Full Transcript

·YouTLDR

Harrisburg City Planning Board Meeting - 4/1/2026

1:52:26EnglishTranscribed Jun 15, 2026
6:22

Sorry 640

6:24

and

6:25

receive the February 4th and March 4th

6:30

meeting

6:32

changes positions.

6:43

Motion to approve both months minutes.

6:47

>> Is there a second?

6:48

>> Second.

6:50

>> Second for approval of the February

6:54

2016. All those in favor by saying I

7:00

abension

7:03

carries.

7:05

Under old business

7:09

amendments

7:10

signage regulations accepted 7-325

7:19

bureau to revise and streamline or

7:23

support

7:29

practices

7:31

at least assignments designed

7:33

compatible.

7:37

Yeah, I think maybe uh in the interest

7:39

of uh the applicant's time here, we move

7:41

this to the end of the meeting and that

7:43

way we can uh take care of the um other

7:46

business, the zoning relief request.

7:49

>> I make a motion that we do that we move

7:51

this to the end of business. Second.

7:54

>> Second.

8:03

by saying I

8:04

>> I

8:14

application 13.

8:37

>> Um, is Missa here? No, I guess she's

8:41

not. I guess we'll we can move this to

8:44

the end if if uh she shows up during the

8:46

meeting.

8:53

>> Second

9:01

item number.

9:04

I

9:09

remember

9:25

this is done.

9:34

Uh so the applicant is proposing to

9:37

convert the existing single family

9:38

dwelling into a two-unit multif family

9:40

dwelling which requires zoning hearing

9:42

board approval of special exceptions for

9:43

the proposed use and relief from the

9:45

off- streetet parking requirements per

9:46

section 7-305.7

9:49

and 7-327.6

9:50

of the zoning code respectively and

9:52

variances for relief from the density

9:54

regulations and specific criteria in

9:56

sections 7-307.3

9:58

and 7-309.2V 2V of the zoning code

10:01

respectively. The property at 40 North

10:04

17th Street is a 03 acre lot featuring a

10:06

three-story 264 square foot structure

10:09

which was constructed circuit 1900.

10:12

Property is bounded by Helen Street to

10:13

the north, the uh North 17th Street to

10:16

the east, the property at 38 North 17th

10:20

Street to the south and a narrow grosser

10:22

alley to the west. The semi- detached

10:24

structure features elements of the Queen

10:25

an architectural style. Character

10:27

defining features include the brick

10:29

facade, the substantial front porch, the

10:31

oral windows on the front and side

10:32

elevations, the two-story porch on the

10:34

rear elevation, the large wooden

10:36

cornises with substantial brackets at

10:38

top the porch and second floor of the

10:39

front and side elevations, the prominent

10:41

dormer on the front elevation featuring

10:43

a turd and metal finineal, and the

10:44

manered roof clad and real slate

10:46

shingles, which features a decorative

10:47

brick chimney along the side elevation.

10:49

The main entrance features a panel door

10:51

with half view pane featuring simulated

10:53

divided light mountains set within a

10:55

simple frame and topped with a simple

10:56

wooden transom. It is accessed by an

10:58

elevated porch featuring wooden tongue

11:00

and groove floorboards, square spindle

11:02

wooden railings, and wooden panled

11:04

columns. Although some of these elements

11:06

are deteriorated, there is a similar

11:08

entryway at the rear at the rear

11:10

accessible via a small set a small a set

11:13

of small concrete stairs featuring a

11:15

panled metal door topped with a simple

11:17

wooden transom. It is sheltered by a

11:18

deteriorating second floor metal deck.

11:20

Fenistration features windows in a

11:22

variety of sizes, arrangements, and

11:24

conditions. Most windows appear to be

11:26

one over one, although all of the first

11:27

floor windows and the second floor

11:29

window at the rear deck are currently

11:30

covered, presumably to prevent

11:32

unauthorized access. A two-story oral

11:34

window on the front elevation features a

11:36

window on each face of each floor. The

11:39

window is topped by a hexagonal tur clad

11:42

real slate shingles and topped with a

11:43

decorative metal final. The oral windows

11:45

on the second floor of the side

11:46

elevation likewise features a window at

11:48

each face and is topped by the prominent

11:50

wooden corners featuring dentals that

11:51

run along the length of the side

11:53

elevation. The third floor dormer on the

11:55

side elevation is topped with a

11:56

prominent pediment with small brackets

11:58

that is clad and real slate shingles.

12:00

Structure features flat rubber roofs

12:01

above the manser roofs. Although the

12:03

property is deteriorated and features

12:04

some unsympathetic alterations as a

12:06

semi- detached structure, the building

12:08

mirrors architectural features of the

12:09

attached structures to the south and

12:10

generally reflects the massing and

12:12

design of other properties in the

12:14

surrounding neighborhood. As such, the

12:16

building makes a substantial

12:17

contribution to the architectural and

12:18

historic character of the streetscape

12:20

and neighborhood.

12:22

The planning bureau staff recommends the

12:24

request be approved with the following

12:25

conditions. If granted zoning approval

12:27

to move forward with the project is

12:29

proposed, the applicant shall allow the

12:30

codes bureau to perform a comprehensive

12:32

inspection to identify any outstanding

12:34

code violations and will receive

12:35

approval for all necessary city permits

12:37

prior to receiving a certificate of

12:39

occupancy.

12:40

The planning bureau recommends the

12:42

applicant retain historic and

12:43

architectural features of the property

12:44

such as the oral windows, real slate

12:46

shingles, and metal final at top the

12:47

front turret to ensure the property

12:49

enhances its contribution to the

12:50

aesthetics of the block. And finally,

12:53

because the rear yard cannot accommodate

12:54

legal parking spaces, the planning

12:56

bureau recommends the applicant enclose

12:58

this space with a six foot high fence to

13:00

enhance security for tenants and prevent

13:01

unauthorized access to the site. Flame

13:04

bureau staff recommends the request be

13:05

approved for the following reasons. The

13:07

property has experienced extended

13:08

vacancy over the past decade, resulting

13:10

in significant deterioration and a

13:12

general lack of basic elements such as

13:13

walls and utilities that threatens the

13:15

long-term viability of the structure and

13:17

potentially the stability of the

13:18

attached row home. As such, there is

13:20

justification for the allowance of more

13:22

units than would be permitted by Wright.

13:24

The project will reconstruct a blighting

13:26

influence and attractive nuisance into

13:28

new units that will contribute to the

13:29

housing inventory in the city generally

13:30

and the neighborhood specifically and

13:32

rehabilitate an historically and

13:34

architecturally significant building and

13:35

represents a significant improvement

13:37

over expected future conditions should

13:39

the property continue to remain vacant.

13:41

Finally, the applicant advance the

13:42

project advances the purpose of the RM

13:44

zoning district provided in chapter

13:46

7-305.4C 4C of the code as it provides a

13:50

development at medium densities that

13:52

will not adversely affect the stability

13:53

of the area and advances chapter

13:55

7-301.27

13:57

of the zoning code by protecting the

13:58

residential neighborhood and providing

14:00

diverse housing opportunities.

14:03

>> Thank you Jeff. Is this on the last

14:06

agenda?

14:08

>> Yes, this was on the March agenda.

14:11

>> Yeah.

14:12

>> Uh could you state your name, address,

14:14

and relationship to the project?

14:16

>> Sure. Thanks, Jeeoff. My name is Steve

14:17

Albrin. I'm from McNiss and uh I am the

14:20

I'm representing the applicant who

14:21

wishes he could be here tonight, but

14:22

because of the scheduling change, uh

14:24

he's on a spring break vacation with his

14:26

kids out of the country. So, having a

14:28

lot more fun than us.

14:33

>> Um

14:35

you heard the uh staff report. Are you

14:37

acceptable of the conditions?

14:39

>> We are. Yeah.

14:40

>> Okay. Uh, did you want to add anything

14:43

to your report or

14:44

>> Well, Jeff does a great job of of kind

14:46

of covering everything, so he didn't

14:48

miss anything that I was going to bring

14:50

up. Um, if you guys have any questions

14:52

about the property specifically, I'm

14:53

happy to try to answer those.

14:55

>> Okay. Yes. I have no questions at this

14:58

time. Know you're going to have a look

15:01

like a lot of work, a lot of money put

15:02

in this. So, good luck on that. Um,

15:06

Commissioner.

15:08

>> Yeah. Uh, yeah. First of all, yeah, I

15:10

don't think it's too dense. Two units

15:11

there doesn't offend me. And if we don't

15:14

approve this, the house is going to fall

15:15

down. So, you got my support.

15:20

>> No questions.

15:24

>> Yeah, I concur. It's pretty

15:25

straightforward here.

15:30

>> No questions.

15:33

>> Likewise. No questions.

15:36

With that, I'll go to the public. You

15:39

have any questions or concerns? Please

15:41

stand. State your name and address. I'll

15:44

start to my left or against the project

15:48

metal.

15:50

No one on my right. Okay. M. I get a

15:54

motion.

15:55

>> Motion to approve with conditions.

15:57

>> Is there a second?

15:58

>> Second.

15:59

>> Been moved a second to approve this with

16:02

the conditions. All those in favor by

16:05

saying I

16:06

>> I

16:07

>> opposed.

16:10

Motion carried.

16:11

>> Thank you very much for your time.

16:12

Thanks, J.

16:14

>> By the way, this is this is your guys.

16:16

It was I think left over from I think it

16:19

might have been for the North Six Street

16:20

thing that we didn't end up doing.

16:27

Item number four, this is a variance and

16:31

special session application for 1854

16:35

through 1861 street zone RM

16:44

establish a multi family dwelling used

16:47

through consolidation of multiple plots

16:50

with indiv residence into a single lot

16:53

to construct required off street parking

16:56

near yard set. The applicant has

17:00

requested a continuence to the May 2020

17:04

26

17:05

planning commission meeting and building

17:07

her hearing board meetings.

17:09

Um commissioners, can I get a motion to

17:13

continue this?

17:15

>> So moved.

17:16

>> It's been moved. Is there a second?

17:19

>> Second.

17:20

moved a second to continue item number

17:23

four to the next meeting.

17:26

Item number five is the

17:28

>> I got to have a vote.

17:32

>> All those in favor state by saying I

17:34

>> I

17:34

>> opposed.

17:39

Um item number five, this is a variance

17:42

and special exception application for

17:45

923 North 18 Street which is on resident

17:49

needing density. It's filed by Robert

17:53

Jun with Harford Rent LLC

17:58

is requesting the relief necessary to

18:01

convert the existing single family

18:02

dwelling into a six unit multif family

18:05

dwelling and to request from the LC

18:08

parking.

18:11

>> Uh yes. So the applicant has converted

18:12

the single family dwelling into a

18:14

six-unit multif family dwelling which

18:15

requires only hearing board approval of

18:17

special exceptions for the proposed use

18:19

and relief from the off- streetet

18:20

parking requirements per section 7-305.7

18:23

and 7-327.6

18:25

of the zoning code respectively and

18:27

variances for relief from the density

18:28

regulations and specific criteria and

18:30

section 7-307.3

18:32

and 7-309.2V of the zoning code

18:35

respectively. This is an after the-act

18:37

application. Property at 923 North 18th

18:39

Street is a 03 acre lot featuring a

18:42

three-story 3639 foot structure which

18:45

was constructed in 1920.

18:47

The property is bounded by Boa Street to

18:49

the north, the property at 1801 Boa

18:51

Street to the east, the property at 921

18:53

North, 18th Street to the south, and

18:55

North 18th Street to the west. The

18:57

semi-attached structure features

18:58

elements of the Second Empire

18:59

architectural style. Character defining

19:01

features include the varying facade

19:02

treatments including painted brick,

19:04

vinyl siding and wooden vertical wooden

19:06

siding, the substantial front porch, the

19:08

building projections on the first and

19:10

second floors of the side elevation

19:11

including turrets on the corners and a

19:13

metal porch. Prominent corners above the

19:15

second floor featuring dentals and

19:16

brackets and the manered roof featuring

19:18

dormers and brick chimneys. There are

19:20

three main entrances on the first floor.

19:22

two which provide direct direct access

19:25

to the first floor units and one that

19:27

provides access to the stairwell on to

19:29

the upper floors and each features a

19:31

paneled fiberglass door. The entry to

19:33

the front unit on the first floor is

19:34

accessed by a simple concrete porch.

19:36

Administration features windows in a

19:38

variety of sizes, pane configurations,

19:39

and settings. Most appear to be one over

19:41

one. At several locations on the first

19:43

floor, it appears that previous windows

19:45

may have been infilled with vinyl

19:46

siding. The second floor features a

19:48

variety of window settings, including

19:50

two topped with substantial pediments on

19:52

the front elevation, three in a turret,

19:55

three arched windows, and three in a

19:57

semi-ircular o oral window on the side

19:59

elevation, and seven dormers in the

20:01

mansion roof featuring pediments of

20:02

varying sizes and styles. The man roof

20:05

and dormer cheeks along the front

20:06

elevation are clad and real slate

20:07

shingles, while those along the side

20:10

roof and dormer cheeks are clad in

20:11

asphalt shingles. The property is

20:13

otherwise topped with a flat rubber

20:15

roof. Although there have been

20:16

unsympathetic alterations over the years

20:19

uh as a semi- detached structure, the

20:21

building mirrors architectural features

20:23

of its pair to the south and generally

20:25

reflects the massian design of other

20:26

properties in the surrounding

20:27

neighborhood. As such, the building does

20:29

contribute to the architectural and

20:30

historic character of the streetscape

20:32

and neighborhood.

20:34

The planning bureau staff uh recommends

20:37

the request be approved uh with the

20:40

following conditions. The applicant must

20:42

remove the illegal parking installed

20:44

along the side of the building which

20:45

replaced the required sidewalk.

20:47

Construct a new ADA compliant sidewalk

20:49

with tree pits and or planting strip and

20:51

construct a new code compliant curb to

20:53

prevent sidewalk encroachment. Uh the

20:55

applicant should consider the provision

20:57

or subsidizing oferta passes to

20:59

residents. Given the size and

21:01

configuration of the units, it is likely

21:03

that not all residents would own

21:04

vehicles, and ensuring their access to

21:06

the bus network will reduce the need for

21:07

personal vehicles and provide tenants

21:09

with mobility, affordable mobility

21:11

options. Planning bureau staff

21:12

recommends the request be approved for

21:14

the following reasons. The property

21:15

experienced extended vacancy over

21:17

approximately 20 years from 1997 to

21:19

2016, resulting in significant

21:21

deterioration that made the structure an

21:23

uninhabitable and dangerous nuisance and

21:25

threatened the physical stability of the

21:26

attached buildings along North 18th

21:28

Street and Boa Street. and necessitated

21:30

significant investment to address the

21:31

structural and livability concerns of

21:33

the property. As such, there is

21:35

justification for the allowance of more

21:37

units than would be permitted by Wright.

21:39

And the project reconstructed a vite a

21:41

blading influence at a conspicuously at

21:43

a conspicuous corner property into new

21:45

units that contribute to the housing

21:46

inventory in the city and neighborhood

21:48

and represents a significant improvement

21:50

over the potential alternatives of

21:51

demolition or collapse.

21:54

>> Thank you, Jeff. Could you state your

21:56

name, address, and relationship to the

21:58

project?

21:59

>> My name is Robert Schulz Jr. I'm sole

22:01

member of HBG Rent LLC. I am the uh the

22:05

owner and

22:07

contractor, licensed electrician,

22:10

plumber, and designer of the uh the

22:12

building there. The building was

22:14

collapsing when we first purchased it

22:16

off of a tax sale formerly owned by

22:18

Shephard Mission. And um the the roof

22:23

had collapsed down through the uh the

22:25

third, second, and first floors down

22:27

into the basement. Took us seven

22:30

dumpsters and a team of about 20 guys

22:32

with buckets to get everything out of

22:34

there. And then it was then rebuilt,

22:36

reframed from the ground up to be a

22:39

six-unit building. All permits were

22:42

pulled accordingly. I was required to

22:44

get a uh fire safety engineer plan for

22:50

uh fire suppression system which was

22:51

installed. We had numerous inspections

22:54

by the city codes department. Uh the

22:57

city codes department was um actually

23:01

included in every every step of this

23:04

this design including the parking that

23:06

that Jeff just discussed. Um I had

23:10

numerous inspections. I even had uh the

23:12

chief of the inspection uh department,

23:14

the codes department, Dave Patton, come

23:16

out and conduct a little class out there

23:18

to demonstrate to people how service

23:19

panels and and plumbing was supposed to

23:21

be done. And he was most most gracious

23:24

and and his time in doing that. Um I

23:28

also had the um uh the head of the fire

23:31

department, the fire chief was out there

23:33

to uh to certify the uh the the fire

23:37

suppression system and the water

23:38

pressure. And and my point here is that

23:41

we we've followed the the steps every

23:43

step of the way. And because this is the

23:46

first of five that I will be presenting

23:48

here this evening and also we've I was

23:50

here a month ago, you may recall um of

23:54

the 90 buildings that I have renovated

23:59

in the city of Harrisburg from 2010 to

24:02

2018 when I stopped stopped renovating.

24:06

um

24:08

under recent guidelines to to do like a

24:10

buyer's notification. I think uh uh Jeff

24:14

was brought in in the in the process of

24:16

of uh permits being being applied and

24:19

and properties being sold so that he

24:21

would be able to review what was

24:24

happening here in accordance and and

24:26

compare that to his records. Uh and in

24:30

the process here earlier this year, he

24:32

told me that we were having a problem

24:34

with at least one of them. I said,

24:35

"Well, I'm going to give you a list of

24:36

all these others here and let you go

24:38

through and tell me which ones we have a

24:40

problem with." We wound up with a

24:42

problem with seven out of out of those

24:44

buildings. We prided ourselves here in

24:47

the last

24:49

I guess the eight years when I was in

24:50

process of doing this with with taking

24:52

the worst of the worst. Fired buildings,

24:55

you know, HFD written in big bold

24:57

letters everywhere to try to try and do

24:59

our best, especially up there in the

25:01

hill. We renovated 35 properties over

25:04

there uh in that area and I think went a

25:07

long way toward

25:09

keeping that that that area uh improving

25:13

through what was a difficult time uh

25:15

post economic issues there in 2010. Um

25:20

I don't think that um

25:24

I don't think that I have any issues uh

25:26

with uh Jeff's recommendations here in

25:29

in terms of parking. I think that sounds

25:30

reasonable. It's something that probably

25:33

would have been approved initially at

25:35

the time anyway

25:37

and and and I'm assuming that that's how

25:39

you're viewing this is this is that this

25:42

is something that would have been

25:43

approved 10 years ago had this been done

25:46

in the right way. Um so I I don't think

25:48

that that's going to be an issue for me.

25:50

I just want the uh I wanted to get all

25:52

of that out because this is like I say

25:54

the first of five tonight and there's

25:55

bound to be a question is how in the

25:57

world did we get here because I'm I was

25:59

in the same same boat. Uh and so here we

26:02

are uh trying to correct the records and

26:04

set set everything straight and make it

26:05

right.

26:08

>> Uh are you acceptable of the conditions?

26:10

>> Yes.

26:11

>> Okay. my only concerns so far and and

26:15

you've touched upon it and Jeff maybe

26:17

you can explain the parking a little

26:19

more how you satisfy those parking

26:23

spaces.

26:24

>> Yeah. So, I mean, as you can see from

26:26

the photos, like, and I don't know

26:29

who might have authorized this, um, but

26:32

they basically replace the sidewalk and,

26:35

uh, curb and, uh,

26:38

at one point in the past, uh, with head

26:40

sparking parking spaces that go like

26:42

pretty much right up to the building.

26:43

Um, which I may I believe may have been

26:46

responsible for, um, a car hitting the

26:49

building at some point in the past. I

26:51

car run into the building. So um and

26:54

basically we you can't have a legal

26:57

parking space that's you know replacing

26:59

sidewalks like that and and then also

27:02

occupies the public right of way. Like

27:03

from my discussions with former city

27:05

engineers I basically say if any part of

27:07

a parking space is in u the public

27:09

rightway it's public space. It's not

27:10

like a dedicated private space for for

27:14

individuals. So seeing that uh the

27:16

configuration that they had out there um

27:18

I just thought well if we remove those

27:21

what is that I mean it would certainly

27:22

be an improvement for people walking

27:24

around and as and as the planning

27:26

commissioners may remember there's a

27:28

development going on across the street

27:30

there uh the Woodward Lost building a 48

27:32

unit um uh senior living facility so

27:35

there's going to need to be people

27:36

having space to like walk around uh the

27:38

neighborhood um so to ensure that that

27:42

sidewalk is reconstructed um we added

27:45

this condition and as I was going back

27:47

to look at uh the frontage of the

27:50

property along Boa Street um I

27:52

determined that you could um basically

27:56

this removed three publicly accessible

27:57

on street spaces. So it was like a net

27:59

benefit of a net gain of three spaces

28:01

but um removing those would still

28:05

recreate three on street parking spaces

28:08

there. Um and again you know one of the

28:11

things that we had recommended uh was to

28:14

look at the uh subsidation of or

28:16

subsidization of uh CAT or SERTA uh

28:20

parking passes because that is one of

28:21

the um criteria for uh granting of

28:26

relief from off streetet parking. Um,

28:28

and so that's why we included uh that

28:30

condition as well, which is not

28:32

something we usually do, but I think in

28:34

uh this particular context with the

28:36

removal of those spaces um and the

28:38

reconstruction of on street parking, um

28:40

this would be a way to maybe uh offset

28:43

um any uh of the other spaces that any

28:46

other parking demand that may be left

28:48

over and to hopefully address maybe some

28:50

concerns of either the planning

28:51

commission or zoning hearing board.

28:53

>> Okay. So, he's required initially to

28:56

have six spaces or seven?

28:58

>> Uh, they'd be required to have seven.

29:00

There's only six there currently, I

29:01

think, but they'd be required by the

29:03

zoning code to have seven.

29:04

>> And that satisfy,

29:06

>> excuse me,

29:07

>> that satisfy your requirements.

29:10

>> Uh, this if they had seven off street

29:12

parking spaces, it would, but they'll

29:14

they'd only basically be creating three

29:17

public accessible by removing the

29:19

parking that's there now, which is again

29:21

not approvable parking. I don't I don't

29:23

think the city engineer ever took a look

29:24

at that or anything. Um so uh as a way

29:28

again in theory you'd be creating three

29:30

new spaces of on street parking where

29:32

some of the parking could occur from uh

29:33

tenants. Uh but uh again I uh uh added

29:38

the additional um recommendation that

29:40

the applicant consider the provision of

29:43

certa passes uh for tenants of the

29:45

building so that they still had

29:47

mobility. uh when I was out there and in

29:49

the times I've been out there to like

29:50

the adjacent property um uh where the

29:53

Woodward Lofts is being constructed, I

29:55

haven't seen all the spaces being in use

29:57

at the same time. Now, I don't know if

29:58

somebody's at a job or whatever. Um but

30:00

it doesn't look like there's a need for

30:02

all six of the spaces that are there

30:04

now.

30:06

>> I'm concerned because

30:08

um the building they're putting up now,

30:11

neighborhoods, neighbors were concerned

30:13

about parking with that building. So,

30:16

that's why I'm saying

30:18

will his treat parking problems again?

30:23

>> So the other the Woodward loss uh

30:25

project um does have all of the required

30:27

parking uh on site. Uh that was uh I

30:30

think they had they were required to

30:31

have 48 spaces. Uh so they did have 48

30:34

on site which is actually more than they

30:35

were required to have because it was

30:36

low-income housing. Um so they are

30:39

meeting their requirements there uh on

30:41

that end. Um and

30:44

uh you know I think uh I think we would

30:47

anticipate that there would not be any

30:50

um spillover parking from the uh senior

30:53

housing facility and so there should be

30:55

parking for tenants of this building on

30:58

the street.

30:58

>> So he he can probably use their parking

31:01

lot.

31:02

>> I mean he could. I mean they he would

31:04

have to he would have to engage with

31:06

that owner to see whether they'd be

31:07

willing to lease spaces to him.

31:09

>> Talking about his parking overflow.

31:12

Yeah. Right.

31:14

>> Okay.

31:17

Questions and concerns.

31:20

>> Yes. Mr. Sh. Yeah. We're, you know,

31:22

familiar with the background here and I

31:23

think it's going to be reflected in some

31:25

of the decisions we make tonight. Uh,

31:29

and you got my support on this one. That

31:31

said, this is the strangest application

31:32

we've ever had. Converting a single unit

31:34

to six.

31:36

I never thought we'd ever even make it

31:38

this far, but and then we're asking to

31:40

remove parking. I mean, it's those are

31:42

two things we never do. So, no, you got

31:44

you got my vote, nevertheless. So,

31:46

>> and and I would just note that it was

31:49

probably multiple units prior to the its

31:52

current deterior or its former

31:54

deterioration. Um but when you when a

31:58

non-conforming use has been vacated for

32:00

a year, uh the property reverts to the

32:02

underlying um allowances of the zoning

32:04

code. So that's kind of why I consider

32:06

it a single family.

32:08

>> Yeah. I I don't think anybody actually

32:10

did. I think there were there were

32:11

probably multiple units, but there's

32:13

nothing in the record that I could find

32:15

that would specify how many units might

32:17

have been there before. There might have

32:18

also been I mean with those larger

32:20

windows especially on the side there

32:22

might have been a commercial use on the

32:24

first floor too. So it's a little tough

32:26

to tell and the um history record was

32:29

not very substantial.

32:34

Commission,

32:35

>> I have nothing.

32:37

>> Commissioner,

32:40

>> no, I don't have any questions.

32:44

>> Commissioner Jordan,

32:45

>> no questions.

32:47

>> Vincent, um, I mean, maybe maybe for

32:50

Jeffrey, the only thing

32:52

do we know like kind of root cause of

32:54

how that that this lapse happens and are

32:57

we doing anything on our side to prevent

32:58

that from happening? Yeah, I mean it's I

33:03

I don't know that we'll ever really know

33:05

because um all of many of the staff who

33:07

were here when this stuff was being

33:09

approved, the former director and co and

33:12

deputy director are no longer here. Um

33:14

and they've been retired for several

33:16

years now. Uh both of them. So uh you

33:19

know, it might have just been

33:23

that was kind of the way things were

33:24

done back then. uh where it was more

33:29

handled by the codes bureau instead of

33:30

the planning bureau. I know before I

33:32

started there there was about eight

33:33

months where there was nobody in the

33:35

planning bureau. Um so it might have

33:38

been what the staff was doing at that

33:40

time to just manage and kind of move

33:42

stuff forward so stuff didn't get backed

33:43

up. Uh so uh but as to whether we're

33:46

addressing it, you know, as uh Mr. Sches

33:49

uh referenced, um the new flood plane

33:51

zoning certificate is kind of what

33:53

brought this to light. Um because as I

33:55

looked at this and he said, you know,

33:56

we're transferring this from one uh uh

34:00

entity to another. Uh we're going, you

34:02

know, this is six units. I look back in

34:04

the history and if I see that that

34:06

change occurs after the adoption of the

34:08

current zoning code and I know that the

34:10

zoning relief was not received, that's

34:12

when I'm bringing them before the boards

34:15

uh so that they can uh formalize that.

34:18

And in some cases uh like in this case,

34:21

there may be justification for it. In

34:22

other cases there may be less. So

34:28

>> with that I'll go to the public

34:30

for against this project.

34:34

I'll start to my left.

34:41

Could I get a motion?

34:44

>> Motion to approve conditions.

34:46

>> Is there a second?

34:49

>> Second.

34:54

All those in favor say by saying I

34:57

>> I

34:57

>> oppose.

35:17

Okay. Item number six. This is a special

35:20

application.

35:21

exception of application for 1301 varian

35:25

street which is an RM

35:30

here

35:37

to request the zoning relief necessary

35:40

to construct a mixed use building on

35:43

site featuring a threeminut multi

35:45

glowing a topic coffee shop cafe and

35:50

personal services space and to request

35:54

relief from the off street parking

35:56

department.

35:58

>> Uh thank you. And I should note that

36:00

this is actually a variance and special

36:01

exception. There is a variance component

36:03

to this uh for uh the encroachment um of

36:07

the uh parking into the rear yard set

36:11

back there. Um, so the applicant is

36:14

proposing to construct a two-story

36:16

mixeduse building on site featuring a

36:18

three-unit multif family dwelling at top

36:20

a coffee shop, cafe, and personal

36:22

services space and to request relief

36:25

from the off- streetet parking

36:26

requirements which require zoning

36:27

hearing board approval of special

36:28

exceptions for the proposed multif

36:29

family dwelling and personal services

36:31

uses and relief from the off street

36:33

parking requirements per section 7-305.7

36:37

and 7327.6 six of the zoning code

36:39

respectively and a variance for relief

36:41

from the prohibition of prohibition

36:43

regarding parking in setbacks per

36:45

section 7-327.9A4

36:47

of the zoning code. Property at 1301

36:50

Berry Hill Street is a.16 acre vacant

36:53

lot which previously accommodated a

36:55

large residence that had been converted

36:56

into multiple units but was demolished

36:58

in early 2007. Property still features

37:01

elements of this use, including a low

37:02

retaining wall along Berry Hill Street

37:04

and concrete access stairs along Barry

37:06

Hill Street, South 13th Street, and at

37:08

the intersection, as well as a six foot

37:10

high chain link fence along Albert

37:11

Street. The property is bounded by Barry

37:14

Hill Street to the north, the property

37:16

at 1305 Berry Hill Street to the east,

37:19

Albert Street to the south, and South

37:21

13th Street to the west. The planning

37:23

bureau staff recommends the request be

37:26

approved with the following conditions.

37:28

If granted zoning approval to move

37:30

forward with the project as proposed,

37:31

the applicant shall submit a land

37:33

development plan and receive approval

37:34

from the planning commission and city

37:36

council. Uh the applicant will be

37:38

limited to the proposed non-residential

37:39

uses outlined in the application and

37:41

cannot establish or propose other

37:43

unpermitted uses without receiving

37:45

zoning hearing board approval of the

37:46

requisite zoning relief related to both

37:48

the use and potentially relief from the

37:50

off- streetet parking requirements. Uh

37:52

the applicant must provide landscape

37:54

screening around the proposed parking

37:55

area. And finally, the applicant should

37:57

retain the large tree in the

37:59

northeastern corner of the property

38:01

unless the city arborist deems it a

38:02

danger to existing or future development

38:04

or otherwise authorizes its removal.

38:07

Plan B staff recommends the request be

38:08

approved for the following reasons. The

38:10

property has been vacant for 19 years

38:13

since the demolition of the former

38:14

residential building on site in 2007

38:16

through various economic cycles

38:18

demonstrating the need for a financially

38:20

viable proposal that may require relief

38:21

from the current zoning regulations. The

38:23

proposed development minimizes the

38:25

amount of zoning relief by proposing

38:26

uses that only require special exception

38:28

approvals and a reasonable variance

38:30

request that provides off- streetet

38:31

parking while allowing development of

38:34

the site for more beneficial uses. Uh

38:36

the property is a conspicuous gateway

38:38

into the Allison Hill neighborhood but

38:39

has remained vacant for almost two

38:40

decades, severely underutilizing a

38:42

prominent location. Proposed development

38:44

will add new housing to the neighborhood

38:46

in one, two, and threebedroom

38:47

configurations while creating spaces for

38:50

small businesses that will cater to the

38:51

needs of existing local residents. And

38:54

finally, the project will improve the

38:56

pedestrian experience for neighborhood

38:57

residents by replacing a vacant

38:59

unmaintained lot with a mixeduse

39:00

building that will be activated 24 hours

39:02

a day and customers of the businesses

39:04

who will populate the building frontages

39:06

along building Berry Hill Street and

39:07

South 13th Street.

39:10

>> Thank you, Jeff. Could you state your

39:12

name?

39:14

address and relationship to the project.

39:18

>> My name?

39:19

>> Yes.

39:20

>> Oh, and make sure you're pressing the

39:21

button there so the light turns green.

39:22

There you go.

39:23

>> This you hear me?

39:25

>> My name is Juan Silva. I'm the

39:28

consultant and designer. I'm helping

39:30

here uh my friend in the development of

39:33

this project.

39:34

>> Can you speak English? Can

39:37

>> him?

39:38

>> Yeah.

39:40

I just need your name.

39:45

>> Spanish.

39:47

>> Okay. You can say his name.

39:50

>> Uh yes. Um I know the the pretty well.

39:53

If you need any clarification,

39:56

you need to answer something.

40:08

You gentlemen heard the staff report the

40:11

conditions. Are you acceptable of those

40:14

conditions?

40:16

>> Yes, those are

40:21

>> commissioners. I have no questions

40:23

except I'm still

40:25

um

40:27

concerned about parking. You see, I

40:29

guess you said they have enough spaces.

40:32

Are you

40:33

>> So, they're required to have uh 15

40:35

parking spaces uh for all of the

40:37

proposed uses that'll be uh on site. Um

40:40

they do have uh they are proposing four

40:42

on street parking spaces or sorry, off-

40:44

streetet parking spaces including the

40:46

188 space that would be required. Um

40:49

there's also um parking along the

40:52

frontage of the property on Berry Hill

40:53

Street. Uh there are two spaces there.

40:56

Uh so they'll have uh six in that

40:58

regard. And with respect to the um

41:02

different criteria for uh allowing

41:04

consideration of relief from off

41:05

streetet parking, uh when you have

41:07

complimentary uses like a residential

41:09

and business uses, uh the zoning code

41:11

allows those spaces to kind of be double

41:13

counted. Um because the presumption is

41:16

you know when the residents leave in the

41:19

uh in the morning and then staff and

41:22

customers of the businesses come and use

41:23

the spaces and then they leave and the

41:25

residents come back and will take those

41:27

spaces. It may also be the case that

41:29

residents of um of the building itself

41:32

will either be employees of the

41:33

businesses that are on the first floor

41:35

or uh patrons of the business. So they

41:38

would be kind of replacing either some

41:39

of the parking necessary for uh

41:42

customers or staff. Um, and then

41:45

additionally, uh, there are two bus

41:47

routes that run along South 13th Street,

41:50

um, right adjacent to the property. Uh,

41:52

so there are, um, options for, uh,

41:56

getting to the property other than for,

41:58

uh, other than driving. Um, and one

42:01

final note, I know the applicants

42:02

included this in their uh, case report.

42:04

They noted that there is on street

42:06

parking on either side of Berry Hill or

42:07

South 13th Street. So, it's not just the

42:10

frontage uh with the property, but uh

42:12

there are homes which front those areas,

42:15

and I didn't want to include those in

42:18

the count as it's likely that residents

42:20

of those buildings would be using those.

42:21

Um, but there is on street parking uh on

42:25

both of those uh both sides of Berry

42:27

Hill Street and on the western side of

42:29

South 13th Street um for potential

42:32

customers of the businesses to use as a

42:34

temporary measure.

42:35

>> Okay. you know, going driving down 13th

42:39

Street. You know, that's they're always

42:42

packed with parked cars because they

42:44

said residents probably have two people

42:47

>> in a house. So, that's, you know, it's

42:50

going to have problems again. So, I'll

42:54

come back to that necessarily. Uh,

42:56

commissioners, uh, your concerns

43:00

any other question to

43:02

>> Yeah, it looks like a great project. I

43:04

love seeing new construction in this

43:06

neighborhood.

43:07

>> Uh Jeffrey, what anything can be done

43:09

with that joining property in the

43:10

junkyard?

43:11

>> I mean, looks like there's plenty of

43:12

parking there.

43:13

>> We we actually uh did were we're trying

43:19

to deal with that almost maybe a decade

43:21

ago, eight years ago to 10 years ago. Um

43:24

and uh I don't know I don't want to say

43:27

too much. I don't know how much we could

43:28

say about it, but uh that did end up I

43:31

think either going to the court of

43:33

common please or potentially the PUC

43:36

based on the claimed use of the

43:37

property. Um and so I think ultimately

43:40

it was kind of taken out of the city's

43:43

hands. Um it would be a good place to

43:46

provide parking for residents or for uh

43:49

the uh this uh particular project. Um

43:52

but uh I don't I think we've we've

43:56

attempted to try and address it and uh I

43:58

think been stymied by the legal process

44:00

I believe.

44:01

>> Yeah. No further

44:04

commission.

44:06

>> I agree. It looks like a good project. I

44:08

have no comments or questions.

44:11

>> Commissioner,

44:14

>> uh yes, I also agree. It's nice to see a

44:17

vacant lot being filled in. you know,

44:21

mixed use. The coffee shop on the first

44:23

floor and apartments is great. Um,

44:27

I think the parking makes sense given

44:30

that Well, let me ask, are are you

44:33

anticipating the four or three parking

44:37

spaces for the tenants in the apartment

44:42

spaces?

44:43

>> Yes.

44:45

>> Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, then the coffee

44:47

shop would kind of be more fluid on

44:49

street parking.

44:50

That makes sense. My only other question

44:53

is

44:55

with the

44:58

with the apartments,

45:02

it'd be the second floor. Um there's

45:06

three and then is one apartment less

45:10

than 300 square feet

45:14

>> um in in the second floor? You mean

45:17

>> the the the apartment in the middle?

45:21

>> Uh, no. No. It's a little bit over and

45:24

I'm not sure if I if we not right there.

45:27

Um, but it's it's over 300 ft.

45:30

>> I was trying to just I was just doing

45:31

some math. I wasn't It wasn't It would

45:34

be a really small apartment if it's less

45:37

than 300 square feet. I don't know if

45:38

that would,

45:40

>> you know, really make sense or be

45:46

I mean, if if they're proposing a uh a

45:50

unit that's not large enough to meet the

45:51

minimum standard by the codes bureau,

45:54

they they would not get approval and

45:55

they'd either have to reconfigure the

45:57

interior arrangement of those of that

45:59

space or potentially combine two, which

46:02

would, you know, reduce the amount of

46:05

>> deviation from the zoning code.

46:06

>> Okay. I always noted in the application

46:09

about all this going through codes

46:11

anyway. So, okay. All right. Thank you.

46:12

That answers my question.

46:15

Commissioner Jordan.

46:17

>> Um just a comment. Um I'm in favor of

46:19

the project. I think it's a good idea to

46:21

have businesses um throughout the

46:25

community so you know to go elsewhere to

46:27

have their needs met. So looks like a

46:29

good project to me.

46:30

>> Thank you.

46:32

>> Commissioner.

46:34

>> Yeah. Likewise. I think the the mix

46:38

building

46:40

for that area.

46:46

We'll go to the public again once again.

46:49

Anyone with concerns or questions,

46:52

please stand, state your name and

46:53

address. Go to my left

46:56

middle

46:59

right.

47:01

I get a motion.

47:03

>> Motion to approve conditions.

47:06

>> Is there a second?

47:07

>> Second.

47:07

>> It's been moved and second for approval

47:10

of project with conditions. All those in

47:13

favor state by saying I

47:15

>> opposed.

47:18

Objection. Motion carried.

47:38

to the end of all the business.

47:42

>> Okay.

47:44

This is special

47:46

application for 1644 Market Street RM

47:53

with Keystone Property Service. He's

47:56

requesting design relief necessary to

47:59

convert the existing single family

48:01

building to a three unit multi- dwelling

48:04

request.

48:06

>> Yep. So, uh the applicant has converted

48:08

a single family dwelling into a

48:10

three-unit multif family dwelling which

48:12

requires zoning hearing board approval

48:13

of special exceptions for the proposed

48:15

use and relief from the off street

48:16

parking requirements for section 7-305.7

48:19

and 7-327.6 six of the zoning code

48:22

respectively and variances for a relief

48:24

from the density and specific criteria

48:25

regulations in section 7-307.3

48:28

and 7-309.2V

48:30

of the zoning code respectively. This is

48:32

an after the-act application. Property

48:34

at 1644 Market Street is a 04 acre lot

48:38

featuring a three-story 2188

48:40

structure which was constructed circa

48:42

1900. Property is bounded by Ethel

48:44

Street to the north, the property at

48:46

1646 Market Street to the east, Market

48:48

Street to the south, and the property at

48:50

1642 Market Street to the west. This

48:52

detached structure features elements of

48:54

the Italian 8 architectural style.

48:55

Character defining features include the

48:57

varied facade treatments including

48:59

painted brick on the front elevation and

49:00

vertical aluminum siding and vertical

49:02

aluminum on the side elevation, the

49:05

elevated entryway, the decorative window

49:08

headers on the front elevation, and the

49:10

ornate wooden corners with sunburst

49:12

dentals and brackets, and the twotory

49:14

wooden porch on the rear elevation. The

49:16

main entrance features a panled

49:17

fiberglass infill door topped with a

49:20

simple transom and set in a prominent

49:22

wooden surround featuring projecting

49:24

panels, fluted pillisters, and a simple

49:26

pediment. It is accessed by concrete

49:28

stairs featuring metal railings.

49:29

Entrances on the second and third floors

49:31

of the rear elevation feature the same

49:33

paneled fiberglass doors accessible via

49:35

wood and metal fire escapes. Penetration

49:37

features windows in a in a one over one

49:39

pane configuration. Windows on the front

49:41

elevation feature simple wooden

49:42

surrounds, wooden sills, and decorative

49:44

wooden headers.

49:46

with engravings, dentals, and small

49:48

pediments. The structure appears topped

49:50

with flat rubber roofs. The rear yard is

49:52

small and bounded by the primary

49:54

structure and a detached cinder block

49:56

garage with a roll down door in a

49:58

deteriorated state. Although it features

50:01

unsympathetic alterations such as modern

50:03

doors and siding, a result of the

50:05

demolition of the adjacent structure and

50:07

exhibits some deterioration, the

50:09

structure mirrors architectural features

50:10

of other buildings on the block

50:13

and generally reflects the massing and

50:15

design of other properties in the

50:16

surrounding neighborhood. As such, the

50:18

property contributes to the

50:19

architectural and historic character of

50:20

the streetscape and neighborhood.

50:23

The plane bureau staff recommends the

50:25

request be approved with the following

50:27

conditions. uh the applicant should be

50:30

limited to two units on site in contrast

50:32

to other similar applications followed

50:34

by filed by the applicant. The subject

50:36

property was transferred between

50:38

entities owned by or affiliated with the

50:40

applicant and was not purchased from a

50:41

different individual entity or as part

50:43

of a ch tax judicial sale. Additionally,

50:45

granting approval for two units would

50:47

minimize deviation from the zoning code

50:48

and reduce the impacts on the adjacent

50:50

properties and surrounding neighborhood.

50:52

If granted approval to formalize the

50:54

conversion to either two or three units,

50:56

the applicant shall allow the codes beer

50:57

to perform a comprehensive inspection to

50:59

identify any outstanding code violations

51:01

and will receive approval for all

51:02

necessary city permits prior to

51:03

receiving a certificate of occupancy.

51:05

Uh, and I do want to note uh the

51:07

applicant did contact me about that

51:09

condition, noting that uh they do have

51:11

recent rental inspections uh that were

51:13

performed um on this property. Um, and

51:16

we do consider that to be um we do

51:20

consider that to be sufficient to meet

51:21

this uh condition. Um, and then finally,

51:24

the applicant must either repair or

51:26

demolish the existing detached garage at

51:28

the rear of the property to establish a

51:30

formal legal off- streetet parking space

51:32

for residents. Plane Bureau staff

51:34

recommends the request be approved for

51:35

the following reasons. While the

51:37

circumstances surrounding the past

51:38

conversion are unclear, the bureau can

51:40

confirm a history of condemnations

51:42

related to property maintenance and

51:43

insufficient utilities on site and notes

51:45

the conditions of the abuing property

51:47

required it to be demolished completely

51:49

post August 2023. As such, there appears

51:52

to be or have been some justification

51:54

for conversion to multiple units,

51:55

although the bureau believes that only

51:57

two units are justified. And then the

51:59

property is located in a mixeduse

52:01

corridor featuring convenience stores,

52:02

churches, and other converted

52:03

properties. and thus a two-unit

52:05

conversion would not create adverse

52:06

impacts on the surrounding neighborhood.

52:10

>> I just state your name for the record.

52:13

>> Yes, my name is uh Robert Shokes. I am

52:16

the u the owner of Keystone Property

52:18

Service, which is the property

52:19

management company for this particular

52:21

property.

52:22

>> Are you acceptable to the commission?

52:25

>> Yes.

52:28

>> That commissioner is pretty

52:30

straightforward to me. I'm going to go

52:33

to you for questions and concerns.

52:36

>> Yeah. Under the circumstances, I'm

52:38

favor.

52:42

>> No comments.

53:00

>> I did have a question.

53:07

No, I don't

53:10

think sorry.

53:19

>> So, currently it's

53:22

>> currently is occupied as three unit.

53:24

This this is um this is probably a good

53:26

property to demonstrate uh a question

53:29

that was was asked a little while ago is

53:31

you know how did how did we get here and

53:33

what was the process that was being used

53:36

back in the day I'm going to call it um

53:40

uh we we put in applications with the

53:42

codes department and I would request

53:44

permission to do certain things making a

53:46

multi-unit that kind of thing and the

53:47

codes department would do their thing

53:49

and come back and say no you can't do

53:51

that it's only zoned as a single family

53:54

residence and so you you can't do that

53:55

without going uh further in this process

53:57

and so we we usually shied away from

54:00

doing that because of it's it's

54:04

somewhat difficult and more more of a

54:06

time constraint than anything else um in

54:09

this particular case and and the the the

54:12

running exception to that was if the

54:15

property in question that we had

54:17

acquired showed evidence of previous

54:21

use as a multi-unit

54:23

Then codes enforcement officer in this

54:25

particular case, uh, Inspector Daryl

54:27

Wagno, who's still here on staff, uh,

54:30

came out and looked at the, uh, the

54:32

building and we found that there was a a

54:34

long-standing three gang gas meter base

54:37

in

54:39

in the uh, in the basement, meaning that

54:41

there were three separate gas meters

54:44

installed in this property at one point

54:46

in time. Hence, he allowed me to go

54:49

forward with the plan to convert this

54:50

into a three-unit. So that's how we got

54:52

to here. Uh it's not that complicated. I

54:55

mean it's complicated and that people

54:57

are living there,

54:59

>> you know. Uh but as as a matter of

55:01

engineering, it's not complicated to

55:03

convert it to a two-unit because the

55:05

third floor unit would be easily adapted

55:08

into the the second floor unit. So that

55:10

that's that's simple. the the more

55:12

complicated part is just allowing time

55:15

for the attrition

55:17

uh from the third floor unit if we can

55:21

at least let me give this guy some some

55:22

notice

55:24

uh to to you know and and maybe I have

55:26

another unit somewhere that he would be

55:28

amanable to moving to or something along

55:30

those lines.

55:32

second thing I was

55:34

>> right as for the garage that's been

55:36

that's been a longstanding eyesore and

55:39

it is on the the very long list of

55:41

things that need to get done in order to

55:43

improve this and and it's it's it's in

55:46

the works as it is.

55:48

>> So

55:49

I think this question might be more for

55:51

you Jeffrey. Um,

55:55

>> so from a legal standpoint, they have

55:57

lease agreement, correct?

56:00

>> From a also legal standpoint,

56:03

does that continue forth until it

56:05

expires or does that somehow get voided

56:08

because this is not technically

56:11

>> uh that is way above my pay grade or at

56:13

least my outside of my uh uh knowledge

56:16

of uh the legal foundations of planning.

56:19

um we would be fine uh with you know

56:22

allowing uh the applicant time uh to

56:25

find another um unit whether that's in

56:28

another property the applicant owns or

56:31

somewhere else. Uh we you know and we

56:34

don't I don't make that recommendation

56:36

to have it be two units lightly. I know

56:38

that that will impact somebody. Um but

56:41

you know it's also about keeping with

56:43

the standards which how we've reviewed

56:44

other similar properties and stuff like

56:46

that and we don't want to just say like

56:48

well because there's someone there shrug

56:50

nothing we can do about it. Um but I

56:52

think uh we would be fine if you know

56:56

saying we could take it till the end of

56:58

whatever lease this um tenant has uh and

57:02

you know reverting it back to two units

57:05

after that.

57:06

>> I'm I'm happy to serve the tenant with

57:07

notice that we wouldn't be Yeah. Go

57:09

ahead.

57:10

>> Uh, I'm going to since this is above

57:13

your grade, I'm going to ask someone who

57:16

is at that grade.

57:23

>> Um, I mean it.

57:26

Can you guys hear me? Okay. I mean, it's

57:28

a complicated question. The city of

57:30

Harrisburg does definitely not want to

57:32

be in the position putting people out of

57:35

housing. we talk about there's housing

57:38

you know shortages as there is um so I

57:41

get um you know the dilemma that it

57:44

presents um we did know and in I did

57:48

look at the report seeing that the

57:51

recommendation was for two um at the

57:54

very least I would think

57:59

my and I'll give a non-legal answer if

58:03

that's at the very least I would

58:05

probably expect the tenant to be able to

58:09

remain the remainder of the lease

58:11

period. I would think that would be, you

58:14

know, gracious of the city to do. Um, if

58:17

if you guys decide that a third unit

58:20

just is not what you want. Um, having

58:23

said that, you know that it's we usually

58:26

aren't in the landlord tenant business

58:29

in this instance, a private landlord,

58:31

but being that it is a situation where

58:34

you could decide that it's not a legal

58:37

unit, then I would assume then we would

58:40

allow the person time to, you know, exit

58:43

the situation and hopefully

58:46

accommodations could be made with the

58:48

landlord to place him someplace else. I

58:50

mean, that would be my answer off the

58:51

cuff without any other landlord tenant

58:55

uh rules coming to mind right now.

58:59

>> And I would just note that I I think uh

59:02

it might actually be um you know, kind

59:04

of fortuitous that uh the current tenant

59:07

is a tenant of the applicant because as

59:09

the applicant noted, he has many

59:11

properties throughout the city and I'm

59:12

guessing there's you know churn within

59:15

uh that inventory of people's leases

59:17

coming up and being renewed and

59:19

whatever. So, I would imagine that

59:21

compared to maybe a one-off property

59:23

owned by somebody else, this would might

59:24

be easier for uh this tenant to find an

59:27

alternative uh living arrangement.

59:30

>> And I guess the tenant couldn't afford

59:34

if it goes to two one of those

59:37

apartment.

59:39

>> I doubt I doubt it very much in this

59:41

particular circumstance. It's it's a

59:42

it's a two room, one bedroomedroom, one

59:45

bath on the third floor. uh minimal

59:48

rent. I think it's about $700 a month,

59:51

that kind of thing. Um it's in good

59:53

shape. Uh but it's it's

59:56

the parking there on on at that section

59:59

there at uh Market Street, you know,

1:00:01

right there near 17th is it's a premium

1:00:04

and it's hard. And there's a bus stop

1:00:06

right there in the corner. I don't know

1:00:08

if there's any way to stipulate that uh

1:00:11

a tenant there wouldn't be able to own a

1:00:13

car, would have to to use a bus. I don't

1:00:15

I don't know if I don't even know how I

1:00:16

would work that out in a lease. If

1:00:18

that's something that would be viable,

1:00:20

then that might be another alternative.

1:00:22

If if not, then I would just simply say

1:00:24

I would let this tenant know that we

1:00:26

don't intend to renew this lease at the

1:00:28

end and just simply explain why. It's

1:00:30

just one of those things that happens

1:00:32

and and uh we'll make the conversion.

1:00:34

Like I say, it's a it's pretty simple

1:00:35

conversion is literally just a wall that

1:00:37

goes up and some doors come off and

1:00:39

voila, instead of a two-bedroom, one

1:00:42

bath, you have a three-bedroom, two

1:00:43

bath.

1:00:44

I'm not getting more involved in that.

1:00:48

Or did you have a question?

1:00:49

>> I was just say this is the worst thing

1:00:50

to happen to you tonight.

1:00:53

>> Yeah, we're not trying to force

1:00:55

anything. Uh I'm sorry, Commissioner

1:00:57

Jordan. That's all.

1:01:00

>> Commissioner Vincent,

1:01:03

>> just to kind of recclarify

1:01:05

which which uh violation of our zoning

1:01:09

code like why are we reducing it 3 to2

1:01:11

is because

1:01:12

>> um I would say it's it's about the

1:01:15

justification for uh specifically the

1:01:17

more so the variance I would say I think

1:01:19

the special exception uh lower burden of

1:01:22

proof on the applicant. Um but um you

1:01:25

know the special exception related to

1:01:28

the off streetet parking uh a two-unit

1:01:30

building would require two spaces. A

1:01:32

three-unit building requires four. So it

1:01:34

requires twice as much parking. And

1:01:36

again they have a parking uh they have a

1:01:38

garage in the back that could provide

1:01:40

one of those. It doesn't look like it's

1:01:41

operable. At least wasn't sure there was

1:01:43

a car parked in front of it um when when

1:01:45

I was out there. But uh it's about I

1:01:48

think the uh whether there's the

1:01:49

justification for the variance because

1:01:51

it's not large enough to be converted

1:01:53

and it's based the property itself is

1:01:55

basically large enough for like one

1:01:57

unit. So asking for uh three units would

1:02:00

not really be the minimum uh deviation

1:02:03

to afford relief I think and I think

1:02:05

that's kind of what we've held for the

1:02:07

other uh cases being brought by the

1:02:09

applicant and other similar proposals

1:02:11

that um have been submitted in the past.

1:02:16

Is that upstairs unit

1:02:19

large enough to be a legal unit?

1:02:21

>> Yes.

1:02:23

>> Oh, I'm sorry. I was asking.

1:02:24

>> Oh, yeah.

1:02:26

>> I'm not I'm not again I'm uh I don't

1:02:28

know the specifics of what the of the co

1:02:32

threshold. I don't know whether it's

1:02:32

like 250 ft or 300 square feet, but um I

1:02:36

would assume that if the coach was out

1:02:38

there reviewing the sites over

1:02:48

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm not quite

1:02:50

clear at the reduction, but I mean,

1:02:57

go to the public again. If you have any

1:02:59

concerns, please stand. State your name.

1:03:02

Left with the senator.

1:03:04

>> Okay.

1:03:06

Uh commissioners, uh can I get a motion?

1:03:10

>> Motion to approve of commission.

1:03:13

Second

1:03:15

>> move and second for approval of the uh

1:03:17

project. All those in favor signify by

1:03:19

saying

1:03:20

>> I oppose

1:03:25

right there.

1:03:27

>> Just for my clarification, if they're

1:03:29

approving it with the conditions, is

1:03:32

that for your

1:03:34

two units? Yes, that would be one of the

1:03:37

questionain.

1:03:43

>> Well, I just think it's not clear the

1:03:45

way

1:03:46

>> the time limit to get the

1:03:52

>> I mean, I guess you could do a new

1:03:54

motion. I just

1:03:56

>> and I can bring it up at the zoning and

1:03:57

hearing board meeting and let and let

1:03:58

them know that while it might not be a

1:04:00

part of the formal resolution they

1:04:01

receive, it is it was a discussion and

1:04:03

recommendation

1:04:04

>> between provide Jeffrey with

1:04:07

documentation that that the uh the

1:04:09

tenant has been sort of noticed that

1:04:11

>> right my my concern was that the way the

1:04:14

motion was worded and approved does that

1:04:16

mean without context does that mean the

1:04:19

tenant gets out immediately? Does that

1:04:21

mean we're affording, you know, and like

1:04:23

he said, you could add context or teeth

1:04:25

at zoning, but I just wanted to be clear

1:04:28

for you guys that in my understanding,

1:04:31

the motion in passing is very vague.

1:04:34

>> I I don't think I don't think it's it

1:04:36

doesn't have a time limit or anything

1:04:39

like that that says this must happen

1:04:41

tomorrow. Um, so I think uh as long as

1:04:44

and again, as you said, the act the

1:04:48

decision would be modified by the zoning

1:04:49

hearing board.

1:04:52

And I heard it just reentered into a 20

1:04:54

year release.

1:05:05

>> Yep, we voted on that.

1:05:09

Okay, move on then.

1:05:22

Okay. Item number eight, uh, variance

1:05:25

and special exception application for

1:05:28

1901 F Street, which is done RM again

1:05:32

filed by Robert Sto with Keystone

1:05:36

Property Service and he's requesting the

1:05:38

zoning relief necessary to convert the

1:05:40

existing single family dwelling into a

1:05:42

two unit multi-dwelling and request

1:05:45

relation to the off street.

1:05:48

>> Uh yes, the applicant has converted an

1:05:50

existing single family dwelling into a

1:05:52

two-unit multif family dwelling which

1:05:54

requires zoning hearing board approval

1:05:56

of special exceptions for the proposed

1:05:57

use and relief from the Austri parking

1:05:59

requirements per section 7-305.7

1:06:02

and 7-327.6

1:06:04

of the zoning code respectively and a

1:06:06

variance for relief from the density

1:06:07

regulation in section 7-307.3 of the

1:06:10

zoning code. This is an after the fact

1:06:12

application. Uh, and I do want to point

1:06:14

out the difference here is that in this

1:06:16

case, the applicant does not need

1:06:18

another variance for relief from the

1:06:19

specific criteria because the building

1:06:21

is large enough for conversion. Um, the

1:06:23

property at 1901 Forester Street is a 06

1:06:26

acre lot featuring a three-story 2826 ft

1:06:30

structure which was constructed circa

1:06:32

1900. Property is bounded by Forester

1:06:34

Street to the north. the property at

1:06:36

1903 Forester Street to the east, Brown

1:06:38

Street to the south, and North 19th

1:06:40

Street to the west. This attached

1:06:42

structure features elements of a

1:06:43

vernacular architectural style.

1:06:45

Character defining features include the

1:06:47

various facade treatments including wood

1:06:49

clapboard, aluminum siding, brick and

1:06:51

stucco, the enclosed front porch, the

1:06:54

one-story building addition featuring

1:06:55

metal awnings on the rear elevation, the

1:06:58

Oreo windows on the second floor of the

1:06:59

front and side elevations, and the

1:07:01

detached garage. The main entrance

1:07:03

features a paneled fiberglass door set

1:07:05

in a simple frame. It is accessed by

1:07:07

semic-ircular concrete stairs. Side

1:07:09

entrance features a similar panled

1:07:11

fiberglass door accessible via concrete

1:07:13

steps. It is sheltered by a metal

1:07:14

awning. Penetration features windows in

1:07:17

one over one pane configurations. Two of

1:07:19

the windows on the front elevation have

1:07:20

been infilled, including one in the oral

1:07:22

window. Building is topped with flat

1:07:24

rubber roofs. The rear yard is enclosed

1:07:26

by a six foot high wooden stockade fence

1:07:28

with a small strip of grass alongside a

1:07:30

detached singlecar garage that is clad

1:07:32

and stucco and features a wooden panled

1:07:34

garage door. The building features the

1:07:37

building reflects architectural features

1:07:39

of other nearby buildings and generally

1:07:41

reflects the massing and design of other

1:07:43

properties in the surrounding

1:07:45

neighborhood. As such, the building does

1:07:47

contribute to the architectural and

1:07:48

historic character of the streetscape

1:07:50

and neighborhood.

1:07:52

The planning bureau staff recommends the

1:07:54

request be approved with the following

1:07:56

condition. Uh if granted approval to

1:07:58

move forward with the project as

1:07:59

proposed, the applicant shall allow the

1:08:00

codes bureau to perform a comprehensive

1:08:02

inspection to identify any outstanding

1:08:04

codes issues and will receive approval

1:08:06

for all necessary city permits prior to

1:08:08

receiving a certificate of occupancy. Uh

1:08:10

and as with the last property, um they

1:08:12

do have a recent history of that. So, uh

1:08:14

we do consider uh the applicant to have

1:08:17

met that condition on our end. Uh

1:08:19

planning bureau staff recommends the

1:08:20

request be approved for the following

1:08:22

reasons. In contrast to other such

1:08:23

conversions, the structure itself is

1:08:25

large enough for a buyight conversion to

1:08:27

two units, thus reducing the amount and

1:08:29

intensity of zoning relief and providing

1:08:30

some justification for the current

1:08:32

request. As a corner lot, the property

1:08:34

has a onecar detached garage and enough

1:08:36

frontage along both 19th North 19th

1:08:38

Street and Forester Street to reasonably

1:08:41

accommodate the two off- streetet

1:08:43

parking spaces required for the use,

1:08:45

thereby reducing the impact of the

1:08:47

presumed increase in parking demand on

1:08:49

the surrounding residents.

1:08:53

>> You just need to state your name, that's

1:08:55

all.

1:08:56

>> My name is Robert Shokes.

1:08:58

>> Okay. Uh you heard the conditions. Are

1:09:02

you acceptable?

1:09:03

>> Yes, sir.

1:09:05

>> With that, it's pretty straightforward.

1:09:10

>> Commissioners and um any concerns?

1:09:15

>> Yeah. Yeah. No concerns. Again, under

1:09:17

circumstances in favor,

1:09:22

>> no concerns.

1:09:27

>> No, this one is the most straightforward

1:09:29

of all of them.

1:09:32

No questions.

1:09:43

>> Commissioner Jordan.

1:09:46

>> Commissioner,

1:09:47

>> no issues.

1:09:49

>> Go to the public. No.

1:09:53

Could I get a motion?

1:09:55

>> Approve uh with the condition.

1:09:58

>> Second.

1:10:00

Second move and second for approval with

1:10:02

one condition. All those in favor state

1:10:05

by saying I.

1:10:06

>> I.

1:10:07

>> Oppos.

1:10:10

Motion carried. Think we have one more.

1:10:13

>> Two more.

1:10:16

>> Although I probably could have combined

1:10:18

these into into one because they're

1:10:20

adjacent properties, but

1:10:34

Okay, this is uh

1:10:44

uh this is item number nine.

1:10:47

This is a varian section application for

1:10:50

2040 Northport Street and it's zon RM

1:10:55

and it's by Robert Sto with Keystone

1:10:59

Property Service and he's requesting the

1:11:01

zoning relief necessary to convert the

1:11:04

existing single family dwelling to a

1:11:06

twounit multif family to request relief

1:11:08

from the street parking department.

1:11:11

>> Uh yep. So the applicants converted a

1:11:13

single family dwelling into a two-unit

1:11:14

multif family dwelling which requires

1:11:16

zoning hearing board approval of special

1:11:17

exceptions for the proposed use and

1:11:19

relief from the off- streetet parking

1:11:21

requirements per section 7-305.7

1:11:23

and 7-327.6

1:11:25

of the zoning code respectively and

1:11:27

variances for relief from the density

1:11:28

and specific criteria regulations and

1:11:31

sections 7-307.3

1:11:33

and 7-309.2V

1:11:35

of the zoning code respectively. This is

1:11:37

an after the fact application. Property

1:11:39

at 2040 North Fth Street is a 03 acre

1:11:42

lot featuring a three-story 1716 square

1:11:45

foot structure which was constructed

1:11:46

circa 1900. Properties bounded by the

1:11:49

property at 2042 North Fourth Street to

1:11:51

the north, North Fourth Street to the

1:11:52

east. Property at 2038 North Fourth

1:11:55

Street to the south and Walter Alley to

1:11:57

the west. Semiru detached structure

1:11:59

features elements of the Second Empire

1:12:00

architectural style. Character defining

1:12:02

features include the varying facade

1:12:04

treatments including crimson painted

1:12:06

brick ephus and vinyl siding, the full

1:12:09

width front porch, the second floor oral

1:12:11

window on the front elevation beneath a

1:12:13

prominent simple cornice. The two-story

1:12:16

wooden porches on the rear elevation and

1:12:17

the manered roof with real slate

1:12:19

shingles painted tan. Main entrance

1:12:21

features a paneled fiberglass door with

1:12:22

a divided light sunburst pane set within

1:12:24

a simple wooden frame and topped with a

1:12:26

simple transom featuring the property

1:12:28

address. is accessed via porch with

1:12:30

tongue and groove wooden flooring. There

1:12:32

are two entrances on the first and

1:12:33

second floors of the rear elevation,

1:12:35

both of which feature a paneled

1:12:36

fiberglass door topped with infilled

1:12:38

transoms. Administration features

1:12:40

windows in one over one pane

1:12:41

configurations. On the front elevation,

1:12:44

the first floor features sidebyside

1:12:45

windows topped with an infilled transom.

1:12:47

The second floor features the oral

1:12:48

window with simple surrounds and the

1:12:50

third floor features sidebyside windows

1:12:52

in a shallow dormer with a small

1:12:53

pediment. The front rear elevations

1:12:55

feature manered roofs clad and roslate

1:12:57

shingles and the building is otherwise

1:12:58

topped with flat rubber roofs. There's a

1:13:00

small yard in the rear enclosed by a low

1:13:02

cinder block wall and short chain link

1:13:04

metal fence. The property exhibits

1:13:06

significant alterations such as the

1:13:08

varying facade treatments on the side

1:13:09

elevation that reduce its contribution

1:13:11

and that of its attached pair to the

1:13:13

character of the neighborhood which

1:13:14

primarily features residences of

1:13:16

different architectural design. As such,

1:13:18

the building only makes a minimal

1:13:20

contribution to the character of the

1:13:21

streetscape and neighborhood.

1:13:24

The plan B staff recommends a request be

1:13:25

approved with the following conditions.

1:13:27

Uh if granted zoning approval to move

1:13:29

forward with the project as proposed,

1:13:30

the applicant shall allow the codes to

1:13:32

perform a comprehensive inspection to

1:13:33

identify any outstanding code violations

1:13:35

and will receive approval for all

1:13:37

necessary city permits prior to

1:13:38

receiving an updated certificate of

1:13:40

occupancy. Plio staff recommends the

1:13:43

request be approved for the following

1:13:44

reasons. The property had a history of

1:13:47

condemnations for various building code

1:13:48

deficiencies over the years prior to the

1:13:50

applicant's ownership, potentially

1:13:51

requiring more investment than would be

1:13:53

viable for rehabilitation as a single

1:13:55

family dwelling. As such, there is

1:13:57

justification for the allowance of an

1:13:58

additional unit than would be permitted

1:13:59

by Wright. Uh the project reconstructed

1:14:02

a blighting influence and attractive

1:14:03

nuisance and to units that will

1:14:04

contribute to the housing inventory in

1:14:06

the city and the neighborhood and

1:14:07

appears to have had a positive impact on

1:14:09

the uh frequency of illegal dumping on

1:14:12

the adjacent vacant lots. And finally,

1:14:14

existing conditions of the property and

1:14:16

its contact within the neighborhood,

1:14:17

specifically the availability of on

1:14:19

street parking along North Fourth Street

1:14:20

due to the abuing vacant lots and the

1:14:22

vacant church across the street mean the

1:14:25

proposed in increase in residential

1:14:27

density should have a limited impact on

1:14:29

the surrounding community.

1:14:33

>> State your name.

1:14:34

>> My name is Robert Shokes. Okay.

1:14:36

>> Uh once again, you heard the staff

1:14:38

report um with the wind conditions are

1:14:41

acceptable.

1:14:42

>> Yes, sir. Okay.

1:14:44

I have no questions at this time. Again,

1:14:46

straightforward.

1:14:48

Any questions?

1:14:50

>> Commissioner,

1:14:52

>> no questions.

1:14:55

>> Um, the only question I have uh and it

1:14:58

relates to this and the next

1:15:00

application, the next case 2042. So, it

1:15:03

would be a total of four parking spaces

1:15:06

between the because essentially this is

1:15:08

one building unit.

1:15:10

>> Yeah.

1:15:10

>> Two parcels.

1:15:13

and it be four. They're both two units.

1:15:17

>> Um well, I guess if you if you

1:15:18

considered it collectively, it'd be five

1:15:21

overall required. Um but because they're

1:15:23

each individual properties,

1:15:26

>> um it's just we look at it on a per

1:15:28

property basis.

1:15:29

>> Okay.

1:15:31

And you've got vacant lots on either

1:15:34

side of the

1:15:35

>> Yes. I acquired uh 2040 this particular

1:15:38

property. We acquired the vacant lot

1:15:41

2038 to its left at the same time.

1:15:46

>> Nice. They have a a yard.

1:15:50

>> Well, I do.

1:15:53

>> That's

1:15:54

>> And then on the other side of 2042, it's

1:15:57

also vacant, right?

1:15:58

>> That is also vacant. There are three

1:16:00

adjacent lots there that are vacant

1:16:01

across the street from the church.

1:16:03

>> Okay. All right. Thank you. No other

1:16:05

questions.

1:16:07

>> Commissioner Jordan,

1:16:08

>> just one quick question. Um, so you said

1:16:10

you acquired 2038.

1:16:12

>> I acquired 2038 at that time. Uh, and

1:16:16

have since uh sold that. So I'm I'm no

1:16:19

longer the I'm not the current owner of

1:16:20

2038.

1:16:22

>> That was actually purchased by the

1:16:24

gentleman who lives at 2036,

1:16:28

I think, at the adjacent to that lot on

1:16:30

the other side.

1:16:33

>> He has it now. Yes. Pardon me.

1:16:34

>> Was there a property at 23 previously?

1:16:37

>> Do you mean like a a structure?

1:16:39

>> Yes.

1:16:39

>> Yeah. I I couldn't find when those were

1:16:42

demolished. I I went back as far as like

1:16:44

Google Streets you had till like 2011

1:16:46

and they weren't there. So, it obviously

1:16:47

happened a long time ago.

1:16:49

>> Okay. Yeah, that I mean that was really

1:16:51

my only question out of curiosity about

1:16:52

the intermittent sighting.

1:16:55

That's that's why it was placed there

1:16:57

because there was a a significant part

1:16:59

of you know the building that was

1:17:01

damaged in the process of

1:17:09

>> no questions

1:17:11

to the public.

1:17:22

>> It's been moved and second to to approve

1:17:25

this with the one condition. All those

1:17:27

in favor state by saying I

1:17:29

>> oppose.

1:17:31

Motion carries.

1:17:45

This is item number 10. This is a

1:17:48

variance and special reception

1:17:49

application for 2042 North Fourth

1:17:52

Street.

1:17:54

zone or amate Robert Sto with Keystone

1:17:58

Property Service and then to request the

1:18:00

zoning relief necessary to convert the

1:18:02

existing single family dwelling to a two

1:18:05

unit multi-dwelling multif family

1:18:07

dwelling and request relief from the

1:18:10

street. Okay, so this again is similar

1:18:13

to the last one in that they're convert

1:18:15

they have converted a single family

1:18:16

dwelling into a two-unit multif family

1:18:18

dwelling which requires ZHB approval of

1:18:21

special exceptions for the proposed use

1:18:22

and relief from the all street parking

1:18:24

requirements per section 7-305.7

1:18:27

and 7-327.6

1:18:28

of the zoning code respectively and

1:18:30

variances for relief from the density

1:18:32

and specific criteria regulations in

1:18:34

sections 7-307.3

1:18:36

and 7-309.2V

1:18:38

of the zoning code respectively. It's an

1:18:40

after the fact application. Property at

1:18:42

2042 North Fourth Street is a 03 acre

1:18:46

lot featuring a three-story 1668 square

1:18:48

foot structure which was constructed

1:18:50

circa 1900. Property is bounded by the

1:18:52

property at 2044 North Fourth Street to

1:18:54

the north, North Fourth Street to the

1:18:56

east. Property at 2040 North Fourth

1:18:58

Street to the south and Walter Alley to

1:19:00

the west. The semi- detached structure

1:19:01

features elements of the Second Empire

1:19:03

architectural style. Character defining

1:19:05

features include the variant facade

1:19:06

treatments including crimson painted

1:19:08

brick and stucco. the full width front

1:19:10

porch, the second floor oral window on

1:19:12

the front elevation beneath a prominent

1:19:14

simple cornice. The two-story wooden

1:19:16

porches on the rear rear elevation and

1:19:18

the manered roof with real slate

1:19:19

shingles. The main entrance features a

1:19:21

paneled fiberglass door set within a

1:19:23

simple wooden frame and topped with an

1:19:24

infill transom. It is accessed via porch

1:19:27

with tongue and groove wooden flooring.

1:19:29

There are three entrances on the first

1:19:30

and second floors of the rear ele rear

1:19:32

elevation. All of which feature a panled

1:19:34

fiberglass door with the ones providing

1:19:36

access to the first and second floor

1:19:38

units topped with infilled transoms. A

1:19:40

third floor a third door appears to

1:19:42

provide access to the basement.

1:19:43

Penetration features windows in one over

1:19:45

one pane configurations

1:19:48

on the front elevation. The first floor

1:19:49

features sidebyside windows topped with

1:19:51

an infilled transom. The second floor

1:19:53

features the Oreo window with simple

1:19:54

surrounds. And the third floor features

1:19:56

sidebyside windows and a shallow dormer

1:19:58

with a small pediment. Front elevation

1:20:00

features a maner roof clad and real

1:20:01

slate shingles while the rear manered

1:20:03

roof cladding has been replaced with

1:20:05

vinyl siding. And the property is

1:20:06

otherwise topped with flat rubber roofs.

1:20:08

There's a small yard in the rear

1:20:10

partially enclosed with a short chain

1:20:11

link metal fence. property exhibits

1:20:13

significant alterations such as the rear

1:20:15

man roof replacement and the addition of

1:20:17

a new stairway to the basement on the

1:20:19

rear elevation that reduce its

1:20:21

contribution and that of its attached

1:20:22

pair to the character of the

1:20:23

neighborhood which primarily features

1:20:25

residences of different architectural

1:20:27

design. As such, the building only makes

1:20:29

a minimal contribution to the character

1:20:31

of the streetscape and neighborhood. The

1:20:34

planning bureau staff recommends the

1:20:35

request be approved with the following

1:20:36

conditions. If granted any approval to

1:20:38

move forward with the project as

1:20:40

proposed, the applicant shall allow the

1:20:41

codes bureau to perform a comprehensive

1:20:43

inspection to identify any outstanding

1:20:45

code violations and will receive

1:20:47

approval for all necessary city permits

1:20:49

prior to receiving an updated

1:20:50

certificate of occupancy. Plane bureau

1:20:52

staff recommends a request be approved

1:20:54

for the following reasons. The property

1:20:55

had a history of condemnations for

1:20:57

various building code deficiencies over

1:20:58

the years prior to the applicant's

1:21:00

ownership, potentially requiring more

1:21:02

investment than would be viable for

1:21:03

rehabilitation as a single family

1:21:05

dwelling. As such, there's justification

1:21:07

for the allowance of an additional unit

1:21:08

than would be permitted by Bright. The

1:21:11

project reconstructed a blighting

1:21:12

influence and attractive nuisance into

1:21:14

units that will contribute to the

1:21:16

housing inventory in the city and

1:21:17

neighborhood and appears to have had a

1:21:18

positive impact on the frequency of

1:21:20

illegal dumping on the adjacent vacant

1:21:22

lots. And finally, existing conditions

1:21:24

of the property and its context within

1:21:25

the neighborhood, specifically the

1:21:27

availability of on street parking along

1:21:28

North Fourth Street due to the abuing

1:21:30

vacant lots and the vacant church across

1:21:32

the street mean the proposed increase in

1:21:34

residential density should have a

1:21:36

limited impact on the surrounding

1:21:37

community.

1:21:41

>> My name is Robert Shokes.

1:21:43

>> Again, you heard the stat

1:21:46

one.

1:21:47

>> Yes, sir.

1:21:50

The only question I have when I looked

1:21:52

at this picture, I'm just curious

1:21:57

on the back door. What is that?

1:22:01

>> The back door.

1:22:02

>> Yeah, they

1:22:03

>> rear door. That's That's actually a

1:22:04

stairs to go down to the basement.

1:22:07

>> Oh, I mean that white

1:22:10

piece of wood I guess above that. Is

1:22:14

that like covering a window or

1:22:18

I'm not 100% sure to be honest. I'm not

1:22:21

sure what I'm looking at there. Uh I

1:22:22

believe that that is just simply

1:22:24

enclosing the space that's in behind

1:22:26

there.

1:22:27

>> Okay. I just wonder. No problem.

1:22:30

>> It's it's been too long. I'm I'd be

1:22:32

making it up

1:22:34

just different. Okay. With that again,

1:22:38

this is straightforward. Commissioners,

1:22:40

if you have any questions

1:22:43

about

1:22:46

>> No questions.

1:22:48

>> None.

1:22:59

Go to the public questions.

1:23:03

Commissioners, can I get a motion?

1:23:05

>> Motion to approve with the condition.

1:23:07

>> Is there a second

1:23:08

>> second

1:23:11

approval with the blind condition? All

1:23:13

those in favor state by saying I

1:23:19

>> Good luck, sir.

1:23:22

>> You did it.

1:23:30

She's not going to be here.

1:23:33

>> Yeah, she like

1:23:36

>> I'm kind of embarrassed that she didn't

1:23:38

>> because I emailed her about getting the

1:23:40

continuence from last month because she

1:23:42

had Okay,

1:23:51

>> we still have one more to

1:23:53

>> do a continuous

1:23:58

Uh this is item number 11

1:24:02

special application for 1257 and 1259

1:24:06

Walnut Street which is RM followed by

1:24:09

Arthur Jefferson with South Central

1:24:12

Pennsylvania Restoration LLC to

1:24:15

consolidate the subject properties and

1:24:18

request the zoning relief necessary to

1:24:21

construct a six unit multi-rolling

1:24:24

family and to request relief from the

1:24:26

office parking department. The applicant

1:24:29

has requested a continuous to the May

1:24:32

HC.

1:24:36

Can I get a motion

1:24:39

to continue?

1:24:41

>> A second.

1:24:43

>> Second approval for continues to the

1:24:47

main meeting for this project. All those

1:24:49

in favor state by saying I

1:24:52

>> abstensions.

1:24:56

Now we go back to number

1:24:59

two.

1:25:02

Again,

1:25:04

this is the variance. Do I have to read

1:25:05

it again?

1:25:07

>> You know, I mean, you don't have to.

1:25:09

It's the variance of special exception

1:25:11

for 1320 Fton Street.

1:25:13

um you know, seeing as the applicant has

1:25:15

not showed up and did not show up to the

1:25:17

last meeting uh and also um had not

1:25:20

responded to my request for a

1:25:23

continuence uh ahead of uh the March

1:25:27

17th or March 16th zoning hearing board

1:25:29

meeting. I'm not sure if they're still

1:25:33

proposing to move forward with this or

1:25:35

or what, but I think we'd already we've

1:25:38

already given them a um you know the uh

1:25:42

grace of a of one uh continuence. And I

1:25:46

would recommend uh that uh the

1:25:48

application be denied, which was what

1:25:49

our recommendation was in the case

1:25:51

report.

1:25:56

What's that?

1:26:00

>> Do you want us to vote on continuing?

1:26:04

>> I I would I would recommend I would

1:26:06

recommend a denial. I mean, if there had

1:26:08

been some back and forth and it was just

1:26:11

couldn't be here for whatever reason. I

1:26:13

would understand that. But um the the

1:26:15

lack of communication I think just it

1:26:18

will still go I guess to the zoning

1:26:20

hearing board and you know

1:26:22

>> and they can either withdraw

1:26:24

or continue from there after this

1:26:28

>> second

1:26:30

to deny the continuence

1:26:34

in favor by saying

1:26:35

>> I

1:26:42

number

1:26:44

Okay.

1:26:46

Oh, this is

1:26:48

>> Yeah.

1:26:51

>> Yeah. So, uh Yeah. So, with uh respect

1:26:54

to the um the zoning code amendment for

1:26:57

chapter 7 325. Uh, apologies for it

1:27:01

taking a little while to get to you, but

1:27:02

I eventually got you the crosswalk here

1:27:05

uh between um what we what we have now

1:27:09

and what the um planning bureau is

1:27:12

proposing for the future. So, I hope

1:27:14

this is um I hope this provides maybe a

1:27:17

little bit more clarity uh and

1:27:19

simplifies uh the changes we're

1:27:21

recommending for for your guys's

1:27:23

consideration. Um, you know, if you have

1:27:27

uh specific questions, uh, be happy to

1:27:30

answer them. I, you know, the most

1:27:33

significant section is obviously section

1:27:35

7-325.6.

1:27:37

That's the one that contains the, you

1:27:39

know, dimensional aspects of um of the

1:27:43

signage, size, height, illumination,

1:27:46

things of that nature of the four

1:27:48

different kinds of signs that we have.

1:27:50

Um, and you can kind of see for the most

1:27:53

part, uh, we made minimal, uh,

1:27:56

increases, um, such as for businesses in

1:27:59

the R, RL or RM district, uh,

1:28:02

recommending that they be allowed to

1:28:03

have eight square feet instead of four

1:28:05

square feet. Um, and you know, the

1:28:07

consideration for something like that is

1:28:10

uh if we are voting to allow uh a

1:28:14

business in the RM or RL district, I

1:28:16

think it's reasonable to allow them to

1:28:18

maybe uh advertise themselves um more

1:28:22

closely to what they would have if they

1:28:24

were in a CN district or something. I

1:28:26

don't think that uh an 8 square foot

1:28:29

sign would be um

1:28:32

too gaudy or out of character uh even in

1:28:34

a residential neighborhood. Um and so

1:28:38

that's kind of what we were thinking

1:28:39

there. Uh some other major changes is in

1:28:42

the CG district making again wall signs

1:28:45

100 square feet instead of 75. Um

1:28:49

something like that was based on uh

1:28:53

a an acknowledgement that we know a we

1:28:55

have few CG zoned uh properties um and a

1:29:00

in a lot of cases they're set back from

1:29:03

the road uh because they have parking in

1:29:05

front of them. Um so you have a little

1:29:08

bit more distance so you maybe need to

1:29:09

have a larger signage to be able to

1:29:11

advertise businesses that are there. Um

1:29:14

we kind of allowed uh overall increased

1:29:18

uh the allowance of window signs to 50%

1:29:21

of the window area instead of 25 uh%.

1:29:24

And um you know I think this will I

1:29:28

think this in particular will be a

1:29:30

benefit uh to small businesses. Um, you

1:29:33

know, when we get requests for small

1:29:35

businesses, uh, especially if they're in

1:29:37

historic districts, um, you know, they

1:29:40

may say like, well, I'm looking to get

1:29:41

started next week, uh, and they might be

1:29:44

able to establish that, but if it'll

1:29:46

take them six weeks to get a sign up,

1:29:48

for example, um, you know, that may be a

1:29:51

bit of a hardship for them. So, we've

1:29:53

always recommended in the past that

1:29:55

they, uh, put in window signs because

1:29:58

that's easier to put up, uh, not subject

1:30:00

to hard reviews. And so we wanted to

1:30:02

kind of codify that uh by allowing these

1:30:06

to go up. And we kind of run into the

1:30:08

issue of uh you've probably seen it

1:30:11

around the city where people just fill

1:30:12

in the whole window with uh you know

1:30:14

either decals or little windows or

1:30:17

something. So you know we want to get

1:30:18

away from that of just like filling up

1:30:20

windows um with uh signs or you know or

1:30:24

iconography or logos or anything like

1:30:26

that. um but still give small businesses

1:30:29

that are just getting started uh maybe

1:30:31

before they even have the money to buy

1:30:32

signs or go through the process to get

1:30:34

zoning relief or something uh a way to

1:30:37

uh be able to um advertise themselves uh

1:30:40

to the public. Um so that's kind of one

1:30:42

of the reasons we uh increased uh the

1:30:45

allowable size of window signage. Um,

1:30:49

other than that, uh, if you guys want to

1:30:51

go, you know, section by section, have

1:30:53

any questions or you have any

1:30:55

outstanding questions about, uh, what

1:30:57

you're seeing in here, um, be happy to

1:30:59

ask or happy to, um, provide some

1:31:02

background about, you know, why those

1:31:04

recommendations are being made?

1:31:08

>> Any questions?

1:31:10

>> Yeah. See, open space and recreation

1:31:12

reduces the wall sign to

1:31:16

reduction.

1:31:18

Uh yeah, you know, I think um we don't

1:31:21

really have many um

1:31:24

commercial uses in our OSR districts. Um

1:31:27

for the most part, those are strictly

1:31:30

parks. Um the there's two conspicuous

1:31:34

cases I can think of is the Loil Hotel

1:31:36

down off Shoi Street, 901 Shenoy. That's

1:31:38

in the OSR district. We get a lot of

1:31:40

questions about that lar mainly for like

1:31:42

things like roomy houses uh and stuff

1:31:45

but um the other is city island uh so

1:31:48

which is in the OSR district that's a

1:31:50

little different because it's owned by

1:31:52

the city and we have you know contracts

1:31:54

with vendors to occupy some of those

1:31:57

little kiosks in the in the village down

1:31:59

there and and elsewhere whether it's the

1:32:01

beach club or whatever. Um but for the

1:32:04

most part, you know, in my my opinion,

1:32:08

the OSR district is supposed to be kind

1:32:09

of natural. It's supposed to not be um

1:32:12

you know, commercialized really. And so

1:32:15

that's the one reason we just I

1:32:17

recommended shrinking uh the signers

1:32:19

there. Again, I would be surprised if

1:32:21

that ever comes up uh just because we

1:32:23

don't have many uh businesses in OSR

1:32:25

districts. Um but I thought that that

1:32:28

maybe matched the spirit of what the

1:32:29

district was a bit more.

1:32:32

Okay.

1:32:44

>> I I think before

1:32:48

my question I I feel like I don't know a

1:32:51

couple months ago I had questions about

1:32:53

the illumination section.

1:32:56

Um I do sorry

1:33:01

>> provided more specific light control.

1:33:04

Yeah I think I I think those were my

1:33:06

questions that I was trying to find. I

1:33:08

just wanted to find out like where they

1:33:10

came from like where they came from the

1:33:12

changes like how you arrived at the

1:33:15

>> so uh you know with regard to the

1:33:17

illumination just with regard to the

1:33:19

illumination or all of them

1:33:24

>> I don't remember.

1:33:26

I do remember you had asked about uh one

1:33:29

of the issues uh you had kind of uh been

1:33:32

focused on was the billboards. Um I I

1:33:35

don't recall the illumination quite as

1:33:37

much.

1:33:37

>> No, it was the billboards. You're right.

1:33:39

You're right. Because Yeah. Because then

1:33:41

because in the billboard section,

1:33:44

>> right, you increase the size,

1:33:46

>> right? Yes.

1:33:46

>> Which I think is good. But then my

1:33:48

question was, is that enough or should

1:33:51

we increase it more? A little bit more.

1:33:53

um

1:33:54

>> the standard.

1:33:55

>> Yeah. You know, I think as I've I've

1:33:58

been doing a little bit of research on

1:33:59

this and I think as the industry is

1:34:01

moving towards uh digital LED, there's

1:34:04

less standardization uh of the size of

1:34:06

the signs. I mean, you get ones that are

1:34:08

really tall and long or narrow and tall

1:34:11

and then you've got like ones that are

1:34:13

more like wider. I think that's kind of

1:34:14

the benefit of the LEDs is that you can

1:34:16

really structure uh the sign and the

1:34:19

messaging more to your taste and it's

1:34:21

not just like this is these are the

1:34:22

panels we put up and you get three of

1:34:24

them and they're all the same size kind

1:34:26

of that we that I think you know the

1:34:28

static uh billboard industry really had.

1:34:30

Um, so again, I I I don't know that

1:34:35

there was like a number I was shooting

1:34:37

at there of saying like this is the

1:34:40

average of all the reviews we've done uh

1:34:44

in the city or uh you know this is

1:34:47

necessarily where I think the industry

1:34:48

is going. Uh I just kind of tried to say

1:34:51

well I think we need to recognize that

1:34:54

billboards are probably bigger than what

1:34:55

our current regulations have um without

1:34:59

just

1:35:00

essentially giving cart blanch to uh the

1:35:03

billboard industry to just put up these

1:35:05

large 672 square foot signs whether

1:35:08

those are static or digital.

1:35:12

>> Okay, that makes more sense. And now I

1:35:14

remember too when I'm thinking about LED

1:35:17

billboards

1:35:20

are they are they considered illuminated

1:35:22

LED illumination?

1:35:23

>> I consider LED internal illumination uh

1:35:26

signage wise.

1:35:27

>> Yeah. And I and I would guess really,

1:35:28

you know, you're probably more running

1:35:31

into pendot regulations, like when you

1:35:33

start to talk about some of the uh maybe

1:35:36

regulating the way that they're

1:35:38

illuminated or the messaging or

1:35:40

something like that. Um I think Pendot

1:35:42

has like pretty stringent regulations

1:35:43

about what you can have along the side

1:35:45

of a highway uh because they don't want,

1:35:47

you know, people taking their attention

1:35:48

off while they're going 60 miles an

1:35:49

hour.

1:35:50

>> Well, I was also thinking about next to

1:35:51

residential lot. Mhm. Well, and you'll

1:35:53

and you'll note there the billboard

1:35:55

section that we uh are recommending that

1:35:58

uh it be doubled the distance from the

1:36:00

residential lot line from 250 to 500

1:36:02

square feet. So that can um a help hope

1:36:05

hopefully help uh minimize uh the impact

1:36:07

of any change um as well as you know

1:36:10

just from a building so you don't have a

1:36:12

billboard sitting right outside of a you

1:36:15

know somebody's office window or

1:36:16

something like that. Um although I think

1:36:19

from a practicality standpoint again I

1:36:21

don't think we're going to see too many

1:36:24

billboards uh outside of like the 83 and

1:36:28

you know maybe 81 corridor and even the

1:36:29

81 corridor like very narrowly runs

1:36:32

through the city. So it's mainly what

1:36:34

we're looking at along 83 and most of

1:36:36

that is you know we've got car

1:36:38

dealerships, you've got um the Penty

1:36:41

Supply area and kind of right down

1:36:42

there. Um, and you know, with the

1:36:47

widened uh highway further east, I don't

1:36:50

even know that you're necessarily and I

1:36:52

think they're putting I think they put

1:36:54

up highway walls uh sound barrier walls.

1:36:57

So, I don't even know if there's any

1:36:58

space to put um billboards out there,

1:37:02

but that's where you're probably getting

1:37:05

the closest to having a billboard impact

1:37:08

a residential neighborhood is out there

1:37:10

along eastern uh section of Interstate

1:37:13

83 there just because of um you know,

1:37:16

the existing land uses around there.

1:37:31

If a school or a convenience store or

1:37:36

some industrial building were to put up

1:37:38

a freestanding sign

1:37:42

that a billboard sign

1:37:46

>> Yeah. So the the difference is uh and

1:37:48

it's kind of there in the name. It's

1:37:50

like off premise. Yeah. It's like So

1:37:53

that's that'd be uh like Camp Hill

1:37:56

having a billboard in Harrisburg. It

1:37:58

wouldn't be like

1:37:59

>> if it's on the property that it's

1:38:01

advertising the use for, that's an on

1:38:02

premise sign and it would be subject to

1:38:04

whatever the zoning district is there.

1:38:06

>> Okay. All right. Thanks for clarifying

1:38:08

that.

1:38:08

>> I'm good.

1:38:14

>> Yeah.

1:38:16

>> Sure.

1:38:16

>> Um so the prohibited sign section

1:38:20

>> are are we saying that

1:38:23

says, "Signs that are non flashing with

1:38:25

an electronically changing message. Are

1:38:27

we saying they are or are not allowed in

1:38:30

any of the districts?"

1:38:31

>> Uh, we are saying that they're not

1:38:34

allowed.

1:38:35

>> Okay.

1:38:36

>> All right. And then for

1:38:40

offremise signs,

1:38:42

B6.

1:38:45

Okay.

1:38:46

>> It says that electronically changing

1:38:49

signage is prohibited. But didn't we

1:38:52

approve the swap out of static signs for

1:38:56

these types of signs along the highway

1:38:59

corridor?

1:39:00

>> So, we didn't approve like a swap out of

1:39:03

those two things. I mean, I think that's

1:39:04

just where the industry is going. I

1:39:06

don't think we did we did approve

1:39:07

specific questions. Yes, we did. We did

1:39:09

approve those

1:39:11

>> um those specific proposals. Uh and they

1:39:15

did have to file a variance for that.

1:39:16

>> Okay.

1:39:17

>> Yeah.

1:39:17

>> Okay. So, so technically this still

1:39:19

stands, but they had the Yes. Yes.

1:39:22

>> And the very last one probably

1:39:24

straightforward. Um the vehicles

1:39:27

functioning as signs. I'm assuming these

1:39:29

standards apply when the vehicles parked

1:39:31

and stationary.

1:39:32

>> So um you know basically I

1:39:38

essentially removed that section because

1:39:41

I don't know that we've ever uh used it

1:39:43

and I kind of folded it into

1:39:46

um I think the prohibited signs maybe.

1:39:48

Uh I can't remember off the top of my

1:39:49

head. Um, but uh I

1:39:54

think that for the most part if a if a

1:39:57

car or one of those trucks with like a

1:39:59

digital sign on it is parked along

1:40:01

Second Street, the zoning code doesn't

1:40:03

apply there. Uh we do not regulate in

1:40:05

the um in like the cartway uh for

1:40:08

anything like that. Uh so our zoning the

1:40:11

zoning regulations don't apply to that.

1:40:13

uh if it were in a parking lot for a

1:40:16

business and and doing it there, I guess

1:40:18

I'd consider that I guess I'd consider

1:40:20

that to be a free uh freestanding sign.

1:40:24

If it was just like parked and left

1:40:25

there, if it's parked there and it's

1:40:27

driven around during the day, I don't

1:40:29

know that I'd consider that a sign that

1:40:30

the zoning code would apply to.

1:40:33

>> Okay. All right. Thank you. I was a

1:40:35

little confused, but

1:40:42

Um,

1:40:45

my only question would have been about

1:40:46

the uh

1:40:49

on 32515 the posting industry address

1:40:52

like changing the

1:40:56

seems like a pretty technical

1:40:57

restriction that property owners have to

1:41:01

anchor to mortar joints. Is that

1:41:03

something that is a typical change or is

1:41:05

that more

1:41:06

>> so that's meant so that's kind of Uh

1:41:10

there's two reasons for that. One uh

1:41:12

being that as a general rule, um it's

1:41:15

better to anchor things like that

1:41:17

through mortar joints. Like even if

1:41:19

you're not in a historic district, like

1:41:21

putting it through the brick, which is

1:41:22

what a lot of contractors do because I

1:41:24

think they think, oh, brick, you've got

1:41:25

all this, you know, the solidness of the

1:41:27

brick to anchored into uh over time, you

1:41:30

know, it like wiggles around and it the

1:41:31

brick falls apart. And then when a

1:41:33

brick's fallen out of your uh facade, it

1:41:35

can be, you know, kind of difficult to

1:41:37

to clean that up. Um but from a historic

1:41:39

district perspective, we require

1:41:40

everything whether it's u you know new

1:41:43

sconces or whatever uh signs uh to be

1:41:46

anchored through mortar joints so it

1:41:48

doesn't damage the brick. So it's kind

1:41:50

of for those reasons we we recommended

1:41:52

that it's kind of like a best practice

1:41:54

and also like a historic requirement.

1:41:56

>> And with that and everything, how do we

1:41:58

like how are we communicating this out

1:42:01

so that those requirements kind of get

1:42:04

known so

1:42:07

>> Yeah. Um you know one of the I mean I I

1:42:10

guess it would be like we like how we do

1:42:12

this for anyway how do we pro promulgate

1:42:15

these now as as they are and I think you

1:42:18

know we rely on people to ask us we uh

1:42:22

hopefully do a good job of putting the

1:42:25

information out there in an accessible

1:42:26

manner. Uh but one of the things we've

1:42:28

talked about uh with um some of the

1:42:31

other departments is having a like

1:42:36

welcome letter um when a property

1:42:38

transfers to say you know if you're the

1:42:41

codes bureau, hey, make sure if you're

1:42:43

doing any structural work or any work

1:42:45

over $1,000 or whatever their criteria

1:42:47

are, you know, you file a building

1:42:48

permit so that people are aware that

1:42:50

that exists. and and we would do we

1:42:52

would have a similar section for like

1:42:53

the planning bureau of like know if

1:42:55

you're in a historic district, know if

1:42:56

you're in a flood plane and um we'd you

1:42:59

know direct them to uh to our website.

1:43:03

Um one of the things we're working on um

1:43:06

is a an FAQ sheet to put on the website.

1:43:09

So because we do get all kinds of

1:43:10

question of I'm looking to buy this

1:43:12

property, what can I do there? Um, and

1:43:14

you know, we get that a lot and instead

1:43:17

of like having plane bureau staff have

1:43:18

to maybe always, you know, address that

1:43:21

because that's really something I think

1:43:22

where the public can help themselves.

1:43:24

Um, but we need to kind of maybe give

1:43:25

them a bit more direction of just so

1:43:27

have that FAQ document. I just bought

1:43:30

this property. I'm looking to what can I

1:43:32

do? First step, you know, look it up on

1:43:33

the zoning map of what your zoning uh

1:43:36

what your zoning designation is. second

1:43:38

step, you know, go into the zoning code

1:43:40

which is at this link and like look for

1:43:41

the allowable uses in this section and

1:43:43

then look for the um uh development

1:43:46

standards in this section. So, we are

1:43:49

kind of working on ways to uh push this

1:43:52

information out uh to the public and not

1:43:54

just having you know expecting people to

1:43:57

come to us. Um but, you know, there's

1:44:00

always things we can do. I know um

1:44:03

there's uh you know our our

1:44:05

communications department is always uh

1:44:07

uh trying to get us to give them ideas

1:44:10

about you know content that they can

1:44:11

push out uh through our social media or

1:44:13

through our website. And so it's

1:44:14

probably you know something we would uh

1:44:17

work with them on to uh make sure we're

1:44:19

getting the word out when we have uh new

1:44:22

regulations especially because hopefully

1:44:23

the new regulations we're creating are

1:44:25

uh being designed to make the public's

1:44:28

life better. So, we want to let them

1:44:29

know when that's happening.

1:44:31

>> I uh I've been discussing with this with

1:44:33

Neil and I don't know if he was

1:44:34

discussing with you, but we seem to be

1:44:37

of the mind that there needs like in my

1:44:40

mind after this happens, you guys

1:44:42

basically would like recommend this as

1:44:45

zoning changes, which then have to still

1:44:48

be

1:44:50

really when I was talking to Neil about

1:44:51

it, it usually is recommended by the

1:44:53

city body, which would be the city

1:44:55

council that you guys would recommend

1:44:58

changes. This then to me in my mind has

1:45:01

to go through a process which includes

1:45:03

meetings and that type of thing. So, I

1:45:05

don't I'm not sure, Commissioner

1:45:07

Vincent, if you were referring to like

1:45:10

how would we get the whole changes out

1:45:11

or when somebody buys a new house, but

1:45:13

like we discussed before and Neil said

1:45:15

he had talked to you. I don't know.

1:45:16

We'll have to confer. To me, this is

1:45:19

like the first step in a process now

1:45:21

that begins. So, there would be public

1:45:24

meetings.

1:45:25

>> People in each district of course would

1:45:28

have their concerns about how it affects

1:45:30

their district and then at some point

1:45:32

after that it gets voted on. So I mean I

1:45:35

think we utilize that process for people

1:45:38

to say you know what businesses think

1:45:42

150 is better or you know and I don't

1:45:46

know that in the end it still looks

1:45:48

exactly like what Jeff recommended or do

1:45:51

we then have public commentary and we

1:45:53

say you know what they made a good point

1:45:55

we want to change 3251 to this and that.

1:45:58

So I think that is the purpose of the

1:46:00

public comment period to allow the

1:46:03

public to weigh in and then put it forth

1:46:07

for a vote to for an official like

1:46:09

zoning map amendment.

1:46:11

>> And I think that would happen through

1:46:12

like the public hearing process that

1:46:14

would occur at

1:46:15

>> Yeah.

1:46:16

>> within the city council.

1:46:17

>> I think what Jeff did is nice because it

1:46:19

basically gives you guys a starting off

1:46:22

point to say this is our recommendation

1:46:25

for the zoning map amendments for signs

1:46:28

and if you guys vote on it and agree

1:46:30

then we go into the next steps. So I

1:46:33

think Vincent um Commissioner Vincent

1:46:35

right it would be built into the public

1:46:37

hearing process and notice and meetings

1:46:40

that that's how people would become

1:46:42

aware of what all the changes are

1:46:44

entail. Then it goes into a period where

1:46:48

we thereby then say, "Okay, it

1:46:50

officially becomes effective this date

1:46:53

>> and you know and that just gives

1:46:55

everybody a chance to get up to speed,

1:46:58

comply, whatever."

1:47:02

>> Just had a quick suggestion or question

1:47:05

with the the GIS zony map. Is it capable

1:47:08

of attachments?

1:47:11

>> Uh it's capable of links I think now.

1:47:15

It's it's been a bit of a frustration

1:47:17

lately because Ezri stopped supporting

1:47:20

one of the platforms we used for the old

1:47:21

zoning map. So, our GIS administrator

1:47:24

um is reconfiguring what our zoning map

1:47:27

looks like and the the interface is

1:47:28

different. Like before when you click on

1:47:30

a a property, a little dialogue box

1:47:33

would come up and it would tell you the

1:47:35

partial ID and the zoning and like it

1:47:37

would have links to the zoning code.

1:47:39

Now, it kind of it pops up on the

1:47:42

sidebar. Uh and so I don't know what all

1:47:45

the capabilities are with this new

1:47:46

platform and everything. So how we can

1:47:48

best use it to provide information but

1:47:50

that's something I'll work on our with

1:47:51

our GIS coordinator.

1:47:52

>> Yeah, that that was something I was

1:47:53

thinking like you know you click on a

1:47:55

property and you know

1:47:57

>> say like once this gets passed you know

1:48:00

a link to the website is there and then

1:48:03

obviously if it's in historic district

1:48:05

that that packet that would be there so

1:48:08

they can just kind of see it right

1:48:09

there.

1:48:10

>> Right. And yeah, and so currently like

1:48:13

the the GS administrator had to I think

1:48:16

kind of scramble a little bit. We had an

1:48:17

initial meeting where it's like well

1:48:18

what do you need when we migrate this

1:48:20

stuff over? Um so we haven't really been

1:48:23

able to sit down and talk about uh the

1:48:26

actual functionality of it or you know

1:48:28

what all we want to it. It's just been

1:48:30

like we just need to get it up and over

1:48:32

here so that it can be used. Um, so

1:48:35

we'll have those conversations in the

1:48:36

future and I think we definitely uh are

1:48:38

going to look at ways to, you know, make

1:48:41

that as useful to the public as

1:48:42

possible.

1:48:47

>> Discussion

1:48:48

uh before we get to Jeremy, um, who is

1:48:52

the young lady sitting back?

1:48:54

>> I was waiting for you to ask her before

1:48:56

she left, so I don't know what she said.

1:48:58

I can't take it. She thought you were

1:49:01

going to ask her or I don't I don't I I

1:49:04

had I had somebody call and ask if the

1:49:07

uh if the meeting was open to the public

1:49:09

and I told them it was u I can't

1:49:12

remember. I don't think they gave me a

1:49:14

name and I don't know that they gave me

1:49:16

a specific case that it was for. So

1:49:18

maybe that was that individual. Um

1:49:20

>> and someone had uh approached Neil too

1:49:22

about being interested in empty board

1:49:25

positions and especially within the

1:49:27

planning and zoning. So I also don't

1:49:29

know if that was her but I was waiting

1:49:31

for you to ask so I can see too. Either

1:49:33

she doesn't want to be identified or she

1:49:36

hits snooze. I don't know.

1:49:38

>> I think she just couldn't take it.

1:49:40

>> Right.

1:49:43

>> She can't

1:49:46

go.

1:49:46

>> But yeah, I don't I didn't know her.

1:49:48

>> Yeah.

1:49:48

>> Okay.

1:49:51

>> Or does it just go to zoning?

1:49:53

>> No, it wouldn't go to zoning. It would

1:49:55

go to city council uh next. So you guys

1:49:57

could vote to make recommendations and

1:50:00

and you can uh make recommendations on

1:50:05

um

1:50:06

you know to

1:50:10

add anything you would would like to add

1:50:12

or just adopt it as is. Um I know I got

1:50:15

the crosswalk to you guys a little bit

1:50:16

late. So if you guys want to take some

1:50:18

more time and then just show up to the

1:50:20

next meeting and say uh you know maybe

1:50:22

send me some send me send me some

1:50:25

recommendations. I can mark it up,

1:50:27

change what we've done, and then have

1:50:29

that to you for for action at the next

1:50:32

one.

1:50:34

>> Okay.

1:50:36

>> Yeah, I know. And I know Vern still we

1:50:38

haven't heard from Vern yet on it.

1:50:40

>> So, uh, but yeah, so that's I mean, I

1:50:42

think that probably works then.

1:50:47

>> So, I I would I would probably say

1:50:48

recommendation or recommend to, uh, vote

1:50:50

to table that

1:50:52

>> just so we have a formal recommendation.

1:50:54

I have a motion.

1:50:55

>> Uh, I motion to table

1:50:59

the zoning code amendment

1:51:02

decision to May's meeting.

1:51:06

>> Is there a second?

1:51:07

>> Second.

1:51:09

>> Second to table.

1:51:15

>> All those in favor state by saying I

1:51:21

>> Anything else for the good of the order?

1:51:23

Uh well, as I think as I put in the in

1:51:25

the email, uh we we do have a new deputy

1:51:28

director who's starting on Monday. Uh so

1:51:31

she Yeah.

1:51:35

>> Uh Monday.

1:51:38

>> So uh so yeah, so she'll be uh she'll be

1:51:41

here at the next uh the May 6th, I want

1:51:45

to say maybe, uh uh planning commission

1:51:47

meeting. Um, I'll probably I'll probably

1:51:50

be handling that one and that'll be kind

1:51:52

of her first sit in. We might do a

1:51:54

little handoff for the June one and then

1:51:55

I'll be um out on vacation for the July

1:51:58

one anyway. So, she'll probably be

1:51:59

taking it from there.

1:52:01

>> Uh, name's Stephanie Thompson.

1:52:04

>> Stephanie,

1:52:05

you become deputy director.

1:52:07

>> What's that?

1:52:08

>> Well, become

1:52:13

>> I already am right now. So,

1:52:16

>> as Can I get a motion to

1:52:18

>> adjourn?

1:52:21

>> Is there a second stand?

More transcripts

Explore other videos transcribed with YouTLDR.

Get the TLDR of any YouTube video

Transcribe, summarize, and repurpose videos in 125+ languages — free, no signup required.

Try YouTLDR Free