE CITY'S INFRASTRUCTURE IN COMING UP WITH THIS FEE.

IT WOULD BE A CONVERSATION WITH THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IF I'M READING THIS RIGHT.

>> SO I THINK IF WE APPROVE OR NOT THERE'S AN AVENUE THEY CAN APPROACH ENGINEERING TO MAYBE COME UP WITH A COMPROMISE ON THAT. OVER MY 18 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CITY, WE DEALT WITH THIS A LOT. AND WE STAND RATHER STRONG ON ANY UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY. IF PEOPLE WANT TO CHANGE THE ZONING, THEY'RE GONNA PAY FOR THE SIDEWALKS. AND IF YOU DON'T DO THAT, I'M NOT GOING TO MENTION THE NAME OF THE ONE, BUT WE HAD ONE THAT SAID OH, SURE. I'LL JUMP IN ON THAT ONE.

IT HAPPENS. AND THEN IT TOOK YEARS TO GET THAT SIDEWALK BUILT.

I THINK MIKE KNOWS WHICH ONE I'M TALKING ABOUT. AND SO WE NEED TO LOCK THESE THINGS DOWN AHEAD OF TIME. I UNDERSTAND THEY DON'T WANT TO DO IT NOW ESPECIALLY SINCE THEY WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE CHANGING THE DRAINAGE, BUT A DONATION TO THE FUND WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY I WOULD SUPPORT IT BECAUSE THAT'S JUST BEEN OUR POLICY FOREVER. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD CHANGE

[00:20:05]

>> UNDERSTOOD. AND ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER I'M WILLING TO MAKE THE COMMITMENT TO WORK WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO ESTABLISH THAT VALUE AND PAYMENT TERMS BUT WITH THE EXPENSE OF SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T HAVE THE UNIT, THE SPRINKLING SYSTEM, THE HANDICAP REQUIREMENTS TO MEET THOSE INGRESS AND EGRESS. THE OWNER WILL BE SPENDING A FAIR AMOUNT OF MONEY TO GET THIS THING GENERATING REVENUE AND TO ABLE TO SPREAD THAT ADDITIONAL EXPENSE OVER SOME TIME IN AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AND ENGINEERING OR CITY LEGAL I'M

MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO. >> YEAH. BECAUSE IT'S NOBODY IS ASKING YOU TO BUILD IT NOW. THAT WOULD BE RIDICULOUS T WOULD BE A SIDEWALK TO NOWHERE.

BUT TO HAVE THE MONEY PUT ASIDE NOW MAKES SENSE. >> THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN I'M NOT IN FAVOUR OF IT. I DID WANT TO ADD A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME WAS SPENT ON BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND HAVING A BUSINESS HUB. I HAVE A QUESTION.

I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE PLAN ABOUT EXPANDING THE PARKING SO MAYBE I MYSELFED IT BUT WILL IT CREATE ADDITIONAL SHARIANS IN TERMS OF BOUNDARIES OR SETBACK ORS ANYTHING? I GUESS I'M KIND OF ASKING ANGIE. OR LOT COVERAGE.

>> WE LOOKED AT THAT. THEY WILL STILL BE UNDER THE 35% LOT COVERAGE.

WE LOOKED AT THAT AERIAL PHOTO WHERE THE CARS ARE LINED UP SIDE BY SIDE NOT TWO TANDEM, AND THAT COULD WORK AS WELL. SO IT JUST DEPENDS HOW THE OWNER WANTS TON THE PARKING LAYOUT.

>> AND YOU SHOULD HAVE SIX SPOTS. >> OKAY.

>> LOOKING FOR A MOTION. >> OH, YES. >> AND I WANT TO ASK EITHER LEGAL OR STAFF THE RECOMMENDATION WAS NEGATIVE FOR IT BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO SUPPORT IT WITH THAT, THEY WOULD PAY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION FUND.

YOU'RE GOOD WITH A POSITIVE WITH THAT CONDITION, CORRECT? >> MAYBE WE CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW. I THINK IT WOULD BE EASIER TO DENY NUMBER 3 AND APPROVE THE USE VARIANCE WITH A COMMITMENT THAT HAD BEEN STATED. TALKING ABOUT --

>> SO DENY 3 BUT ADD THE COMMITMENT TO ONE AND TWO. >> SO THAT ISSUE WILL CONTINUE

TO BE WORKED ON BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ENGINEERING. >> CAN I DO THIS IN ONE MOTION

OR DO WE NEED TO DO IT SEPARATE? >> LET'S DO TWO MOTIONS. >> CAN WE CARRY 1 AND 2 TOGETHER

AND DO 3 SEPARATELY. >> I WOULD DO EACH VARIANCE REQUEST INDIVIDUALLY.

USE VARIANCE AND. >> DOCKET NUMBER PZ20250048UV, I WOULD ASK FOR A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION. I MOVE FOR A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.

WITH THE COMMITMENT OF THE PAYMENT INTO THE THOROUGHFARE FUND.

WITH THE DOLLAR AMOUNT BEING AGREED UPON BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND ENGINEERING.

>> SECOND. >> OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL IN FAVOUR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. I'M LOOKING FOR ANOTHER MOTION. >> DOCKET NUMBER PZ202500521V.

YOU DON'T NEED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THIS SO JUST A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. OKAY.

ALL IN FAVOUR. >> AYE. >> AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED. ALL RIGHT. AND THE THIRD ONE.

>> PZ20252600043V. MOTION TO APPROVE. REMEMBER WE'RE DOING IT IN THE

[00:25:01]

POSITIVE. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT. OKAY.

ALL IN FAVOUR. THE ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE OPPOSED.

>> AYE. >> OKAY. AND SO AND ACTUALLY THAT THIRD ONE REALLY IS WITH LEGAL PREPARING THE NEGATIVE FINDINGS OF FACT.

>> WE'LL PREPARE THEM FOR THE NEXT MEETING. >> THANK YOU.

I KNOW I HEARD YOU SAY THAT. >> THANK YOU ALL. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[G. (V) Catalyst Health Care Variance. ]

>> OKAY. NEXT ITEM CATALYST HEALTHCARE VARIANCE.

DOCKET NUMBER PZ202600062V FOR HIGH POINT MERIDIAN REGARDING THE HIGH POINT MERIDIAN SECTION

3.4. >> RED'S ON. >> YES, IT IS.

>> GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS JOHN DOBISHET, A LAND USE PROFESSIONAL WITH FRANKENBURGER. WE REPRESENT THE APPLICANT CATALYST. PRESENT TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF CATALYST HEALTHCARE REAL ESTATE AS WELL AS TONY DICKENMORE THE PROPOSED OPERATOR OF THE FACILITY AND BROOK CEDARQUIST. BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, CATALYST IS A FULL-SERVICE REAL ESTATE FIRM THAT FOCUSES ON DEVELOPMENT, INVESTMENT OF HEALTHCARE FACILITIES INCLUDING INPATIENT REHAB FACILITIES. THE APPLICANT SEEKS TO REDEVELOP A FACILITY ON THE REAL ESTATE WHICH IS A PERMITTED USE ON THE REAL ESTATE TODAY. THE REHABILITATION AND THERAPY SERVICE PROVIDED INCLUDE CLIENT CARE WHICH OCCURS SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.

WITH MORE LIMITED ACTIVITIES AND SERVICES OCCURRING ON WEEKNIGHTS AND WEEKENDS WHICH REQUIRE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE TO ARE EXPAND OURS OF OPERATION ALLOWING FOR OVERNIGHT STAYS AND MONITORING AS DETAILED BEHIND TAB 5 OF THE INFORMATIONAL BROCHURE.

THE TYPES OF MEDICAL PROVIDERS AND STAFF WHICH ATTEND THE FACILITY INCLUDE NURSES, ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF,ING IFS, AND PHYSICAL THERAPIST AS WELL AS OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS FOR SPEECH AND DIALYSIS THERAPY. THE REAL ESTATE IDENTIFIED HERE IN YELLOW IS APPROXIMATELY -- SORRY. 5.4 ACRES AND IS LOCATED WEST OF AN ADJACENT ILLINOIS STREET.

THE REAL ESTATE IS WITHIN THE AREA GOVERNED BY THE HIGH POINT ON MERIDIAN PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED TO THE WEST AND NORTH WITH HIGH POINT ON MERIDIAN. THE APARTMENT COMMUNITY DIRECTLY ADJACENT ALONG ILLINOIS STREET.

SO THIS ILLUSTRATION IS WITH NORTH STRAIGHT UP. YOU MIGHT THINK THAT THE NEIGHBOURHOOD IS TO THE ENTIRELY TO THE WEST OF THE SITE, BUT ILLINOIS STREET TURNS AND GOES DUE EAST-WEST IN FRONT OF THE SUBJECT REAL ESTATE AND THEN TURNS BACK GENERALLY TO THE NORTHEAST, SO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBOURHOODS ARE ABUTTING ON THE WEST SIDE AND THE NORTH SIDE. APARTMENTS ADJACENT TO THE NORTH AND EAST OF THE SUBJECT REAL ESTATE. THE EXHIBIT NOW ON DISPLAY IS THE PRO SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY. ACCESS WILL BE FROM ILLINOIS STREET AT TWO LOCATIONS.

THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT 50-FOOT TREE PRESERVATION AREA ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

THAT'S THE AREA SHADED IN GREEN HERE. IT'S ON THE SUBJECT REAL ESTATE.

ALREADY BEEN DESIGNED ADJACENT TO THAT TREE PRESERVATION AREA. THE SET BACK FOR THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET AT ITS CLOSEST POINT RIGHT HERE AND THAT'S THE CLOSEST SET BACK. AND WE PROVIDED AND WE HAD A NEIGHBOURHOOD MEETING A COUPLE WEEKS AGO AND PROVIDED SOME PHOTOGRAPHS TO ADD SOME CONTEXT TO THE DISCUSSION KNOWING THAT THE NEIGHBOURS ADJACENT WOULD BE MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE BUT NOT NECESSARILY THE ZONING APPEALS. WE HAVE THE SAME PHOTOS WE SHARED WITH THE NEIGHBOURS, AND I'LL MOVE THESE AS WE MOVE ALONG. THIS TOP ONE IS FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE SITE LOOKING NORTH. YOU SEE THE CLOSEST MULTIFAMILY BUILDING IN THE PHOTO THERE.

THIS IS THAT 50-FOOT TREE PRESERVATION OR BUFFER AREA ALONG THE NORTH PERIMETER OF THE SITE. THIS IS A PHOTO STANDING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER AT THE CONNECTION TO THE APARTMENTS. SO RIGHT HERE. LOOKING GENERALLY NORTHWEST.

[00:30:09]

ONE OF THE THING WE IT WOULDN'T SHOW IS THE CONTEXT AND CHARACTER OF THE AREA.

THIS IS A SITE THAT WAS DEVELOPED APPROXIMATELY 12 YEARS AGO.

ZONING APPROVED IN 2024. SO WE ARE OVER A DECADE INTO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE.

WHEN THE SITE WAS DEVELOPED WITH THE MULTIFAMILY, THEY BUILT THAT BUFFER IN 2014, 2015 TIME PERIOD. SO THERE ARE SEVERAL EXISTING EVER GREEN TREES THAT WERE ADDED INTO THE SUPPLEMENTED LANDSCAPING AND AND HAVE GROWN OVER THE LAST DECADE THE PROPOSED FACILITY PROVIDES REHABILITATION SERVICES AND THERAPY SERVICES BY TRAINED AND LICENSED MEDICAL PROVIDERS AND MEDICAL STAFF MEMBERS WITH THE FACILITY THAT WILL INCLUDE 42 BEDS OR ROOMS FOR ITS CLIENTS. THE 42 BEDS ARE IN A TWO STOREY BUILDING THAT SITS RIGHT HERE AND IN ADDITION TO THAT THERE'S A PHASE 2 WHICH IS THE AREA, THE RECTANGLE RIGHT HERE.

AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE 12 BEDS AND A SINGLE STORY FORMAT. SO YOU CAN SEE THE EFFORT HERE IS TO PULL THE BUILDING AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, POSITION IT FURTHER REMOVED, AND HAVE A STAIR STEPPING WHERE THREE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT TODAY IN THE PRIMARY BUILDING AND A SINGLE STORY COMPONENT FOR THE REMOVED BUT CLOSER TO THE RESIDENCE AS A WAY OF PROVIDING TRANSITIONING AND AVOIDING ANY TYPE OF IMPOSING BUILDING MASSING PROXIMATE TO THE BUILDING AREA TO THE WEST. THE CLIENTS AT THE PROPOSED REHABILITATION FACILITY ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE UNDERGONE PRIOR SURGICAL PROCEDURES OR OTHER MEDICAL PROCEDURES AND DIAGNOSIS IN A TRADITIONAL HOSPITAL SETTING TO ADDRESS INJURY, DISEASE, OR OTHER RELATED INJURY OR HEALTH CONDITIONS. THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY PROVIDE PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES TO OOLITE CLIENTS TO RECOVER IN AN APPROPRIATE AND SUPERVISED MANNER OUTSIDE OF THE TRADITIONAL HOSPITAL SETTING. CLIENT DROPOFF MAYBE VIA MEDICAL TRANSPORT OR AMBULANCE BUT THIS IS AN EMERGENCY FACILITY SO THESE AMBULANCES ARE DROPPING OFF A CLIENT FROM A TRANSPORTATION STANDPOINT OR A RELATIVE COULD BRING A VEHICLE.

WANTED TO ENSURE THAT THE BOARD THAT BLAINS WITH SIRENS AREN'T AN ISSUE HERE BECAUSE THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE STAYING AT THE FACILITY ARE THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED FROM THE HOSPITAL SETTING. FURTHER ADMISSIONS AND DISCHARGES TYPICALLY TAKE PLACE DURING REGULAR DAYTIME HOURS. THE FOLLOWING CSISS ARE SERVICES THAT ARE NOT PERFORMED AT THE REHABILITATION THE IF A. WE RECEIVED A COUPLE EMAILS FROM RESIDENTS ASKING QUESTIONS.

WE WANT TO MAKE THOSE RESPONSES CLEAR AS WELL AS THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED WHEN WE HAD OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD MEETING A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. AS I INDICATED THERE IS NO EMERGENCY CARE PROVIDED AT THIS THE IF A. NO SURGERIES OR MAJOR THINGS ARE PROVIDED ON SITE. THESE ARE ALL PROVIDED IN A TRADITIONAL HOSPITAL SETTING.

ADDITIONALLY NO SUBSTANCE ABUSE OR PSYCHIATRIC SENSITIVES WILL TAKE PLACE.

IT ONLY INCLUDES REHABILITATION AND THERAPY EQUIPMENT AND DOES NOT INCLUDE MEDICAL EQUIPMENT FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES, SURGERIES, MEDICAL PROCEDURES, AND DOES NOT INCLUDE SIGNIFICANT IMAGING UNITS LIKE CT, MRI, X-RAY EQUIPMENT AND THE LIKE. REGARDING TRAFFIC, THE FACILITY WILL HAVE RELATIVELY LOW TRAFFIC USAGE AS THE MAJORITY OF TRAFFIC IS RELATIVE TO CLIENT DROPOFF AND STAFF CHANGES. SHOULD BE MUCH LESS THAN ANY OF THE OTHER PERMITTED USES BY RIGHT IN THE HIGH POINT ZONING SUCH AS RESTAURANTS, OFFICE, MULTIFAMILY OR A CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY. FURTHER AN OUTLINED IN THE SUMMARY WE PROVIDED ON TAB 5 THE INFORMATIONAL BROCHURES. WEEK NIGHT AND WEEKEND ACTIVITIES INCLUDE USES THAT DON'T ALLOW FOR DELIVERIES, THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES IS REDUCED AND VISITATION IS LIMITED.

CLIENTS AT THE FACILITY ARE THERE FOR REHABILITATION AND OVERNIGHT AND WEEKEND HOURS ARE FOR REST AND RECOVERY WHILE THERAPY TYPICALLY TAKES PLACE THREE DAYS A WEEK WHERE A CLIENT STAYS APPROXIMATELY 12 DAYS. IN KKK, THE FACILITY OFFERS CLIENTS POST ACUTE CARE

[00:35:10]

THE SUBJECT OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST SHOULD HAVE MINIMAL IMPACT AND BE LESS IMPACTFUL THAN OTHER USE WHICH IS ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE AND CAN OPERATE 24 HOURS A DAY. WE REVIEWED THE DEPARTMENT REPORT AND NOTE THAT STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION UNDER TAB 5. I CALL THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION.

AND IS RECOMMENDING POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE REQUEST INCLUDING THE ADOPTION OF FINDINGS OF FACT MADE BY THE PETITIONER. ADDITIONALLY WHILE NOT REQUIRED WE SENT OUT 39 NOTICES TO AJOINTING PROPERTY OWNERS. THE LION SHARE OF WHICH ARE THE SUBDIVISION AND TO OUR WEST. THERE ARE ABOUT 16 TO 18 OWNERS IN THOSE SUBDIVISIONS.

WE HAD 14 PEOPLE ATTEND OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD MEETING. THE BZA SHOULD BE IN RECEIPT OF A LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM ONE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO ATTENDED A MEETING AND INDICATED THAT THEY COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT. THOSE FOLKS LIVE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY ALONG THE WEST PERMIT OF OUR SITE. WITH THAT, I'LL CONCLUDE. I WILL BE GLAD TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME OR AT THE CONCLUSION OF YOUR PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OR IN OPPOSITION TO THIS PETITION. ALL RIGHT.

THE DEPARTMENT REPORT, PLEASE. >> THANK YOU. THE PETITIONER DID A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING THEIR REQUEST. WE DO WANT TO POINT OUT WITHIN THEIR INFO PACT THEY LISTED WEEKEND AND WEEKNIGHT ACTIVITIES AND THAT ALSO HAPPENED PLANNING STAFF BECOME COMFORTABLE WITH THEIR VARIANCE REQUEST, SO WE DO RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST ALONG WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OFIC IF A. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. WHO HAVE WANTS TO START. DENNIS FIRST.

>> JOHN, YOU HAVE BEEN VERY THOROUGH IN DESCRIBING IN YOUR PACKET THE EMPLOYEE AND MEDICAL USE OF THE FACILITY. MY QUESTION IS AND I THINK YOU SAID THAT THE AVERAGE STAY OF A PATIENT IS 12 DAY. WHAT ABOUT VISITERS? HOW MANY VISITERS WOULD YOU

EXPECT TO HAVE? >> VISITERS, THERE IS TYPICALLY A RESTRICTION ON HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN BE IN THE ROOM AT ONE TIME. AND VISITATION IS LIMITED FROM . SO THERE'S NOT GENERALLY OVERNIGHT STAYS BY ANYBODY. BUT THERE REALLY ISN'T I GUESS AN EXCEPTION OR ANALYSIS.

>> WE NEED YOU TO COME UP TO THE MIC. THANK YOU.

>> MY NAME IS TONY DICKENMORE. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. SO IF YOU KEEP IN MIND THESE PATIENTS ARE ONES THAT HAVE HAD AN ACUTE EVENT WHERE THEY HAVE BEEN AT THE TYPICAL SHORT-TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITALS. THEY HAVE BEEN THROUGH THAT. THEY HAVE STABILIZED AND COME IO OUR HOSPITAL. SO THEY'RE NOT IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY ARE COMPROMISED.

THE USUALLY IT'S STRENGTHENING TO GET THEM BACK AT HOME. SO WE TYPICALLY DON'T HAVE THAT MANY VISITERS COMING YOU WOULD TYPICALLY SEE IN A SHORT-TERM ACUTE CARE HOSPITAL WHERE THE CONDITION OF THE PATIENT IS IN JEOPARDY AND A LOT OF FAMILY IS FLOWN IN, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO WE'LL TYPICALLY HAVE. USUALLY IT WILL BE A SPOUSE OR A SINGLE FAMILY MEMBER THAT WILL VISIT THEM USUALLY DURING THE DAYTIME HOURS OR SOMETIMES BRIEFLY IN THE AFTERNOONS.

BUT WE DON'T GET A TON OF VISITERS. >> I GUESS THAT KIND OF GENERATED MY INTEREST BECAUSE I REMEMBER WHEN MY PARENTS HAD TO BE PUT INTO REHAB FOR VARIOUS REASONS WE WERE THERE FOR SEVERAL DAYS AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO VISIT WITH THEM AND APPRECIATED OUR VISIT. SO I JUST AM CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT YOU MIGHT ANTICIPATE THAT VOLUME OF VISITER TRAFFIC TO BE AND IS THAT ANY IMPACT TO ITS LOCATION HERE?

>> I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE ON THAT. I WOULD TYPICALLY SAY THAT THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF VISITERS THAT WE GET DURING THE DAY IN A 42-BED HOSPITAL IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE AROUND 6 TO 7 PEOPLE COMING IN AT VARIOUS TIMES DURING THE DAY.

[00:40:08]

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR MEETING WITH THE NEIGHBOURS AND GOING TO THAT EXTRA EFFORT TO REACH OUT AND LET EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING.

THESE SERVICES ARE VERY MUCH NEEDED AND TO BE ABLE TO GET HAT CARE WHEN YOU'RE DID FROM THE HOSPITAL. THERE'S A REAL NEED FOR THESE KIND OF SERVICES.

I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PROJECTA GREAT USE. AND I AM IN SUPPORT OF GRANTING THE VARIANCE. THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN DELIVER THESE SERVICE UNLESS YOU ARE ABLE TO OPERATE 24 HOURS A DAY. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH GRANTING THIS VARIANCE.

I FIGURE YOU ALL HAVE COMMENTS TOO. >> I DON'T HAVE COMMENTS.

>> ALL RIGHT. THEN I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE FROM THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND JUST MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE FINDINGS OF FACTS.

>> FIRST AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOUR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT'S APPROVED.

>> THANKS FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. >> THANK YOU.

[G. (UV), (V) Jessup Blvd Townhomes Use Variance and Variances. ]

AND YOUR MICROPHONE IS ALREADY ON. >> CAN YOU HEAR ME? MY NAME IS SARMANG REPRESENTING MY WIFE. SHE'S THE OWNER OF THE TWO PARCELS PROPERTY AT JESSOP BOULEVARD. AND THIS MAP.

THE TWO PROPERTIES WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE THIS ONE AND THE NEXT ONE.

THE PARCEL RIGHT ON JESSOP BOULEVARD BETWEEN 104 AND 105TH STREET EAST SIDE OF THE COLLEGE. SO THAT'S THIS ONE AND THIS ONE. THE PROPERTIES SURROUNDING IT THERE'S ONE SINGLE FAMILY, THIS ONE, AND A DOUBLE DUPLEXES ON THE EAST SIDE.

AND THE WEST SIDE COMMERCIAL. WHAT WE'RE SEEKING APPROVAL IS TO DEVELOP THESE TWO PROPERTIES TO TRIPLEX. IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED FOR DUPLEXES.

SO A TRIPLEX WOULD BE A TOTAL OF SIX UNITS. SO THIS IS THE KIND OF THE SIDE PLAN. AND IT'S KIND OF THE IRREGULAR SHAPE.

THE JESSOP BOULEVARD IS NOT DIRECTLY IN OUR STREET. THAT'S WHY ONE IS MUCH SMALL THANKER ANOTHER ONE. AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO BUILD IT UP THREE UNITS PER LOT.

AND THAT'S WHY WE ARE, USER VARIANCE TO GET TO TRIPLEX. AND THE VARIANCE THERE ARE FIVE OF THEM TOTAL. MOSTLY COVERS THE COVERAGE RATIOS AND THE SITE KIND OF SETBACK. DO I NEED TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE OF THE VARIANCE INDIVIDUALLY?

>> YOU CAN SHARE WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE ABOUT IT. WE'VE REVIEWED IT, BUT IF YOU

HAVE MORE TO PRESENT, YOU CERTAINLY STILL HAVE TIME. >> STILL HAVE 12 MINUTES

REMAINING. >> BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO FILL IT EITHER.

IT'S UP TO YOU. >> OKAY, OKAY. I'M SORRY.

[00:45:05]

THE REQUIREMENT IS 40%. THERE'S TWO CURRENTLY 35 PERCENTAGE.

AND THE SITE SETBACK WAS JUST 2 FEET INSTEAD OF CURRENTLY 13 INSTEAD OF THE REQUIREMENTS 17, 15. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE WHAT WE'RE ASKING.

WE LOOK AT IT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HOME PLACE AREA. IT'S PRETTY MUCH FIT THE REQUIREMENT IN THAT AREA. FIT RESIDENTIAL NATURE OF THAT NEIGHBOURHOOD.

AND WE ARE LOOKING FOR A FAVOURABLE CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOUR OF OR OPPOSITION OF? HOLD UP YOUR HANDS AGAIN.

I THINK I HAVE TWO PEOPLE, THREE PEOPLE TOTAL. OKAY.

AND WE HAVE UP TO 15 MINUTES CORRECT, BRICK? OKAY.

SO GO AHEAD AND SIT DOWN, SIR. AND THEN EACH OF YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES.

UP TO FIVE MINUTES. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST? >> MY NAME IS JOAN MISENHEIMER.

AND I HAVE SEEN ALL OF YOU AT PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.

THE AND SO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND LETTING ME SPEAK. WE'RE ONLY TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS ALLOWED IN EACH OF THESE LOTS. THE PETITIONERS ASKING FOR SIX. ALL TOGETHER TEN MULTIDETACHMENT TOWN HOME UNITS ON THESE TWO VACANT PARCEL. I JUST HEARD THEY STARTED WITH 8 AND WENT DOWN TO 7 AND DOWN TO 6. AND MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THEY GO DOWN TO FOUR WHICH WOULD BE A REASONABLE THING TO ME. AND THEN THERE WERE FIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUESTED FOR LOT COVERAGE AND SITE SET BACK DENSITY, GROUND FLOOR AREA AND PERMIT OR BUFFER YARDS BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO PUT SO MUCH IN THESE TWO LOTS THAT THEY CAN'T DO THE THINGS THEY NEED TO DO SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR MORE VARIANCE.

SO THIS DOESN'T LOOK TO ME LIKE NEEDED VARIANCES DUE TO UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE A REZONE BY VARIANCE WITHOUT HAVING TO GET CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.

MAYBE I DON'T UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHAT WENT BEFORE THIS. AND TRYING TO PUT TOO MUCH ON A SMALL SITE. AND I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIRED BUFFER YARD AND SO ON PARTLY BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO PUT TOO MUCH IN TOO SMALL OF A SPACE. THE PLAN WAS INTEND TO PRESERVE THE AFFORDABILITY AND CHARACTER OF HOME PLACE, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANYWHERE ABOUT AFFORDABILITY IN THESE IF THEY'RE BEING BUILT THEY COST MORE THAN A DUPLEX WOULD BE SEPARATELY. IS IT GOING TO MAKE THE NEIGHBOURHOOD MORE AFFORDABLE? AND OKAY. I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WORKS.

GOING TO TRY TO SHOW THIS. IIN THE PACKET, THERE IS MANY TIMES IT IS SAID THAT THIS IS COMBATABLE WITH THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. AND I'M LOOKING AT THIS, AND IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT IT WOULD BE VERY COMBATABLE WITH DUPLEXES IN THE NEIGHBOURHOOD.

TOO LOOKS MORE CONSTITUTIONAL AND NOT RESIDENTIAL. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER

[00:50:05]

>> THANK YOU. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST? GO AHEAD.

>> MY NAME IS CHARLES. I LIVE AT 745 EAST 105TH STREET WHICH IS THE CORNER OF OUR MAP UP THERE. BUT THERE'S 105TH STREET AND JESSOP GOES ON THE CORNER LOT RIGHT THERE. SO MY BACK YARD RUNS ALONG JESSOP BOULEVARD.

AND MY BACK YARD WILL BE RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE NEW PROJECT. THE THING I'M MOST CONCERNED ABOUT IS JESSOP IS I KIND OF WALKED IT OFF. IT'S ONLY 12 FEET WIDE OR 105TH STREET IS 18 FEET WIDE. SO YOU CAN BARELY GET TWO CARS COMING BOTH WAYS.

USUALLY ONE CAR STOPS A TIRE ONTO MY LAWN AS IT GOES PAST. IF WE PUT SIX MORE UNITS IN THERE, AND YOU ADD IN THE FIRST VARIANCE WE HAD TODAY THE ONE AT THE END OF THE STREET, WITHIN LESS THAN A BLOCK YOU'RE PUTTING IN SEVEN MORE UNITS. COULD BE UP TO 14, 15 MORE CARS GOING UP AND DOWN THERE. THERE IS NO SIDEWALKS. SO THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN IS THAT THE SIZE OF THE WIDTH OF JESSOP IS ONLY 12 FEET LONG WHEN.

THEY BUILT THE HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET THERE, MY YARD GOT DESTROYED BECAUSE OF ALL THE CONSTRUCTION ENDED UP INTO MY YARD. THEY WERE BACKING DUMP TRUCKS INTO MY YARD. I TALKED TO THE CITY, LIKE, WE'LL TALK TO THE BUILDERS AND AGREED TO RESOD YOUR LOAD. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN. WITH ALL THAT EXTRA STUFF WHAT GUARANTEE AM I GOING TO HAVE THAT MY YARD ISN'T GOING TO GET DESTROYED.

THERE WON'T BE ANY ON STREET PARKING FOR THE OTHER UNITS BECAUSE IT'S NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO PARK YOUR CAR ON JESSOP. THAT IS MY MAIN CONCERN IS THAT YOU'RE PUTTING ALL THOSE EXTRA UNITS, ALL THOSE EXTRA PEOPLE AND EXTRA CARS ONTO JESSOP WHICH IS VERY THIN WHICH ONLY SITS 12 FEET WIDE. AND THAT'S WHERE I WOULD BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT.

I WOULD LOVE TO SEE BUILDIG HOUSES BUT I'M A REALI. I KNOW SOMETHING WILL BE BUILT THERE. I LIVED IN MY HOUSE FOR 25 YEARS.

I OWN IT OUTRIGHT. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SINGLE UNIT BUILDINGS THERE, BUT I'M A REALIST AND THAT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN. SOMETHING WILL GET BUILT.

A NICE WOODED LOT RIGHT THERE. THE BUT I WOULDN'T PUT TWO SIX STOREY UNITS IN THERE.

WILL PUT TOO MUCH PRESSURE ON THE BOULEVARD RIGHT THERE. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> HELLO.

MY NAME IS KATHY. I LIVE IN HOME PLACE. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE TWO STORY BUILDING THAT DOESN'T HAVE WINDOWS ON THE SIDES. I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT CRAMMING DENSITY UNDER THE GUISE OF MIDDLE INCOME, MIDDLE HOUSING, THAT TYPE OF THING.

[00:55:06]

PUTTING THE SUBURB PLAN IN PLACE WAS WONDERFUL. TOOK A LOT OF TIME TO DO THAT.

I KNOW IT'S A GUIDELINE. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE MORE CONSCIOUS OF OPENING THE DOOR TO JUST GIVE IT ALL A FREE-FOR-ALL. SO I AGREE WITH WHAT JILL SAID AND THE GENTLEMAN WHO LIVED THERE. HE KNOWS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND HOW NARROW THE STREETS ARE.

I THINK IT'S TOO MUCH DENSITY FOR THE LOT SIZE THAT'S THERE. I WOULD APPRECIATE IF YOU WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THIS AND ALSO I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT FORUM FOR THIS.

I AGREE WITH JILL. IT NEEDS TO GO THE REGULAR RATE NOT JUST A VARIANCE HERE AND A VARIANCE THERE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S PROPER OR THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

JUST MY OPINION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU.

YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND UP TO FIVE MINUTES. >> THANK YOU FOR THE FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. AS FAR AS THE DESIGN THAT'S OFF, THAT'S DEFINITELY MODIFIABLE.

SO THE WINDOW STUFF THAT CAN EASILY BE CHANGED. LIKE I SAID, THE CURRENT BECAUSE THE SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY, ONE SITE IS MUCH BIGGER THAN ANOTHER ONE.

AND WE THINK JUST TWO BLOCKS AWAY THERE'S APARTMENT BUILDINGS TWO BLOCK AWAY ON THE EAST SIDE, APARTMENT BUILDINGS, SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE DON'T THINK THAT'S TERRIBLY DIFFERENT THAN THE TWO STOREYS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. SO AS TO THE SIDEWALKS WE ALREADY TALKED WITH THE CITY ENGINEER TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIDEWALK THAT'S ALREADY DESIGNED ON THIS PLAN.

AND WHAT ELSE. I THINK THE CONCERN IS. JESSOP BOULEVARD IS VERY SHORT STREET. AND BECAUSE ON THE ONE SIDE BACK TO COMMERCIAL AND ON THIS SIDE ONLY THREE, ONLY TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS, SO THIS ONE ON THE EAST SIDE ONLY TWO EXISTING BUILDINGS BUILT UP. THERE'S THREE EMPTY LOTS NEXT TO US.

THERE'S EMPTY LOTS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PLANS ARE.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO EDIT A LOT OF TRAFFIC TO THAT STREET BECAUSE ON THE WEST SIDE JUST COMMERCIAL BUT BACK TO COMMERCIAL NOT. YOU CAN SEE THE STORAGE BUILDINGS ON THIS MAP DON'T SAY THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC COMING TO THAT ESSOP WE CAN SAY.

YEAH. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

WE'RE PAST THE COMMENT PERIOD. ANGIE, WOULD YOU GO AHEAD AND GIVE THE COMMENT REPORT PLEASE?

>> THERE'S ONE USE VARIANCE REQUEST AND SEVERAL VARIANCE REQUESTS.

I CAN GO THROUGH THEM QUICKLY JUST SO WE HAVE IT ON THE RECORD, BUT THE USE VARIANCE REQUEST IS TO HAVE TWO THREE-UNIT BUILDINGS WHEN ONLY A TWO FAMILY DWELLING IS ALLOWED ON EACH LOT. A MAXIMUM 35% IS ALLOWED SO JUST A SLIGHT INCREASE.

AS FAR AS THE SIDE YARD SET BACKS GO, THEY DO MEET THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SET BACKS BUT NOT THE AGGREGATE REQUIRED. THE MINIMUM AGGREGATE IS 15 FEET, AND THEY'RE REQUESTING 13. SO THAT'S A TWO-FOOT VARIANCE. REGARDING DENSITY, 5 LOTS PER

[01:00:02]

AND THEN REGARDING GROUND FLOOR AREA MINIMUM 800 SQUARE FOOT IS REQUIRED FOR THEIR DWELLING UNIT AND REQUESTING 538 SQUARE FEET. ONE OF THE AGAIN IT IS A TWO-STORY BUILDING SO THEY MAKE UP FOR THAT ON THE SECOND FLOOR. AND REGARDING THE BUFFER YARD LANDSCAPING, THERE ARE CERTAIN YARD WIDTHS AND PLANTINGS REQUIRED. AND THEY'RE SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM THAT. SO I WOULD SAY PLANNING STAFF IS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF MOST OF THE SHARIANS EXCEPT FOR THE BUFFER YARD. AS FAR AS THE PLANTING, PLANNING STAFF WOULD LOVE TO SEE AN AMENDED PLAN THAT HAS MORE TREES AND PLANTINGS ADDED TO THAT.

AGAIN THE PETITIONER STATED THEY CAN WORK ON BUILDING DESIGN WITH ADDING WINDOWS AND CHANGING THE ARCHITECTURE. WE WOULD BE WILLING TO WORK WITH THEM AS WELL.

GOING BACK TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HOME PLACE SUBAREA PLAN, THOSE DOCUMENTS DO SUPPORT THAT. O'THAT'S WHY THEY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE THREE UNIT DWELLINGS.

THE PLANS ALSO SUPPORT TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING BICYCLE FACILITIES AND THE HE TIGGER STATED THEY WILL PROVIDE MONEY TO THE THOROUGHFARE SIDEWALK. THERE ARE A FEW LEFT IN PLANNING DOCKS, SO THEY RECOMMEND POSITIVE CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE VARIANE REQUESTS WITH THE CONDITION THE PETITIONER AGREES ADDRESSES ALL REMAINING REVIEW COMMENTS AND PLANNING STAFF WITH AN AMENDED LANDSCAPE PLAN AND ALSO THE ADOPTION OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM OUR

PRESIDENT ABOUT THIS. >> SO I'M GOING TO START WITH THE OBVIOUS QUESTION WHICH IS THIS SEEMS LIKE IT SHOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH OUR PLANNING COMMISSION CITY COUNCIL PROCESS RATHER THAN COMING HERE AND GETTING SIX VARIANCES. WHAT IS THE REASON? WHY IS THIS NOT GOING THROUGH THE CITY COUNCIL PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO SITTING HERE

REQUESTING SIX DIFFERENT VARIANCES? >> I THINK IN A WORD, IT IS EASIER TO GET A USE VARIANCE. IT'S ONE COMMISSION AND A USE OF THIS TYPE WILL BE ALLOWED VERSUS GOING THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION AND A LEGISLATIVE ACT WHICH IS COUNCIL.

IT IS LONGER, CONSIDERABLY MORE PREDICT UNPREDICTIVE, AND EXPENSIVE.

>> IF YOU WERE TO ASK FOR A REZONE YOU WOULD HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL AND ADLS AND GO THROUGH THAT. IT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID BUT I AM FAIRLY CONFIDENT THIS WOULD WOULD NOT RECEIVE A FAVOURABLE RECOMMENDATION OR WE WOULD COMPLETELY REWORK THIS AND MAKE THIS LOOK A LOT BETTER AND FIT MORE WITHIN THE AREA. SO WITH THAT SAID LOOKING AT THESE VARIANCES, WHY DO YOU NEED TO DO MORE THAN TWO FAMILY PER LOT?

WHY DO YOU FEEL YOU HAVE TO DO SIX TOWN HOMES VERSUS FOUR? >> I THINK IT'S MOSTLY ECONOMIC CONSIDERATION. THE LARGEST IS ACTUALLY ON FOUR TWO ACRES.

AND THIS IS WHERE BUILDING RENTAL UNITS AND THE MORE THREE UNITS LOCKED ECONOMIC WISE, IT'S

BETTER. >> THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THE SITE THAT IS PROHIBITING YOU.

IT'S JUST YOUR ECONOMICS, YOUR FINANCIAL CONSIDERINGS. >> YEAH, I WOULD SAY.

>> OKAY. ON A GROUND FLOOR CONSIDERATION THE 538 SQUARE FEET ON THE FIRST

FLOOR, ARE YOU INCLUDING THE GARAGE IN THAT NUMBER? >> NO, NOT INCLUDING THE GARAGE.

>> OKAY SO LOOKING AT OUR NEW SUBAREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THERE IS REREALLY ARE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO TRY TO PRESERVE THE CHARM AND AESTHETIC OF HOME PLACE.

LOOKING AT WHAT YOU PRESENTED I DON'T THINK IT REALLY FITS IN WITH WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

[01:05:01]

VARIANCES. >> THANK YOU. DENNIS, GO AHEAD.

>> YOU STATE IN YOUR COMMENTS THAT WHAT CONSTITUTES AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP, AND YOU SAY BECAUSE THE UNUSUAL CHARACTERISTICS, UNUSUAL SHAPE RESTRICT THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP THE PARCEL. I DON'T FIND THAT AS A VERY LARGE HARDSHIP IN MY OPINION.

QUITE FRANKLY CONSIDERING WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR, YOU ADMIT THEY'RE SMALL LOTS AND YET YOU IT WOULDN'T REDUCE SIDE YARDS, SQUARE FOOTAGE. YOU WANT TO TRIPLE THE MAXIMUM DENSITY. AND I JUST IF THIS WAS A PROJECT WHERE THERE WAS AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT YOU WERE ASKING TO VARY, MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT. CAN A.

BUT YOU'RE WORKING WITH A CLEAN SLATE ON THESE TWO LOT. AND I QUITE FRANKLY THINK YOU'RE TRYING TO BUILD TOO MUCH ON THE PROPERTY. AND I THINK YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND REEVALUATE THAT. AS YOU'RE PRESENTING IT RIGHT NOW, I REALLY AM NOT IN FAVOUR

OF THESE AT ALL. >> GO AHEAD, KEVIN. >> WE'RE LOOKING FOR DIVERSIFIED HOUSING IN HOME PLACE. IS THIS IT? IS THIS TAKING A GOOD SWING AT IT? WE HAVE OUR DEPARTMENT HEAD HERE.

IS THIS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR? I'M GONNA ASK YOU JUST FOR FUN. AND ARE YOU NOT CREATING MORE OF A HARDSHIP FOR YOURSELF BY CREATING THREE UNITS INSTEAD OF TWO.

I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT'S A HARDSHIP OTHER THAN IT WON'T BRING AS MUCH REVENUE IN.

>> I THINK STAFF HAS WORKED WITH THE PETITION TORE TRY TO SHAPE A PROJECT THAT CAN FIT IN AND THAT IT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS AND CONTINUES TO BE A WORK IN PROGRESS.

WE ALSO DON'T REALLY HAVE A ZONING DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS THIS.

SO A TRIP TO THE COUNCIL WOULD BE A PUD TO CREATE A ZONING WHERE AS WE KNOW WE HAVE OUR WORK CUT OUT FOR US AS FAR AS MEETING IT, AND THE HOUSING COMMISSION MEETS THIS WEEK.

WHETHER THIS IS PUTTING THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, I THINK THE TESTIMONY BY THE PUBLIC TONIGHT IS A BIT OF A CLUE THAT WE APPRECIATE WHAT THE COMMISSIONER HAS BROUGHT TO THE BOARD TONIGHT

AND UNDERSTAND IT CAN GO EITHER WAY. >> I AM IN NO WAY BEING CRITICAL OF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I WOULD SAY. I SPENT 14 YEARS ON PLANNING COMMISSION. AS THIS IS IT WOULD NOT PASS THE DESIGN.

I MEAN IT WOULD NEED MORE. YOU WOULD NEVER ALLOW A BLANK BRICK WALL.

THERE'S NO WAY. I JUST DON'T THINK I HAVE ENOUGH TO MAKE ME FEEL WARM ABOUT SUPPORTING IT. I'M NOT SAYING THE CONCEPT IS BAD.

AND I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH E SMALL SHARIANS. THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES DON'T BOTHER ME. I KNOW THAT BOTHERS SOME PEOPLE. BUT WHEN YOU WORK IN CONVINCE TO MAKE SOMETHING WORK AND THEY'RE NOT HARMFUL, THOSE DON'T BOTHER ME.

THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES IS NOT MY PROBLEM. ARE WE GETTING THE BEST THING THAT WE CAN GET. AND I DON'T MEAN MONEY WISE. I DON'T MEAN DESIGN WISE.

A LITTLE BIT DESIGN. THIS IS NOT THE PROPER DESIGN. FOR WHAT WE WOULD WANT HERE.

[01:10:06]

>> I THINK THIS IS SOMEWHAT TIMING IN ADDITION TO THESE OTHER THINGS BECAUSE THE ZONING AND ANY PLANS FOR THAT AREA HAS TO CATCH UP WITH THE SUBAREA PLAN AND JUST A MATTER OF TIME WHEN THAT WOULD HAPPEN AND THEN YOU WOULD HAVE MORE GUIDELINE AS TO WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED SO

I'LL ENTRAIN. GO AHEAD. >> IF THIS WAS AS IT WAS BEFORE YOU HAVE THAT PLAN, IT WOULD REALLY AFFECT THAT PLAN. PEOPLE WOULD SAY, WELL, BUT YOU HAVE THIS. AND YET YOU WANT TO PLAN THE AREA AROUND IT.

THIS NOT THE BEST WAY TO START IT. >> BUT THIS TYPE OF HOUSING IS NEEDED. I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY ALL AGREE.

I WOULD ENTRAIN A MOTION. AND I HAVE A SENSE THAT WE COULD TAKE THEM ALL TOGETHER, BUT IF ANYONE WANTS US TO SPLIT THEM APART WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL. OKAY.

NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THAT SO WE'LL KEEP IT AT ONE, AND I'M JUST LOOKING FOR A MOTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE ALL THE DOCUMENTS AS DISCUSSED. >> I'LL SECOND TO WE CAN VOTE.

>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOUR.

ALL OPPOSED. >> AYE. >> AND WE ASK THAT LEGAL DEPARTMENT DEVELOP THE NEGATIE FINDINGS OF FACT PLEASE. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON OUR AGENDA.

AND SO THIS MEET SOMETHING ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.