Great.

It is six o'clock, so I will officially call this uh June 3rd meeting of the Rochester zoning board of appeal to order.

We will start with an open public comment period.

This is just a chance for any members of the public to speak to matters that are not related to the variances that we will be seeing later.

So just want to open up if there is anyone who has comments on anything outside of the items for the public hearing later.

All right, not seeing anyone in person and seeing no one online either.

So with that, I will do a call to order and roll call.

So Comer Abbott.

Commissioner Bucknell.

Commissioner Matthews present.

Commissioner Spencer, present.

Commissioner Steed.

Not present.

And Commissioner Yopst.

Also not present.

And then Commissioner Peralt present.

All right.

And with that, we will move into the order of agenda.

Um do I have a motion to adopt the agenda as laid out?

All right.

I have a motion from Commissioner Abbott.

Do I have a second?

And a second from Commissioner Bucknell.

All in favor of adopting the agenda as or the order of the agenda for today.

Say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

We will go with the agenda as put forward.

And with that, we will consent the agenda and the minutes from the May 6, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting as the official record of the zoning board of appeals.

Commissioners, is everyone have the chance to review those meeting minutes.

All right.

Any adjustments.

Okay.

I would entertain a motion to approve the minutes.

I'll make a motion to approve the minutes.

I have a motion from Commissioner Bucknell.

Do I have a second?

And I have a second from Commissioner Matthews.

And I will go through roll call for this one.

Commissioner Abbott.

Approved.

Commissioner Spencer.

Approved.

Commissioner Peralt, I will abstain since I was not present.

Commissioner Matthews.

And Commissioner Bucknot.

Approved.

All right.

With that, we will approve the minutes for the May 6th, 2026 meeting.

All right.

And with that, we will move into the public hearing.

So first we have variance numbers VD 2026-002 VAR by Broadway Enterprises.

And I will turn it over to Anthony for the staff report.

Oh, and before we get started on that, um, I do believe we have two members of the uh board who will meet to recuse themselves.

Or one buckle is not present.

And one is not present.

So Commissioner Bucknell, I believe.

Uh you will step out for this one.

Uh good evening, board members.

Uh Anthony Shiki from community development.

I'm here to present the variance application CD 2026-002 VIR.

The applicant for this proposal is Broadway Enterprises LLC.

The property is located in the central portion of the city at 1405 Broadway Avenue North, uh, immediately west of the intersection of Broadway Avenue North and 16th Street Northeast.

That's indicated by the yellow star on the screen.

Uh the zoning for this property is MXT node.

Uh the proposed use for the site is a multi-tenant commercial business building.

Um, the Alcanton is requesting a number of variances.

They're all displayed on the screen.

Um the proposal for the site uh was previously subject to an approved site development plan, file number or 2018-019 SDP.

It was approved in May 2020 under the former land development menu.

Following this, there was a period of inactivity on the site, which triggered the approval to lapse after one year.

Following this, the current unified development code was adopted in 2023, which brought forth the current development standards and additional district standards in the city.

All the items in this list are provisions that the applicants uh current proposal would not meet under the new standards.

Um community development team is recommended denial of the variance request.

This is a copy of the applicant's site plan.

Uh the landing question is on the right side of the screen, ordered in red.

Um basically the original application was a two-part two-phase site plan.

The left portion is the uh current Starbucks, and the right portion on separate parcel is this building in question.

Um again, this is the list of the variances being requested by the applicants.

Um section 60.500.070C uh 4 items A to I ask nine questions for reviewing a variance request for approval, and all of the items must be satisfied in order to achieve approval.

Um staff has determined that the required findings are not satisfied for the proposed variance.

Staff determined that criterion A and C have not been satisfied, as outlined in the community development memo.

And uh with this uh community development team is recommending variance application CD 2026-002 B ARB to die.

Um that concludes my presentation.

I'm available if there are any questions.

All right, I will open up for any questions, Commissioner.

Uh just one question for me.

Uh there are a number of variances listed here, numbers one through eight.

Uh and so the recommendation of denial is on criterion A and C relate to all eight of these.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

All right, any other questions.

Okay.

Is the applicant here tonight?

And before you get going, just let you know timekeeper will be Brent and uh give a signal when you have a minute lap in all time.

Thank you.

And just starting with that, if I could address that, I appreciate the very full house.

I'm also here, we're we're seeking approval of a project, but there's eight separate variances to the extent there'd be any flexibility.

We would just ask for another five minutes to try to give you all time to digest and answer your own questions about this.

Uh, as we're not just approaching with one specific variance, appreciate uh if that's something you'd consider.

I think that give me a lab.

Thank you.

I'll introduce myself.

My name is John Beatty.

I'm the chair.

I may just just for technicality, um, we should vote on that because I would be suspending the current rules, which give 10 minutes, and then we would just need a supermajority of you to approve that.

So okay.

I will make a motion to allow the applicant 15 minutes for their presentation.

Uh, do I have a second sponsor second?

Uh okay, I will have a second for Commissioner Spencer.

And we'll do above Commissioner Abbott.

Yeah.

Commissioner Spencer.

Yeah.

Commissioner Perell.

Yes.

And Commissioner Bath.

All right.

We will allow an extra 15 minutes.

Thank you for the consideration.

Uh, my name is John Beatty.

I'm here for uh Broadway Enterprises LLC, the applicant this evening, and uh submit to you that this is not any kind of precedent setting that we're seeking under the UDC.

This is uh in completion furtherance of what was an integrated two-part project as uh has been indicated by staff.

And uh tonight we're looking just for the path forward to allow us to complete a project project that this developer has relied on.

Uh the Starbucks was specifically designed so as to allow for queuing and protection of vehicles coming off of Broadway, coming off of Silver Lake Place, coming off of Northborough Plain, and different than you might see at a Starbucks on uh West Circle Drive, where a two-acre parcel is used and you queue all the way around just the Starbucks parcel very creatively, very intentionally.

They spent a lot of time designing this to have a use.

There's the former Wendy's that was on North Broadway.

It was a conico station just adjacent to it.

This is after all my life, most of your lives, and I imagine you know, certainly the last seven years been underutilized right now.

It's a garden center, and we submit that this uh is a path that would allow for this project to be completed uh given the adoption of the UDC just three years ago, three years after this was approved during the pandemic.

I'm going to allow Mr.

Ryan Schoenfelder, who's here with WSE Engineering to take you through uh the project and walk up the background and a few components a few months to highlight.

Yeah, oops.

Yeah, thanks, John.

Again, my name is Ryan Schoenfeller with WSC Engineering.

We're the civil engineering consultants helping the property owner and applicant finish out the development of this site.

Um we have a long history.

Uh the gentleman in our office led the design of this original project back when it first started all the way in 2018.

So in 2018, the first application was submitted to the city of Rochester.

Began that uh review cycle with the city, and ultimately in 2020 uh May what this site plan was approved.

Holistically, as you look at it today, the whole plan was approved.

This whole site operates as one, even though they're on two separate uh parcels at this moment.

Is it was designed as one and operates uh as one with the new building.

I'll refer to the unbuilt building as the bank structure right now, and then uh the Starbucks on the south side of this site there.

Um, as John kind of alluded to, the site contains a couple different access points for vehicular access in and throughout the site.

There's shared pedestrian access within the bank building, which is a multi-tenant building, and then additionally through the parking lot to the Starbucks site.

So these are a few elements showing that this was designed as one and conforming with the UDC, which would take out things like the turn lane, it would make the building taller, it would set us uh a little bit closer actually.

The property line would infringe on those uh particular design elements.

Uh, a little bit more on the history.

As soon as that permit was approved in 2021, the Starbucks building began began construction, and it was completed in 2021, uh, following this approved site plan.

Uh, as you know, the building is under operation today.

And if you look at this corridor of Broadway, you have caribou to the north that has a drive-thru between the building and Broadway.

You look to the south and Starbucks, same thing.

It's a single-story building with the drive-through between the building and Broadway.

Then you look across Broadway to the east, there's Burger King.

Same situation, single-story building with the drive-thru between the building and Broadway.

Those are just two of the variances that we're seeking, the building height and the drive-thru, making sure that this site can retain those elements versus falling under the UDC's new design criteria.

Since the Starbucks was constructed in 2021, um, this was in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic.

No one could have expected that.

The owner couldn't anticipate the significant challenges that came along with that.

Um, challenges such as construction delays for materials, increased costs, in addition to everyone staying home.

Why would they open a retail business with no customers to serve?

Following that was also the reconstruction of Broadway North.

So we're currently finishing the second phase.

There was two that began when Starbucks first began construction.

So we're looking at four or five years of continued construction on Broadway that does the same thing to a potential new business.

There's no customers, there's challenges entering into that building.

Um, all these elements led to why the building permit wasn't filed within that one year window and before the UDC was actually adopted in 2023.

A little bit more about the site design and the staff report addresses.

There's they're looking for more elements of pedestrian connectivity, uh, activating the street, providing that pedestrian activity.

And I'd like to point out a few elements that this site actually delivers addressing those needs, in addition to what Broadway has already constructed.

There's a huge 10-foot path along Broadway, stop within 230 feet of this site.

Um, there's benches for people at the kind of towards the Starbucks area.

You have the ADA accessibility between our building and the Starbucks building, so that's someone who needs an accessible route.

They're able to maneuver through the parking lot safely.

Completely redesign this site would make that super challenging to maintain both of these buildings function appropriately.

A few more things that we do meet of the UDC is we exceeded the minimum landscape requirements.

So we're already providing more trees and green space than we're needed to.

We're seeking a variance on the glazing, going down from 65% down to 50.

The purpose for this is because the bank is a component of the retail building.

There needs to be some element of security associated with that.

So we're still providing the maximum glazing that we're able to while providing security to the bank.

I touched on this a little bit, and John will get into it a little bit more.

But you look at this neighborhood and the buildings that are in the area.

There's one tall building, which is the uh setback towards the creek or the assisted living.

The rest of them are all single storied.

You got the strip center, the drive-thru businesses on the other side of Broadway, it's single story as well.

This project really fits the neighborhood.

All of those buildings were built under the LDM, which had the same criteria as we were approved under.

So I think you have to look at this site, and you will show some figures a little later in our presentation about how if we have to build this to the UDC standards, it's gonna stick out like a sore thumb and it's not cohesive with the neighborhood.

Uh, if I can hand out a couple packets I've got in each of these folders for you, juxtaposition of the uh LDM versus the UDC.

So you can see the criteria there are 13 criteria that were adjusted as a result of the adoption of the UDC, and uh seven or eight of those are why we're here tonight, primarily in the categories of uh building height.

Uh, it's not ironic, perhaps that we're we're here talking about pedestrian orientation.

Uh as we've all been through and seen, you know.

Here's an example of one of the components.

There are a number of these benches that have been constructed immediately adjacent and in front of this building.

Uh, likewise, a conceptual drawing for the glazing.

I'll just pick up on that.

Right in front of our site, which is right here, uh, there's a wall to be built, a number of trees to be planted, a whole bunch of barriers that have been constructed, but all this is naturally now a new gateway corridor for pedestrian activity.

What when we see what staff report says that this does not support the the standard, and I'll get to the legal standard.

Uh, primarily says it's under A and C.

A is that it's not consistent, harmonious with a comprehensive plan in the UDC.

That doesn't mean that it's only to be pedestrian oriented.

Uh, naturally, with the uses on each side being uh very drive drive vehicle dependent oriented with their drive-throughs.

Uh, we also in this project have added a number of pedestrian components throughout the city is already brought that have supported uh, I believe that plan to make this a more active site than it than it has been, and would contest uh any suggestion that it's not primarily because uh we're bringing three new permanent tenants through this mixed-use building to a property that's been currently vacant, not likely to be developed unless we get these variances.

This is um for the reasons that if you look at these masses, this is from across the street.

If we were to build this consistent, it would actually loom further.

This is rendered as though it was set back without the variance.

If it's brought to the street, it looks even more like a cruise ship in the middle of North Broadway.

If we uh looking from south, the southeast corner here, this is coming towards Silver Lake Foods.

You can see how the 23-foot uh Starbucks building there is similar or uh adjacent to the proposed requirements of the UDC.

Again, another rendering.

You look to the back, that river bend is perhaps the only building in the area that's set back on the river at 40 foot tall.

This MXT NOD runs from Elton Hills on the north end all the way to uh the fairgrounds on the south end of Broadway.

It anticipates density that we just don't have right now.

This is a future vision that would be form overfunction if we were required to adhere to the UDC for these circumstances.

I'd submit that this is the right project for this site, irrespective of the fact that it was approved under the LDM.

The LDM has real structures, there were real structures that required approval of this project back in 2020.

And it was for the fact that it was integrated with that Starbucks on the south.

And this is where this is most concerning is what impact requiring the UDC to either be applied to this site would have on the uh vehicle issues, driving issues that are presented by the intensity of that use.

As an example, after this was constructed, the city put in uh this no right turn coming off of uh Silver Lake Place on the south, intentionally forcing the vehicles back over across.

You can see the parking that we've already constructed on the west edge of the site.

Everything is to cue through here, drive around and come back out.

And that's where the integration of either a single bank uh drive-thru lane, and then these other uses, the doors would face to the south.

We believe that this has encouraged walkability, but to the extent that it hasn't, it was interrupted by the physical barriers undermined by the physical barriers the city is building has built immediately in front of us on the street facing side.

So that is a big component of us seeking variance from the three or four pedestrian-oriented variances that are in the list of eight.

The other variance is let's get to uh a 23-foot tall building as was intended and previously approved.

This building's not 40 foot tall.

I know we're not MXT know it, but as we sit here tonight, if you go downtown to the historic district, none of those buildings are 40 foot tall.

That's where the density in our community is.

But to enforce the rigidity of requiring a 40-foot-tall uh fish eye of water up here on North Broadway, it would be inconsistent, I submit with, and that's um the biggest issue is we were now putting something out there that's not line up with uh the investment that we've made up and down that corridor.

C in the uh legal standard.

This is why and how you may grant a variance.

C is to say, are the difficulties unique?

Are these not solely economic?

Were these not self-created?

You've heard uh Mr.

Schoenfelder uh even staff acknowledged this was approved at the beginning of 2020 or middle of 2020 pandemic slows it down.

The UDC is adopted, nobody knows the timeline that UDC is adopted.

It's 2023, but anticipating when this project was going to commence, we've had four years of North Broadway construction.

Uh the developer has brought a good project that was impacted by external factors, and now to if we are forced to construct a compliant building, the the negative impacts that that would have either on the vehicle uh traffic and uses to the south would be uh a real concern if it's not anticipated at the time this entire integrated project was approved.

So I submit to you that it remains the right project for this site.

Uh I was here last month, and something that was was made in a note, and naturally all of you are here, and I think some of you pressed staff on this question.

A comment was made about a sign that was seeking a variance South 63, and staff said, Well, this is one of those things that the LDM handled better.

A number of you addressed that and said, Well, what are the standards now into the UDC?

What are we supposed to do?

And the response you got was we don't really have the tools to measure and tell you what should be the right standard, but we think a sign this high and this big fits here, and and using that same standard, if I may, I I tell you that if we don't come back to adopt what's been a well thought-out project, something that has been previously approved under significant strictures of the LDM.

Uh, and just now because uh I think we're naturally concerned about how are we going to enforce the UDC, it's brand new.

What are we doing with it?

Do not consider this as precedent setting, but as an extension of uh project that was already approved, investments that were made, designs that are already integrated into this site.

You can see it in any of the photos that I'm I'm showing in front of you as to how the the uh site was intended.

And this brings a great use to something that's been underused for a long time.

So I'm happy to leave the rest of our time uh and and ask you to consider carefully.

Uh I point you to in the packet that juxtaposition of what the LDM says, what the UDC says, there's uh seven of those 13 that we would say we are here in front of you.

I think staff says there's eight.

That's fine, but pedestrian-oriented issues all should be relieved given the fact that there's significant infrastructure been built immediately in front of this project to accommodate that and make sure it's pedestrian-friendly to the extent it can be the fact that there's barriers in front of it now.

The height doesn't make sense.

Let's get over the height issue.

Parking, uh, if we were to require a 40-foot tall building and put the maximum 27 parking spaces, that this will never be constructed.

We found given the intensity of the traffic and use through here, the intention of there being a bank, a restaurant, and a professional service building, uh, we're seeking a variance to 39 parking spaces, not 80, not 50, 39.

Happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

Uh, commissioner, is there any questions for the applicant?

Uh I do have a few questions particularly around uh criteria in C.

So can you talk a little bit more about the difficulties that are unique to this parcel itself in terms of shape or the actual physical characteristics of it?

Yeah, and Ryan maybe better suit to explain.

I think this is a uh as bill it would be a 8,000 or 6500 square foot footprint that we can accommodate naturally.

You've got uh what has been integrated into the site.

We've lost this entire north side given what the requirements are to bring the traffic around.

So the physical limitations of the site itself.

Uh I think that rendering helps you in some respects go ahead.

Yeah, and then in addition to the this is a redevelopment project is how we classify it.

So we're left to develop with what the neighborhood already looks like.

Um the practical practical difficulties, excuse me.

Or you look at um what space we have available based on that cohesive plan that was approved, that leaves us a small footprint that you know involving a new redesign would blow up the parking on the west side of the site, trying to make sure that whatever new building, uh this multi-tenant building that's constructed there has to try to fit within those parameters and following UDC, as John mentioned.

We have to make sure we meet parking requirements with the new 40-foot tall building, make sure we meet the setback requirements of which we're trying to construct a building if if we're following UDC.

We can only be a maximum 15 feet from that right-of-way line.

Well, there's a wall built along Broadway in front of the site, you know, what pedestrians are going to be able to access the building if we're that close.

And um, you know, and as an infill development, we're kind of stuck meeting what is the neighborhood in the area that's surrounding it here.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicants?

All right.

Are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this area?

Not seeing anyone in person, seeing no one online either.

Well, with that, I will close the public comment here of this.

Um commissioners, any other questions for staff or the applicant after hearing the proposal.

Any topics you would like to discuss amongst the commissioners being just make sure that the applicant gets their five-minute rebuttal if they would have for the commission discuss.

Um applicant, would you like your five-minute rebuttal?

All right, thank you.

Um's would like to discuss.

If not, I would entertain a motion.

And we will ask any motion that is put forward.

I would make a motion to deny the variance based on staff findings.

All right, so I have a motion to deny the variance based on staff findings uh in that it does not meet criterion A and C.

Do I have a second?

I have a second from Commissioner Abbott.

So we will open this up for conversation before we move into the final vote.

I think the item that I am struggling with the most is criterion C in particular.

Um that the practical difficulties as I'm seeing them are not unique to the property.

Um a lot of the things that have been brought up seem to be created by the initial development.

Um, and it's nothing to do with irregularity, narrowness, shallowness, some of the other things were more related to the neighborhood itself.

Uh which again does not be criterion C, but curious if anyone has any thoughts on that.

Kind of challenging as well, but we're really kind of limited on how we can act on this.

And so yeah, all of it's really created by development.

So any other thoughts, questions?

Um criterion A as discussed.

Uh this was approved previously under the previous uh land development.

But under the UDC, this does not necessarily meet as we can see through all of the eight variants that requested.

All right, commissioners.

Any other discussion before we move to a vote?

All right, so just as a reminder, the vote is to deny variance numbers CD 2026-002 B A R based on staff findings that this does not meet criterion A or C.

Commissioner Abbott.

Yay, Commissioner Spencer.

Yay.

Commissioner Peral, yay, and Commissioner Matthews.

Yes.

All right, so variance number CD 2026-002 bar is denied.

Thank you.

Can we get Danny from the hallway?

All right, we will move on to variance numbers CD 2026-003 B A R by Illuminus instruction.

And Anthony, I believe you were giving a presentation previously.

Good evening, uh board members.

I'm here to present on variance application CD 2026-003 BAR.

Uh the applicant for this proposal is Zachary and Joanna Kozak.

Um property is located at 829 Fifth Street Southwest.

Uh zone R1 looks to single family.

Um star on the screen.

Um also note for the property that is located within the Pill Hill Historic District downtown.

Um the applicant is requesting to reduce the minimum rear of setback requirement from 20 feet to five feet.

Uh community development team is recommending approval of the variance request.

Uh here's a copy of the applicant's site plan.

Um, 5th Street Southwest is going to be on the right side of the screen and 9th Avenue South East on the bottom of the screen.

Uh the location of the proposed garage is highlighted in yellow.

Um so the R1 zoning district provides for a minimum rear yard setback provision of 20 feet uh for this corner lot.

The front lot line has been determined to be fifth street southwest side, uh, which would make the area for the proposed addition being the rear yard for this property.

Um due to the properties location within the pillar district, the applicant was required to additionally obtain a certificate of appropriateness through the heritage preservation commission uh in order to uh permit any new building modifications at this property.

Um the applicant did receive approval of the certificate of appropriateness at the April 28th PC.

Uh here's some additional exhibits uh provided by the applicant to show the proposed build as shown the dwellings orientation on the lot and overall function for the property, place the garage more in what would be a pseudo interior side lot line.

Um so the request of variance allows for development as consistent with underlying zoning and the city's conference plan again.

The uh requested variance is our rear of setback reduction.

Um as mentioned uh for the last item section 60.500 070 C asks nine questions when reviewing variance requests for approval.

All of these need to be satisfied in order to achieve that approval recommendation.

Uh staff have determined that the required findings are satisfied for this variance request.

And uh with that, uh we recommend approval of the variance, and that would conclude my presentation if you have any questions.

Any questions?

All right.

Is the applicant here tonight?

Yes.

Ari, would you like to go ahead and speak to them?

Again, you will have 10 minutes and Brent will be your timekeeper.

Um I just want to uh thank you guys for allowing us to present this.

Um we work closely with the city on options for the property.

It is a unique property on a side lot and working with Molly and Elliott, uh, getting approval from the HPC.

We feel that um as staff approved or has um recommendation of approval, but the the project will suit the uh the home and the intent of the um use of the space well and uh just look forward to getting your guys' opinion on it and getting approved.

So appreciate your time today.

Thank you.

Any questions to the app?

Neighbors have any issues.

No, I mean we approached our record.

Hi, I'm Zach Kozak.

So no, we approach our neighbors specifically the one on 9th Avenue.

Um, told them about our plan, shared the renderings, let them know about the meeting.

We also had to post a sign about I would say 30 days in advance.

Um, so anyone who's walking, driving by has a received some notice that this was being proposed.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the question?

All right, are there any members of the public present who would like to speak to this?

Not seeing anyone in person, anyone online?

All right, would you like your five-minute rebuttal?

All right, thank you.

All right, with that, Commissioners.

Uh, any other questions for staff or things you would like to discuss?

Otherwise, I would entertain a motion.

All right.

I mean, is that based on staff's findings?

Yes.

All right, I have a motion from Commissioner Spencer to approve variance number CD 2026-003 bar based on staff findings.

Do I have a second?

Oh sorry.

And I have a second from Commissioner Abbott.

Any discussion needed on the motion.

All right, we will move to a vote.

Commissioner Abbott.

Yes.

Commissioner Spencer.

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Carl.

Yes.

Commissioner Matthews.

Yes.

Yes.

And Commissioner Bucknell?

Yes.

Yes.

All right.

The variance number CD 2026 back 003 var as been approved by a 50 vote based on staff finding.

Thank you.

And with that, we will move to variance number 2026, staff 004 AR.

Good evening, board members.

Uh Anthony Chiki planning uh here to present on variance application CD 2026-004 BAR.

Uh, the applicant for this project is Matthew Bosha, and the property is located central portion of the city at 1620 Broadway Avenue South.

Uh, it's immediately north of the intersection of Broadway Avenue South and 17th Street Southeast.

It's indicated by the yellow star on the screen.

Um, the zoning for this property is MX S.

And the proposed use for the site is a retail canvas business in one of the uh units.

Uh the applicant is requesting a reduction in the minimum separation distance requirement from a retail cannabis use and a child daycare facility from 500 feet to 375 feet.

Um here is a bit of background on retail cannabis up in the state and city.

Uh chapter uh 342 was passed in 2023 by the state legislation, and uh it established regular regulatory framework for recreational canvas uses.

The city and other local entities play a role in the licensing process, providing an approvement for cannabis businesses before the final licensure is authorized at the state level.

State law does not restrict how local government conducts its zoning designations for cannabis businesses, except that they may prohibit the operation of a cannabis business within a thousand feet of a school or 500 feet of a daycare residential treatment facility or in traction within a public park that is regularly used by miners.

This includes playgrounds and athletic fields.

And with that, um so community development teams recommendation is denial for the variance uh request.

Uh this is a copy of the applicant's um uh provided exhibits for the property, uh, should provoke use.

Uh here is an aerial view of the subject property.

It's highlighted in green.

Um the blue highlighted property represents an existing daycare facility with proximity to the site.

Uh and the red border uh represents that 500 foot buffer separation distance requirement.

Uh regarding measurement for the retail cannabis separation distances, uh, these are measured from edge of property lines.

So if the 500 foot buffer touches any portion of a property, that property would be uh not uh eligible for a retail cannabis use.

Uh the light purple arrow um indicates the applicant's variance request of a 375 foot separation distance.

So again, the applicant is requesting to go down from a 500 foot separation distance to 375 feet.

Uh the UDC provides uh nine items that need to be satisfied in the when reviewing the variance request.

Um, all nine must be met in order to achieve uh staff has determined that the findings have not been satisfied.

Uh criterion A and C have not been met.

Um basically the question variants are in harmony with the general 10 purpose of the UDC, and then practical difficulties with the variance are not unique to this property.

Um, with that community development team recommends denial of variance um and that would start.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any questions?

Um I think the the city of the UDC define those from just like using the state's recommendations for the distances.

So the state uh provided a model ordinance, which gave a figure of um believe it was zero up to the thousand zero to five hundred.

Um the city opted to go for the thousand and five hundred uh line items, which was consistent for have other municipalities in the state.

Um the UDC with the 2025 update.

We actually the language was amended to be more in line with the state uh model ordinance, specifically tied to the features in a park.

Um previously it I think we captured as part parcel, so it eliminated more properties with the amending of that definition and brought up or properties into eligible status.

Um regardless of that is uh parceled, I mean the uh separation from uh daycare facility.

Is every approved site or existing running um place?

Are they working by this right now?

Um, yes.

So we have a uh mapping software that has like all the properties, their eligibility criteria, and when uh prospective business uh and license holders through the cannabis lottery, they've reached out to us because as part of their adaptation, they've had to do a bit of that pre-research with us, get the clearance.

Um, and we've had to provide formal city letterhead stating compliance with our our separation distance requirements that uh retail cannabis use can operate on a particular property in the city.

Um if the situation was reversed and it was a daycare trying to move next to a cannabis facility.

Would that what would that look like?

Yeah, so with that, I think we'd be in a situation that the first use would have precedent there.

Um, I think if it would be a permit to continue as such, uh, because at the time it was originally reviewed and licensed, it would satisfy all the requirements.

Um, and the events are kind of feature proof for kind of future scenario.

If a license holder had their license lapsed and did not reinstate it in acceptable time, I think they would lose the opportunity to continue use on that site.

Yeah, thank you.

Any other questions from the commissioners?

Sure.

Anthony, I think it'd be important.

Just go back to the map once just to show kind of indicate what the purple shading means on there.

So basically, the purple are parcels on the overlay that um a cannabis business could go into.

So essentially it shows that the city's ordinance is not totally exclusive.

There are parcels within the city that cannabis businesses can operate on, and that's depicted by the purple army special director.

Thank you.

All right.

Any other questions?

Does the question I have is this is the corner of Broadway 16th adjacent to the county fairgrounds, correct?

Um further north is the uh county fairgrounds.

Okay, yep.

So that's what I was taking sure of saying.

Um, they would be because they're uh I think they fall within the uh notification McDonald's.

Any other question before?

All right, is the applicant here tonight?

Yeah, we're here.

All right, go ahead.

There's three documents in each one of these.

One of them is a document that showed our request does meet the Minnesota's three crumb uh practical tests.

Then the map that you already saw that shows us within the house that has the six-day care licenses.

And then also a letter from uh the building owner landlord who has holding several of these retail units uh across the United States that have he's had uh great success with cannabis retail that we bring a lot of traffic to the area.

Um, he's never had any issues in any of his buildings in any other cities or states.

Um, and we feel it, you know, with a level of professionalism in our experience in only uh businesses in Wisconsin and Missouri that we bring that same level of professionals into this community as well.

So Luke all good evening, members of the zoning board.

Thank you for hearing us today.

My name is Luke Collier, and I am here with my business partner Matt Boschka of North Leaf Dispensary.

We are requesting a variance for the property at 1620 South Broadway, Rochester, Minnesota.

We respectfully request a variance to reduce the required separation distance for the child daycare from 500 feet to 375 feet for this specific property.

This will allow us to operate a state licensed adult use cannabis retail dispensary in the commercial strip mall.

The measured straight line distance to the nearest daycare is 465 feet.

However, a large hotel building sits directly in front of our proposed unit.

This hotel is a major physical barrier.

Customers and pedestrians cannot and will not walk straight through the hotel.

All actual access routes, sidewalks, and roads go around the building, creating a much greater real world separation than the straight line measurement suggests.

Under Minnesota law, a variance can be granted when strict enforcement of the rule creates practical difficulties.

This test has three parts, and this property meets all three.

First, the proposed use is reasonable.

Operating a licensed cannabis dispensary is a legal state-authorized retail business that belongs in a commercial zone like this one.

Without a variance, we cannot reasonably use this space, even though the landlord has already committed in writing to lease it to us.

Second, the practical difficulty comes from unique circumstances of the property itself, specifically existing large hotel right in front, and not from anything we we created.

This site configuration is unique to this parcel.

Third, granting the variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood and is consistent with public health, safety, and welfare.

The hotel already provides a natural strong buffer.

This is a commercial area, not residential.

We will operate responsibly with security measures that exceed state requirements.

As detailed in the attached support letter from Broadway Retail Group, LLC, the owner of this property, they are fully supportive of North Leaf Dispensary operating at this location.

They have successfully had cannabis retailers and other centers alongside major national brands such as Starbucks, Caribou Coffee, Jersey Mike's, and Jimmy Johnson, with no negative impacts on neighboring businesses or the character of the property.

The landlord also notes that this use will contribute positively through employment opportunities and increased activity for the entire strip hall.

We take child support, we take child safety and community concerns very seriously.

Matt Boschka owns and operates two cannabis dispensaries in Wisconsin, while my wife, Jenna Collier, and I operate compliant dispensaries in Missouri.

We have maintained full compliance and excellent safety records.

Here in Rochester, our plan includes 24-7 monitored camera systems, secure product storage, strict age and ID verification for every customer, limited operating hours, and professional security personnel.

We will also coordinate with local law enforcement.

Approving this variance will bring new customers and economic activity to the entire strip mall.

As the landlord explains in his support letter, it allows responsible development without changing the commercial nature of the area or creating any additional risk to the nearby daycare.

We respectfully ask for your approval of this variance to reduce the daycare separation distance from 500 feet to 375 feet at 1620 South Broadway.

We have brought site maps, the landlord's letter and additional documentation, and we are happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All right, commissioners.

Any questions?

Is there any other locations that you've considered, or just the was this one sold we've had special?

We asked, but we did look at several of them, and all of them, the landlords aren't interested in having a cannabis dispensary at this point.

So this spot that we've wanted just because I mean the traffic counts and just the area is a little bit more commercial than some of the other places we're looking at.

Um and then finally got a landlord to approve it.

So that's why we're pretty adamant about wanting this spot because we've been denied by so many others.

I just don't think you know a lot of these buildings, it's just new to Minnesota, so they're just a little hesitant to allow it, even though it's completely legal and can run it like a business, not just like a head shop or you know, a separate every all of our stuff's gonna be securely stored.

We have camera systems, security guards.

There's no way a child is going to be able to walk into this place and buy a cannabis from us.

Uh there'd be no order, everything uh there's no on-use uh can't you know use cannabis near our site or anything that there if there is anyone that tries that we do have a security guard that'll let them know really quickly that they cannot do that.

All of our packaging, we don't have we're not cultivating any cannabis in the store, it's just retail and everything's gonna be in order, uh, order contained containers as well.

So there'll be no orders that any kids that would, if they were able to get through our locked waiting room into our floor room past the security guard, they still wouldn't be able to smell anything or buy anything because we would carve the kid.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions?

Uh, just one question from me again, returning to the criterion, uh, looking at criterion C, which is that there are practical difficulties that are unique to the property.

In your uh paper here, you have the practical difficulty is created by the existing large hotel on a specific property.

Um, to me, it seems like they're almost arguing that the hotel creates a difference in that you have to go around it and it creates additional separation.

It doesn't seem to me to be a difficulty.

Can you speak to that a little bit more?

Um I mean, I could it it'd be pretty difficult for my understanding of what physical difficulty means for somebody to walk through the building and get to our place.

They would have to walk around.

And if you measure the distance of walking around and taking like sidewalks or how you would a real world situation of, you know, practical, when you add all that up, I think we've measured it as like over 700 feet.

So we're way over the variance.

So the doing that through the building, which no one would ever be able to do, that's where we find ourselves requesting the variance because it shows that we're like at like 465 feet, like 30 feet away, basically from this night and having to be a meeting tonight.

And that's what we've been told that some measurements were 499 feet, one foot away from this thing.

So we haven't really gotten anything constructive, you know, or concrete that tells us exactly what it is.

They're measuring it from the back corner to them.

And ours is closer down by the uh chicken, the Dig's hot chicken.

Right.

And I think even if you made it 400 feet or 415, we'd probably still be able to be fine with that, but we just wanted to have an extra buffer in there, I guess.

So we didn't have to do this again down the road.

But if the if the if it says that it's from lot line to lot line, right?

Would you disagree that 17th Street Southeast?

Oh, I don't I don't disagree with that.

I haven't measured that, but our ours we're looking at being way up here by Dave's chicken.

So if you go all the way over here through that house was that shows you on the map that for that goal straight line the way it's measured, they would have to go through the hotel to get to our store to get to our retail location.

And that's the natural buffer of the hotels.

It blocks the view of us.

And I think that was like 490 feet on one of the measurements that we got from the city.

It was like 485 or 490 feet.

And you know, we we we've not saying this is Minneapolis or anything, but we have for you know people being successfully getting granted variances for much closer.

Um this is this won't be the first time uh a municipal has approved something like this for cannabis being so close to and it you know it's it's a I understand that it's daycare, but it's it's a house, you know, it's a it's we're not in the residential neighborhood, and uh it maybe it'd be a different conversation if it was actually like a daycare facility and there was like a lot of kids running around and stuff, but my understanding it's like six licenses in a house, six kids, six kids.

Yeah, my my wife and I we actually try to reach out to the to the daycare to you know see if we could you know meet or talk and to get their blessing on it, and nobody called us back.

So thank you.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I do have a question for staff, but I'll save that until we are veteran owned operate as well.

Uh are there any members of the public who would like to speak to this variance?

Anyone online?

All right, would you like your five-minute rebuttal?

No, save your time tonight.

All right, thank you.

Uh Anthony, just to go back to the measurement question.

So I understand it's lot line to lot line.

Is it the shortest possible route from lot line to lot line?

So the sorry for the way the cannabis separation is measured, is as the was direct line from the lot line of the uh kind of criteria property, which would be the daycare facility in blue here.

Um roughly if it's a straight line across, I believe it was closer to 380 feet.

So the extra offer was to just capture that as there's an access to the site on that sip on 17th Street.

Um so and again, as mentioned, it it doesn't really the way the measurements calculated touches any portion of that site, regardless of it if it's the individual retail unit that property is flagged as nothing uh eligible.

Thank you.

Commissioner is go ahead.

And I would just declare any confusion from before the then so the state statute says um no canvas retail or businesses within 500 feet of a daycare, and this the city's UDC does adopt that same exact standard.

So the state statute and the UDC are consistent.

We'd make a variance that goes against the state statute if we did.

The little the governing line is is the city ordinance, which is the same as the state statute.

Otherwise, I would open it up for discussion and or in between a motion.

Okay, standards.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any discussion items or any motion.

I make a motion to deny the variance based on sound findings, and it doesn't mean that you're all right.

I have a motion from Commissioner Matthews to deny variance numbers CP 2026-004 VAR based on staff findings.

Um, and that it's that it does not meet criterion A and C.

Do I have a second?

Oh, second.

I have a second from Commissioner Spencer.

All right, we will open this up for discussion.

Uh again, coming back to the criteria, and I think criterion C in particular.

I'm not seeing any difficulties with the site itself.

Uh the item outlined by the applicant to me is in a difficulty with the site.

It's kind of a way to try and reimagine what these recommendations and rules are.

But any other thoughts.

All right.

We will go to a vote, Commissioner Abbott.

Yes.

All right.

And again, we're voting to deny uh as we've laid out.

So Commissioner Abbott, yes, Commissioner Spencer.

Yes.

Yes.

Commissioner Peralt, yes.

Commissioner Matthews.

Yes.

Yes.

And Commissioner Fun.

Yes.

All right.

So with that, we are voting to deny variance numbers CD 2026-004 bar based on staff findings of not meeting criteria A.

Yeah.

With that, we will move on to variance numbers CD 2026-005 VAR.

Yeah, so you may share from the board.

Uh Elliot Muller with Rochester Committee Development.

Um be given presentation tonight for variance C D 2026 005 BAR as the chair can point out.

All right, so tonight the applicant is uh 621 Center Street LLC, and the property in question is located at 621 center street south, or excuse me, center street east.

Um it's currently zoned as medium density residential or R3.

Um and then the review, um, similar to the last four, uh, it's gonna be based on uh or last three.

It's gonna be based on the variance uh approval criteria.

I'm gonna write that's the property outlined in red.

Tonight, uh, with this variance application, there are three requests.

Two have to do with the neighborhood protection standards in the unified development code, and then the third one has to deal with uh the dry violes.

So the first would be to reduce the required neighborhood protection standards set back from the east interior property line from 25 feet to 10 feet.

The second would be to reduce the required neighborhood protection standard buffer yard for the north and east property lines from 25 feet to approximately five feet and 10 feet, respectively.

Um and then the third is to reduce that require dry mile width from 25 23 feet to 20 feet.

Um so in the UDC we have neighborhood protection standards.

Um they're intended to preserve the character of established residential uses and residential zoning districts while also allowing for infill development opportunities.

Um so we define there's two lots.

Uh so there's protective lots, and those are any lots in an agricultural or residential district that contain um a household living use of four units or less.

Um, and then there's a regulated lot, which is any lot in a mixed use or non-residential district, or a lot containing more than four residential units in a residential district that is a bundle of protected lot.

So tonight, uh the two yellow properties on the left, those are duplexes.

Um, and they would be considered protective lots because they're less than four units.

Um, and then in the middle, uh you would see that's the property in question that uh there's a development proposal for in fill development.

Um you'll see their plan on the right there.

Um that red dashed area, that's the 25-foot buffer requirement.

So um that little skinny strip would be the buildable area, uh more or less.

Um, and so that and that is to do with again the neighborhood protection standards, uh, which again are intended to protect the existing neighborhood uh while also still allowing for development.

So the neighborhood protection standards wouldn't preclude in uh staff's opinion any kind of development because they could still do forplexes or triplex and not have to deal with those uh neighborhood protection standards.

Um again, just a summary of variance criteria.

Um should be well versed with that after the first three.

Um so then staff's recommendation tonight is denial of the variance request uh CD 2026 we are excuse 005 DAR based on staff findings that criteria A and C or not um primarily some of your findings, um, but not satisfied criteria A again that the requested variance is not in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the comp plan and the UDC.

The variance request it conflicts the comp uh the comprehensive plan and the intent of the UDC, which is to emphasize preservation and compatible infill development in existing neighborhoods.

While redevelopment of the credit supported in general, uh project with more excuse projects with more than four units must comply with that required neighborhood protection standard to maintain the area's established character of low density residential.

And then alternative development projects do exist and they would be permitted by right, such as the fourplex idea.

And then criterion see the practical difficulties.

Again, they could still develop two to three or one to two forplexes and still have those units.

And then the lot is shaped irregularly, right?

It is an L-shape, but there are other processes within the city to make them regular, such as a lot line readjustment to split them into two rectangular properties.

They would be smaller, but again, they can still be developed with vorplexes.

So if they were to develop a fourplex, that would they could say that more flexibility.

And if they were to do two forplexes by splitting a lot, that would also be any other questions for staff.

What's the what's the meaning of the buffer zone?

What's it trying to do?

Yeah, so the buffer yard would be for planting in particular.

So in this one, I believe it's six canopy trees, five understory trees, 20 shrubs, and the wooden fence.

So they are providing that just in a more condensed area within that 10 feet, and once we want that full 25 feet to more or less obscure the two uses from each other so that the higher density use, there's a sense of separation from the lower density housing year.

This area is zone the handle with density for this project.

That is a great uh statement.

It is zoned R3, medium density residential, but again, which would allow for a multi-family project such as this, but it would still have to maintain those neighborhood protection standard requirements of standards.

So on a larger lot that meant those 25 foot CEPAX.

So if they purchased the lot to request and redevelop both of them, you know, there would be possibility for the project that they're proposing to meet those standards and work out my right.

Has there been previously for buffer zones that been reduced?

No, um, we do allow for reduction through uh major mod.

Um I believe it only gets a couple less than maximum allowance.

Um the bulk of the provision is still uh reserved.

Yeah, the major modification would allow a reduction of 20%, which I believe the applicants might may talk about that was in their application, um, which they just have a diagram showing the reduction of which still doesn't provide in their case of the local space.

You go back to the three uh item, the three variances.

And I will note that the first two are more or less tied to each other.

Um, and then back to tonight, I would just say that all three uh working together if we make a motion on all three.

Um and then within this, again, when we look at criterion C, um, one of the items selection that makes it neat would be narrowness of the lot.

Um, can you just give a little bit more explanation of what the narrowness in the criterion is actually referring to is that that it narrows to a point more narrow than other surrounding lot?

Yeah, so I think it would just be in general the the width of the overall property is less than ideal, or what creates the difficulty in that case.

And so it's staff's findings that it's not so narrow that it wouldn't allow for kind of the buffer yard or uh standard setback.

So staff would be of the opinion that there are other development opportunities and other design criteria elements that you could do, such as the fourplex and not the 12 unit, and you could still get to that 12 unit count just in a different.

Thank you.

Commissioners, any other questions?

Is the applicant here tonight?

All right, go ahead.

And again, you will have 10 minutes, and Brent will be doing your timing for you.

Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, I have your right.

Yeah, that's like if you wanted to start, maybe I'll um my name's Josh Uglin.

Um, I'm one of the owners and developers of the property, and I have my business partner, John Cummins here as well.

And um, we're um grateful for the opportunity to come in front of you and uh present our uh couple of variance requests for this building.

It's been uh an adventurous process um purchasing these buildings back in the September of 2024.

Um extremely blighted, very rough conditions, roofs are leaking.

We've had uh over four break-ins from homeless uh people, and um one of those incidents is uh something was burned in the properties, and it smelled to be narcotics, and so we've been working really hard to get these buildings uh secured, cleaned up.

Um we've uh actually uh had over eight 30-yard dumpsters of items between the two buildings.

Um, the previous owner of the order um as well as ended his life um in one of the back buildings.

So it's our hope to bring um a property to the neighborhood that will not only help us you know overcome the economic uh troubles, but um also to be able to bring uh stable um attainable housing to the neighborhood.

Thank you.

So this is the what Josh was referring to.

Um, but good evening, Chair, Commissioners of the Board, thanks for having us.

My name is Con Ruffith SCH, I'm a civil engineer and project manager.

Um we appreciate the the staff's review and their memo and working with Ellie and Desmond to get to this point where we are here today.

Um with that said, we'd like to respectfully disagree with the recommendation of denial.

I believe the record supports approval based on the variance criteria, section 60 570.

Um before I discuss the criteria, I'd like to note um that it was mentioned the R3 zone, it's R2X.

Um, but I believe all the other points were in the memo was our memo you guys have was R2X, but I just want to bring that up.

Um also on the memo that said building setback was 25 yeah was one of the criteria.

Um but I think that was referring to the uh buffer yard itself.

So I just wanted a clarification from what you guys you know in front of you previously.

Do you want to catch it with me, please?

All right.

So I'm gonna go through the criteria A through J.

I know they highlighted A and C, but I think everything wanted to be transferred about everything you know, A through G kind of touch base with one another.

So just kind of went through everything to kind of tie it all together.

So the criterion A of the staff includes that the request is not consistent with the comp plan or the UDC because infill is only welcome if it meets UDC standards and suggests that the site should instead consider alternative options such as uh one or two duplexes on the site.

It's four flexes, sorry.

Respectfully, that interpretation is a little too rigid, doesn't reflect the intent of the variance process.

The entire purpose of the variance is to allow a relief where it's strict application of dimensional standards creates a practical difficulties on a particular property.

The fact that the UDC contains standards does not mean relief is unavailable when site conditions justify it.

The comp plan specifically supports infill and redevelopment, efficient use of land and infrastructure, and contact sensitive design on constrained sites.

This proposed project advances those goals.

Importantly, we're not ignoring the neighborhood protection standards.

We're proposing alternative design solutions outlined in the UTC, such as the fencing, canopy trees, understory trees and shrubs, or the where the in the areas where we're not able to meet the full full uh buffer yard with is you know, as you can see, this is overlaid, it's practically an unachieval in the parking area and the and and the building if we were to move forward with the full neighborhood protection width.

So the result still still meets in the intent of the buffering compatibility, even if it cannot meet every prescriptive dimension.

Complant support, infill redevelopment, and efficient use of service urban land.

Our request is not avoid these compatibility standards.

It proposes an alternate way to meet their intent and uniquely constrained site.

Say we did go with the new recommendation of uh of you know two fourplexes.

Um understanding that that would need to necessitate a lot line split.

You'd have to have a building on the north portion of the parcel, which we're gonna you're gonna be closer to the neighboring property, and you would be on the south as well.

So you'd have two different buildings, not really efficient use of the site, and you'd still have parking concerns.

Still they're gonna still have the same the dimensional concerns for parking.

Um, not to mention that the um it actually uh fourplexes triggered a higher um parking requirement, one per dwelling unit where this would be uh 0.5 per Dolinian.

So yeah, if we if we did one fourplex and not trigger the uh the NPS, our site would still have the same max sile parking constraints.

Now, no buffer yard requirements, so the site won't have any trees, which we're trying to plant.

So, you know, the tree use and plantings and shrubs that adds vibrancy to this community and the neighboring parcels.

So the criteria B staff's position is that no practical difficulty exists because a different project could be pursued and approved without a bearance, but that is not the standard.

The question is whether it is reasonable permitted use for the development, kind of encounters practical difficulties due to the property.

Here it clearly does.

This 0.20 acre infill is limited with depth, L shaped, fixed boundaries, multiple adjacent residential parcels, and it now meets the highest bufferyard standard there is in the UDC on multiple sides.

These constraints create direct conflicts between building placement, parking requirements, dry biol circulation, and bufferyard widths.

For example, a full 23 foot dry aisle width cannot physically fit, as we can see because we have 41 feet on the north side.

Um 18 and 23, it's not even achievable.

So the application explains that a 20 foot aisle is requested because only enough room to accommodate circulation while maintaining parking.

And we want to utilize the existing access off uh 7th Avenue East, which is the east, because that's the safest option.

To the south is East Center Street.

Right now, they're about to start a reconstruction project, and they're actually narrowing, narrowing the street width.

So they're obviously a concern on traffic is there as well.

So we want to utilize what's existing, which is that east entrance.

And that 20 foot still allows parking to go stalls to back out and in and past each other safely.

I mean, it's low, very little use.

Full bufferyard widths would prevent functional circulation or make redevelopment impractical.

It would eliminate functional parking circulation or unduly restrict any practical redevelopment of this site.

The applicant error list proposes significant screen elements along with the effective property lines.

You know, these are real site-driven constraints, not the hypothetical ones.

Any type of residential development on the site would see these same constraints, whether it's one fourplex or two fourplexes or um whatever it is you could uh use under that intended use.

Uh, this issue is not whether a different project might fit.

This issue is whether this permitted residential use encounters practical difficulties because of this site's physical constraints, and it surely does.

The criterion C staff suggests that any difficulty may be economic references, uh, potential lot reconfiguration.

However, the record shows the difficulties are physical and unique and are the classic physical constraints.

Again, narrow infill lots, small, fixed property lines, L-shaped, adjacent to residential parsid parcels, which trigger the the uh neighborhood protection standards.

These inherent to the these are inherent to the parcel and would affect any owner attempting their development.

Additionally, the adjacent parcels are the adjacent parcels are separately owned, and the applicant has been in touch with um both to the north and east, um, and we confirmed that there was no viable opportunity to integrate their property with ours.

Um, and they at the and to my to my knowledge, they are there.

We showed them our our project, and they have no issues with our proposed development.

So the now system must be based on the site as it exists today, not on a high hypothetical land assembly.

Our proposal actually enhances the neighborhood throughout the buffer yard due to the more vegetation that wouldn't be required from what the alternative would be that was uh proposed in the memo.

It's also important to distinguish economic benefit and to economic causation.

Nearly every development has an economic component, but the identified difficulties here are physical and site-driven.

The request award rises because not of the lot size shape, adjacency and circular circulation constraints, but in an end not because of the owner simply prefers a more profitable design.

These difficulties are tied to the parcel itself, size geometry boundaries, the protective lots around it, and not something the applicant created.

Could the attachment E, please?

Two more, two more.

Criterion D, a staff raised concern that the granting brings could alter the neighborhood character.

However, the project still remains a residential use.

Okay.

All right.

Any questions for the applicants?

What do you say about the buffer or the what's the zone called the 25 feet?

But what I mean, the neighborhood kind of looks a little the straw.

It's a buffer zone, which talk about the well, yeah.

I mean, right now they're technically it's uh two houses that are technically five total units.

So this should be you know to the neighborhood protection standards as it's just today.

Obviously, those you know, those homes were built way before these were enforced.

So we're actually improving the neighborhood because we are going to be adding a neighborhood protection standard.

Sure, it's not the whole 25p, but we saw that that was inadequate to have.

But now we're actually, you know, through our use of the landscape plan, we have we're meeting the shrubbery amount on the on the north side completely, it's just not the width.

And we're about 90% of the way there on the east side.

So we're actually enhancing that.

Where if we went to a one or a four plex or a couple of four plexus, and we don't need to add an planting because we're not going to be following those uh the residential stance.

We're actually enhancing the neighborhood.

If I could comment um, and the neighbor to the west is uh currently a seven unit and almost the entire property is paved um with current parking.

Um, so there's almost no green space on that existing dwelling, which is seven units.

Um our increase you know in units isn't drastically different from even a neighboring one adjacent to the west.

And if I may the entrance on the Southern Street's uh Southern Street side is pure gravel almost to the building to the fence.

Um they're really bad properties, they don't look uh neighbor's thing goes constantly when they're over there working on the lawns, training out the houses.

Um, so we feel just as a great way to help the workforce of Rochester get back to the community and provide safe looking.

Thank you.

Any other questions for the applicants?

Have you uh I'm not my business put any time chance to approach the other lot and try to that lot or is that not uh when you reference the other lot, I did hear someone say the lot to the west.

Um the lot to the west is the seven unit the well, we've we've entertained the option and I've spoken with the property manager, but that property would probably be close to six to seven hundred thousand uh market value, and our our purchase alone for two truly lighted buildings that have leaking roofs was 285,000.

For all those units around the rentals.

Um one is an owner-occupied uh duplex to the east.

Uh that's the one on the corner.

Um, and um and the one to the north that is completely rented.

Um, and I have met the owner of that one.

I've met um the owner of both properties, but the one to the north is completely rented out, non-owner occupied.

Any other question?

All right, thank you.

Are there any members of the public who would like to speak to this very one?

Thank you for having me.

What's that?

Five minutes?

Okay, great.

My name is Kaya Inby.

I live in 623 East Center Street.

So the house to the east.

Um, I have parenters that live there.

I'm I'm also the owner.

Um, and we got wind of this in the in the neighborhood, and actually um the statement about people being supportive of it, I would say is not true.

Um, and so have signatures and a statement of opposition that I would like to read to you on behalf of 13 of us that live on and around that street.

So um statement of opposition.

We support the development of additional infill housing in our neighborhood and would support a project of a more appropriate scale.

However, we oppose the requested variances for the parking aisle width, buffer yard reductions, and building setbacks.

These standards exist to protect neighboring properties, ensure safe vehicle circulation, and maintain compatibility with the surrounding residential neighborhood.

The applicants' request would significantly reduce the required buffers between the development and adjacent homes, creating increased impacts related to privacy noise and neighborhood character.

Likewise, the reduced parking aisle width and setback reductions appear to be driven by the desire to maximize the number of units on a very small lot rather than by unavoidable site constraints.

We believe the property can be reasonably developed while complying with the unified development code if the project is scaled appropriately.

For that reason, we support a smaller development, but oppose the requested variances for parking aisle width, buffer yards, and setbacks.

And then I was just gonna leave this with you.

We did go door to door and had conversations about it.

So that's how I sent my Monday.

I don't know if you okay.

Chair Bridge for the All right, Dave.

Any questions?

Oh, any question.

Thank you.

Uh any other members of the public, or do we do a rebuttal for each?

Or somebody else that requests.

All right, go ahead.

In that trip, I mean maybe just circulate that so by the time you're ready to discuss that, and everybody has seen the document.

Perfect.

We'll wait until after addressance now.

Hi, I'm Bob Nordman.

Just a member of the uh public.

Um, just to um give a few points related to this.

And um was when the UDC was put together, the neighborhood protections was a big piece of the selling point to the community that says we're going to protect the neighborhoods and things like that.

Um try to take those neighborhood protections away.

Uh in this instance, it'd be a precedent setting type of thing.

Um, you ask about uh buffer yards often, and you talk about people talk about trees.

The whole purpose of a buffer yard is to have vegetation and to have potentially fences or things to soften the visual view of what the properties look like when you're living in the single family house next to some large thing.

So it's not really that you put a bunch of trees on the property, it's very purposeful to be that a buffer area to soften the intensity of the of the buildings.

Um the other thing I think about is um if you want to build big and tall, the key is to buy enough lots to fit the big and tall on, so you can still meet the protections in the buffer yards, etc.

Just because you have a lot of a certain size doesn't mean you can just decide you want to build something super big and say, hey, I have difficulties building a super big building on a small property.

So solutions might be to expand um properties if you want to build that big.

Just a few thoughts.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Are there any other members of the public?

Anyone online?

All right, if you would like your five-minute rebuttal.

Thank you, members of the public for commenting.

I would like to address um a few of those items.

So the first one was width access.

We need you can't we need to have access to our property, and we can't go less than 20 feet or greater than 20 feet, whether we have a four-plex there or you know, other multi-family, we can only access off that east side.

So that's basically gonna have to stay where it is.

If we do two four plexus, we're talking about eight more stalls.

If we need to do and it doesn't fit the 23 minimum requirement, we're gonna need more pavement area.

So that's gonna be you know, more traffic and more of a eye store to look at.

So that's what I'd say for that one.

Um we're actually doing less than what's gonna be required at the end of the end of the day.

Um, as far as the required buffers, I understand like the privacy and the intention of it.

I just wanted to reiterate if we did a four plex or split lot two four plexus, we're not required to plant any trees.

You're gonna be able to look right into the people you know, your back door across the street from the other side, and you're not gonna see any trees, you're gonna see the building.

So, actually, what we're proposing enhances the vibrancy of the neighborhood and actually adds trees, shrubs, fencing all along the north side and the east side, and we have a fence on that south uh southeast corner up on the on the top two.

So we're actually doing what we can to fit the needs around here and as well.

You guys would what you guys would uh prefer because if we can't go with this, we're not required to put trees, they're not gonna be fencing.

So um, and we're actually I understand the what we're proposing, is actually I think we're on the same page of like what you're um what you guys would um like to see.

Um, and I guess again, if we have uh more four plexes, we have more pavement, more parking stalls that's required, which means that there's gonna be more traffic in and around the neighborhoods, more noise, so it just keeps adding on.

So, you know, what we're proposing actually enhance the neighborhood reduces the parking and um it's just fits better.

And again, to reiterate, I understand the concerns, but it's it's about uh you know what we're well we're confined to in our lot, and we're doing what we can to make it the best best it can be.

Um, I think the the big thing here is just making sure that we can bring something that that fits in the neighborhood, and even the the height, you know, we're not building the monstrosity here.

Um, you know, just right down the road um across the street on the on the south portion of East Center Street, right across from river walk within the next couple years, there's just rezoned.

They're actually close to 13 parcels that are four, and just it's moving east, everything multi-families moving decent downtown.

Yeah, and so that is R4, and um, I can't remember the unit count, but that will be coming within the next two years.

And so we're building something that's probably less than 10% of the the scale of that if that and so I mean if you've seen river walk, um, it'll be from what I understand a similar similar size to that.

And so we're building something that is you know slightly larger than the one to the west, um, or the the neighbor to the west, but it's it's not a monstrosity.

We're trying to maximize the the density, of course, but be bringing a mix of uh of attainable units, so it'll be two bedroom, one bath or one bedroom, one bath units, and uh um ultimately trying to get not only the density but also get the parking, get people off of the street because there already is a new number of uh tenants that park on the street, and it is a dead end going to the cemetery.

So getting that parking off off street will really help at least keep you know our partners of the neighborhood cohesive.

And these centers through the new projects parking on that going away.

Yeah, so they're pushing transportation above a new bus stops from RPT are coming in.

They want people, they want people in the neighborhoods, they want people to utilize their facilities.

There's a 10-foot bike bike path going in.

That's gonna be eventually go all the way across town to the east center to west center.

Um, so and it's our plan to put uh a bike rack at the not only the front of the building but also at the back of the building.

So we've already planned out both of those.

Um we have looked at uh multiple uh ways to put the parking.

We've tried putting diagonal parking.

We've tried even thinking about coming in from East Center Street, which Connors the Civil Engineer for the East Center Street reconstruction project.

It just wouldn't be viable putting a drive file uh from south to north, um putting in a two-way drive aisle because then once again it reduces the safety.

Um we don't want cars going in and out of east center street.

We want them coming off of 7th Avenue to the current parking lot.

Um it won't fit anyways, you'd have to need you to you can do 20 feet and be one way, but you only have 40 feet on the south side too.

Yeah, even if you wanted to do the build, so you have more building, you can't literally do a full loop for access.

So it's like we're looking for we're trying to do the absolute minimum we need to with the the parking area.

Um so we're limited to those constraints.

Um at R3s on the other side of the road, there's that apartment complex.

Um I believe they do have uh the 25 feet, they don't have the vegetation that's required, but again, that was probably before the PC.

But thank you for the time.

Thank you for the the public comments.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

And we will go ahead and circulate the statement of opposition.

All right, as we're circulating that commissioner, is it any other questions for applicant or for staff question on that?

Question on the application.

Is the the biggest issue the density?

More people, or what's the biggest concern with this project?

Because it's it is big, it's bigger than what you you have next to it, but is that the major concern is just too big for the area?

No, sorry, behind you itself.

Sorry.

And just a reminder to commissioners that we are asked to go against the criteria as laid out.

So we're not being asked about the density.

We're not evaluating if they can have 12 units or not.

We're looking at the variances for the three items that were laid out.

So which is what the app position is specifically addressing.

That that was me on the chat or next part.

So I guess I don't know the biggest issue, but we have issues with all of those things.

I think if one of the things that came up is like there are rules for a reason, right?

We create these things so that there are constraints that help preserve the character of the spaces that people have previously opted into.

And we all agree that that site needs help, and it all something needs to happen there.

But as proposed, the uh I think it doesn't fly with us as proposed.

I in the sense of like maybe two duplexes or two floor plexus or whatever you know.

Oh, I'm chair.

I'm sorry, the public hearing is closed, so I'm just gonna respectfully ask that the board kind of got it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

With that, we are going to discuss as commissioners any other discussion items.

In that case, I would entertain a motion.

I will read the motion to deny the variance based on staff findings of not meeting criterion A.

All right.

I have a motion from Commissioner Matthews to deny variance number CD 2026-005 VAR based on staff findings of not meeting criterion A or C, and that is for all three of the requested variances.

Is that correct?

All right, thank you.

Do I have a second?

I have a second from Commissioner Spencer.

I will go ahead and open it up for discussion.

Uh again, reiterating that we're looking at the criterion as laid out.

Uh so any other items for discussion.

I would just add that I think the again when we come back to criterion C, it is irregularly shaped, but I think the city has laid out that it could be addressed through alternative applications.

Um, and then the narrowness, same reason.

So with that, any other discussion items.

All right, we will move to a vote to deny variance numbers CD 2026-005 VAR based on staff findings of not meeting criterion A or C.

Commissioner Abbott, yes, Commissioner Abbott, yes, Commissioner Spencer.

Yes, yes, commissioner for all, yes, commissioner Matthews, yes, commissioner bucknell.

No, all right.

Well, the resolution passes four to one to deny variance number CD 2026-005 bar based on staff findings of not meeting criterion A and C, and that uh applies to all three requests.

Thank you.

And with that, we will move on to number the last item today.

Uh CD 2026 staff zero DR1 ACUE.

And this is an appeal.

This is not a variance.

Again, even chair the week.

All right, even chair members of the four and Philip Muller again with Rochester Committee Development.

Um, if we give in the presentation proceeding 2026 001 appeal or AP, the applicant tonight is Regency Consolidated Residential LLC.

The location of the property is 310 11th Avenue Northwest, just south of Civic Center Drive and along 11th Avenue Northwest.

Um the zoning district for this one is the density residential R3.

Um, and then the review criteria is um under 650030 F2 conduct of appeal.

So tonight the appeal is for termination authorized under section 601400.080J point two, which grants the community development director the authority to make a determination on the intent of a UDC or the language within the UDC.

Um it's regarding the building and the site design standards for the location of on-site parking spaces between a street and the building facade.

Specifically, the applicant is appealing to community development director's interpretation of the definition of the facade.

Um so just for the record, here's a timeline of um kind of the events that it led up to where we are today.

I'm starting to November 13th, the pre-development meeting, which is standard, and with neighborhood information meeting, formal applications, the middle.

Um, and then there was the back and forth conversation with uh city teammates and the applicant during that first review letter being sent.

Um, and in the first review letter, it is mentioned to the applicant that uh the parking that they are proposing in the front of the building should be removed or uh relocated.

Um, and then some additional meetings came up between the app between and city um to just discuss that interpretation.

Um, and then the formal appeal was submitted on May 6th.

So under uh the EDC section 640080J, um, it's the design and location of vehicle parking.

Um, subsection 5B indicates for all other uses, so uses excluding single family detached or attached housing in an agricultural residential MXT, MXD, and MX districts, off-street parking areas shall not be located between the front building facade and the adjacent street frontage.

Furthermore, subsection 5D reads to the maximum extent practical, accessory parking shall be located at the rear of the principal building with access from an alley or if constructed as part of a principal building behind the front facade of the principal building.

And then it continues on with 5E.

If it is not feasible to locate the parking lot or garage to the rear of the principal building, the parking may be located in one side of the principal building.

So to simplify that, the EBC prohibits parking between the front facade and the street frontage with preference to it being in the rear or within the building or underground with the possibility of flexibility of having that parking be on the side of the building.

Um and then using these definitions that we have on here with from section 6600 three zero, um, the definitions for facade wall and building.

A facade is the exterior walls of a building exposed to public view from a public street, the wall visible from a public street or parking lot and use for the main public access, or that has distinguishing architectural features, will be considered the primary facade.

A wall that is visible from a public street or parking lot serving the business center, but not the main access to the building is considered the secondary facade.

Uh so already a facade is the exterior wall.

So what's the definition of wall?

Um it's a vertical exterior surface of a building, and then once a building, any structure used or intended for supporting or sheltering any occupancy or roof structures are separated from each other by partying walls, having no openings for passage, each portion is so separated shall be deemed a separate building.

So that's kind of all the items that we should be considering for the uh the record.

So on the screen now is the rendering that the applicant had provided with their application materials.

Um you'll notice that there's a blue plane, any yellow plane.

The applicant tonight will contest that the blue plane uh constitutes a facade.

Uh community development staff would disagree.

We believe that the yellow uh constitutes the front facade.

Um, that is the wall of exterior wall of the building.

What's outlined in blue is an amenity deck.

Um, so there would be uh amenities on top for residents to use.

Um and then there's parking below.

Um there's been a variation of number of parking spaces.

Um regardless, uh community developments uh stance would be that there's no parking within the front facade and the street frontage.

Um there's been conversations of potentially making it a loading dock or uh drop-off zone, uh, but the applicant uh as far as we have seen an indication is that it's meant for visitor parking and/or guests, short trips.

And I will note that there is parking over front.

Um again, here is the first floor uh floor plan in blue.

That's where they would contest that the facade is, and that would be the colonnades with the arches and the columns.

Um and then if you go to the right, that's the yellow, that's what community development is has determined to be the facade, the front facade.

There's an 18 foot gap between those two with open space.

Um it's not fully connected.

That makes sense.

Um, so just in general, uh, we have made that determination that what they're showing as the amenity deck, um, or they've also called a colonnade, is an architectural feature.

Um, and it's you know similar to a port cochere, um, and it does not meet that definition of facade.

So it's you know, port cochere is a covered porch like structure or grand gateway that extends from the entrance of a building over a driveway.

So we're saying that this is an architectural feature that folds you to that area that is the front of the building.

We know that's the front of the building because of the architectural feature that they have provided.

Um, also within the UDC, we have other um definitions that could meet that amenity deck.

So the arcade, a covered passageway typically found at street level and often comprised of a series of ash or excuse me, arches supported by columns, which is accessible and open to the public.

Um their entrance, main entrance is underneath that colonnade.

Um, it's made up of arches and columns, and you can walk through it.

Um, but also a deck.

Um, it is an amenity deck, a structure open to the sky that is attached to or buts the wall of a dwelling and is afforded access to the interior.

There are two doorways on both sides, um, or believed.

Uh, and then the dwelling through one orange doors.

Structures 30 inches or more above grade are considered accessory structures.

This is definitely 30 inches above grade.

Um, and so it'd be an accessory structure to the building.

Um, and while structures lower to the ground are considered permitted projections as a required here system, and then lastly, pedestrian oriented space, an area located outside of the right-of-way between a building and a street or along the pedestrian facility that promotes visual and pedestrian access under the site and provides pedestrian-oriented amenities and landscaping to enhance the patrons or public use of the space for passive activities such as resting reading indoor pictures.

Those are very specific activities, but they are in that definition.

Um, so tonight we recommend that you deny uh the appeal request uh just based on those findings of fact that we have um outline them that meet them on MMO dated June 36.

So any questions might have thank you.

Any questions from the commissioners?

So there's occupiable space above it, occupiable in that people could stand on it and recreate correct.

Okay.

Any other questions?

So which facade first definition slide.

Any questions on the drive session?

And so this determining what this is impacts why.

So the parking, if they were to remove the parking, we could have put the project more or less uh based on the standards of the UDC, uh, but it's just parking that's holding it up.

Um so your determination of what the facade would mean is is this parking going to be a little bit or not?

That's what chance.

Any other questions for staff?

Is the applicant here tonight?

Um just two quick introductions.

Um, Marfo Also GT engineering, I have Rosie Rivas with CRW architecture, and uh, we also have uh Jeremy Shapin with Shepherd Construction and uh Andrew Body Professor.

So I have some information to hand out.

It was part of the application we actually submitted, but it wasn't part of the packet.

And uh the last three sheets are actually PC, so this I'll get you heavy.

Um, this is some email exchanges from the back to the front, but I think it's important for uh some correspondence mentioned all of these describing um essentially definition of space agreement, and we'll put something right here.

You're on the glass.

Okay.

Mark Welps with GQ Engineering.

Now we started this project back in like 2020, 2023, and then Regency put a pause on it while they're developing some other properties that have the pines development going in Northwest Rochester.

In 2025, the kick started off in the summer, and we started going through the process.

We already, because the work that previously been done, knew some of the criteria that we're gonna have to work with.

And so we contacted Public Works, talked about the traffic, uh started a traffic study, uh, which helped determine where the driveway location had to be established based on spacing from four and a half street to the north.

And we worked with Public Works and Sanitary Silver Water and all those items uh kind of concurrent with them doing the pre-development meeting criteria.

And uh through that process, CRW is working on the uh building layout.

And in order to meet the number of required uh units that the owner needed on that site to be successful, um, they worked through essentially um an H style building and I style building that are you different uh criteria in that.

And ultimately the layout that you're seeing is the essentially what was uh multiple ultimates landed on, mainly because of the fact that it allowed for the front entrance to be located in the area that was kind of in the middle of the building.

And then because of a floodplain to the south and to the east, uh 11th Avenue to the west and to the north is a large uh public uh uh utility easement.

Um we had to put our parking on the north side.

The actual most of the tenant parking is actually interior.

There's two levels of parking, both taking access from the north side of the building.

That was one item that I've been through a couple different iterations ultimately is determined instead of having the parking coming from in this side of this area that we're talking about.

Uh, we were able to put both of those parking location uh entrance drives on the north side.

Um, and so as we worked through it, did the neighborhood information meeting submitted uh the first review letter came in April, uh, and we were actually kind of shocked by that first comment.

Uh, we thought that was maybe it's kind of typo or something, uh, because of the fact that uh the structural portion of this columnade uh did have uh uh amenities for people to be out there.

And in fact, uh can talk about more, but there's requirements for actually means of access and egress to it.

And it's constructed as part of the structure, it's not uh something that's a carport or something that's just a deck or uh covering for screening or the sauntering.

Um there is actually also beneath this is part of the parking lot.

So the lower level is below this section of the columnade, uh, which has the amenity decks above it.

Um so as we were going through in that email uh chain, uh kind of started out with you know some discussion, and we had the second follow-up meeting with Molly with community development, and we thought everybody's on the same page.

And then we got kind of um uh surprised uh on Tuesday next week when it came back that the definition that uh we thought was cleared was now being uh questioned, and there's a lot of terminology about being a screening and stuff, and we never been looking at screening, we've been looking at a structure and how to make this uh an architectural component that meets the criteria.

So in the definition of facade, it says an architectural component.

That is exactly what we're looking at here.

And so um it's been agreed that we can have the drop-off zones and everything.

We're fighting for the parking spaces because that's what's needed for the function of this building.

We need to have those parking spaces in order that visitors can come.

Uh, the eight American disability acts requires the parking space closest to the front entrance uh B handicap accessible, and that is what we're providing.

So if they can't have any parking on there, we would then be in violation of the ADA.

And so we have enough parking spaces on the site.

We don't need the parking spaces to meet any criteria.

It's for those pickups and dropped offs, uh door dashes and uh move-ins that we need this parking uh denoted beneath the amenity statement.

Yeah, that's what they talked about some of the components that are actually structural about this uh.

Thank you.

Uh Mark Jose Rivas, uh principal with CRW architecture.

Um the architect on the project, like Mark said, uh, you know, a lot of thought went into the optimizing the design of the building and the building amenities, also meeting the criteria, you know, other criteria of the UVC, like uh recreational space, which we as part of the building design uh decided to provide two amenity areas to comply with the required recreation area.

One of those is on the east side of the building facing uh the Kutzky Park, and then we have this second floor uh amenity deck that is accessible uh from the second floor of the building that also doubles as the roof over this visitor parking drop-off area, main entrance to the building uh that is underneath the deck and behind the colonnade, which is you know semantics is in my opinion as an architect, the colonnade that meets and matches the treatment of the building all the way around with the brick, the arches, that is the facade of the building.

There is such a thing as a stepped facade.

You can have the first floor of the facade of a building protrude out from the secondary facade, which would be a step back elevation that you see here highlighted in yellow.

Um, you know, the the issue of the parking is uh is somewhat irrelevant because we do need to have a drop-off area at the front of the building, which is the primary entrance to the building, that is where um the temporary parking for prospective tenants that are coming in to view uh their future home or signalise with park.

It's the closest uh area, it's not the primary parking uh for the building.

Primary parking, like Mark said, is underneath the building for all of the tenants or most of the tenants.

Uh we do have a little bit of a parking uh area to the north.

Um in terms of the design of the building, the urban experience of anyone walking by the building, nothing would change whether we have parking in this designated drop-off area that is underneath the deck and beyond the arches and columns that we see here in that facade.

Uh, nothing would change if we eliminated the striped parking spaces, besides the fact that we would be making it more difficult for the owner and the and the tenants of the building to provide that convenient space for uh Uber pick somebody up or um the delivery uh person to deliver goods, the post office to come in and park uh in that shared area that is also the covered drop-off area.

So definition of facade is what I think is at the crux of it.

The last three pages of the uh packet, uh, you know, like you have those uh one in one minute scan of an elevated view looking down upon the United States deck, and then the other two, it's one with and one without cars shown uh from the street.

There's a slightly different perspective, uh once further back, uh, I think the 11th Avenue, right?

Um they're both showing essentially the you know what you would see from the street.

I believe it's like 90 feet from the street to where these parking spaces are located.

Thank you.

Um yeah, I guess the you know, the definition of facade is also highlighted in the uh materials uh straight from the uh UDC.

The text, I think is consistent with what we're proposing.

Um the exterior walls of a building exposed to public view from a public street, the wall visible from a public street or parking lot and used as the main public access to what has distinguishing architectural features will be considered the primary facade.

So there is no parking between that facade and the street.

The parking is all happening behind the arcade or colonnade, uh, and it's covered by a roof.

So I guess respectfully disagree with the uh opinion.

And community developments findings, they agree that that is an architectural feature that is called out right here in the facade.

It's just uh kind of the cipher and the definition, and uh we have different feeling than what was ultimately decided.

Any other questions?

All right, thank you.

Commissioners, any questions for the applicant?

Just to confirm there is an open-air gap between the blue and the yellow, right?

That line in the middle.

Yes.

It's from this area over.

Yep.

What that does is it keeps the gap from these patios over to the amenities deck.

So the these units can't go right over to the amenities deck.

This question might be more for the city, but the definition of a parking spot that keeps referring to Uber drop-offs, things like that.

If you have a sign that says 15 minutes limited, does that count as a parking spot?

Yeah, so there's no way that we can be able to enforce them to make it temporary.

They can make it temporary and then not make it temporary.

Um I think in the discussions that we've had internally and with the applicant, it's if it was parallel, like an airport drop-off, that is a drop-off in the linear, you know.

Um that can be temporary parking, but this looks more parking.

And just a reminder to commissioners, we're not we're not weighing in on the parking.

We are solely looking at the definition of facade and how it's being applied here.

That's what the applicant is appealing.

It then impacts the parking, but we are not actually what we did.

Any other questions for the applicant?

You're a professional licensed architect, absolutely and you're it's your opinion that it's our architectural features.

Um there's no doubt in my mind the brick colonnade is part of the facade of the building, and the um despite that gap in the center, the roof is connected, otherwise, it is only accessible from the second floor, but those are they will require means of access for us.

Well, and second second, it's part of the second floor.

Thank you.

Are there any members of the public project who would like to speak to this?

Anyone online?

All right, I will offer you your five-minute rebuttal, although there are no perfect.

Thank you.

All right, the public hearing portion is closed, and we will move on to uh discussion amongst commissioners.

So again, this is not a variance, so we're not looking at any of the criteria.

Um, what we're solely looking at is the appeal and whether or not we would grant an appeal through the definition of a cut dog or any discussion there.

Chair, if I could really quick, I would uh double down at the the community development's um opinion when you're reading the definition, yes.

We are all in agreement that it is an architectural feature, but the way that the department reads it is that the architectural feature what distinguishes what we're considering the front facade as the facade, so you wouldn't know that that area is the facade without the architecture.

That's kind of sort of what we're gonna test in that it's this is the primary facade because there's a similar D deck at least in front of it, and they're there, therefore you know whereas they're contesting.

I would say it's actually probably better if you look at the image that they provided here.

I guess part of our concern is there's a lot of openings, so would that mean that you could just do four columns and that constitutes a facade if it's connected?

And so I think that is kind of the R is weakness with that definition, but I would still say for that our determination is that it's the exterior wall that you can see from the street through the is um are those uh permanent the um actually I think the word right now the uh sort of archivation, the in the arch the like band, the plan the parents oh there it's not removable from the occupiable space above it has to follow the same fire code as the rest of the building, egress, everything else.

So with that, sorry, I'm sorry.

Does the roof deck?

I mean, does it need this wall?

Does this on the front have to be there for it to support it without it, or does that are the columns varying, right?

Like is it a real wall or can't be reviewed?

Well look the the columns are and the arches are part of the overall treatment of that first floor.

If you saw the entire the project in its entirety, you would see that all of the windows on that first floor, everything is treated the same way, same rig, same arches, so it's it's a cohesive look on that first level, which is what is closest to this tree to the part to the trail on all four sides of the building.

Yeah, we're so discussing, you know, for from my perspective.

This is part of the building, and this is the the front facade of the building.

I understand that it's not connected at both sides, but I it's the way that the building is designed as an integral part of it, the reamenity deck, and looking at it from the front of the street.

I would read that as the facade.

All right, so I'm gonna talk about it.

Okay, so I would encourage commissioners to review the definition of the facade, uh, which is the exterior walls of the building exposed to public view.

So we're saying that based on the wall, the vertical exterior surface of a building, that we think the kind of column part in blue there is enough to meet that definition.

I would say so.

I would if the group follows the rules of what the interior does, that's one.

You said there's I'm still there's uh specifically a concept of a like a what did you do like a setback?

Let's say it's not a facade, it's in hallways not on the same plane, you couldn't have to, you know, that's a real thing, solid episode.

All right, and does everyone have the chance to review the attachments provided by the authority?

All right, uh, and then I would entertain a motion if anyone would like to put one forward.

I would make a recommendation that we accept the appeals you're gonna have to help me grant the appeal um based on our interpretation of the definition of facade to include the architectural feature of the colony.

Okay, I have a motion to grant the appeal based on the commission's understanding of the definition of a facade.

So I have a second, I have a second from Commissioner Abbott.

Any further discussion that we want to have on that?

So we think that this does need the definition.

All right, we will go ahead and vote.

Commissioner Abbott.

I would agree.

Yes, Commissioner Spencer, yes, yes, commissioner Peralt.

Yes, Commissioner Matthews, yes, yes, and Commissioner Bucknell.

Yes, all right.

The appeal is granted five zero based on the definition of a sub.

All right, thank you, everyone.

And with that, we have completed all of the variances.

Is there any other business tonight?

All right, I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

I just I move to adjourn.

I have a motion for Commissioner Matthews to adjourn.

Do I have a second?

Second from Commissioner Abbott.

All in favor?

Aye.

All right.