Board of Zoning Appeals - Regular Meeting

I'll call this December 18th special border zoning appeals meeting to order. I'll start the Oh, wait. Let's start the meeting with 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. David, you project roll. Pete Saunders here. Vicky Gushowski here.

Mark Danielson here. Ryan Cer here. Nate LS here. Five present. Thank you.

We're starting this with item number four. Uh items one, two, and three were handled at the original board of zoning appeals meeting. Uh item number four, use variance. Uh will petitioner step forward, please? Good evening. Good evening.

U Craig Phillips. I'm the community development and uh planning director for the city. Um so the uh petitioner for all four of the agenda items this evening is the um is the city of Leaport in conjunction with other partners um as property owners for the various sites. Um we are requesting for the first item on the agenda which is use variance uh petition 25-04 uh to allow for the construction of town homes um on this parcel within the R1D zoning district property located at 128 Bach Street otherwise known as the former Sacred Heart Church property at the um southwest corner of Bach and Pilaski streets. You all have a presentation u copy of a presentation in front of you. You should have uh that you can reference as we go. I also want to introduce um Brandon Shields who is the development um director for Advantics Development Corporation who's our project uh our project partner. They are the ones that are going to be constructing and um ultimately owning and operating the facilities that are proposed as part of the meeting this evening. I don't know we don't have Brandon do

I just wanted to show I just wanted to show Brandon so they could see who we're who we're referencing. So Brandon I can hear you. I can hear you and see you Craig. Okay good. And we can hear and see you. So that's good.

Okay. So, this request, as I said, is to allow for the construction of townhouse units on the property. Um, I would note that the same request was granted earlier this year for, um, the property at 111 Roosevelt Street, the former Washington School site. The former church on the property, um, the building is vacant, um, very underutilized, outmoded, and in in need of repair. After various meetings and discussions at both the bi the dascese as well as the city and other partnership levels, it was determined that it's not financially feasible to retrofit the building for the purpose that we intend to use the property for. Um it's just uh too expensive from the standpoint of meeting current ADA standards in terms of structural um walls uh that exist within the building that would have to be completely rebuilt and moved in order to meet the standards for widths and that sort of thing. as far as and as the same goes with stairs. Um things such as tread heights and depths and that sort of thing just can't be can't be met as part of the project as well with the current structure. Previously the city and the dascese um arrived at an agreement for this project and as part of that the dascese approved demolition um for the uh current church structure and uh most importantly and I think you'll see from the design in design drawings that we'll show the proposed town houses are designed to be compatible with the neighborhood uh especially with regard to the fact that they they appear residential in character um their scale is appropriate for this neighborhood and uh you know just the character is a good is a good fit for the site as well as the neighborhood as proposed. Next um slide. So the next slide shows you the proposed site plan for this um if you go back sorry go back one proposed site plan. Um we're proposing we're proposing 12 town homes as it currently lays out. I know we um advertised 15. Uh we wanted to have some flexibility in the event that we were

able to fit more units on the property, but we're we're currently looking at 12 town homes um in the configuration that you see lined up along both Bach and Palaski streets so that they um appear to be more in character with the existing neighborhood. So you'll have front doors facing the streets in all cases um and residential uh looking buildings on the site as well as the parking um some play area for uh for children on the site. um as well. And then the next slide shows a current rendering of what the project would be intended to look like. As you can see, the proposed project is intended to be all brick and residential in character. Um so we believe that it's going to be a good fit for both the site and the neighborhood, but also kind of paying homage to the church that used to be on the site and being respectful of the fact that there was an allbrick uh structure on the site previously as well. So, next slide. Previously, um the city and health foundation of Leaport as well as the Unity Foundation conducted housing studies to take a look at the needs for housing all across the board in the community. um everything from affordable and workforce housing up to luxury housing and among other things that the that the um city and HFL uh health foundation of Leaport's housing strategy which was completed in 2023 referenced is the need for more than 300 um new rentrestricted affordable workforce housing units to meet current needs uh in our community. So this is kind of a backlog if you will of of the need that currently exists in our community. This doesn't even take into account as our community continues to grow and we anticipate uh growth in our community in the ne within the next several years. Um this doesn't even take into account the need that will increase um as we continue to grow as a community. There are just li there are there are

significant issue uh with limited quantity or limited quality housing options available to renters in our community. I think you're all familiar with um some of the upgrades that we've made um adjacent to city hall here with the Maple Commons uh facility, for example. Um there's a there's definitely a need to either retrofit existing housing or to provide for new housing. And we're propo we're proposing to build um new rental housing um on these properties. Um and I'm talking I'm so I'm speaking first to 128 Box Street specifically and um much of our rental housing in the community is older. um outdated and badly in need of repair in many cases. Um in addition to this, the Unity Foundation um of Leaport County conducted a housing analysis previously and just recently updated that analysis. They just presented this to the city council on Monday evening. Among other things that it says in in the findings of the study, is that we need to focus on removing barriers and to enable diverse and attainable housing development in our community. that that's a that's a significant um hurdle to overcome in our community and that definite need. We also need to allow for missing middle housing, what are called missing middle housing types such as duplexes, triplexes, cottage courts, etc. by right and residential zones. And among those would be town houses were appropriate. And then finally, um, this will come into play more with the other developmental standards variances that are referenced later in the meeting, but the need to look at reducing minimum lot sizes, setback requirements, and other um, zoning standards to enable more compact walkable de uh, development patterns and to allow us to continue to rebuild our community to build our community um, in a way that we're able to rebuild what existed previously um, the development patterns that existed that previously in our community. Next slide. So, couple of slides here just to show

you the current status of the of the structure and to reference what I was speaking to with regard to the ADA issues that I mentioned. So, the yellow, let's go back. The yellow walls that you see there are structural walls within the existing Sacred Heart um the former Sacred Heart Church. Um and because those are structural, those hallways are not wide enough to meet current ADA standards. and the steps um as well because of those issues. There's there's not the possibility of installing ramps, that kind of thing, because of the spaces that are involved here and necessary to make that happen. And so it's just in feasible. And then you also see an exit stairwell where the you know the treads don't meet current standards um and other issues that exist throughout the church with stairwells, hallways, um that sort of thing. And so again, as I mentioned, it makes the project um financially infeasible to retrofit. And so that's uh why we're looking at demolition of the structure and reconstruction of the proposed town homes. The next slide uh and then the next slide uh and the one after that just show the the current condition of the structure uh mostly near the roof uh area of the building. But in addition to that around stairwells and windows um there's a substantial amount of retrofit and repair that would have to be made to make this building um usable for this purpose going forward. So, that's kind of the background on this request. Um, again, we're requesting this use variance. Um, a here with me tonight um is another project partner that I wanted to ask to just say a few words um that we um have been working together on this for some time. Uh and uh speak to from the perspective of the property owner. So, um Father Nate, you want to join me? Good evening everyone. My name is Father

Nate Edquist. I've been serving at Holy Family Parish in Leaport since 2020. Holy Family is of course the merger of Sacred Heart, St. Joseph and St. Peter parishes here. So in 1912, Polish Catholic immigrants arriving in Leaport needed a spiritual home in this city for their growing population. So they collaborated to buy, I believe, seven plots of land that are currently located at 128 Box Street. On this plot, the community built the three-story building that you see in the picture, which contained the church worship space, school classrooms, and a hall. The property also eventually included a grotto, a rectory, and storage garages. In 1969, Sacred Heart School closed its doors. The following year in 1970, the building ceased serving as a church due to the construction of a new church building at 2011 Box Street. So it has not been a sacred space for 55 years now. In 2013, Sacred Heart built a new activity center. So all of the social activities or most of them were moved out of this old building into the new space. And then finally in 2023, the Sacred Heart Food Pantry, which was the last ministry utilizing this building, was relocated outside of that space. So since 2023, the building at 128 has been sitting vacant with limited heat and without air conditioning. And due to this ex the extensive deterioration over the years, our parish's property insurance high or remains high. The cost of our insurance continues to rise and it poses a major major liability for our parish. As Craig mentioned, a renovation to retrofit the building has not been deemed feasible and it's been cost prohibitive and we as Holy Family Parish do not intend to redevelop the property for our own uses in the future. So almost two years ago, the city of

Leaport approached myself and the dascese of Gary to discuss future possibilities of 128bach. And so after considerable discussions and consultation with bodies both at the parish and the diosis and level with the dasis of Gary, uh we as holy family parish have been instructed to sell 128 box street to the city of Leaport. So this is an opportunity for us as the a parish to collaborate with the city on the important question of housing here in Leaport and we're excited for what the future will bring. Thank you all. Thank you father. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you father Nate. Uh in addition another project partner um that is a partial funding partner with us on this project is the health foundation of Leaport. So I would ask um Eric Dewald if you want to just come up and say a few words if you would. Good evening. Uh my name is Eric Dewald. I'm the president and CEO of the Health Foundation of Leaport. Um and I've been here for about a year and eight months. And um I'm really excited about this project, but I wanted to say that my predecessor Maria Fruth and the Health Foundation board at the time committed $5 million to work with the city of Leaport on affordable housing projects, this being one of them. And so we're in support of the variances that Craig spoke about. Um, I also wanted to point out that we have a new strategic plan at the health foundation and one of the major pillars of that plan is affordable housing. So, not only are we committed to the $5 million we committed a few years ago, but we will probably be doing significantly more than that on future projects that increase affordable housing. Um, and I think to finish up, one of the things that I wanted to say is sometimes it's hard to understand why a health foundation would be funding housing um, and in this case affordable housing. And it is because housing um, is one of the things that make people healthy, one of the most important things. And it's called a social determinant of health. And so we're really excited to be a partner with the city and Father Nate and other partners on this project. So thanks for allowing me to come and speak tonight.

Thanks, Eric. Thank you. And uh that concludes the I guess the background and presentation at this point uh on this particular part of the request for the first item on the agenda. So I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys have at this point. So, these are are all rental. Do we have a price point as far as rental amount? So, that you know, I know we've talked about needing more affordable housing.

Yeah, these are uh I'll let I'm going to let Brandon Shields discuss this in more detail, but these are designed to um large mostly be between uh 50% and 80% of area median income. Um, but he can I'll let Brandon speak more to this because this is his area of expertise and um, so yeah, Brandon, if you would kind of give some more background on that.

Yeah, absolutely. Uh, Brandon Shields, director of real estate acquisitions for Advantage Development Corporation. Um, we uh, this project is is is very unique because it serves u quite a quite a population. Uh, we had they're all three bedrooms. Uh, we have 30, 50, and 80% AMI. Um, the performer lists the 30% at 489 a month, the 50% at 900 a month, and the 80% units at 1120 per month. And that breakdown is 1330s, 850s, and 21 80% units. Okay, thank you. For the three sites combined. Yeah, correct.

Any other questions? What are the size of the units? Like again, Brandon's the only one, two, three bedroom. What are we thinking? Yeah. Do you want to do you want to explain the the makeup of the units and the size? Absolutely. They're they're all threebedroom. Um generally they are about 1320 ft. That's just kind of the the standard for all of our threebedrooms. Um you might get a little bit of little bit extra in some of the single family homes on a different location, but for the most part, they're all about 13 1320. And the ones on this side again are twotory town homes.

Thank you, Craig. Thank you, Craig. Okay. Thank you. At this point, I'll open up for public comment. Uh we do have a few of these here, but I'm not sure. Uh, Alyssa. Alicia. Does that have to do with Box Street? Um, I think Yeah, that's fine. She's going to wait for the next one. Okay. All right. Do any of these public comments have to do with Box Street?

Thanks for making our job easy, guys. So if not, I'll close the portion of public comment. Uh staff.

Yeah. So item number four, I'm going to kind of present these in tandem because that's what we've done. Item number four is a use variance 25-04 petition to allow the construction of residential multif family town homes in the R1D zoning district at location is 128 Box Street. Um item number five, variance of development standards 25-17 petition is to reduce the minimum front yard building setbacks from 20 ft to 8 ft. Um this is also located at 128 Box Street. Um just kind of going through the site itself because it's the same property. Um the parcel is approximately 1.03 acres currently zone in the R1D single family residential district. um currently as was mentioned is a vacant religious facility building on the site. Um the petitioner proposes to allow the construction of residential town home units. Um the zoning ordinance sets forth uh permitted uses and in table 4.02 which the proposed attached residential town home dwelling units are not a permitted use. So, as a result, a use variance is required to be reviewed by the city of a port board of zoning appeals for the town home dwelling units in the R1D zoning district. Um, staff, city departments met to discuss this last month. Um, water, wastewater, storm water, and every other engineering and planning departments all met to discuss the proposed housing site as is typical of variance of development standards. kind of development um town home units. Um the board of zoning appeals goes through five decision criteria when they are reviewing a use variance. Um and I'll go through those really briefly. The approval of one is the approval will not be injurous to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. Um the approval will not be injurous to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community because all the

construction related to the town homes will be built according to all applicable ordinances and standards for construction. Two, the use, value, and area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially versed manner because the proposed residential town homes will be compatible with a lot of the surrounding single family residential neighborhood along Pilaski and uh Box Street there as well as some of the uh commercial buildings in the area such as the church and at the intersection of um Park Street and Box Street, the weird little intersection there um that we're all familiar with in terms of the design and character of the buildings. Three, that the need of the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved. The need for the variance does arise from some condition peculiar to the property involved because the subject property is currently vacant. Uh vacant church building that presents uh basically nearly impossible to feasibly retrofit to modern codes and standards today. the proposed residential town town homes will efficiently maximize the residential use of the property that is just over an acre in size. Four, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought. And so the strict application as I mentioned in the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which this requested variance for um the use variance to allow the proposed residential town homes because the project developer and the city of port would not be able to serve the significant housing needs in the community as outlined in both the health foundation of Leaport and city of Leaport housing initiative study. And five, the last one here is the approval does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive land development plan.

Um the approval does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive land development plan because the plan calls out for development in cities and areas where adequate utilities and roadway access exists such as the site itself here. Um so staff does recommend approval of the use variance petition to allow the residential town homes is appropriate for the surrounding single family dwelling land uses as well as commercial uh uses there along Box Street in the general vicinity. So staff does recommend approval of use variance petition 25-04 to allow the construction of residential town homes. Um, and kind of really briefly, I can go through the uh the variance petition that was submitted because a lot of the things that are touched on in the use variance are the same kind of decision criteria of which there's only three criteria with the variance of development standards petitions. Um, and so just kind of a lot of it's the same kind of things, but just wanted to read those three criteria for the record. Um the approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. Uh two is that the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. And three, the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought. Um and a lot of my comments from earlier apply to that. Um in addition um a lot of the I'll say on on number two the uh the use and value of the area there are many existing single family residential dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood that are constructed with similar building setbacks as the proposed 8-oot front yard setback as the proposed uh residential town homes um for the front yard building setback. Um, and then number three, um, a lot of the,

uh, properties around it have a lot more intensity in terms of use, um, than the permitted, uh, single family and two family in the surrounding area within the same block along Box Street there. Um, so staff does find approval of the variance petition to reduce the minimum front yard building setback is appropriate for the surrounding single family dwelling land uses along Box Street. So staff recommends approval of variance of development standards petition 25-17 to reduce the minimum front yard building setback from 20 feet to 8 ft. And I'll answer any questions that you have. Yeah, I have a question.

Um, so the current building that is on on that property, the Catholic Church building there, what is the setback on that current building right now? That one um is probably less than 20 ft. Um, I don't know exactly what it is, but I believe it's Is it keeping it somewhat similar then? The setbacks are probably going to be similar to where that current building is right now. It does that feel right to Yeah, it's a Yeah, it's probably similar along Boach, but it's a little farther back on Pilaski, but it's very similar to other houses on the street on the same street.

Yep. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I have a question. Um, this driveway,

this driveway for 130 Box Street, how is that going to be handled? Uh there's going to be an easement that's set aside for the Catholic Church and Dascese to remain um able to use that driveway because it it leads to a um food pantry storage area if I'm not mistaken. So as part of the development agreement um and what's been discussed up to this point, we'll be preserving that. Okay. And it shows that in the design as well. Any other questions? Yeah, I was just into what what's what's the timeline for this?

So, um, pending the outcome of tonight's meeting, um, there is a final submitt of information to the state with regard to, um, some tax credits that are associated with the funding for this project. As soon as the state approves the um uh final information, you know, the final information that's submitted, they will be approving this site as part of the package. And it's our I think it's the intention of Advantics to get started on the sale of the tax credits which is necessary to secure the financing for the project um as soon as possible after that. Uh correct me if Oh, actually let me just turn over to Brandon. Brandon can Brandon can explain this a little bit more than I can in better detail. you you are correct. Uh once we once that's approved uh we can move forward to closing the closing uh part of the process uh which can take a few months but we look to close by the end of the first quarter of next year

and then we would start construction as soon as we get our building permits right after that. Okay. And about a year constructionish. Yes. Yeah. Yep. 12 just depending on weather. 12 to 14 months. Okay. So theoretically again construction this maybe even the summer coming up possibly. Yeah. Y that's it. Do we want to make a motion now? Are we voting on both item four and five together or do we have to do them separately? I would do them separately. Separately. It's up to you guys but because they're different standards. That would be my suggestion.

That's fine. I'll make a motion to approve the item number four um use variance to allow the construction of town homes. Second. I have a motion and a second for item number four. All in favor? I I make a motion to approve the uh fifth number. Item number five. Item number five, the variance of development standards. uh 2517 petition second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I I I pass.

My only question is Mark. My only question is did we we didn't have a separate public hearing for that item, did we? No, we uh well so we probably need to technically do that. When you introduced the proposal, did you only introduce I only introduced the use variance. Yeah. So I think David went with the second one and did but we didn't have a public hearing. Yeah. Go ahead. So yeah, just want to point out let's let's let's do the second public hearing then. Okay. So I guess we'll I guess at this point we'll uh reserve further action on that vote until the public hearing is concluded. Okay.

Go ahead and call for public comment on item number five. So at this time I will open up for public comment on item number five which is moving the setback from 20 still the box street property if anybody moving the setback from 20 ft to 8t any public comment any public comment okay here you're welcome to come up what's your name yeah you Please. Okay. So, if you have comment on the Box Street property, you should do that now.

Yeah. Go ahead. Thank you.

Welcome. Hi. Hello. Hi. Name your name and my name is Sue Anchosky. I live at 101 Beldon. I'm actually kitty corner from the uh Roosevelt site. Um this my main thing was for Roosevelt, but it will it'll go for Bach too because that's right down the road and I feel that there are safety concerns also if you try to go to 8 feet. Um first and foremost, okay. Uh well, first and foremost, because with the Roosevelt on the on the agenda at first it said five feet and now it's written out in pen that it was 8 feet. Which which is it? Let let me just so you can have another opportunity to come up and talk about the I don't want to get I don't want it to be voted on without

Okay. Okay. So, but if you need a second if you're going to have a second hearing because you didn't have a second public hearing or a second meeting, whatever second notice, I can speak on Bach at that time. No, right now is the time to talk about Bach, but right now is not the time to talk about Roosevelt. So, you'll have another opportunity. Well, the I mean it goes basically the same. I mean, I can come up here and speak twice on the same thing because it's still there's still public safety. There's just no there would be no reason for you to say anything about the Roosevelt development project right now. Then I will wait because my words are mostly for Roosevelt. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other public comment on the Bach Street address? I had additional information to present on the development standards for if that's okay. I intended to do that as a separate part of the presentation just a few extra slides. Is that okay? You you may you may because I intended to have you guys do them as separate items and so that's the way I laid out my presentation.

So do you guys want to pull up my presentation just real quick to share this? So, okay. So, this request for a front setback uh from 8 ft to the uh to allow for 8 ft from the required 20 ft. Again, specifically, this is 128 Box Street. The comment that's most important to make is that we looked at this very closely when we considered this um project as well as this request coming before you. And there are numerous um all you have to do is go one block in either direction and you have five or six homes that have exactly the same type of setbacks as what's being proposed for this development. So there are many homes with uh the home itself and accessory structures in the neighborhood with same or similar setbacks in all directions from the site. um a majority and the other comment is that we're in the process of considering some significant overhaul to our zoning standards and these cases before you tonight as well others as well as others that you heard at the last meeting are reflective of the fact that their majority of the city the areas that are zoned residential in the city are legally non-conforming when it comes to setbacks. you could not rebuild in the event of more than 50% damage, fire destruction of some sort, or an infill home that someone wanted to build on an existing lot in most of the residential neighborhoods of the city, you could not build on those lots without similar variances. And so that's that's the case in probably about um twothirds of the city um with the current uh especi especially with the current R1D and R1C districts in particular. And then um I already made the statement with regard to proposed town homes being compatible in character. The next slide just shows you again examples and there are this is just a tiny sampling of the examples.

Again um of homes that are built with similar setbacks from the sidewalk um that are being proposed this 8 ft that's being proposed for this uh facility. So this is a sampling uh in all directions from the site just to give you an idea of the you know we're not looking to develop anything differently than was already historically developed in the neighborhood. And then finally um you already saw the you already saw the site plan so you don't need to show that again. So that's just the additional information I wanted to propose or I wanted to present to you as part of this item on the agenda. Thank you. Okay.

I don't think we need to. It's already been voted on. So, um yeah, we can we can uh move to the next agenda item. Move it to a actual vote or No, you you already took the vote. It's good. It was good. Number six. So, let's call let's call six and seven simultaneously. make it easy for the public hearing aspect. That's fine. I'll present both. Yep. Okay.

All right. So, item six is a developmental standards variance request for 111 Roosevelt Street. The request is for reduction of front setback uh to 8 ft from the from the required 20 ft. Uh initially we did lo we did um list this as a fi requested five- foot setback but upon um further uh review of the site plans and needs for the project uh we determined that the 8 ft was sufficient. Um and again the 8t is very similar to a lot of the examples that I gave you throughout the neighborhood. Um I will point out uh both again homes and accessory structures um both immediately adjacent to the site as well as all throughout the neighborhood. Um and I already made the statement with regard to the you know the residential areas throughout the city. So I don't need to I don't need to to repeat those comments. The next slide just shows the proposed at this time the proposed site plan for the site. And as you can see, it's designed so that the town homes face the streets and they're not kind of bunched into the center of the site. Um, it's more residential in character. These are two-story town homes designed to be very compatible with the neighborhood. And there are um structures throughout the neighborhood that are similar in terms of design and character as well. And there is a proposed um community building that would also have but would also house a daycare. And I will note again that I'll remind uh that this body did approve the use variance previously for this request. So all we're discussing tonight is the actual setbacks related to this request. Um and the next slide shows a uh a rendering of the proposed improvements. Again, this is this is not final, but um using residential materials, using residential roof pitches, um two-story buildings, again, designed to be compatible with the surrounding

neighborhood. Um and then shifting over to the next item on the agenda for simplicity sake is the site at 100 Allen, um also known as Scottfield, the eastern twothirds of Scottfield. There are several requests related to this. Um this is a very difficult site to develop from the standpoint of those setback issues that I talked about. Um so our request is to reduce the front setback to 10 feet from the required 20T to reduce the side setback to zero feet with a total of 10 feet for both sides on one side of the lot. So the entire 10 feet would be on one side of the house and then sh you know that pattern would continue is the intent. um as opposed to the required five- foot side setback with a total of 15 feet on both sides. Um to reduce the rear setback to five feet from the required 20 foot setback. This is primarily to do with the way that the site plan is laid out. This is designed to be like a cottage court where the houses face in on a green um on a green space rather than onto standard streets. So there'll be a for lack of a better term an alleyway that rings the site and then in the in the center is a walkway and a green space. And so technically the rear yard is along the alley and because it's along the right of way it's required to be 20 ft. But in this case the way the site lays out a little bit differently. You'll see from the drawing that I show you that's why we're requesting this we're requesting this variance. And then to reduce the minimum lot size to 4,000 square feet as opposed to 5,000 square feet. Again in keeping with the existing pattern in the neighborhood, most of the lots adjacent to this site are that size. We specifically designed this site so that it mimicked the the houses adjacent to it, immediately adjacent to it and the uh the neighborhood adjacent to it as well. Um to the east and to the south. Um and then the request to reduce the

minimum lot width from 40 feet to 40 ft from the required 50 ft. Again, in keeping with that exact same um existing condition for a lot of the houses that are adjacent to the site and within the neighborhood adjacent, um as you'll see in the pictures I show you, many of those homes and accessory structures in the neighborhood have similar or same setbacks and spacing between units. Um so again, we're just requesting to build this exactly the same way as the neighborhood currently exists today. Um, and then I already made the comment about the areas in the city. And again, the this site is definitely designed to be compatible with the neighborhood in terms of design and character. The houses are a similar scale and size and square footage as well. And then um the next slide shows you the lot um the lot configuration for the proposed what will ultimately be a subdivision of homes. Um again, so you can see there the the ring alley if you will that goes around the site and then the area the green space in the center where the houses actually face inward the fronts of the houses face inward towards that green space. Another reason for the kind of the unique character of this and needing these variances and then three houses that would face that would but up against the um remaining portion of Scotfield that would not be part of this um development proposal. And then the next slide shows a rendering of the proposed homes. So, these are very similar in character to what you see on the former Tibnma Bakery site with the Habitat for Humanity homes that we built south of the Civic, just to give you kind of an idea what these look like. Um, again, but you'll find houses like this throughout the neighborhood. And then the last slide um shows some of those comparisons. So, these are all homes that are located along Hulkcom and Jefferson. Um the ones on the the top two are along along both sides of Hulcom and the bottom one is along

Jefferson just to give you an indication um of the spacing you know between those homes and the setbacks of those homes from the sidewalks etc. So again keep in keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood um we think it's actually would be inappropriate to not match the existing character of the neighborhood and so our goal was to do that with this project. Um at this time I would ask um another project partner um to join me um and this as this is part of Scottfield. Uh we have been working in conjunction with the park department and the park board and I believe um Mitch Ficus and um Mark Shriber are here this evening representing the park uh department and park board. They might have a few things to say about the project from their perspective.

Thanks Craig. Uh, and I appreciate the opportunity to to address any of your concerns, but also the concerns of the neighborhood of the public. Uh, the repurposing of parkland obviously. Can you give your name and your address real quick? Uh, Mark Shriber. I'm the park superintendent for city of Leaport. Mitch Mitch P is 1328 Lakeside Street. Thank you, buddy. You used to watch. I know. I I used to watch. Yeah.

So, anyways, appreciate the opportunity to to address uh Scott Field. Uh as as uh Craig uh said, we're talking about basically one-third remaining park, twothird being developed for housing. Uh 2.35 acres developed, one acre being retained for a park. Uh so this was first discussed by me with uh the city engineer Nick Menick back in October of 2022. We were in the uh process of doing our 5-year master plan which was approved uh for 2023 through 27 and uh really didn't have any uh designs or any idea of what to do with that section of Scott Field. Um we also had a previous uh process that I'd gone through where we didn't have that and I went back and looked at previous parkm plans and there was nothing ever planned to be developed back in that particular area. Um there are challenges obviously uh part of part of the challenge being that it's obscured from any of the roadways. Uh all of the housing faces backwards towards that park area. Um obviously the park area also has a lot of aging infrastructure. Um but more than anything uh it just didn't wasn't conducive to park development. Uh basically was green space that we mowed for lack of better anything. You know we took care of it, we maintained it but was underutilized uh to say the least. uh took that uh I concept to the Notre Dame shared in the spring of 2023. Uh then eventually and that became part of their uh housing plan that they submitted and then eventually took it to the park board in February of 2024 where they gave uh a letter of support to this project. uh May of 2024 uh they approved uh applying for variances for the first time and then uh June of 2024 they gave full approval to the project and then just this November gave approval for variances. So um I know that the you know the Herald Dispatch covered all

those meetings. There were front page stories both in May of 2024, June of 2024. So certainly, you know, made the public aware of what we've been doing and this, so this has really been a two-year in the making process. Um, we definitely support the, uh, process here, uh, support the type of housing they're building. Uh, we want to better develop the one acre that will remain. We've put in for, uh, uh, UEA funding to, uh, make some ADA upgrades and to put in a new basketball court there to improve the park. Um, and again, we always look at a 10-minute walk for people within uh the community to be able to get to green space, a playground, some type of recreational amenity. And we stay within that here. Uh even from the park that will remain, it's within a 10-minute walk of Lincoln School, Hyman School, Ben Ree Park, the Civic Auditorium, uh Clear Lake, the trail, the park, uh and then even the new green space that New York Blower just recently built uh over on Boston Street. So, um again, we we felt like this was the right direction to go. It's been vetted through a number of processes from staff to a shared uh to park board and we've we we support the project and the type of housing that will be built there. And Mitch, I'll let you address it from the park board perspective. Well, being on the park board for a number of years, we are very protective of park property and we always have been and I've been very vocal about it in the past. We just acquired this property a few years ago from the school corporation. I think we

Yeah, two years. Two years ago. So, we we have actually not had it that long. We've taken care of it for years, but it hasn't been park property for that long. And we felt that we could still maintain that neighborhood park at Scottfield or Scott Park and also contribute to the community with some affordable housing. And we're we're hoping that this would be uh geared towards veterans and marketed to veterans for their use. And uh with the American Legion backing up to this, it'd be, you know, perfect setting for that. So I I think with that in mind, the park board is very much in favor of this type of project.

Thank you. Thanks, M. Thanks, Mark. And then finally, um, just also ask, um, uh, Mark Shriberstar to allude to this a little bit as far as some of the issues of, uh, maintaining this this facility, but specifically would like to ask, um, ask uh, our uh, police representative um, to Jim Ferguson to come forward and uh, speak a little bit to this from the standpoint of the police and the issues that they've had to deal with with this property um, in the past from their perspective. Good evening. Good evening.

Jim Ferguson, assistant chief Leaport Police Department. Uh I was asked to compile some statistics in regards to our department's calls for service to the area of Scotfield uh Scott Park. I did compile uh our calls for service from the last three years. In the last three years, we have had a total of 250 calls for service. Um out of those 250 calls though, the majority of those are selfinitiated by our officers. We call them community policing. For whatever reason, if they see some children out in the park, they'll stop and talk. If they see something that catches their eye, they'll stop and talk to them. So, the majority of those calls were generated by our department. However, out of those 250 calls, we did receive 17 suspicious persons calls, five juvenile complaints, four disturbances, four loud noise complaints, four fireworks complaints, three fight in progress complaints, three overdoses, three lording complaints, three reports of intoxicated persons, two robberies and two dealing in marijuana, one animal complaint and one theft report. Um, in comparison to the other parks, the only one that even comes close to the number of calls um is if you per say is um Stone Lake and that's during the summer time and that's usually for parking problems. So by comparison, you can see that we we have gave quite a bit of um attention to the Scottfield Scott Park area.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So yeah, between the the parks department and the city, um we feel that having the roadway that actually encircles the site with houses will have better, you know, better better um coverage of this area, but also fewer issues and incidents because it'll be a standard residential neighborhood if it is approved to move forward as opposed to an area that's hard to police and manage. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Uh yeah, I have a question, Craig. Um, I don't like zero foot. Uh, uh, sorry.

I I don't like zero foot setbacks. So, explain to me why you're going with a zero foot setback. So, can you bring up the site plan real quick?

That one? Yep. That one. Yep. So, if you'll see there, basically the way that the shape of this property doesn't lend itself very easily to the standard configuration where houses have specific uh space on both sides of them.

And it also creates better space when the houses have all 10 feet on one side of the house as opposed to split five and five or five in this case could be um seven and a half, seven and a half, something like that. The total 15. Um, again, it's um it's the exact same development pattern as you you can kind of see it in if you look at the shadow of the houses adjacent to it. It's the exact same pattern of development as the adjacent neighborhood. It's just that the lot lines would be up against the houses with a maintenance um easement as opposed to being on both sides. So, there's the potential that you're not going to be five away from another house. That would be 10 feet away from another house.

Okay. That's the minimum. Okay. Yep. Yep. I just want to make sure one question is was there a zero setback in the uh tib tma uh on the u No because the layout was different. That was a standard city block that was already platted. So no, it wasn't this. It's because the weird angles that we have to deal with here that it just didn't lend itself well to the standard layout. But we still maintain the exact same spacing and yeah, thank you. Any other questions? Nope.

Yep. Exactly. So, at this time, I will open it up for public comment on Roosevelt first. Just call her up. She's coming. No, this is this is you, ma'am. You're Sue, right?

Yes, I am Sue Antiche. 101 Beldin. Um, first off, I want to say my wingspan is 5'9. Put another foot in an inch or so, that is 8 feet. 8 feet is nothing from a house to the road. Just to put that visual in your head, 8 feet is not a lot of space. Um, I oppose the proposed setback variance for 111 Roosevelt. Pursuant to Indiana law 36-7-4-918.5, a petitioner must demonstrate a unique practical difficulty specific to the property, not a self-created hardship or a preference to increase density. The standard has not been met. First, the application is inconsistent and incomplete. Paperwork lists 20 units. site plan shows 16 units. Schedule D talks about 24 units, all with a daycare. The schedule D mailed to adjacent owners has three questions to answer. The schedule D on the BZA zoning site has five questions. I don't know what the difference is, but all the wording is the same other than they're missing two questions. So, that's something to look at. Um, the petitioner's written answers on the decision that shall be based uh are ridiculously vague, showing no evidence for justification. These alone should pause approval. Second, the request creates serious public safety concerns. Setbacks exist to pro protect pedestrians, allow emergency access, and provide space for utilities, sidewalks, drainage, and fire separation. An eight foot setback compromises all of these. And granted, I had five because the paperwork was different. When it came to the uh agenda, it said five and other places it

said eight. So, there's just mismatched information. So, it's inconsistent and incomplete. Uh parking Oh, okay. Parking and traffic are problematic. The schematic shows 42 spaces for 16 units. Indiana occupancy law IC32-31-7-6 generally allows for a 2 plus one rule two persons per bedroom one extra in the unit so two up to three uh vehicles per unit would require 32 to 48 spaces and this is before accounting for the daycare employees or daycare parents dropping off or picking up their children street is a snow route with no parking and surrounding streets already have a limited capacity. Uh overflow parking will spill into the neighborhood, increasing congestion and safety risks. Sidewalks are also unclear. Uh city ordinance uh section 82-516 requires 5-ft sidewalks. Without adequate setback space, the petitioner's walkable neighborhood claim falls short. Third, this variance would harm neighborhood character and property values. This is an established residential area with deep setbacks, tree lawns, and mature trees. Pushing buildings closer to the road disrupts the streetscape, reduces privacy, increases noise and pollution, and limits light, air, landscaping, and storm water management. Most importantly, the applicant does not has not demonstrated hardship. The inability to fit 20 plus units or 16 or 17, whatever. There's different numbers on every piece of paper. The inability to fit 20 plus units on a finite site is not hardship. It is a design choice. Fewer units, 10 to 12 town homes with a

daycare would comply with existing ordinances. Wanting more density does not justify breaking zoning rules. Granting this variance would set a dangerous precedent for the city. If allowed, it becomes harder to deny similar requests elsewhere, undermining the zoning ordinance and comprehensive land use plan. In closing, the variance is not necessary. It's convenient. It profit it prioritizes profit over safety, profit over neighborhood stability, and profit over rule of law. I urged the board to deny the variance and protect the long-term welfare of the community. Variances are intended to be rare property-based relief, not a planning shortcut or a tool to make a prever a preferred design fit. Should the board choose to approve this variance, I respectfully request that you clearly state on the record how each of the five statutory findings in Indiana Code 36-7-4-918.5 has been met and identify the specific property condition that justifies this reduction. This explanation is important not only for transparency tonight, but for everyone reviewing this decision later. Um, lastly, at looking at the pictures that Craig had showed of what the actual buildings will look like, I I invite all of you to drive through Poletown. They'll stick out like a sore thumb and they match the housing that was basically at the beach in Michigan City in the 1980s. It it's it's awful. It will not match anything in the neighborhood. Um, thank you. If you have any questions for me, I would gladly stay. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Hey Craig, real quick, can you address the the the setback that is that's from the sidewalk, not from the street, correct? I can address I was going to wait till Yeah, we can address. Yeah, that'd be great. Okay. Um, I have three other petitions here. Alicia,

you're Aaron? Yes. Welcome. Hi. Give us your name and your address, please.

Hello. I'm Aaron Poland. I live on 231 Cable Street, a half a block from 111 Roosevelt. I walk by the area just about every day when I walk my dogs. I am not against the development of town homes, but I am against the petition to drastically reduce the required property setbacks just so that they can cram a few additional town homes and maximize profit. The original plan called for 17 town homes. Now they're stating up to 24 um inconsistencies. As she mentioned, these codes and ordinances are put in place for a reason. I urge the council to hold these developers to the same standards that are required for the rest of the city of Leaport. Approving this variance would not only be a disservice to the surrounding residents but to the future residents of the town homes as well. Thank

you. Thank you.

Yes, just you. Welcome.

Give us your name and your address, please. So, my name is Alicia Ferronic and I live at 1306 Carriage Court, Unit D, Leaport, Indiana 46350. And I'm here tonight to plead that this body should reject Varian's request requesting to brought forth tonight. Not only does the applicant suffer no harm or hardship by denying such requests, the requests are for property and structures that don't yet exist. This city and citizens do not need or benefit from a development like this. Corporate landlords and subpar housing developments will not fix any housing crisis we might be facing. Instead, they are part of the problem. Big developers like this do not see their renters as full human lives worthy of quality living. Renters are now seen and treated as if they are secondass citizens, just another asset like a stock or a bond or crypto to be sold, traded or liquidated. Proof is all around us and also notably so here where the requests tonight showcase the mindset that we renters are not even worthy of the bare minimum standards of living set forth in these codes. I never understood the phrase living in the projects or what it meant. But after having my life and my daughter's life turned completely upside down by the harms that came from a big developer just like this. They throw up projects but fail to upkeep or maintain until it's beneficial to themselves. I furthermore feel compelled to urge this body to cease any and all business partnerships with Advantics altogether. As recent as 2023, the Indiana Civil Rights Commission um made a reasonable cause finding on a complaint by a tenant who alleged that Advantics unreasonably denied her request for a reasonable accommodation for her disability violation of the Indiana Fair Housing Act. Not only that,

but Evansville Housing Authority and Advantics recently landed themselves in the news for mass evictions and refusing an almost $10,000 donation from a local church concerned about those facing those evictions. Neither EHA or Advantex have made a comment on the refusal to accept that $10,000 donation. Um, I could go on and on about the harms that the big development um, affordable housing that we had here already in Leaport. And we let them off of the hook of their 30-year contract. They qualified out of having to um, stay income-based for 30 full years uh, in an action called the qualified allocation process. Um, however, the Indiana Housing and Community Development Authority, um, which is where Evansville Housing Authority will be retaining these tax credits from, they allow developers to self-report their compliance. And that is what got my daughter in the hospital stuck in a postle state in between seizures because they lied on their compliance reports. And since they're allowed to self-report, IHCDA allowed them off the hook. we would still have affordable housing in this community if my complaints were taken seriously when I contacted this city about the issues happening at the last tax credit property development here in Leaport. Um I I I beg you to not make any more decisions tonight. Table it. It's not an outright refusal. Think about it. Think about who you're creating your partnerships with and

think about um their track record. Do a little bit more research before we um go fasttracking multiple developments at multiple sites with one developer. Thank you for letting me speak and um I hope that you will take all of that into true consideration. Project housing or developmental housing, I've lived through it. I'm not sure that anybody here in this room has actually lived in a tax credit property or dealt with corporate landlords in this manner. And it was devastating to my life. It was devastating to my daughter's life. We went into that unit completely healthy. And three and a half years later, I was deemed medically frail by the state of Indiana. And obviously now she is being treated for neurological impairment due to developers not maintaining their property in the way they should and a lack of oversight in the state of Indiana.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I just want to jump in here real quick because um I think I don't want anybody else to be confused about the statutory framework going forward. The this is a request for variance from development standards and the terms hardship and peculiarity are not applicable under a development standards variance. That would be a use variance. The the term that this board will be focusing on when evaluating a development standard variance is practical difficulties. Okay. So, I don't want I don't want the folks in the audience to be confused about the statutory framework.

Thank you, Mark. Uh Bert Cook.

Good uh good evening to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Bert Cook, executive director of the Leaport Economic Advancement Partnership. We are the economic development group for the city of Leaport. I know I've been in front of you all in the city council here quite a bit this last month uh talking about residential development and so I'll be brief uh as I I know you've heard some of this already. We do have a number of uh residential projects that are moving forward and I think we're very excited about that. But you know I'll stress to you that we continue to look at the housing studies that show that need is drastically larger than than what we have. And oftentimes when we talk to people in the public, uh the first one of the first things that they state is we love the market rate, but we really need more affordable options. You're not focusing on workforce housing. So, I think to Craig Phillips's credit and Brandon's credit, I think what you see in front of you tonight is a direct reaction to that. Uh and trying to bring that type of housing forward. I'll highlight that I think it could be easy if I was in that seat to think that when we come to you uh you know you you partner with the developer and that immediately moves forward and we bring it to you in some form or fashion for a use variance or for variance to developmental standards. But you know that's just not the case. I mean frankly we probably estimation we probably go between you know 10 and 15 projects that we work through that we look at that never make it to fruition. um the there's challenges that potentially exist that uh that don't allow that project to move forward. And when you look at sites like the three that we're you're considering tonight, I think you naturally see the intrinsic challenges that exist because of the fact that it's infill development. It's uh three parcels that were underutilized or are underutilized. Um and so putting those back into some type of productive use is is challenging. It's challenging from a financial perspective. Um but it's challenging from a um a design um

perspective as well. And um you know the the last thing that maybe I'll touch on as this these projects came forward. One of the things that I was I think was unique and I was impressed by you really have uh you know we had a number of people mention collaboration or partnership but you truly have a partnership between uh a private developer of course has been has as has been mentioned but also you know a not for-profit um the city and the park department um which I you know which I think is is huge as well as well as the private sector. So you really do have that public private partnership that I think is unique and um essential to you know find ways to bring a a challenging set of projects forward that in a way that will hopefully benefit our community and provide um affordable housing options for people that uh that need that type of advantage. So uh appreciate your consideration and the opportunity to to speak tonight.

Thank you. Is there any other public comment on the Roosevelt address? So this time I'll open it for public comment on the Scotsfield. Why don't you just vote on and then I think Craig wants to respond to those things. So yeah, let's let's so let's do that. Step forward. Okay. So I took several notes on some of the comments that were made. I'll close this sorry portion of the public comment on Roosevelt address.

Okay. I took several notes on some of the comments that were made. Um the first was the signific significant safety concern regarding the proposed setbacks. Again, I'm just going to state that these setbacks exist in countless houses throughout this neighborhood. I gave you three examples on the screen. Um I'll note that the accessory structure on Mrs. Santichesky's property is similar in setback to what's being proposed. So, I'll just add that to the record. Um the standard of hardship, correct? I I appreciate that um attorney um addressed the uh the fact that this hardship is is hardship is not the standard that's being addressed here tonight. It's practical difficulties. Practical difficulties have more to do with the layout of a property and which is definitely the case here. Um things like the configuration, the shape, that sort of thing of properties are things that it can take into account into into account with regard to practical difficulties. We believe we've met the standard. We've provided and the standard being the fact that we just want to be able to build what is already existing in this neighborhood in terms of the um setbacks that are proposed for this development. I'll also note that it is possible, I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, but it is possible by right for somebody to come in and develop this property today without the need uh for variances from a use standpoint of putting um duplexes on these properties because those are permitted in this district by right. So, um this you know this property could be developed in a number of different configurations and ways. the proposal um is not altogether different than the density that would be allowed otherwise in this uh situation. I can't address Indiana occupancy law because I'm not sure how that's actually how that's actually valid in this case. I don't know what's being referred to there. Um the um standard that's being met is the zoning standard with regard to parking and that is sufficient based on the plans that have been put together on the

prop on the project. Um, again to clarify the point you were asking me about before we started the public hearing process was these are five foot setbacks from the right-of-way line which is tech technically the back of the or typically the back of the sidewalk um and it's not from the pavement itself. So on the u three uh so specifically with regard to the Roosevelt site the three sides of the site have rightway lines that are on each side. These setbacks will be from the right ofway lines not from the pavement edge. Um again similar to what exists throughout the neighborhood. Um storm water we had a site review meeting where we where we reviewed the concept and we are aware of the standards that need to be met with regard to storm water and other aspects of the project. Those things will be addressed and required to be handled properly um prior to the issuance of permits for the project. And they don't have any they don't have any impact on the setbacks they're being asked for here. Um it's it's uh we're asking for setbacks to construct the units, not looking at the storm water on the property. Um the resident the the comments about the residential, you know, not matching. Um we've taken care to uh and we've actually made revisions to the plans that were originally submitted to make sure that these um units are actually more residential in character than uh we originally started with in terms of rip roof pitches, materials, design, height, um that sort of thing. So with regard to the first uh comments I guess uh made by Mrs. Chichesky. Um, those are the comments I guess I would have on that. Um, and then Mr. Poland's comment just I think the the main comment was just the question of 17 versus 24 units. The current proposal that's being drawn that's drawn up that we showed you is for 17 units and a

daycare center on the property. Um, again, we're not here to discuss the use this evening. We're only here to discuss the um setback request. Um, and the use is already permit is already a permitted use on the property. Um, and we are proposing 17 units on the property. Um, and then I I will have to defer to Brandon uh Brandon Shields on any the comments specific to Advantics. Um, other than Advantics is not a corporate developer or corp corporate landlord. They're a not for-profit developer. They're a development arm of the Evansville Housing Authority. And so, um, that's the only thing I guess I would add to that, which is one of the reasons why we considered them as a project partner. So, I would I'll defer to Brandon to address those other concerns that were raised.

Thanks, Greg. Um, so it it's it's I think it's impossible to go through every single uh line item. This is what I'll say about Advantics. Advantage is a 501c3 corporation. We look to partner with cities and organizations who are trying to fight that true mission. H how to create that affordable workforce housing trying to figure out the best way to to to accommodate all the plans and and and we all know there's comprehensive plans in every city. We're we're it takes baby steps to go down the path of how we can start to address every single one of them. corporations that move in that build 50 units and take off. Those are major multi-state corporations. We're talking probably 50 60,000 units. You can you can do your research on those. That's not who Advantics is. We're we're we're small in nature. Uh we don't just throw stuff at the wall and hopefully it sticks. Uh we look to cultivate those relationships and hopefully build more within those same cities and counties that that we are currently in. Um, that being said, also we manage our own properties. Um, I can tell that the young lady who had some issues before, I can tell just firsthand dealing with um, being on site for property management for the first 10 years of my career, uh, it was probably a management issue that led to some to less than standard uh, housing. Um, we've seen that in the past. I've seen that in the past. What I also have seen is I've seen single mothers that have three kids and and just struggling to make ends meet come to me in tears. I need help. I need something. Can you help me? These are people that I've graduated with. Uh these are people that I've had longstanding relationships with. These are strangers off the off the street. Um

I need help. and this type of housing has allowed them to recover and and get their feet back underneath of them and move on to the next step of their life. Um I can say the same for seniors as well. Uh again I my first decade was just literally helping people. Uh we had good management companies. Um, it has its challenges for sure, but we we we take it seriously and I think that's part of the reason too that this is this this this conversation with with the city and and and Mayor Tom and everybody. This goes back two years. This is a lot of hard work. This is a lot of planning and and and and we feel like this is the the the best plan. Um, there's a lot of inaccuracies that get thrown out there when it comes to affordable housing, workforce housing, all those things. I mean, that's something that we could talk about for days because unless you go through the process, unless you go through the training, unless you truly know what it is, then the statements that are generally made are just are just inaccurate. So once once you learn it and and and and we can all have discussions about it and then then I think people's perspective tends to change a little bit. They start to un understand it. based you you get you have to take the HUD based on your income. You have to take that out of it. That's not what this type of housing is. It's not even close. Um the the the world as we know is changing. HUD as we know is changing. Housing as we know it's all it's it's ever evolving. Everything is changing. So this type of housing, tax credit housing is the main instrument to build affordable housing. That is a fact. This is a $13 million investment into the community. There are proven studies out there that shows this actually raises the local property values. It does not it does not hurt it. They're out there. You have to you have to look for them. You have to find them,

but they are out there. So, I would encourage anybody to just continue to do the research whether you you you love it or you hate it. just continue to have have have an open mind and and and and ask the questions um that that are, you know, is this achieving what we are trying to do long term? And in the city of the court's case, there are plenty of studies out there that show yes, it is.

Craig, I have a question for you. Are are apartment standards under code enforcement standards in the city of Leaport? So, can our code enforcer enforce different standards in apartments? So, if it's not safe in an apartment, the code

Well, the city the city has general property maintenance standards and those apply to all types of properties. Um, I know that, you know, our our code enforcement team works very closely with tenants and landlords to try to create more livable situations in our community. Um, and you know, they they've they've shown um they have a track record of doing that. in some of the, you know, cases in the near downtown area. For example, I gave the example of Maple Commons where we took a severely dilapidated um and uh property that was substantially riddled with um police complaints and that sort of thing and turned it around um to a point where, you know, if Jim Ferguson came up here again, he would explain to you that's not that's no longer the case. Um and so those investments can be made to make, you know, those properties better. And um so um all we can do all we can do is when people are aware of issues they bring those to our code enforcement teams attention and they address them accordingly according to whatever code it is applies to the that case.

Thank you.

So we're still on topic of the Roosevelt property. Mhm. Any other questions? I think it's David now. I think it's David now. It's David's turn now. Oh, yes. Sorry, David. If you would please.

Yeah. So, item number six, variance of development standards 25-18 petition. I believe that's where we're on there. to reduce the minimum front yard building setbacks along Roosevelt Pine and Box Streets from 20 feet to 8 feet for construction of residential town homes. Um this property is located at 111 Roosevelt Street. Um the current zoning is R1D single family residential district. Um the site itself is about 1.56 acres and um and so this site um again just mentioning according to table 4.04 4. The minimum front yard building setback is 20 ft in the R1D zoning district and as a result the variance and development standards petition is required to be reviewed by the city of port board of zoning appeals to reduce the minimum front yard building setbacks from 20 feet to 8 feet for construction of the proposed attached residential dwelling units. Um the city met with the different departments and Advantics and discussed the proposed housing site with all of the city departments present last month. Um and just going through what's prescribed in the zoning ordinance, the three decision criteria for uh the the variance of development standards petitions. Um and I just really briefly approval will not be injurous to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. Um the approval will not be interest to the public health and safety, morals and general welfare of the community because all proposed improvements related to the proposed town homes will be built per all applicable ordinances and standards for construction of residential town homes. Two, the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. Uh the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because the proposed use will serve the housing needs of nearby

employers and expected additional economic development in nearby areas and compatible with the surrounding single family residential in terms of its design and character um with roof sizes and all of that. Um, there are many existing single family residential dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood that are constructed with similar building setbacks to the requested variance for the minimum front yard building setback that is being requested. Um, and number three, that the strict application refers to the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance uh will constitute a practical difficulty if applied to the property for which the variance is sought. Um this the variance um kind of goes through. So the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will will constitute a practical difficulty if applied to the property for which the variance is sought because the property is not feasible for continued use as a school as nearly impossible to retrofit the current building to today's codes and standards and the use of the property is already more intense than the permitted single family and two family residential dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood. Um, so staff does find that the approval of the variance petition to reduce the minimum front yard building setback is appropriate for the surrounding single family dwelling land uses along Box Street. Staff recommends approval of the variance development standards petition 25-8 to reduce the minimum front yard building setback from 20 feet to 8 ft. And I'll answer any questions that you have.

Thank you, David.

Any questions? No. Do we have consideration or motion?

I'll make a motion to approve uh item six, the variance of development standards to reduce the minimum front setback from 20 ft to 8 ft. Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I I So at this time public meeting for that one.

I'll open it for a public comment on Scotsfield item number seven. Is there any public comment?

Yes, please.

Alicia Feronic, 1306, Carriage Court, Unit D, Leaport, Indiana 46350. My final comment would just be thinking about how much we're taking away from the families or the people that are intended to reside in these units. Where are we supposed to grow? Where are children supposed to grow? there's going to be less and less space for them to run around in, to grow in. Um, you know, it just it doesn't seem like it's a a very growth producing um development to take more and more away from us and and where where our dollar gets us, you know, it's it's becoming less and less. And renting used to be a luxury. I was able to move away from Indiana and rent rather than, you know, getting a piece of of of land back when it was prime 20 years ago. And um and now it's it's nearly impossible because I didn't I I didn't invest straight out of high school. I decided to rent and travel a and enjoy my life. And now the housing crisis, like I said, you know, big developments like this where people are getting less and less for their money, um, is just contributing to that problem. And and and citizens need better. We need to be the ones that have the opportunity to invest in and develop the land as we see fit, not have a middleman in between us. Um, that would be what really brings growth to the community. um when we are allowed to invest and our bills go down, that means more money for the city and all of the city familyowned businesses and restaurants, we can now contribute more to um but when you take away all of the investment opportunities in the county um and all of these single family homes that are being sold off to private equity and and um things like that, you

know, that's all contributing to the housing crisis. But definitely um getting less for is is is going to be problematic as well, you know. And uh with that, I will see myself out. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other public comment on Scottsville?

Welcome. My name is uh Mark Moral,

2206 Southwest Road. And during the presentation, um, the officer presented some facts about the number of events at Scottfield and he segregated 50 of approximately 50 of them is I'm assuming more dangerous or but my question is Scottfield has a large green area and a small playground. Do we have any information on how much how many of those events occurred in the green area as opposed to the playground? Because the playground is still going to exist. And if one of the reasons for doing this is to help lower the crime rate and all the crimes were committed where it's still going to be available. I'd like to know the answer to that.

First question. So, do we have can we get that information or does that information exist? You would have to ask officer. Yeah.

Okay. And second thing is more of a comment. I'm sure the city's done their due diligence on Advantric and I'm sure that they do a good job. I'm not questioning that. And actually, I'm a parishioner of Sacred Heart Parish. I mean, Holy Family Parish, Sacred Heart Church, longtime parishioner. I'm all in favor of some of these things. Okay. But just saying you're a 501c3 organization doesn't make you clear of problems and you can be a large corporate entity. Just because you're a 501c3 that doesn't make the difference. So I'd just like to point that out. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Did Did you have uh an answer for any other There's no other comments. Are there any other public comments once you close the Oh, okay. Is there any other public comment at this point? I'll close public comment.

Okay. Okay, if I could address the first um trying to f I guess trying to follow the comment as best I can. One of the comments was I guess I took it as no space for kids to play. Um obviously that the statements made by um both Mr. Ficus and um Mr. Shriber earlier the uh remainder of the Scottfield playground remains intact and we're also preserving green space within this development that connects directly to that. Um, so we feel that, you know, this is going to be an amenity and a benefit to the community as opposed to a detriment. Um, and as far as the space to grow, I don't know if that meant I don't know exactly what, you know, the comment was gearing towards, but as you're aware, we have housing of all different types being built throughout the community by various entities and companies, individuals, etc. there are plenty of opportunities for people to throw their hat in the ring in terms of um developing a property whether it's an individual property or parcel or a larger piece of property. Um and there are plenty of examples I guess of that happening currently and and and plans to come. Um and with regard to the officer comments, I I I'll largely defer to um Assistant Chief Ferguson on this, but it's my understanding from conversations previously One of the main reasons why the Scotfield property was being sought for development was because it is difficult to a to police because of the fact of way it's light it's laid out backs of houses backing up to it as opposed to the fronts of houses. No street available, no easy street frontage to be able to visibly see what's happening in that part of the property as opposed to the um remainder of the Scottfield property where it is more open. You can drive by on Jefferson Street and see the entire playground if you the remaining playground if you will. But beyond that, I'll defer to Assistant Chief Ferguson on on this.

Good evening again. Um, so the way our reporting system is set up, it's set up as Scottfield Scott Park slash. Uh, there's nothing that differentiates where uh the cost for service take place within the park. Um, if the gentleman would like to have those stats, I could I could go through each one of those reports if you'd like and I can differentiate where whether it's the playground, u whether it's the green space, there's there's nothing in our, you know, in our statistical reporting that differentiates between the two, but I could go through each one of them individually and get that answer if so needed. Thank you. Thank you.

If I could respond just for a moment. Yeah, please do. Please do.

Do we have any other questions, considerations or motion? Did you read your report? I think David has

David. Yeah, just a few brief comments. Item number seven, variance of development standards 25-9 petition is to reduce the minimum front yard building setbacks from 20 ft to 10 feet. Reduce the minimum sideyard building setback to zero feet with a total of both sides from 15 feet to 10 feet. Reduce the minimum rear yard building setback from 20 feet to 5T. Reduce the minimum lot area from 5,000 square feet to 4,000 square feet. and reduce the lot width from 50 feet to 40 feet. And so this property uh is formerly is Scottfield. Scott Park is approximately 2.35 acres, contains a park to the west with single family residential around it on bordered on Jefferson and Allen Street or East Jefferson, sorry, and Allen Street. Um, as was mentioned, the a lot of the existing homes along there have similar setbacks, similar sideyard setbacks and front yard and rear yard setbacks constructed a time period where those were um, fairly common. Um, a lot of my comments about the kind of the description and the zoning ordinance um, are similar to what was stated before as far as the site review um, goes. Um so I'll just go right into the decision criteria is one that the approval will not be injurous to the public health safety morals and general welfare of the community. Um the approval will not be injurous to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community because all proposed improvements related to the proposed town homes will be built per all applicable ordinances and standards for construction. These proposed reductions that are requested as part of the variance of development standards petition are the minimum necessary to allow the full construction of the residential town home dwelling units within the proposed site plan that was shown. Two, that the use and value of the area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner. The use and value of the

area adjacent to the property will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner because the proposed use will serve the housing needs of nearby employers and expected additional economic development in the nearby areas and compatible with the surrounding in terms of design and character. There are many existing single family dwellings in the surrounding neighborhood that have similar setbacks. Um three that the strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute practical difficulties if applied to the property for which the variance is sought. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute practical difficulties if applied to the property for which the variance is sought because the majority of the existing residential dwellings were constructed in a similar manner manner to the requested variances for the building setbacks to the front side and rear property line setbacks. The proposed re residential town homes would not otherwise be able to be constructed without approval of the requested variances as part of this petition. So staff recommendation staff finds that the approval of the variance petition to reduce um all of the requested variances as was stated before is appropriate for the surrounding single family dwelling land uses along East Jefferson Avenue, Hulcom Street, and Allen Street. Staff recommends approval of the variance of development standards petition 25-9. Um and basically to reduce what was stated before um in the the beginning of the petition. And with that I'll answer any questions.

Thank you.

Any questions for David? No. Make a motion to approve item seven, variance of de development standards number 25-19 petition. We have a second. I'll second it. Motion and a second. All in favor?

I I thank you. Item number eight is old business. Nine is new business. Other business. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. Motion a second. All in favor? I. Motion pass.