Full Transcript

·YouTLDR

Harrisburg City Planning Commission - 08/06/25

1:50:01EnglishTranscribed Jun 15, 2026
0:19

like to call the Harrisburg planning

0:21

commission to meeting to order at

0:23

approximately 6:33.

0:26

Um, commissioners, uh, you received the,

0:29

uh, oh, before I get, uh, into the

0:32

agenda, I'd like to welcome our new

0:34

board member and make sure I said your

0:38

first name right, Bur

0:41

Ber. Okay. Vincent, right?

0:45

Welcome aboard. Um, I noticed you're

0:49

sort of was interested in comprehensive

0:51

plan and all that. U, you came to the

0:54

right place.

0:56

And uh we're very objective in our

0:58

meetings. We have experienced

1:00

commissioners here and u we only very

1:04

objective with our decisions

1:07

based on zoning compre you know

1:10

comprehensive plans and everything else.

1:12

So welcome good to have you on the bill.

1:16

Okay

1:19

with that commissioner um received the

1:22

July 2nd meeting minutes. Um, are there

1:26

any changes, additions, deletions?

1:33

>> If not, could I get a motion?

1:36

>> Motion to approve.

1:38

>> Is there second?

1:40

>> It's been moved and second for approval

1:43

of the minutes as they are. All those in

1:46

favor state by saying I.

1:48

>> I. I.

1:49

>> Opposed. Abstensions.

1:51

One extension.

1:54

two extensions.

1:57

Um, with that, a motion carried. With

2:01

that, under old business, item number

2:03

one, this is a variance application for

2:06

508 and 510 North Second Street. It's a

2:10

zone commercial neighborhood. It's filed

2:12

by David Butcher with WCI Partners LP.

2:17

is to convert the existing office

2:19

building to multif family dwellings with

2:21

a total of 11 units. St.

2:26

>> Uh yes, the applicant is proposing to

2:28

convert the existing office buildings

2:30

into an 11 unit multif family dwelling

2:32

which requires zoning hearing board

2:33

approval of a variance from the density

2:35

requirements outlined in section

2:36

7-307.3A

2:38

of the zoning code. Buildings on site

2:40

will be converted into one-bedroom units

2:42

ranging in size from 435 ft to 588 ft.

2:46

There will be 5 units in 508 North

2:48

Second Street and six units in 510 North

2:50

Second Street. Properties at 508 and 510

2:52

North Second Street comprise a project

2:54

site totaling 09 acres and featuring two

2:57

three-story buildings. Former is a 3519

3:00

foot structure which was constructed

3:02

1920 and the latter is a 3822t

3:05

structure which was constructed circa

3:07

1900 although they were most likely

3:09

although they're almost certainly they

3:11

were constructed at the same time. The

3:13

properties are bounded by the property

3:14

at 512 North Second Street to the north,

3:16

North Second Street to the east,

3:17

properties at 124 to 132 State Street to

3:20

the south, and the property at 507 Adams

3:22

Alley to the west. These attached

3:24

masonry structures mirror each other and

3:26

feature elements of the Second Empire

3:27

architectural style. Character defining

3:29

features include the brick facade, the

3:31

brownstone water table featuring

3:33

decorative metal grates over the

3:34

basement windows, large ornate

3:36

entryways, decorative window headers,

3:38

large ornate cornises with brackets and

3:40

medilians, two-story porches at the rear

3:42

of the side elevations, large dormers

3:44

with pediments, and a slate maner roof.

3:47

The main entryways are topped with

3:48

simple transoms displaying the property

3:50

addresses and feature tall panled wooden

3:52

doors set within substantial frames

3:54

featuring fluted pillers and brackets

3:56

and wide pediments with decorative

3:57

woodwork. They're accessed by brownstone

3:59

stoops with metal railings. The property

4:01

at 508 North Second Street includes a

4:03

secondary entrance featuring a panled

4:04

wooden door with a half view pane in

4:06

place of one of the first floor windows.

4:08

It is accessed by a brownstone stoop

4:10

with metal railings. Administration

4:11

includes at least six 20 over two wooden

4:14

windows on the front elevation of each

4:15

property. 510 North Second Street

4:17

features a seventh window where the pair

4:19

features a door. Those on the first and

4:20

second floors feature decorative wooden

4:22

headers with scroll work. The third

4:24

floor dormer windows feature arch top

4:26

sashes, fluted pillisters, brackets, and

4:28

substantial pediments with keystones.

4:30

Penetration on the side and rear

4:31

elevations features windows in a variety

4:33

of sizes, pane configurations, and

4:34

settings. There's a first floor oral

4:36

window with one over one wooden windows

4:38

at top panels on the side elevation of

4:40

508 North Second Street. Structures

4:42

feature manered roofs with real slate

4:44

shingles and otherwise appear to be

4:45

topped with flat rubber roofs. Aside

4:47

from minor modifications, primarily on

4:49

the side rear elevations, the buildings

4:50

retain a significant amount of their

4:52

architectural and historic integrity and

4:54

reflect many of the same architectural

4:55

features as other buildings in the

4:56

neighborhood and particularly along the

4:59

500 block of North Second Street. As

5:01

such, theru structures contribute

5:03

significantly to the eclectic and

5:04

diverse architectural and historic

5:06

character of the streetscape and

5:07

neighborhood. The planning bureau staff

5:10

recommends the request be approved with

5:11

the following conditions. If the

5:13

applicant receives approval of the

5:14

requisite zoning relief requests, uh

5:16

they must secure city council approval

5:17

of the associated land development plan

5:19

for the proposed conversion. any

5:21

exterior alterations to the building

5:23

will receive approval from the historic

5:24

preservation specialist or if necessary

5:26

receive harp approval of a certificate

5:28

of appropriateness application and the

5:30

applicant will coordinate with the

5:31

department of public works to ensure the

5:33

account billing reflects the

5:34

establishment of the pro proposed uses

5:35

on site. Plane bureau staff recommends

5:37

the request be approved for the

5:38

following reasons. The adaptive reuse of

5:40

vacant and undesired office spaces

5:42

compels significant investment that

5:44

requires commensurate relief from the

5:45

density regulations of the zoning code

5:47

as noted in the financial evaluation

5:49

provided by the applicants the applicant

5:51

in their supplemental narrative and the

5:53

unique interior configuration of split

5:55

level floors and thick masonry party

5:56

walls precludes combining proposed

5:58

units. Other conversions of former

6:01

office buildings in the surrounding

6:02

neighborhood have demonstrated the

6:03

proposed use will not impact will not

6:05

adversely impact the character of the

6:06

neighborhood and the project will help

6:08

retain existing architecturally and

6:10

historically significant buildings

6:11

endangered not only by the threat of

6:13

extended vacancy but by the by the

6:15

deteriorating buildings to the north.

6:18

And finally, the proposed reuse will add

6:19

residents to the neighborhood to

6:21

activate the street on nights and

6:22

weekends and grow a customer base to

6:24

support local businesses and will

6:25

provide additional units to the downtown

6:27

housing inventory. Uh and it should just

6:29

be noted that um this uh review and the

6:32

following one are for the same uh

6:33

project. It's just the zoning relief and

6:35

land development components of those.

6:37

>> Okay.

6:38

>> Thank you, staff. Uh could you state

6:40

your names, address, and relationship to

6:43

the project?

6:44

>> Sure. Uh Dave Butcher with WCI Partners.

6:47

Her address is 1900 North Second Street.

6:50

Um we are the developer for the project.

6:54

Lori, 1900 North Street, WCI.

7:00

>> Okay. You you both heard the uh uh

7:03

conditions by the staff. Are you

7:05

acceptable of those conditions?

7:07

>> Yes.

7:08

>> Okay. Thank you. Did you want to add

7:09

anything to advice?

7:11

>> No, I think staff covered everything.

7:17

>> Okay.

7:19

Um, I don't have any questions at this

7:23

time, so I'll come to my commissioners

7:26

and see if they have questions or

7:28

concerns. Commissioner McKenzie.

7:33

>> Yeah, I don't have any specific uh

7:35

questions on the project. I mean, I

7:37

think it's a a good plan. It is, you

7:39

know, needed. Uh, and I understand the

7:42

finances. The struggle I have is

7:45

utilizing a variance as the route to get

7:47

here.

7:48

U and I guess I would ask Josh, can you

7:51

do you have available the definition an

7:53

MPC of what a variance is relative to

7:56

financial difficulties not being an

7:58

applicable

7:59

uh issue? I don't have anything with

8:02

respect to

8:03

>> Does our attorney have it maybe with her

8:07

>> okay

8:08

>> I don't have it memorized the exact

8:10

language and I'm not trying to deep fix

8:12

the project I'm just wondering whether

8:14

there's another route rather than create

8:16

creating an open avenue for others

8:18

>> to claim I bought a building I paid too

8:20

much for it now I need a variance and I

8:24

just see a slippery slope and not again

8:26

nothing about your project but is there

8:27

another route

8:29

>> to get you to where you want to So, I

8:31

would note that um and I'm certainly not

8:34

a a lawyer and don't know the specifics,

8:36

but I know that other um applicants in

8:38

the past um especially those that have

8:40

legal counsel have referenced uh state

8:42

um Supreme Court decisions that do

8:44

establish some threshold of financial

8:47

hardship, especially for dimensional

8:48

variances, I think, over as opposed to

8:50

like use variances. Um so, I know that

8:52

that's out there, but I don't know the

8:54

specific language or what that threshold

8:56

is, and it's probably a case- by case

8:58

basis um for that matter. So, I know

9:00

that that's out there. Um, but that's

9:02

just from my experience being in these

9:05

meetings and hearing legal counsel

9:07

reference those and seeing them

9:08

referenced in supplemental narratives

9:10

for that accomp projects.

9:12

>> Yeah, I mean the dimensional absolutely

9:15

the fact that the building was built

9:16

before there was zoning and the zoning

9:18

never would allow our city to be built

9:20

no matter how you write it. Um, and if

9:22

those were the issues that were coming

9:24

to us relative to variance,

9:26

I think that would be clean and clear.

9:28

But the fact that the arguments has been

9:31

private is on finance.

9:35

I struggle I have a tough time with I

9:39

respond to that. Yeah, thank you. I just

9:41

to clarify there so the there are unique

9:43

physical circumstances in the building

9:45

and that is our primary. I concluded the

9:48

financial but um in our narrative that

9:52

we submitted with the project most of

9:55

the points especially the initial points

9:57

are relative to the physical

9:59

circumstance property which does meet

10:02

>> explain them to me if you would yeah so

10:04

there are elevation differences on the

10:07

second floor between the front and the

10:09

back so these units cannot be combined

10:12

same condition exists on the third floor

10:14

there's an elev that's similar

10:15

>> it's typical Harrisburg typical Harris

10:17

switches where they have the different

10:20

elevations and then there's a thick

10:22

party wall in between both of the

10:23

buildings that impedes the ability to

10:25

combine those with a logical circulation

10:28

plan.

10:29

>> So, and then that condition also exists

10:32

on the first floor. So, that is our I

10:34

understand your concern. Um, and I agree

10:37

with Jeff. I I just I don't have the

10:38

legal um cases at hand, but I think

10:42

there have been some cases that have

10:44

been um approved. Uh a precedent has

10:48

been established based on financial

10:50

circumstances, but we leaving that

10:53

aside. There are unique physical

10:55

circumstances

10:56

>> and I think the few financial ones that

10:58

I have seen you know in in looking at

11:00

the histories typically have been a

11:03

building was owned by the applicant

11:05

zoning was adopted

11:07

and created the financial but not

11:10

through no action of theirs. uh in this

11:12

case the building's been bought

11:15

um with the known restrictions and and

11:18

now trying to uh I guess I'm just

11:20

struggling whether variance is the right

11:21

tool to get here or there's another

11:24

avenue but again not against the project

11:26

I think it needs be done but it's a

11:29

bigger long-term issue I think and we're

11:31

recrafting what variances will be in the

11:34

city going forward

11:36

>> what about with respect to the physical

11:37

circumstances I think under that

11:39

criteria

11:40

>> well it ties back It works in my mind it

11:42

works back to we're trying to get to a

11:44

certain number of units because the

11:46

dollars follow the bathroom in in our

11:48

bathrooms and kitchens.

11:52

You know, if we were talking about a

11:55

building where by right it could have

11:57

six and you're trying to go to seven

11:59

units or eight and you're trying to go

12:01

to 11, you know, I mean, but the the the

12:03

starting point in that particular zoning

12:05

area for right or for wrong is, as I

12:08

understand from your right up pretty

12:09

low, you know? for the conversion. So

12:14

that's that's all I have to say here.

12:16

Thank you.

12:18

>> Uh Commissioner Tool.

12:20

>> Uh yeah. Uh Officer Jeffrey, you have no

12:22

problem with the uh with the density on

12:24

this.

12:25

>> Um yeah, you know, uh I think in my

12:27

initial uh discussions with the

12:29

applicants, I did reference and from

12:31

looking at their uh initial submissions,

12:33

um uh I did make a comment to them that

12:37

I think their front and uh rearu uh

12:40

units proposed could be um combined and

12:43

to create like seven units for example.

12:45

Um and then uh in further discussions

12:47

and doing a site visit that's when I um

12:49

observe the switchback staircase that

12:51

they had referenced. I had pictures of

12:52

that in the in the case report and it

12:54

was evident that like yeah you it's not

12:57

just so easy as like punching through um

12:59

you know

13:01

little dividing wall or something like

13:03

that to add these. Um so I do think

13:05

there are um issues beyond the finances

13:09

uh of this uh as far as combining units

13:12

and how this building functions uh as a

13:15

multi family dwelling. Again, this was

13:17

originally a single family dwelling, so

13:19

it wasn't as big a deal. Gets converted

13:21

to office. And now, you know, the

13:23

office, you know, these are trends that

13:24

cities go through at different um you

13:27

know, uses of these downtown properties.

13:29

And so when you look at what's the use

13:32

after the commercial, um I think you

13:35

know what they're lay what they've laid

13:36

out uh makes sense from the way the

13:38

floor plan lays out.

13:40

>> Yeah. I you been on this commission too

13:43

long wanted to see trends change like

13:45

this. I mean, there was a time when we'd

13:46

roll up our sleeves and and combat this,

13:49

you know, but I think density is one of

13:51

the issues that we have to in light of

13:53

the housing crisis that we have to

13:54

lighten up on. So, uh, the other thing,

13:58

unless the solicitor disagrees with me,

14:00

I think we allow the applicant to

14:02

verbally amend its proposal so that we

14:04

could factor in the physicality of it

14:07

whenever we

14:09

u we make our decision.

14:18

Okay.

14:27

>> All right.

14:40

>> And to be Yeah. And to be clear, uh, if

14:43

if that explicitly noted as a condition

14:45

as a reason for approval. I that was an

14:48

oversight on my part to not include

14:49

that. I had hoped to at least make

14:51

reference to that throughout the uh case

14:53

report.

14:54

>> Okay. Yeah, I understand Vern's concern

14:55

just you don't want to set a bad

14:57

precedence here. So,

14:59

>> um yeah, I'm in favor of it. So,

15:02

>> okay. Uh Commissioner Nor.

15:12

>> Um No, I don't have any questions or

15:16

concerns. I I actually do feel that the

15:19

applicant

15:21

outlined the physical constraints, you

15:24

know, as being one of the the hardships

15:27

created here in this situation,

15:30

you know, over the financial. So, I I

15:34

don't have concerns with this.

15:37

>> Commissioner Jordan.

15:39

>> Yes. Um, so first of all, I wanted to

15:41

start off by saying thank you for the

15:43

well written application narrative is

15:44

very helpful.

15:46

>> Um beyond that um I noticed that you

15:49

referenced laundry facilities. Will

15:50

those be in unit or is there like a

15:52

shared facility among

15:54

>> Okay. Um as far as the pricing goes I

15:59

assume it'll be market rate. Um do you

16:01

have any general idea what your range

16:03

might be?

16:03

>> Probably 1100 to 1200 range.

16:08

And then um my last question was for

16:11

Jeffrey. Um based off of um what you

16:13

have on the case report in the first

16:15

page, uh I assume that these square

16:17

footages are allowable for um onebedroom

16:20

apartments.

16:21

>> Yeah, I don't I mean the zoning code

16:24

doesn't have anything with respect to

16:25

what the minimum size of a unit is.

16:27

There there are codes uh bureau

16:29

requirements, but uh these do exceed

16:32

them. I don't know what they are. I

16:33

think they might be 350 ft um off the

16:36

top of my head, but

16:37

>> but not as far as the zone.

16:38

>> Not

16:40

thank you.

16:41

>> And just um one common response to the

16:44

size of um our one of our most popular

16:48

properties

16:51

is 922 North Street called Union. It's

16:55

right. It's the kind of a boss kind of

16:58

facade. Um those units are 490 square

17:02

feet and they're one bedrooms. Um

17:05

they're really efficiently laid out with

17:07

probably doors in them that kind of

17:09

combine the bedroom and living or space,

17:12

but it just makes it feel larger. Um

17:15

anyway, that's our most popular

17:17

property. There's a lot of demand for

17:19

that size. Um this is just me

17:22

speculating. I got my first apartment,

17:25

all kinds of stuff, DVDs and CDs and

17:28

books and stuff. Today, it's all on one

17:31

device. So, just it seems that the level

17:34

of square footage just doesn't isn't

17:37

needed for a lot of things.

17:40

That's

17:44

it's not total, but there's a segment of

17:47

the market that likes

17:53

Thank you,

17:55

>> Commissioner Benson.

18:12

Okay, with that, I'll go to the public.

18:14

Um, if anyone has uh for against this

18:19

project, please stand and state your

18:21

address. I'll start at the middle

18:24

and to my right. I guess that's it. Um,

18:30

commissioners, um,

18:32

I'm going to probably vote in favor of

18:34

it. I I know my vice chair is concerned.

18:38

Um, but I'm with everyone else as far as

18:41

the hardship being the physical layout

18:45

of the building. The hardship there,

18:47

that's what I can see over you know,

18:51

making it

18:53

over the fiscal at this time.

18:57

>> If I may again, I just think we're using

18:59

the wrong tool to get to the right

19:01

place. This even though I think we

19:04

probably should be having discussions

19:05

about some reasonzoning. I hate to talk

19:07

spot reszoning, but it may be

19:09

appropriate in the downtown given the

19:11

variety of buildings that we have,

19:13

densities and capabilities. Uh I just

19:16

struggle with any language in here that

19:19

talks about the fan financial. I think

19:21

that makes this a very dangerous

19:23

document to have in our archive and

19:25

perhap carrying in the next meeting the

19:26

meeting after that and meeting after

19:28

that. We go back 20 or 30 years we used

19:31

to hear a lot of that. Will you let so

19:33

and so do this? And I think we kind of

19:35

shut that down a lot with parking and

19:37

rest again. It's a great project. You've

19:38

got a good architect. I'm sure it'll be

19:40

a stellar solution. They always are.

19:42

It's just are we using the right tool

19:45

that doesn't create a bigger problem to

19:46

get to a short-term gain on just this

19:48

one project. So that's all I have to say

19:50

on that basis. I I can't vote for it at

19:53

this point as written.

19:54

>> Okay.

19:56

>> Uh with that, uh

19:57

>> I will say and I apologize. I will um

20:00

going forward I will look into what the

20:02

case law says so that I can inform you

20:05

what the courts are saying or if they've

20:08

changed in any way what the test should

20:10

be if there's a percentage you know if

20:13

it's up to the discretion of what the

20:15

commission would like but I will avail

20:16

myself of the case law and make you guys

20:18

available um to have it as well and then

20:21

you know going forward you can make a

20:23

more informed decision based on whether

20:26

or not it's the way you want to do

20:31

But can I get a motion?

20:37

>> Motion to approve conditions.

20:39

>> Is there a second?

20:40

>> Second.

20:41

>> It's been moved and a second for

20:43

approval with the conditions. All those

20:46

in favor state by saying I.

20:47

>> I.

20:48

>> I. Oppose.

20:49

>> No

20:51

>> abstensions.

20:52

Motion carried.

20:56

>> And uh I think you can probably uh take

20:58

a motion on the land development plan.

21:00

Um I don't have any other additional um

21:03

conditions on that recommendation other

21:05

than tying it to the to the zoning

21:07

relief and you know having it be pred

21:10

predicated on the zoning relief being

21:11

granted. Um so the testimony would be

21:14

the same.

21:18

>> Okay.

21:25

Number two, of course, I'll read it for

21:27

the minutes. It's a land development

21:29

plan application for 508 and 510 North

21:32

Second Street zone commercial

21:34

neighborhood followed by David Butcher

21:36

with WCI Partners LP to establish 11

21:40

total units between the two buildings.

21:47

Did you want to I guess add anything to

21:49

that?

21:51

>> No, nothing further unless there's any

21:53

questions on application.

21:55

>> Okay.

21:57

With that, I have no questions on it.

22:00

Commissioner McKenz,

22:04

Commissioner,

22:06

Commissioner Merrick,

22:08

>> none.

22:10

>> Commissioner Jordan,

22:11

>> no questions.

22:12

>> Commissioner Vincent.

22:17

>> Um, my only question, I've read over the

22:19

the the parking piece, how how did that

22:21

determination about ample parking like

22:24

if you can just give me a brief synopsis

22:25

of that.

22:26

>> Uh yeah, so um that was uh based on my

22:31

uh experience visiting the property,

22:33

being able to park out in front. Um

22:34

there's at least from my experience

22:36

driving down Second Street, which I do

22:38

every day. Um there is generally parking

22:42

available in front of these properties.

22:44

Uh the properties just to the north, 512

22:46

and 514 North Second Street, those are

22:48

not occupied. Um they're actually in a

22:50

fairly deteriorated state. Uh, and then

22:53

you have the, uh, AFL CIO parking lot

22:55

just to the north. And I think there's

22:56

like four about four parking spaces uh,

23:01

along that on street parking spaces

23:02

along that uh, section of Second Street.

23:05

Um, and then there is, you know, parking

23:08

um, along State Street as well. Uh,

23:10

especially at night, um, less so during

23:13

the day, I'd say, but uh, you know,

23:14

that's kind of the complimentary use of

23:16

people coming in to work there and then

23:18

leaving um, in the evening. and then the

23:22

residents being able to park there. So,

23:24

and those are, you know, I think

23:25

ticketed or metered until um five I want

23:29

to say um six um and so there would be

23:34

parking available for the residents at

23:36

night to park on street.

23:44

>> Yeah. And and

23:47

yeah, I mean usually in the zoning code

23:49

there is a uh component whereby um and

23:53

this is more for the zoning relief which

23:55

is not required because in the sand

23:56

district but they talk about the

23:57

complimentary uses and being able to

23:58

share parking spaces and those are

24:00

relative to on a property and shared but

24:04

the same principle would apply to

24:06

publicly

24:25

U my understanding is that the owner is

24:28

getting bids right now.

24:33

>> Yeah, we we um I think there's alignment

24:36

with our interest and your interests and

24:39

getting those down as possible. We would

24:42

like them not to come down during or

24:45

after we construction.

24:51

So we are encouraging the owner.

25:01

>> Any other concerns? commissions.

25:04

>> If I might, I think what you're

25:06

referring to uh has been an issue that

25:08

we've had in other locations in the

25:10

downtown and I'm speaking from the

25:12

parking authority side here and that is

25:15

the want and printing of permit parking

25:18

for residences. And if you look at the

25:20

number of permits that are out there and

25:22

the one mark amount of spaces that are

25:24

available, I know that's been many a

25:26

concerns and phones calls I've had over

25:28

the years and that has been used on some

25:31

of the larger developments downtown as

25:34

the excuse for why, oh, we can make this

25:37

work. We'll we'll tell the out of town

25:39

folks that they can spend $60 a month to

25:41

get a parking permit and then take a

25:43

resident who's been in the area for 10,

25:46

20, 30 years. they have no space and and

25:49

so that is a problem that we've had

25:51

we've not been able to resolve and it

25:53

all and that's comes back to the parking

25:55

deal and all the issues there but you've

25:57

probably heard us talk about it this and

26:01

I agree with Joffrey's uh assessment

26:03

this particular location has a higher

26:06

density of available parking after hours

26:08

but again you're in that district you

26:10

may still be competing um a little bit

26:13

but you know that's you know it's not a

26:16

huge development and but he is correct

26:18

in the CN district we do not require

26:21

parking and that's the thing so it

26:23

becomes a functional thing but it's part

26:25

of a bigger problem that we we've got to

26:27

deal with in the downtown for those

26:29

places that aren't CN

26:34

>> okay if anyone were against this project

26:39

I'll start the middle again to the right

26:43

that commissioners um could I get a

26:46

motion

26:47

Motion to approve with conditions.

26:49

>> Is there a second?

26:51

>> Second. It's

26:52

>> been moved and a second for approval of

26:54

this project with conditions. All those

26:56

in favor state by saying I.

26:58

>> I.

26:58

>> I.

26:59

>> Oppos.

27:00

>> No.

27:02

>> Motion carry.

27:06

>> Thank you.

27:17

Okay. Um on old business under land

27:21

devel uh number three land development

27:23

plan application at 1081 Elliot Street

27:26

which is zone industrials followed by

27:29

Charlotte Kim Warrior the Cult region

27:32

border to construct an industrial

27:35

building and associated site and access

27:38

improvements. The applicant has

27:40

requested a continuence to the September

27:43

3rd HPC meeting. Commissioners, could I

27:47

get a vote on

27:49

>> I actually have a revision to suggest.

27:52

Um, in the email submitted by Capitol

27:55

Region Water, they are requesting a

27:57

continuence until October's meeting, not

28:00

September's.

28:01

>> So, I think we should amend that

28:03

request.

28:04

>> Thank you.

28:05

>> And vote on

28:11

They actually have not submitted

28:13

anything.

28:15

>> They haven't submitted,

28:21

>> right? So they and and I can I can

28:24

coordinate with them and see if they

28:25

want to like withdraw and then resubmit

28:27

to to be within the time frame. They

28:28

actually did submit something, but as I

28:30

was going through the their drawings, I

28:32

noted their building was going to be in

28:33

the floodway, which they're not

28:34

permitted to to have per our zoning

28:36

code. Um, and so they first requested

28:39

the first continuence because they're

28:41

still working with uh PA because our

28:43

zoning code does note that PA D can

28:46

issue

28:47

uh approvals for development of the

28:49

floodway. I don't know if they will. I

28:50

don't know if they're going to redesign

28:52

this or just scuttle the project with uh

28:54

altogether. But uh if timeline becomes

28:56

an issue um I can uh work with them to

28:59

just have them formally withdraw and

29:00

then resubmit.

29:06

Okay, this is with the um amendment from

29:12

our commissioner.

29:14

This would be continued to the September

29:17

I mean October meeting.

29:19

>> October 1st.

29:22

>> Okay, it's been moved and second for the

29:25

continuence to the October meeting. All

29:28

those in favor signify by saying I

29:30

>> opposed.

29:35

Under new business, this is a variance

29:38

and special accept application for 1932

29:44

on F Street which is own residential

29:48

medium that medium entity is followed by

29:52

you.

29:54

>> How can how pronounce the first name?

29:57

Martin.

30:00

>> Okay. Jennifer with the Y. Uh Martin

30:03

Martinus. Uh this is to convert the

30:06

existing single family dwelling to a

30:09

two-unit multifamily building.

30:12

>> Uh yes. So, the applicant is seeking to

30:14

formalize uh the conversion of existing

30:16

structure as a two-unit multif family

30:18

dwelling, which requires zoning hearing

30:20

but approval of special exceptions for

30:21

the proposed use and relief from the off

30:23

street parking requirements for sections

30:25

7-305.7

30:26

and 7-327.6

30:29

the zoning code respectively and

30:30

variances for relief from the density

30:32

regulations and spec and specific

30:34

criteria in sections 7-307.3

30:37

and 7-309.2b

30:39

of the zoning code respectively.

30:41

Property 1932 Forester Street is a 005

30:43

acre lot featuring a 2 and 1/2 story 22

30:48

foot structure which was constructed

30:50

circa 1900 per the Dolphin County tax

30:52

records. Property is bounded by York

30:54

Street to the north, the properties at

30:56

1934 Forester Street and 1933 York

30:59

Street to the east, Forester Street to

31:01

the south, and the property at 1938

31:03

Forester Street to the west. The semi-

31:05

detached structure features elements of

31:06

vernacular and Queen architectural

31:08

styles. Character defining features

31:10

include the brick facade with common

31:11

bond bands, the enclosed front porch

31:14

clad and vinyl siding, the rear edition

31:16

constructed of CMU block featuring a

31:18

wooden fire escape to the second floor,

31:20

and the third floor dormer with steeply

31:22

gabled roofs painted with uh with

31:24

painted wooden shingles. The main

31:26

entrance features a simple wooden door

31:27

flanked by divided light sidelights and

31:29

topped with a divided light transom.

31:31

There is a secondary entrance accessible

31:33

via concrete path and steps along the

31:34

building which features a circular pane

31:36

and sheltered by a small awning. There's

31:39

also a panled metal door on the rear

31:41

elevation. Fenestration also includes 16

31:43

windows which are primarily one over one

31:45

windows. There is a prominent oral

31:47

window on the second floor of the front

31:48

elevation. The structure is topped with

31:51

steep gable roofs claden asphalt

31:53

shingles. As a semi- detached structure,

31:55

the building mirrors architectural

31:56

features of its pair to the east,

31:58

although there are differentiations in

31:59

some aspects such as the enclosed porch

32:01

and the building addition on the rear

32:03

elevation and generally reflects the

32:05

massing of other properties in the

32:06

surrounding neighborhood. As such, the

32:08

building contributes minimally to the

32:09

architectural character of the

32:10

streetscape and neighborhood.

32:13

The planning bureau staff recommends the

32:16

request be approved with the following

32:17

conditions. Uh granted of zoning

32:18

approval to move forward with the

32:20

project as proposed. The applicant shall

32:22

allow the codes bureau to perform a

32:23

comprehensive inspection to identify any

32:25

outstanding code violations and will

32:27

receive approval for all necessary city

32:29

permits prior to receiving a certificate

32:30

of occupancy.

32:32

and the applicant must provide a

32:33

detailed site plan developed by a

32:35

professional demonstrating how the rear

32:36

yard will be developed and whether all

32:38

street parking will be provided on site.

32:40

If that is the intention, any new

32:41

development must be in conformance with

32:43

the applicable zoning regulations. Uh

32:45

and to kind of clarify that second part,

32:46

um the rear yard is currently kind of

32:49

dirt. Uh there's a shipping container

32:51

and there's some uh yard waste and

32:52

construction waste. It's clear that

32:54

there's space to be able to provide the

32:55

two Wall Street parking spaces required.

32:57

Um, so the special exception for that

33:00

aspect of the uh proposal uh could be

33:02

obiated, but I have no uh documentation

33:05

that indicates whether the applicant is

33:06

intending to do that. So that's why I

33:08

kept that uh zoning relief request in

33:10

there. Um, plan B staff recommends the

33:12

request be approved for the following

33:13

reasons. While the plan bureau does not

33:15

believe the existence of illegally

33:16

established units on site creates a

33:18

basis for the establishment of a

33:19

hardship or justification for zoning

33:20

relief requests as that may only

33:22

encourage such work. In this instance,

33:24

the subject property does exhibit

33:26

conditions that support the granting of

33:27

zoning relief, including the size of the

33:29

structure, the possibility to construct

33:31

all street parking on site and the

33:33

applicant's ownership of the adjacent

33:34

vacant lot, which if consolidated with

33:36

the subject property would obate the

33:38

need for variance for relief from the

33:40

density regulations.

33:42

The property and address the primary

33:44

concern of the public regarding the such

33:47

conversions, specifically the impact on

33:49

parking available to existing residents

33:51

through the provision of the required

33:52

parking in a new parking area at the

33:54

rear of the property and due to the

33:56

availability of Amplalon Street parking

33:58

along the frontage of the property with

33:59

Forester Street. Uh, and this is due to

34:01

um the uh adjacent property next door

34:04

which is vacant. Uh and then finally,

34:06

the existence of other of other property

34:08

conversions in the surrounding

34:09

neighborhood demonstrates the allowance

34:10

of a new such conversion would not

34:12

adversely impact the community.

34:15

>> Thank you, John. Um could you state your

34:17

names, address

34:19

um relationship to the project?

34:22

>> My name is Jennifer Martinos um 250

34:26

street in Harrisburg and I'm the owner.

34:30

>> Is this gentleman with you? Okay.

34:33

All right. Um, you heard the u the

34:37

conditions. Are you acceptable of those

34:39

conditions?

34:40

>> Um, I wanted to say the parking um the

34:44

reason the the yard is was in disarray I

34:47

guess when you went there. The

34:49

neighbor's tree fell. Uh, so you saw the

34:53

large tree and all of that. Um, that has

34:57

been cleared. It's been cleaned off. It

35:01

actually knocked off my fence. Uh so

35:06

that has already it's been handled has

35:08

been fixed and we did do the the

35:11

parking. Um in the back there's there's

35:15

spaces for I mean I have pictures for

35:17

the spaces for the

35:19

>> Yeah. Well, we would need to see like a

35:22

site plan to demonstrate that it was in

35:24

conformance with the applicable

35:25

regulations.

35:26

>> So the the back of it um the back of the

35:29

house

35:31

It does have like Jeff said does have a

35:34

lot of room for parking. So I did

35:37

already create uh two parking spaces

35:41

so that each unit can have its own off

35:43

street parking in the back of the house.

35:46

the tree that fell has been removed. So

35:49

the it does have a fenced in yard in the

35:52

back of that and it's

35:57

okay. As Jeff said, u you would have to

36:00

probably send him a plan on how that is

36:05

set up in the back. We don't have any

36:08

proof with us right now. So the parking.

36:12

So you're accepting the second condition

36:15

of developing a plan. That's correct.

36:18

>> The plan is for the for the the yard.

36:20

For the park

36:20

>> for the yard, how the yard will be laid

36:21

out. Yeah, that's what we would need a

36:22

plan.

36:23

>> The yard. Okay. Yes, of course.

36:28

>> Sorry. Also with the um as far as codes

36:32

on June 6 of 2025,

36:37

I included it in the package. They um

36:39

they already went offer

36:44

he went he did an inspection of the

36:47

entire property.

36:49

Uh the upstairs already passed

36:51

inspection. It's everything was good. Um

36:54

there weren't any issues. He saw the the

36:57

downstairs him and um officer Wilson

37:00

they saw the downstairs

37:03

because I had um items stored there. I

37:07

had the floors that have been installed,

37:09

the leftover floors and all of that. Uh

37:12

pretty much he said just bring us back

37:15

once this has been concluded. Uh because

37:18

I was already in the process of the

37:20

zoning process, the varian um so it's

37:25

just a matter of kind of having them

37:27

walk back through the property

37:30

and then there were no issues already.

37:33

So that as a condition

37:39

you have not you don't have official

37:41

reports do you or

37:43

>> um I do note they they were out there um

37:46

but uh I don't have like an official

37:48

inspection report from the code.

37:49

>> They said they cannot

37:52

say anything about downstairs because

37:55

it's a one unit. So they said we can't

37:57

say this

37:59

first floor pass inspection. We can't

38:01

say one pass inspection. So, we can't

38:04

say anything because it's just one

38:06

family. So, if um this is a condition, I

38:10

guess I would have to let them know,

38:12

hey, it's a condition, just going to put

38:13

something in writing that says this area

38:16

inspection, whatever, however they want

38:18

to word it, but they couldn't because of

38:20

that.

38:21

>> Okay. Yeah. Whatever documentation you

38:24

get, you send it to Jeff so we can see

38:27

that it's been done and that's part of

38:30

the conditions here. Okay.

38:33

Um,

38:34

of course that was one one of my

38:36

concerns with the parking, but you

38:38

covered that. So, um, I'll go that's all

38:41

I have right now. So, I'll go to my

38:43

commissioners. Commissioner.

38:47

>> Yeah, I don't have any problems with the

38:49

project. Nice. The photos look like

38:50

you've done a very nice job. The key

38:53

question I have, you took you took

38:55

ownership of this building fairly

38:57

recently.

38:58

>> 2024.

38:59

>> Okay.

39:00

>> April.

39:00

>> Did you use a realtor for that?

39:02

>> Uh, no I did not.

39:03

>> Okay. Okay. Sometimes we have issues

39:06

with realtors that don't disclose proper

39:09

aspects of zoning. And I just wanted to

39:11

find out if you were a victim of that.

39:13

>> No.

39:13

>> In this case,

39:14

>> the previous owner um he was a older he

39:17

is an older man. He that it was a two

39:20

family and I did as it states on the

39:23

county website said multif family. So I

39:26

>> did it's I saw in here there's a 2017

39:29

addition done to the building. Do you

39:31

know if they pulled a building permit

39:32

for that? Um I do believe they did. I

39:35

looked back through the um through the

39:38

decent records which is our code records

39:41

um for that and it looked like it's

39:44

always tough to tell because sometimes

39:46

what a owner will write is just like

39:48

>> is not what they

39:49

>> overall improve or they'll say something

39:50

very general like home improvement and

39:53

you know and what it is is it's I think

39:56

in this case it was enclosing that front

39:58

porch area and so that's um I think that

40:02

also created some discrepancy in the saw

40:04

some note in here about non-conformance

40:06

reports and amelioration in 2020.

40:09

>> Yeah. And so that and that's another

40:10

reason we want um you know the codes

40:12

bureau to do a thorough inspection to

40:14

make sure that was all done up to speed

40:16

that they have insulation if that's

40:17

necessary, any wiring that's going

40:19

through there.

40:20

>> Um because it's a little unclear as as

40:23

to whether the former owner or a former

40:25

owner um was very clear with the city

40:28

when they were doing that.

40:29

>> Okay. Thank you.

40:30

>> Um I'm sorry. Just wanted to say I

40:32

believe I included it in the package but

40:34

In 2017 is when that edition was done.

40:38

Um they were codes went and in 2018

40:44

uh it says there that um they gave them

40:47

I think it was 60 days or so. Then there

40:49

is the the paperwork where it says it

40:52

was brought into compliance. They did go

40:53

they inspected it.

40:55

>> They saw that it was all done.

40:58

>> Yeah. And I'm I'm just I was just trying

41:00

to establish whether those issues were

41:02

brought on by the current owner or was

41:04

something that was there. And that's not

41:05

you're not guilty for the past.

41:15

>> Yeah. Again, this is a application that

41:17

probably would have been dead on arrival

41:19

a couple years ago, but I I both

41:22

apartments seem to be good size and

41:23

you've addressed the parking issue, so

41:25

I'm in favor of

41:27

>> Okay, Commissioner,

41:31

>> I don't have any uh questions or

41:33

concerns. I actually echo what

41:36

Commissioner Oul said in regards to the

41:39

project. I think what's interesting is

41:41

Dolphin County property records list

41:44

this at or categorize this as a

41:46

multi-dwelling unit, which is a

41:49

discrepancy with what the city's records

41:51

are. So, it is fair that a purchaser of

41:55

this property would be under the

41:56

impression that this would already be a

41:59

multi-unit dwelling, you know, approved

42:01

as such.

42:02

>> Um, so I don't know what the city can do

42:06

to coordinate with the county records

42:08

that they're more you know, in

42:10

alignment.

42:11

>> I have brought this up with the county

42:13

in person on the phone in email asking

42:16

them to change that because it's and I

42:18

think they did it used to be property

42:19

use and they changed the property class

42:21

which doesn't really help at all. But as

42:23

I can as far as I can gather from my

42:24

discussions with them, it's a taxation

42:26

classification for the county's taxes.

42:29

And I believe a lot of them are based on

42:31

the last time we did a countywide tax

42:33

assessment, which is in like 2004. Um,

42:35

and so you've got this like old kind of

42:37

like zombie information just continuing

42:40

through. And I've asked them to remove

42:41

it or call it tax class or something and

42:44

they just don't. And so a lot of this

42:47

and we and we're correcting it either in

42:49

talking to members of the public or

42:50

realtors. Um, and that's one of the

42:52

reasons we've updated our um, uh, flood

42:55

plane zoning certification. It used to

42:57

just be give you zoning and give you

42:58

flood plane and and now we have it uh,

43:01

give additional information and make

43:02

sure like it's coming before the uh,

43:05

instead of just going to the codes

43:06

administrator. Um, so we've tried to

43:08

make our property transfer review

43:10

process more robust so that we can catch

43:12

these things and we also, you know, are

43:14

always trying to clear this up with

43:16

anybody that calls in and asks.

43:22

>> Commissioner Jordan,

43:24

>> no questions.

43:25

>> Commissioner Benson,

43:27

>> no question questions. Great job being

43:29

proactive with the parking.

43:32

Thank you.

43:33

>> Okay. Is there anyone in the public or

43:36

against this project? Start with the

43:39

middle.

43:44

Commissioners, can I get a motion?

43:45

>> I'll make a motion to approve. And I

43:47

think we have uh

43:49

>> two conditions with the two conditions

43:51

noted.

43:52

>> Okay. Is there a second?

43:54

>> Second.

43:55

>> Been moved and second for approval of

43:57

this project with the two conditions.

44:00

All in favor state by saying I

44:03

>> opposed.

44:06

Motion carries. Good luck.

44:08

>> Thank you.

44:23

>> Item number five. This is a special

44:26

exception application for 2609 North

44:29

Trench Street. It's zone riverfront

44:32

followed by Noah Parsons with Triple P

44:36

Fitness. This is to replace the existing

44:39

front yard grass with Astro Turf.

44:45

>> Uh yes. So the applicant is proposing to

44:48

replace the existing front yard grass

44:49

with astroturf. Um and I guess it's not

44:52

technically astroturf. I think it's soft

44:53

lawn. uh comfort barefoot comfort uh

44:57

which requires zoning hearing board

44:58

approval of a special exception

44:59

application for section 7-321.4B

45:02

of the zoning code because the proposal

45:03

constitutes development as defined in

45:05

section 7-333.2

45:07

the zoning code which is not permitted

45:08

within a 50 foot front yard setback.

45:10

First section 7-307.3 of the zoning

45:13

code, a variance would be would

45:14

generally be required. However, given

45:16

the existence of the off street parking

45:17

area already encroaching into the front

45:18

yard setback, the proposal only requires

45:20

a special exception application for the

45:22

expansion of a non of an existing

45:24

non-conforming aspect of the property

45:25

per section 7-321.4B

45:28

of the zoning code. The property at 2609

45:31

North Front Street is a49 acre lot

45:34

featuring a one-story 3800 foot

45:36

structure which was constructed in 1950.

45:38

Property is bounded by the property at

45:40

2615 North Front Street to the north,

45:42

North Second Street to the east.

45:43

Properties at 2601 North Front Street,

45:46

102 Rner Street and 2604 North Second

45:49

Street to the south and North Front

45:51

Street to the west. This detached

45:52

structure features elements of the

45:53

international architectural style.

45:55

Character defining features include

45:56

brick facade with a painted mural on the

45:58

front and side elevations, the

46:00

asymmetrical front facade featuring a

46:02

row of fixed pane windows, a regular

46:04

penistration pattern along the side and

46:05

rear elevations, and the prominent brick

46:07

chimney in the rear. Main entrance

46:09

features a full view metal door topped

46:10

by a simple metal transom and a shallow

46:13

black awning set within a substantial

46:15

concrete surround. The rear entrance

46:17

reflects this design with a full view

46:19

metal door set beneath a shallow awning.

46:21

Administration also includes windows in

46:23

a variety of sizes and paint

46:24

configurations. The front elevation

46:26

features a row a of fixed pane metal

46:28

windows a top hopper windows set within

46:30

concrete lint headers and lintils.

46:32

Windows in the side rear elevations

46:34

feature the same windows design set

46:35

within simple brick frames and a

46:37

regularly spaced pattern. Structure is

46:39

topped with a flat rubber roof. The

46:40

property otherwise features minimal

46:41

landscaping it as bushes along the

46:43

building foundation have recently been

46:45

removed with two separate parking areas.

46:47

Although the building differs

46:48

marketkedly from many of the others

46:49

along Fun Street and the neighborhood

46:51

and in the neighborhood to the east, it

46:53

does contribute to the varied

46:54

architectural character of the corridor

46:55

and makes a minor contribution to the

46:57

architectural character of the

46:59

streetscape and neighborhood. The

47:01

planning bureau staff recommends the

47:04

request be approved with the following

47:05

conditions. Uh the proposed turf may be

47:07

installed no further into the setback

47:09

than the existing parking surface and

47:11

the applicant must reinstall the

47:12

landscape screening along the parking

47:14

area which was recently removed in

47:16

violation of the parking facility design

47:17

standards and install landscape

47:19

screening along the frontage with the

47:20

sidewalk. The applicant should relocate

47:22

the pedestrian connection to the public

47:24

sidewalk to the southern frontage of the

47:26

parking area to retain a direct

47:28

pedestrian connection to the building

47:29

and ensure that pedestrians are not

47:31

required to intermingle with vehicular

47:33

traffic to access the building. Uh the

47:35

applicant must remove the unpermitted

47:36

penetent signs along the front edge of

47:37

the property and given the location

47:39

within the AE flood plane and the and a

47:42

flood plane. The applicant must ensure

47:44

that any investments in the property are

47:46

submitted to the planning bureau for

47:47

consideration review against the flood

47:49

plane regulations and best practices

47:51

before work can commence. The turf and

47:53

ramp as well as an unrelated fence

47:55

project submitted separately from the

47:56

zoning relief request must be included

47:58

in the floodplane development

47:59

submission. The project will also

48:00

require review by Capital Region Water.

48:03

Planning Bureau staff recommends the

48:04

request be approved for the following

48:05

reasons. Although the planning bureau is

48:07

skeptical the proposed turf will

48:08

replicate the appearance or

48:09

functionality of natural grass and

48:11

concerned about the proposal

48:12

establishing a precedent for other front

48:14

street property owners. Project must

48:16

only receive approval of a special

48:17

accept exception application the

48:19

threshold for which is lower than for

48:21

variance. The project could function as

48:23

something of a test case to determine

48:25

how well the proposed project product

48:27

integrates both aesthetically and

48:28

functionally into the Front Street

48:30

corridor. And finally, if the conditions

48:32

of approval are adopted by the zoning

48:33

code, the project could result in an

48:35

overall benefit to the viability and

48:36

utility of the property while addressing

48:38

various zoning violations on site.

48:41

>> Okay. Thank you, Jeff. Could you state

48:43

your names, address, and relationship to

48:46

the project?

48:47

>> Uh Noah Parsons, 2609 North Front

48:50

Street. Uh building business owner.

48:55

>> I'm Chris Brun. I'm a synthetic turf

48:58

international dealer here in

48:59

Pennsylvania and registered with the

49:01

city and helping with this project. We

49:04

hope.

49:05

>> Okay. Uh you both heard the approval

49:08

with the conditions. Are you acceptable

49:10

of those conditions?

49:12

>> If possible, could we have him restate

49:14

the condition? I just feel like there

49:15

was a lot.

49:16

>> Yeah. Sorry. Uh so the proposed turf may

49:19

be installed no further into the setback

49:20

than the existing parking surface. So

49:22

that's about I think like three feet

49:23

from the sidewalk. Um uh and the

49:26

landscape screening must be installed on

49:28

the parking area there. So that's a

49:29

requirement of our zoning code to have

49:30

parking lot screened and that uh

49:32

vegetation was removed sometime in the

49:35

last three years. The most recent um

49:36

Google Street View images is from like

49:38

October 2022. Um so I'm not sure.

49:42

>> Yeah. Yeah. Like it's now like Tanark I

49:45

think. Uh just Tanark.

49:48

uh bushes, maybe like Chinese grass,

49:51

something like that. Um

49:53

and then uh having a landscape screening

49:55

along the frontage with the sidewalk. Uh

49:58

so there were two little bushes kind of

49:59

near where the um walkway connected to

50:02

the sidewalk. Um and while there's no

50:05

requirement for that, I noticed I noted

50:07

that in the um diagram of how the uh

50:10

turf is installed, there's like um

50:12

nailer boards, I guess, on the ends and

50:14

stuff. And we just want to make sure

50:15

that's not exposed to people just

50:17

walking on the sidewalk or just kind of

50:19

visually just right there up against uh

50:21

the sidewalk. So to have a little

50:23

screening and that could be something as

50:24

similar as like a flower planting bed or

50:27

something like that just to improve the

50:29

aesthetics of the uh property. So that

50:31

was the first one. Um and then they

50:33

relocating the pedestrian connection to

50:35

the public sidewalk uh to the southern

50:37

frontage of the parking area. So, I

50:38

noted that in the application it says

50:41

there's going to be no change to

50:42

pedestrian access, but in the proposal,

50:45

the um ADA ramp goes right into the

50:47

parking lot. So, anybody that's going to

50:48

be walking to the property would have to

50:50

walk into the driveway where, you know,

50:52

where the where there's people maybe

50:54

pulling in or pulling out. Um and so

50:56

having a direct pedestrian uh connection

50:58

from the end of the ramp out to the

51:00

sidewalk maintains that separate uh

51:02

pedestrian connection um that exists

51:04

there now. Uh and then uh removing those

51:07

penant signs uh that are out there. Um

51:09

and then finally uh just any work that

51:12

occurs on site requires um a flood plane

51:15

development permit and and CRW

51:18

coordination. Um, I know CRW has been

51:20

getting some of these uh synthetic turf

51:23

uh uh proposals um in more recent years

51:27

and they need to make sure that it to

51:29

ensure that it's still uh a pvious

51:32

surface that the subsurface the rock and

51:34

soil and whatever else is is done

51:36

correctly so that it doesn't light back

51:38

up or something. So that's something CRW

51:40

has been telling us that they need to

51:41

review.

51:44

>> How do we review that? Uh so assuming

51:47

this would get approval, I would put you

51:48

in contact directly with them and they

51:50

would work with you directly.

51:56

>> Okay. Um

51:59

one of my questions always with everyone

52:01

is uh did you contact the community? And

52:06

I noticed you do have a

52:09

um

52:10

couple sheets here filled out but they

52:13

don't have addresses. they mainly your

52:15

clients. So the community right there,

52:20

did you contact any of them?

52:22

>> Yep. So all our neighbors as well as

52:24

multiple of the people on that list are

52:25

neighbors along Second Street there um

52:28

as well as Front Street in addition to

52:30

our clients and then as well as an

52:31

online petition that's I believe over

52:33

300 people signed as well.

52:36

Okay, next time just well next time we

52:39

should have the address so we know just

52:43

by St. Harrisburg we don't know if

52:45

they're living it out on the hill

52:48

how they affect the community. Um

52:51

and the other um I guess you don't have

52:54

no problem with parking there. I don't

52:57

know.

52:57

>> No, but it's all by appointment based so

52:59

there's only one-on-one training

53:00

sessions maximum six trainers and six

53:03

clients. So that's never an issue.

53:05

Okay.

53:05

>> And I'd note they did uh in 2023 got

53:08

approval to set up the fitness center

53:09

use and as part of that they did get

53:11

relief from the off street parking

53:12

requirements based on the uh by

53:14

appointment only scheduling.

53:16

>> Okay.

53:17

>> I'm not too familiar but are you going

53:20

to do your training out on the astro

53:22

with this?

53:24

>> Yeah. So essentially what we'll be doing

53:25

is we'll be replacing the front grass um

53:28

with this specific permeable turf. This

53:30

is designed to look exactly like natural

53:32

grass to kind of maintain that maintain

53:35

that front street vibe. And then

53:38

additionally uh very permeable. I can

53:41

have Chris talk more about kind of the

53:43

specifics there.

53:48

And kind of the goal here is just to

53:49

have a riverfront training environment.

53:51

Something that this area or any area

53:53

really hasn't seen. Um so it'll be

53:55

solely for structured uh one-on-one

53:57

training sessions. Won't be any

53:59

equipment outside of equipment that's

54:01

brought in or brought out during the day

54:03

and then brought back in.

54:06

>> Okay.

54:07

Um those are the only questions I have

54:10

at this point. U Commissioner

54:12

McKisick.

54:15

>> Yeah, this is kind of an intriguing one.

54:17

I I can kind of view it out there and

54:20

I've watched what you guys have been

54:22

doing and it's kind of interesting. So,

54:24

it will be one-on-one training out there

54:27

and Okay. Yeah. And and again, the

54:30

permeability, we've done a lot of fields

54:32

over the years. And the uh flood plane,

54:35

I don't know where the flood plane lies

54:37

out there. Are you above it?

54:38

>> It's the whole property is entirely in

54:40

the flood.

54:41

>> It's the whole thing.

54:41

>> Pretty much all front street is there.

54:43

>> Yeah. And and we got involved in

54:45

cleaning one in North Carolina after

54:47

those floods last fall.

54:50

Um Yeah. But anyhow, um it's it's can be

54:53

a good product. Sand bed or is it rubber

54:55

based or how do you do the crumb?

54:58

>> Um

55:00

can you hear me?

55:01

>> Yeah. Uh we use a stuff called Envirill

55:04

which is acrylic. Um it's not the

55:09

typical football field where they put

55:10

like you know this much sand and then

55:13

this much

55:14

>> up tires,

55:15

>> right?

55:15

>> Which some people say is not real

55:17

healthy. You could have mercury this is

55:20

has micro band in and it's very safe for

55:23

kids to play on and it's very pet

55:26

friendly too.

55:27

>> Okay. Yeah, that sounds the uh I have no

55:31

problem supporting this. The only thing

55:32

as I might suggest a condition that just

55:35

to note that this shall not be used for

55:37

parking at any time. No, because we have

55:41

designed them and parked on them. It's

55:43

not good but it happens. So, and I know

55:46

we've struggled with front front yard

55:49

parking down Front Street for a lot of

55:52

years. So,

55:53

>> yeah.

55:55

>> Yeah.

55:57

>> And that property that used to be a

56:00

fully just like impervious service and I

56:02

remember they came back and and because

56:04

they expanded it from to the one side of

56:06

the walkway. Um, so they did like the

56:08

pvious pavement.

56:12

>> Nothing else. Thanks. Commission to

56:15

Yeah, I agree with Vern. This is a this

56:16

is a new one on us. Uh

56:20

this doesn't require the like the

56:22

drainage infrastructure that you put on

56:24

a football field, doesn't you? You're

56:26

just putting it on

56:27

>> No, you know, I'll talk to the the folks

56:30

about that, but I usually put a clean

56:33

stone down first about 4 in.

56:36

>> Then I'll put a finer stone and compact

56:38

it all out. That gives natural drainage.

56:41

The turf actually has PF holes on the

56:43

bottom of it every four inches. So

56:44

there's holes like the size of a pencil

56:46

that help it drain.

56:47

>> And the test results, as he said, it

56:50

drains

56:52

600

56:53

gallons in per hour. So as he says, it

56:57

drains better than grass.

56:59

>> Yeah. Just curious. Yeah,

57:02

you got my vote.

57:04

>> You rais a question if I may. Um, do you

57:06

I assume you guys do a perk test to go

57:08

with this to ensure the um the

57:10

underlying soil is not a clay.

57:14

>> I can. I'm not accustomed to it.

57:16

>> Okay.

57:17

>> And I think that's something that

57:19

probably um

57:22

I'm just thinking about.

57:23

>> I noted in the cross-section of the of

57:24

the product in the brochure, it talks

57:26

about compacted uh subgrade and and then

57:29

it has the um stone on top of that. So

57:32

that's something that you know CRW will

57:34

tell them like yeah it needs to be this

57:36

spine of stone or whatever.

57:38

>> Yeah. I just I was just curious if you

57:40

had because I know we've dealt with that

57:42

that silty clay so along Front Street

57:44

and it can be kind of doesn't like to

57:47

give up the water.

57:58

>> Um yeah I uh

58:01

I think this is very innovative. I have

58:06

been going back and forth about whether

58:10

it should be a separate condition

58:13

um in respect to capital region waters

58:17

review and just any design coordination

58:22

in respect to storm water planning,

58:26

infiltration and the flood like drainage

58:31

into the flood plane. So, I mean, I know

58:33

you're saying it's coordinating

58:37

being like the flood plane review and

58:40

coordinating with CRW,

58:42

>> but there's also the drainage aspect of

58:45

this

58:46

turf of the water going directly

58:50

into,

58:52

you know, into the soil. There's

58:55

they also might have an issue of

58:58

actually seeing reverse

59:00

water filtrate happening if there's a

59:02

flood situation

59:05

where

59:06

I don't know. I mean the

59:11

I'm just wondering if there should be a

59:13

separate I'm I I'm leaning towards there

59:16

like you kind of just like made a one

59:18

statement like the project will require

59:20

review by CRW and I'm just I think there

59:23

should be it should be a condition that

59:25

CRW approves of the drainage and ration

59:29

design of this project.

59:32

>> Sure, I think that's sensible

59:38

>> and that is my only concern with this

59:42

otherwise think it's pretty cool.

59:44

>> Okay,

59:46

Commissioner Jordan.

59:47

>> Yes. Um, so there was made reference to

59:51

the concern for this setting a precedent

59:54

going forward, right?

59:56

Yeah, that was so I guess this is maybe

1:00:01

a hypothetical question is because you

1:00:04

talk about the fact that this could

1:00:05

function as a test case. Is there any

1:00:08

way from a language standpoint to make

1:00:10

this like revisionary for this

1:00:12

particular case?

1:00:14

>> Um, you know, I think I I don't know

1:00:17

that we've ever used that terminology in

1:00:19

the zoning relief uh process. Uh we use

1:00:22

it in HARB uh but that's a bit more uh

1:00:25

the scope is a little different of their

1:00:28

review authority. Um, so I I think it'd

1:00:32

be tough to say, well, we'll let this

1:00:35

happen, but

1:00:37

>> everything else is, you know, subject

1:00:39

one to one basis because that's the case

1:00:40

anyway, right? Um, about what's relative

1:00:43

to that property or whether it's a

1:00:44

variance versus a special exception. So,

1:00:47

um, I I didn't know really how to put

1:00:49

that down. I mean, like I said, my my

1:00:50

one concern was basically saying like a

1:00:52

lot of other people saying, "Well, I

1:00:53

don't want to mow my lawn every year."

1:00:55

So, why don't we just do this? And then

1:00:56

all of a sudden, you've got this carpet

1:00:57

of, you know, turf like laid out along

1:01:00

Front Street here. And I think

1:01:02

>> um you know that I think that's still a

1:01:05

a possible concern, but um like I like I

1:01:08

noted in the case report, I mean, this

1:01:10

is a special exception. It's not a

1:01:12

variance. And so the and so the

1:01:13

threshold is lower. I came into this

1:01:15

honestly expecting to recommend denial

1:01:17

and I I couldn't get there while I was

1:01:20

reviewing the case. So

1:01:23

>> yeah, because If I'm just being honest,

1:01:25

that's kind of where I'm at. I think for

1:01:27

your business, this makes sense. But

1:01:30

since there doesn't seem to be any

1:01:33

gradation, it's either all or nothing.

1:01:35

That's where my concern lies.

1:01:39

I think that's it for me.

1:01:43

>> Commissioner Vincent.

1:01:47

>> Yeah, that my big question would be, you

1:01:49

know, what happens after that CRW?

1:01:52

Do do we have to relook at the storm

1:01:53

water runoff plan? Like what does that

1:01:55

look like from our end and our

1:01:57

responsibility? Does it come back to us

1:01:59

after that?

1:02:00

>> I don't think so. I mean CRW would

1:02:02

basically tell them here's how you do it

1:02:05

or you don't get approval from us. Uh so

1:02:07

it would kind of be a you know binary

1:02:10

like once they get there,

1:02:12

>> right? One of the things here is it's

1:02:14

such a small parcel, it doesn't reach

1:02:15

the thresholds of the square footage

1:02:18

that typically pushes it in the county

1:02:20

conservation or NPDS or anything like

1:02:23

that. So all those guards are down. This

1:02:25

case is coming back to CRW to kind of

1:02:28

pick up that role.

1:02:36

>> Okay.

1:02:38

Is there anyone from the public for

1:02:40

against this project?

1:02:42

One in the middle, two on the side.

1:02:47

Um, commissioners, um,

1:02:51

could I get a motion with Ann, you want

1:02:54

to add your condition to

1:02:57

>> Yeah, we're adding

1:02:58

>> two

1:02:59

>> two additional condition.

1:03:00

>> If you're if you're good with the

1:03:02

parking, it's showing up. I've just seen

1:03:04

too many impervious areas get a, you

1:03:06

know, get an inch and a half of asphalt.

1:03:09

When I go back to the Civil War Museum,

1:03:11

we had almost an acre of impervious area

1:03:14

and they came back and asphalted it

1:03:15

three years later.

1:03:17

>> There's a bus parking below the hill

1:03:19

there. So,

1:03:21

just happens.

1:03:22

>> Nobody remembered. They didn't know it

1:03:24

was there.

1:03:54

Um, I mean, I guess there's a

1:03:56

possibility for um possibly doing like

1:04:00

hatching at the edge of the parking lot

1:04:02

so it doesn't have to be like repaved as

1:04:04

um as uh concrete or something like that

1:04:07

and then just with curb stops set apart

1:04:10

from that. So that creates that. I just

1:04:12

want to make sure that anybody who is

1:04:13

walking because you're right across the

1:04:14

street from River Park. Somebody may,

1:04:16

you know, take the green belt up there

1:04:18

that they're just don't have to walk

1:04:19

into the parking area and maybe

1:04:21

somebody's backing out and hits them

1:04:22

that they have their own, you know, uh,

1:04:24

separated area to walk up.

1:04:36

>> Um, yeah. Does that

1:04:40

making sure

1:04:42

I would make a motion to approve this

1:04:44

with the conditions uh stated and also

1:04:48

adding a condition that uh no parking of

1:04:52

vehicles would be allowed on uh this

1:04:55

area and um amending condition for uh to

1:05:00

separate out a uh review and approval by

1:05:04

Capitol Region Water for the design of

1:05:08

this uh drain. dage and infiltration of

1:05:11

the of the area.

1:05:16

>> I I would second that.

1:05:19

>> It's been moved to second for approval

1:05:21

with the added conditions. All those in

1:05:25

favor state by saying I.

1:05:27

>> I opposed.

1:05:33

Okay. Motion carries. Goodbye.

1:05:37

Anybody

1:05:40

want to see?

1:05:55

surprising.

1:06:14

>> Yeah, they converted ago.

1:06:22

>> Yes, this is fun.

1:06:28

So I have a question.

1:06:31

>> Is that like um I know like tennis in my

1:06:35

days they're grass courts.

1:06:44

[Laughter]

1:06:48

>> I get the city to fund it.

1:06:58

Okay. Uh let me see where are we?

1:07:05

Uh at the item number six, I believe. Um

1:07:10

this is a land development plan

1:07:12

application for 315 North Second. It's

1:07:15

zone commercial neighborhood. is

1:07:17

followed by Adam Gretman and with

1:07:20

Gretaman Properties LLC is to convert

1:07:23

the existing office building to a 10

1:07:26

unit multi- family dwelling.

1:07:29

>> Uh yeah, so the applicant is proposing

1:07:31

to convert the existing office building

1:07:33

into a 10-unit multif family dwelling.

1:07:34

Uh commissioners probably recall this

1:07:36

from last month uh when the applicants

1:07:38

received um variance approval uh to

1:07:41

establish the 10-unit uh multif family

1:07:43

dwelling. Uh the property at 315 North

1:07:45

Second Street is a 0.1 acre lot

1:07:47

featuring three attached buildings, a 2

1:07:49

and 1/2 story 232t

1:07:52

structure, a three-story 2700 foot

1:07:54

structure, and a three-story 4938t

1:07:57

structure, all of which were constructed

1:07:59

circa 1900. Property is bounded by

1:08:02

Barbara Street to the north, the

1:08:03

property at 210 Pine Street to the east

1:08:05

and south, and North Second Street to

1:08:07

the west. These attached masonry

1:08:08

structures which are or will be

1:08:10

internally connected uh feature elements

1:08:13

of varying architectural styles. The

1:08:15

southernmost of the three buildings

1:08:17

features elements of the federal

1:08:18

architectural style. Character defining

1:08:20

features include the painted brick

1:08:21

facade, the arched entryway, an awning

1:08:23

and access ramp at the rear entrance and

1:08:25

the regular fenistration pattern. The

1:08:27

main entrance is recessed behind an

1:08:29

arched entryway featuring wide pillers,

1:08:31

a keystone and a decorative sconce and

1:08:33

features a panel door flanked by divided

1:08:35

lace sidelights and topped with a

1:08:36

sunburst transom featuring the property

1:08:39

address. Administration on the front

1:08:40

elevation features five 12 over 12

1:08:42

windows with wooden sills and decorative

1:08:44

brick headers which all feature painted

1:08:47

wooden shutters. There are an additional

1:08:48

five divided light windows on the side

1:08:49

and rear elevations. Structure is topped

1:08:51

with a gable roof clad asphalt shingles.

1:08:53

The middle building features elements of

1:08:55

the Italian 8 architectural style.

1:08:56

Character defining features include

1:08:58

painted brick facade and water table,

1:09:00

the decorative metal grates over the

1:09:01

basement windows, the former entryway

1:09:03

converted into a Juliet balcony, the

1:09:05

consistent fenestration pattern, the

1:09:07

threestory bay window, and the

1:09:09

decorative stepped corn brick cornness.

1:09:11

The front main entrance is no longer

1:09:13

accessible from the street as the stairs

1:09:14

were removed prior to October 2008 and

1:09:16

replaced with a decorative metal railing

1:09:18

but features a wooden panel door set in

1:09:20

a simple frame and topped with a sconce

1:09:23

um top of the sconce. The entryway

1:09:25

previously featured an arch brick

1:09:27

surround which has since been infilled

1:09:28

with brick. Administration on the front

1:09:30

elevation includes 17 divided light

1:09:32

wooden windows set in simple wooden

1:09:34

frames. Those on the first and second

1:09:36

floors include storm windows. There are

1:09:38

an additional five divided light wooden

1:09:39

windows on the rear elevation which also

1:09:41

include storm windows. The structure is

1:09:42

topped with a flat rubber roof. The

1:09:44

northernmost of the three buildings

1:09:46

features elements of the classical

1:09:47

revival architectural style. Character

1:09:49

defining features include the painted

1:09:51

brick facade, the double-sided access

1:09:52

stairs, the regular fenistration

1:09:54

pattern, the substantial brick, the

1:09:56

substantial corners featuring brick

1:09:58

posters, decorative brick and wood

1:09:59

elements, and a central embattlement

1:10:01

with narrow windows and a large

1:10:02

three-story decorative brick chimney on

1:10:04

the side elevation. The main entrance

1:10:06

features a panled wooden door set in a

1:10:07

simple panel frame blank by sconces and

1:10:10

topped with a divided light transit. It

1:10:12

is accessed by birectional brick steps

1:10:14

with a simple metal railing.

1:10:15

Administration on the front elevation

1:10:16

includes five 9 over9 windows with brick

1:10:18

sills and headers which all feature

1:10:20

painted wooden shutters. There are an

1:10:21

additional 11 divided light windows on

1:10:23

the side elevation and two dormers

1:10:25

topped with substantial pediments on the

1:10:27

side roof flank flanking the large

1:10:29

chimney. Structures topped with a gable

1:10:30

roof clad and real slate shingles. The

1:10:32

buildings retain a significant amount of

1:10:34

their architectural and historic

1:10:35

integrity and exhibit a unique

1:10:36

configuration of three conjoined

1:10:38

structures of differing architectural

1:10:40

styles. And although they differ

1:10:41

significantly from other properties on

1:10:43

the block, particularly those to the

1:10:44

north and south, they reflect many of

1:10:46

the same architectural features as other

1:10:48

historic properties throughout the

1:10:49

downtown historic district. As such, the

1:10:51

structures contribute significantly to

1:10:52

the eclectic and diverse architectural

1:10:54

and historic character of the

1:10:55

streetscape and neighborhood. The

1:10:58

planning bureau staff recommends the

1:11:00

request be approved uh for the following

1:11:03

reasons. The project has received the

1:11:05

requisite zoning relief approvals to

1:11:07

convert the property into a 10-unit

1:11:08

multif family dwelling. The adaptive

1:11:10

reuse of vacant and underutilized office

1:11:12

spaces into apartment buildings is a

1:11:13

long-term trend for the neighborhood.

1:11:15

Other conversions of former office

1:11:17

buildings in the surrounding

1:11:18

neighborhood have demonstrated the

1:11:19

proposed use will not adversely impact

1:11:21

the character of the neighborhood and

1:11:22

the project will help retain existing

1:11:24

architecturally and historically

1:11:26

significant buildings endangered not

1:11:28

only by the threat of extended vacancy.

1:11:30

Um oops, sorry.

1:11:33

Um and the proposed reuse will add new

1:11:35

residents to the neighborhood to

1:11:36

activate the street on nights and

1:11:37

weekends and grow a customer base to

1:11:38

support local businesses and will

1:11:40

provide additional units to the downtown

1:11:41

housing inventory.

1:11:44

>> Thank you, Jeff. Could you state your

1:11:46

names, address, and relationship to the

1:11:48

project?

1:11:49

>> Richard, architect by design.

1:11:55

>> Uh, Michael White, owners rep, project

1:11:58

manager, 232 Jackson.

1:12:02

>> You bothard the staff conditions. Are

1:12:06

you acceptable of those conditions?

1:12:09

>> There were no conditions. Sorry, I I

1:12:10

said I said approval with conditions,

1:12:12

but uh there were no conditions.

1:12:17

I'm so used to those conditions. Boy,

1:12:19

it's automatic. Okay, no conditions.

1:12:23

Um, I have no questions at this time.

1:12:26

I'll start with my commissioners

1:12:27

commissioner.

1:12:30

>> I'd like to say I don't like the

1:12:32

project, but many many many moons ago

1:12:34

about 35 years ago, we did the com

1:12:36

combination of those and so it's good to

1:12:40

see it being carried into the future. At

1:12:42

that point it was Bell Telephone or

1:12:43

Bellip PA and that was their first

1:12:46

growth out into that area and it was

1:12:48

there was a lot of discussion about tear

1:12:50

down and build new at that point and

1:12:52

they

1:12:53

converted them the way they did and now

1:12:55

it's great to see that all the work was

1:12:57

done made it easy. you don't you don't

1:12:59

have any property lines to move and and

1:13:02

so it's good you know I've been watching

1:13:03

it sit there empty so

1:13:06

good luck

1:13:10

>> yeah the only question just out of

1:13:12

curiosity would you figure out whether

1:13:14

you or whether Belle owns the parking

1:13:18

lot or if it's part of the applicants

1:13:21

>> is um a permanent easement to the

1:13:25

benefit of the

1:13:28

Okay. I know that was up in the air last

1:13:30

time we were together.

1:13:31

>> Yes.

1:13:34

It's not it's not a lease

1:13:41

commission.

1:13:44

>> Okay. That that was going to be my

1:13:46

question. Um because then on the site

1:13:49

plan like on the plans. So it it's shown

1:13:53

in the existing

1:13:56

um overall site plan but then it's not

1:13:59

shown on the proposed plans that

1:14:02

adjacent like the permanent easement

1:14:04

being there.

1:14:07

the permanent there. I'm not sure which

1:14:09

plan you're looking at just the overall

1:14:12

site plan. I mean the plan set

1:14:15

you know you've got your ex you have

1:14:17

existing site plan where it does show

1:14:20

the entire building footprint plus the

1:14:22

parking area and an easement but then in

1:14:27

your proposed

1:14:29

plans

1:14:30

>> I think

1:14:32

the floor plan

1:14:34

>> there's no site plan

1:14:36

>> site work

1:14:38

there's no proposed site work there's no

1:14:42

Okay. All right. Well, okay. I

1:14:44

understand that then. That's how it's

1:14:47

reflected. Okay.

1:14:49

>> Commissioner Jordan,

1:14:52

>> no questions.

1:14:53

>> Uh, Commissioner Benson,

1:14:57

>> no questions.

1:14:59

>> Uh, is there one one person in the

1:15:02

middle?

1:15:05

>> Down to one person. Nobody on my right.

1:15:08

Um, said you're in favor of it. Didn't

1:15:10

help you.

1:15:18

>> Commissioner is going to get a motion.

1:15:20

>> A motion to approve.

1:15:22

>> There's no condition.

1:15:24

>> I'll still try to get a

1:15:27

>> I'll second.

1:15:28

>> Okay. It's been moved to second for

1:15:30

approval with no conditions. All those

1:15:32

in favor state by saying I

1:15:34

>> I oppose.

1:15:38

Motion carries. Good luck.

1:15:53

>> Thank you.

1:15:58

Item number seven, this is a lot

1:16:01

consolidation and land development plan

1:16:03

for the SRTA

1:16:06

and M facility in the block generally

1:16:09

bound by her street. The Harrisburg

1:16:11

Cemetery, State Street and Cameron

1:16:14

Street industrial followed by Richard

1:16:17

Par. The Suscoana Regional

1:16:19

Transportation Authority is to demolish

1:16:22

existing structures vacant rights away

1:16:26

and construct a new operation and

1:16:29

maintenance facility with a temporarily

1:16:32

transfer center.

1:16:35

>> Um yes. So the applicant is proposing to

1:16:37

vacate various rights away in the block

1:16:38

generally bounded by her street, the

1:16:40

Harrisburg Cemetery, State Street and

1:16:42

Cameron Street, consolidate the subject

1:16:44

properties, demolish the existing

1:16:46

structures on site, and construct a new

1:16:48

Sesuana Regional Transportation

1:16:49

Authority operations and maintenance

1:16:51

facility with a temporary transfer

1:16:52

center on site. Project A is comprised

1:16:54

of 14 parcels. Uh 901 North Cameron

1:16:58

Street, 650 North 12th Street, 603, 611,

1:17:01

and 627 North Cameron Street, 700 Monroe

1:17:04

Street, 901 North 12th Street, 527 North

1:17:07

Cameron Street, 1100 State Street, and

1:17:09

three parcels collectively addressed as

1:17:11

1151 North Street, totaling

1:17:13

approximately 15 acres, which features

1:17:15

eight distinct buildings and several

1:17:16

other structures across the site.

1:17:18

Project site is bounded by 107 North

1:17:20

Cameron Street and 102 North Pearl

1:17:23

Street to the north, North 12th Street

1:17:25

and the Harrisburg Cemetery to the east,

1:17:27

State Street to the south, and Cameron

1:17:28

Street to the west. The northernmost

1:17:30

property currently accommodates the

1:17:31

existing Serta O andM facility comprised

1:17:34

of a two-story office building and

1:17:35

maintenance garages with two separate

1:17:38

maintenance garage buildings to the

1:17:40

north. These structures total 1,247

1:17:43

ft with the maintenance garages being

1:17:45

constructed in 1910 and office building

1:17:46

component being constructed 1950. The

1:17:49

property has function functioned as the

1:17:50

maintenance facility for the region's

1:17:52

mass transit operator operator going

1:17:54

back to the earliest days of the city's

1:17:55

trolleys. The garages are primarily

1:17:57

one-story masonry structures featuring

1:17:59

elements of utilitarian industrial style

1:18:01

with the office building in the

1:18:02

southwestern corner featuring a more

1:18:04

modern mid-century architectural style.

1:18:06

Character defining features of the

1:18:07

garages include the large roll down

1:18:09

garage doors and the tall blue metal

1:18:11

cornises overhead. Character defining

1:18:13

features of the office building include

1:18:14

the varied masonry facads with

1:18:16

differentiated vans, the large wings

1:18:18

extending from the main entrance, the

1:18:20

prominent stair and elevator towers and

1:18:21

the irregular fistration pattern. The

1:18:23

entire site is paved as parking or

1:18:25

access drives and is enclosed by an 8ft

1:18:27

high green chain link fence topped with

1:18:29

barbed wire. Central block features an

1:18:31

institutional campus previously owned by

1:18:32

Goodwill Industries and is comprised of

1:18:34

four separate buildings totaling 100,956

1:18:37

square feet. The campus buildings were

1:18:39

constructed at various points between

1:18:41

1950 and 1987. Buildings are primarily

1:18:43

one-story masonry structures featuring

1:18:45

elements of utilitarian commercial and

1:18:47

industrial style with a more modern

1:18:49

office building along North 12th Street

1:18:51

being two stories and featuring a more

1:18:52

modern architectural style. The

1:18:54

industrial buildings along the western

1:18:56

and northern um

1:18:59

uh facades have little architectural

1:19:01

character. While the character defining

1:19:04

features of the office building include

1:19:06

the prominent entryway with a two-story

1:19:08

glass curtain wall, the regularly spaced

1:19:10

brick columns on the northern and

1:19:11

southern facades and the regular

1:19:12

fenistration pattern. Block features

1:19:14

parking lots and access drives

1:19:15

interspersed amongst campus buildings

1:19:17

with a vegetated buffer of varying

1:19:19

depths and states of maintenance around

1:19:20

the periphery. Block to the south

1:19:22

features two use surface parking lots

1:19:24

enclosed by chainlink fences, some of

1:19:26

which are topped with barb wire.

1:19:28

Properties were formerly the site of the

1:19:29

state testing laboratory. Currently, the

1:19:31

sites only accommodate impervious

1:19:32

services and overgrown vegetation. The

1:19:35

eastern block features the city-owned

1:19:36

parks and recreation facility comprised

1:19:38

of four separate buildings totaling

1:19:40

16,740

1:19:42

ft. The campus buildings were

1:19:44

constructed at various points between

1:19:45

1960 and 1992. The buildings are

1:19:48

primarily one-story masonry structures

1:19:50

featuring elements of utilitarian

1:19:51

industrial style with no defining

1:19:53

architectural characteristics. Property

1:19:55

features parking areas and access drives

1:19:57

fronting garages and maintenance or

1:19:58

storage buildings. Overall, while the

1:20:00

project site does feature elements of

1:20:02

other industrial properties along

1:20:04

Cameron along the Cameron Street

1:20:05

corridor in respect to both existing

1:20:08

site conditions and building design, the

1:20:09

properties do not contribute to the

1:20:10

architectural character of the community

1:20:12

and in fact largely detract from it. As

1:20:14

such, the project represents a welcome

1:20:16

improvement to the corridor.

1:20:18

The planning bureau staff recommends the

1:20:21

request be approved with the following

1:20:22

conditions. Uh the project must receive

1:20:24

approval of the street vacations for

1:20:26

portions of Foster Street, Goodwill

1:20:28

Drive and North 12 Street as well as

1:20:30

various other public rights of way

1:20:32

running through the project site prior

1:20:33

to filing the lock consolidation at LDP

1:20:36

LDP final plan set with the Dolphin

1:20:37

County Reporter of Deeds. And I know

1:20:39

this is a little bit um a weird

1:20:41

condition here that it's not being filed

1:20:44

um uh concurrent with this uh land

1:20:46

development plan. I think because it's

1:20:48

involving um both city land as far as

1:20:51

the park and recreation facility uh and

1:20:53

like state land. Um the applicant has

1:20:56

been in coordination with like the law

1:20:58

bureau about how best to handle this,

1:21:00

whether this is just through a um city

1:21:03

council resolution or whether it

1:21:05

actually requires this. So I think

1:21:06

they're still working that out. Um but

1:21:08

they do eventually had to be vacated in

1:21:10

some. Uh the applicant must secure

1:21:12

approval of a letter of map provision

1:21:14

from FEMA so that the development can

1:21:15

proceed as proposed and must eventually

1:21:17

receive approval from the flood plane

1:21:19

administrator for both the structural

1:21:20

demolitions on site uh which I've just

1:21:22

recently reviewed and approved. Um as

1:21:24

well as the as well as the new all new

1:21:27

proposed construction including

1:21:28

buildings, fences and signs. Uh and the

1:21:31

applicants are uh have been working

1:21:33

since I think December uh with uh FEMA

1:21:36

on the documentation for that letter of

1:21:38

map revision. Um and so they're

1:21:41

currently in the midst of that uh

1:21:43

process. Uh the applicant should

1:21:44

coordinate with the city arborist to

1:21:46

increase the ecological impact and tree

1:21:47

canopy on site by incorporating native

1:21:49

tree species and pollinator plants

1:21:51

particularly on the western edge of the

1:21:52

site around the storm water detention

1:21:54

infrastructure which can also address

1:21:55

localized air pollution created by uh

1:21:58

Cameron Street and Hurst Street

1:22:00

infrastructure. I should say State

1:22:01

Street. Um they do have a much more uh

1:22:04

vegetated proposal as proposed as

1:22:07

compared to the last parks and recck

1:22:08

facility. Uh but the city art is

1:22:10

currently reviewing that. We just want

1:22:12

to make sure it's following our

1:22:14

standards uh and best practices um from

1:22:16

that perspective. Uh and finally, uh the

1:22:18

proposed transfer center component of

1:22:20

the project should be considered a

1:22:21

temporary accommodation and the

1:22:22

applicant must continue long-range

1:22:24

coordination with the city on an

1:22:26

alternative location that enhances

1:22:27

coordination with the Harrisburg

1:22:28

Transportation Center. better

1:22:30

accommodates rider origin destination

1:22:32

trips and more closely conforms to the

1:22:34

city's comprehensive plan as well as

1:22:36

previous studies developed by Pendot

1:22:37

including the Harrisburg Transportation

1:22:39

Center TOD master plan from December uh

1:22:42

2017.

1:22:44

Uh the plan bureau staff recommends the

1:22:46

request be approved for the following

1:22:47

reasons. The project will expand and

1:22:49

modernize operations and maintenance

1:22:52

facilities, consolidate agency staffing,

1:22:54

increase efficiency, and improve their

1:22:56

ability to provide services to the

1:22:58

region's residents, businesses, and

1:23:00

visitors. The project site is a

1:23:02

conspicuous location located at the

1:23:04

intersection of two state routes. And

1:23:05

the removal of deteriorated and

1:23:07

underutilized buildings and replacement

1:23:09

of large expanses of impervious surface

1:23:11

with vegetation and a modern transit

1:23:13

facility building will bring aesthetic

1:23:14

improvements not only for passers by

1:23:16

local residents and workers as well. And

1:23:18

through coordination with FEMA, the

1:23:20

project will result in a site that is

1:23:22

flood plane compliant and more resistant

1:23:23

to future flood events in the Paxton

1:23:25

Creek.

1:23:27

>> Thank you, Jeff. Could you state your

1:23:28

name, address, and relationship to the

1:23:31

project?

1:23:32

>> Yes. Uh, good evening. My name is Bill

1:23:34

Schnore with Stantech Consulting.

1:23:38

We're the representative for Susana

1:23:41

Regional Transportation Authority for

1:23:43

this project.

1:23:46

>> Are you acceptable of the conditions?

1:23:49

>> Yes, we have reviewed the uh case report

1:23:52

and working with Mr. Knight and we are

1:23:55

agreeable to the conditions of the

1:23:56

recommended approval.

1:24:00

>> Commissioners um have no questions. This

1:24:02

is pretty straightforward. I'll start

1:24:04

with

1:24:05

>> Commissioner.

1:24:06

>> I'm sorry. We um I would just like to

1:24:08

say in addition to this, as both um

1:24:11

gentlemen alluded to, there is currently

1:24:14

a memorandum of agreement that the law

1:24:16

bureau has and is drawing down on. It's

1:24:19

technical. Um, and while the MPC does

1:24:22

provide for us to do things like this

1:24:24

for ease, like to do it through

1:24:26

agreement and contract, there still are

1:24:28

things that can't be passed over and

1:24:31

have to be councilmatic. So, I am I do

1:24:35

have the agreement and we are in favor

1:24:36

of the project. It's just a matter of

1:24:39

basically doing what you're saying is

1:24:41

that there are certain steps that cannot

1:24:44

be skipped. Like we cannot do a street

1:24:46

vacation by contract. you know what I

1:24:50

mean? So the bulk of this um is in the

1:24:53

agreement and it basically has a lot of

1:24:55

input of what Jeff has said. Um we are

1:24:58

just um commenting now and drilling down

1:25:01

into the technical aspects of it so that

1:25:04

we have an agreement that both makes it

1:25:06

easy and still provides for city council

1:25:09

to have their input.

1:25:14

As I said, it's it's pretty

1:25:15

straightforward and I'll start with

1:25:17

Commissioner McKenzie.

1:25:20

>> No, the only thing I can say is I think

1:25:22

we need more drawings for the land

1:25:24

development plan. It's not well enough

1:25:27

engineers. You're just kind of making

1:25:29

>> get paid by sheet

1:25:31

>> by the pound probably. No, but no, you

1:25:34

guys have it's a heck of a set of

1:25:35

drawings as I was going through there.

1:25:37

Seems pretty tight, but

1:25:41

Commission,

1:25:42

>> I'm really happy to see this kind of

1:25:43

investment on Cameron Street. Uh I think

1:25:46

the last time it was investment like

1:25:47

this, Vern was the architect and hope

1:25:49

this goes a little bit smoother than

1:25:50

that project through no fault of yours.

1:25:54

>> Only took 16 years.

1:25:55

>> Yeah.

1:25:58

No, I'm all favored.

1:26:00

>> Commissioner Murray,

1:26:02

>> I don't have any uh questions or

1:26:04

concerns here. I think it's a extremely

1:26:06

thorough and well-designed uh land

1:26:08

development plan.

1:26:10

>> Thank you,

1:26:11

>> Mr. Jordan.

1:26:12

>> Yes. Um I have two two major concerns. I

1:26:17

guess the the smaller of them from

1:26:19

looking at the site plans is it and

1:26:20

correct me if I'm wrong, as far as the

1:26:23

sidewalk goes along Cameron, it is

1:26:26

directly against the lane of traffic. Is

1:26:28

that correct?

1:26:31

>> Yeah, there is. straight up against the

1:26:34

curb

1:26:35

>> uh which is on the edge of traffic.

1:26:37

>> Right. Okay. Um my my concern with that

1:26:40

is anybody who's driven along Cameron

1:26:43

Street despite the 35 mile per hour

1:26:45

limit, people go 45 and then some. So to

1:26:49

be a pedestrian walking directly against

1:26:52

that type of traffic is unnerving to say

1:26:55

the least, yet alone there's a safety

1:26:57

aspect to it. Um just looking over some

1:27:00

of the specifications

1:27:02

to um there was let's see here basically

1:27:08

of course saying that there's a minimum

1:27:10

of six feet but then when the sidewalk

1:27:13

is directly adjacent to moving traffic

1:27:15

the desired minimum is 8 feet providing

1:27:17

a two-ft buffer for street furniture or

1:27:20

utilities maybe in this case a grass

1:27:22

meeting or something you know that's

1:27:25

something that I would suggest um

1:27:29

just simply you know just for pedestrian

1:27:32

access and safety because it's

1:27:34

essentially a highway still at that

1:27:36

point. Um, and you know, it's kind of

1:27:39

it's kind of a safety issue with people

1:27:40

walking directly across from the the

1:27:43

traffic. So, I don't know if that's

1:27:45

something you'd be amenable to looking

1:27:46

into.

1:27:47

>> We are amenable to do whatever the

1:27:49

commission uh and and the codes

1:27:54

recommends.

1:27:55

>> Okay. So, I I guess I'm going to volley

1:27:58

it over to you, Jeffrey, because that

1:28:00

that would be one of my I guess a

1:28:02

recommendation maybe to install it um as

1:28:05

opposed to two foot buffer for street

1:28:07

furniture perhaps for like a grass

1:28:09

median along the frontage of Cameron

1:28:11

Street.

1:28:11

>> Yeah. And uh the commissioners may

1:28:13

remember that's something we included in

1:28:14

the parks and wreck facility with like

1:28:16

the wider uh sidewalks along her street.

1:28:19

Um I think there's maybe a little bit

1:28:22

more uh maybe constraints on this side.

1:28:24

Uh you're right. The as when I was

1:28:26

walking along taking pictures and

1:28:27

posting the properties, like it is not

1:28:29

fun when you're right next to a truck

1:28:32

barreling down at 45 miles an hour.

1:28:34

>> Um I don't know exactly where the

1:28:38

property lines are relative to um where

1:28:41

the curb is and so what that width is.

1:28:43

It's also a state route. Um so I think

1:28:46

you know a lot of this falls within

1:28:47

Pendot's perview whether they're willing

1:28:49

to do something like this and and for

1:28:51

the most part I think they have been so

1:28:52

far. So, it's certainly something we

1:28:54

would support. We always support wider

1:28:56

sidewalks, especially if this is going

1:28:57

to be a transfer center and people are

1:28:59

going to be walking to the food school,

1:29:01

to the, you know, Sunshine Park, MW

1:29:03

Smith homes, uh, which are just to the

1:29:05

north here. Um, so yeah, we will

1:29:07

definitely in our continued coordination

1:29:09

with uh, the applicant and PennDOT, uh,

1:29:12

advocate for wider sidewalk.

1:29:13

>> Yeah, I I would really appreciate that

1:29:15

because, um, as you can tell, they've

1:29:17

already rebuilt that. um when they took

1:29:19

out the the curb cut where the garage

1:29:21

is, they rebuilt it and that concern was

1:29:24

brought up and as you can see was not

1:29:25

addressed.

1:29:26

>> So that's something that could be

1:29:28

coordinated going forward once this is

1:29:29

rebuilt once again.

1:29:30

>> Yeah.

1:29:32

>> Um and then the second concern which I

1:29:34

think um Jeffrey pointed out is just the

1:29:37

simple fact of where this is located as

1:29:40

far as the transfer center goes. Um the

1:29:42

rest of the project totally on board

1:29:44

with but the transfer center is on

1:29:47

camera It's not close to downtown and

1:29:50

pretty much I can't imagine

1:29:52

who's walking to it. Pretty much it

1:29:54

seems like you would have to catch a bus

1:29:56

to it, transfer there and then catch

1:29:58

another bus out of there. It might work

1:30:00

well for the regional systems coming off

1:30:03

the highway from like York and Lebanon.

1:30:05

But the capital region system that is

1:30:07

based in Harrisburg, it kind of seems

1:30:09

like you're doing a double back,

1:30:10

especially with now the state workers

1:30:12

coming back to work. You know, I can't

1:30:14

imagine we're going to ask them to leave

1:30:16

the

1:30:17

come over here to catch the bus to then

1:30:20

go to the westore for example. So I

1:30:23

guess my biggest concern is the way that

1:30:25

this is constructed. It doesn't look

1:30:27

temporary. It looks like this is once

1:30:29

it's built, it's built. And I understand

1:30:31

that the city and the partners downtown

1:30:34

would like to reclaim the transfer

1:30:37

center. understand that you know there

1:30:39

are private owners in some of the lands

1:30:42

in question closer to downtown and again

1:30:44

like you said that's not necessarily on

1:30:46

this time frame. I guess just my concern

1:30:48

is once this is built where where is the

1:30:50

incentive to look elsewhere because this

1:30:54

this is not designed to be temporary.

1:30:56

>> Yeah. And and that would and that's and

1:30:59

uh the applicant can confirm that that's

1:31:01

been a stated um concern of the planning

1:31:03

bureaus throughout our entire

1:31:05

coordination with them. Uh but in you

1:31:08

know in the applicant's defense we have

1:31:10

worked with the most um obvious

1:31:12

potential property owners around the

1:31:14

Harrisburg Transportation Center, the uh

1:31:16

old post office owner, the owner of the

1:31:19

um former uh Patriot News property

1:31:22

across the street from there. Um and uh

1:31:25

the um I forget the the organization

1:31:28

that owns it directly across um south of

1:31:31

the train station across uh Market

1:31:33

Street there um which owns the now

1:31:36

vacated vacant um and kind of properties

1:31:40

there south of Market Street. And um

1:31:42

we've we've had meetings with them. You

1:31:45

know, there's been some discussion about

1:31:47

what the federal highway uh will fund.

1:31:49

Um, so if you wanted to integrate a

1:31:52

transfer center into a new development,

1:31:53

that has to be just owned, I think, by

1:31:56

Pat or at least have like a permanent,

1:31:58

you know, master lease or something like

1:32:00

that. So, it's not quite as easy as

1:32:02

saying like, well, let's put it there or

1:32:04

let's get a somebody to build a building

1:32:06

that was on there.

1:32:07

>> That's my understanding as well. So, but

1:32:09

it it is it's it's something I've been

1:32:10

pretty firm on is that, you know, we in

1:32:15

coordination with our comprehensive

1:32:16

plan, in coordination with that TOD

1:32:18

study that Pendot themselves did in

1:32:20

2017,

1:32:21

um the transfer center really needs to

1:32:23

be near the train station to get the

1:32:25

benefits of the connectivity of, you

1:32:28

know, having people take the train

1:32:30

downtown and then hop on the or sorry,

1:32:32

take the bus downtown, hop on the train,

1:32:33

go to Philly, whatever, New York. Um,

1:32:35

and also because this is that would be

1:32:37

closer to where the city's major

1:32:40

employers are, the state, UPMC. Um, and

1:32:42

if it's all the way out where it is now,

1:32:44

it's just people aren't going to walk to

1:32:46

that. So, everybody's taking a taking a

1:32:47

bus to transfer there. It Yeah, I

1:32:50

measure I think I measured it on the

1:32:51

county's maps and it was about a half

1:32:53

mile to get to the train station. Again,

1:32:54

that's an unpleasant walk. Um, there's

1:32:56

you're right next to traffic, there's no

1:32:58

trees, so you're in the summer, you're

1:32:59

out in the sun. um you know no great

1:33:02

places to you know we just I think we

1:33:05

haven't found a viable final solution um

1:33:09

so and this project needs to go forward

1:33:10

the cat sort of uh needs to have a new

1:33:14

operations and maintenance facility the

1:33:16

money's there right now and I mean as as

1:33:18

you guys all know like when the money

1:33:20

comes in like that's the time to strike

1:33:21

here because it might not come back

1:33:22

again for a while and so um you know

1:33:26

we've just been you know kind of

1:33:28

stressing that throughout our whole that

1:33:30

like we understand this needs to go here

1:33:32

now because of the time frame and we

1:33:33

don't have a better option, but our

1:33:36

long-term goal needs to be that this

1:33:38

needs to be closer to the transportation

1:33:40

center. It needs to be closer to

1:33:41

downtown or the Yeah, the train station

1:33:43

and it needs to be closer to downtown.

1:33:45

Uh but in the meantime, we have to have

1:33:47

a transfer center somewhere. And so, um

1:33:50

this is going to go here. I don't know

1:33:51

what materials can be temporary like

1:33:54

i.e. five 10 year versus four year time

1:33:57

horizon. Um, but I've said the same

1:34:00

thing to them too is just like I hope

1:34:02

this is not all paved in, you know,

1:34:04

concrete marble and stuff like that.

1:34:05

That it is uh, you know, something that

1:34:08

is not overly expensive to put up and

1:34:10

therefore overly expensive to take down,

1:34:11

>> right? And and I guess that was my

1:34:13

concern that there might be an issue of

1:34:14

some cost that once it's it's built,

1:34:16

it's just kind of like, well, do we want

1:34:18

to spend the money yet again to put it

1:34:21

elsewhere? Um, and you know, just

1:34:24

speaking for me personally, I wish that

1:34:25

maybe the transfer center was being

1:34:28

being offered separately because like I

1:34:30

said, I have no problem with the system

1:34:33

um with the buildings being rebuilt,

1:34:34

they need to be, but it's just I'm just

1:34:37

concerned that once it's there, it's not

1:34:39

going. So,

1:34:41

>> no, I mean, again, I think the

1:34:43

applicants have we've made them aware.

1:34:45

They've been willing to meet and have

1:34:47

discussions and talk about the options.

1:34:48

it's just it hasn't panned out and and

1:34:51

maybe somebody comes forward, maybe

1:34:54

money becomes available to purchase a

1:34:56

property, you know, and again, like I

1:34:58

said, the it's not even just as simple

1:35:00

as like building it. It's about

1:35:01

ownership and that comes can become a

1:35:04

little bit tricky and that's not going

1:35:06

to happen right away. So, but in the

1:35:08

meantime, we do need these new

1:35:09

facilities. So, um, we felt that putting

1:35:12

that in this case report, uh, you know,

1:35:15

will if somebody needs to come back

1:35:17

later and say, "Hey, this is the city

1:35:18

council resolution approving this and it

1:35:21

says that they're supposed to find

1:35:22

this." So, that gives us the,

1:35:24

>> you know, that gives us the uh uh access

1:35:27

to, you know, changing this in the

1:35:29

future. Like, we're hoping that that's

1:35:31

going to be that is would you say access

1:35:33

or would you say leverage?

1:35:34

>> Leverage. Yeah, that probably be a

1:35:36

better word uh to change that in the

1:35:38

future. Yeah.

1:35:40

Thank you.

1:35:44

>> At the transit center you see the

1:35:47

transfer center.

1:35:50

>> Uh good questions for the architects and

1:35:52

the site civil but I'm thinking like 70

1:35:55

is uh

1:35:56

>> at a time with transfer

1:35:58

>> talking about the temp the transfer

1:35:59

center. Yeah.

1:36:00

>> No. Uh transfer center there's space for

1:36:06

uh

1:36:12

We see

1:36:14

>> because the functions removing what is

1:36:17

kind of tried to do make work on the

1:36:19

square since they built that in what 90.

1:36:21

>> Yeah.

1:36:22

>> And I remember when it hit a lot of

1:36:23

buses you don't see too much there

1:36:25

anymore.

1:36:28

>> It looks like from here 16 salt tubes.

1:36:31

>> Okay.

1:36:31

>> Yeah. But I mean even now you have the

1:36:34

bus back up on the second street

1:36:35

sometime and everybody's got to drive

1:36:37

around.

1:36:38

Yeah, clearly the current uh facility is

1:36:41

not sufficient to safely handle

1:36:46

all the circulation.

1:36:49

>> Just a thought came to me. Um

1:36:52

talking about other places you might

1:36:55

push too late now, but I I was thinking

1:36:59

just for the transfer center and the

1:37:02

other operations tell you where it is,

1:37:04

but uh have you thought about

1:37:07

Maybe you're not aware of it, but the

1:37:10

since I'm a member of the ABC brewery,

1:37:12

that to say I'm a for person, but that

1:37:15

closed down

1:37:17

uh about a month ago. Now, I was

1:37:20

thinking that building, they had the

1:37:21

parking lot behind it and also the

1:37:24

building where the office building

1:37:26

across the street,

1:37:28

I didn't know that would be an area that

1:37:31

if they're, you know, purchased be a

1:37:33

transfer center. They have enough space

1:37:36

for parking back behind the bus and it

1:37:39

wouldn't be that you wouldn't have to

1:37:41

cross Cameron Street.

1:37:44

I never thought I just thought about

1:37:46

that.

1:37:48

>> Mr. probably knows more of the the

1:37:50

properties that have been looked into in

1:37:53

that regard because I know uh Rich Bar

1:37:56

and others at Serta have been working

1:37:58

closely with the city on potential

1:38:04

options that would be you know agreeable

1:38:06

to the city.

1:38:09

>> Yeah. No, I mean there there are a

1:38:11

couple different options for the

1:38:13

properties along that 800 900 block of

1:38:15

Market Street there. Um again it was

1:38:18

more conceptual stuff and never I don't

1:38:22

know how far talks about purchasing

1:38:25

those properties ever got or what level

1:38:27

design

1:38:28

>> part of it is it's already what 70%

1:38:30

owned

1:38:32

>> uh was that those properties

1:38:33

>> yeah that were on I mean it's already

1:38:35

own property too.

1:38:36

>> Yes. Yes. Exactly. And they got it from

1:38:38

Goodwill which was you know amendable to

1:38:40

selling and moving out of there too. I

1:38:42

mean it was yeah it's it's a large a

1:38:45

large part of it is just the ease of

1:38:47

doing this because all of the property

1:38:50

owners and stakeholders in that site

1:38:52

were amendable to changing the city

1:38:54

obviously was like yeah we'll give up

1:38:56

our parks facility you buy us a new you

1:38:58

build us a new one which and like for a

1:39:01

temporary structure that makes total

1:39:03

sense but for a permanent structure it

1:39:05

kind of feels like an easy way out.

1:39:08

>> No like I mean the applicant can tell

1:39:10

you I haven't been

1:39:12

I haven't been given them the easy way

1:39:14

out on on on working through that. But

1:39:16

um yeah, I mean it's it's a challenge

1:39:18

and I know the there have been multiple

1:39:20

designs not even on the east side of the

1:39:22

tracks. There were talks about rerouting

1:39:24

back onto the ground level of the train

1:39:26

station where I guess buses used to run

1:39:28

down there. Uh there's a parking lot

1:39:30

just to the south of it uh where they

1:39:32

looked at it and um for various reasons

1:39:35

that just never that just never

1:39:36

happened. But we're continually looking

1:39:37

at it and at least from my perspective

1:39:39

as the plane director, this is one of

1:39:41

those high level things that anytime

1:39:43

anybody asks me about any of those

1:39:45

properties around there, um I make sure

1:39:47

to mention this first and foremost like

1:39:48

if you're looking to do a development

1:39:49

here, let's talk about how we can bring

1:39:51

the transfer center into that.

1:39:53

>> Right. And and there's plenty of other

1:39:55

transit agencies in the state that we

1:39:57

can look at as examples of doing just

1:39:59

that.

1:40:03

>> Probably agreement with Commissioner

1:40:05

Jordan.

1:40:06

Um, historically with the city, whenever

1:40:09

they do something temporarily,

1:40:12

>> that's it.

1:40:14

It'll never become

1:40:16

>> But, uh, it just sort of, you know,

1:40:19

again, with the post office, I don't

1:40:21

know what that that could be an

1:40:23

excellent transfer center, but you know,

1:40:27

whatever that building sits there

1:40:29

>> for what, $600,000,

1:40:32

>> I can't remember my head

1:40:33

>> or something like that.

1:40:41

I didn't forget about you commissioner

1:40:43

commission.

1:40:45

>> No good discussion. I I have no further

1:40:47

questions other than other than happy

1:40:50

discuss

1:40:51

>> just to please since there's no one in

1:40:54

the public

1:40:56

I can't ask public respond

1:41:01

just for the record

1:41:09

I get motion suggestion maybe Jordan you

1:41:12

want to make a motion with

1:41:15

added conditions.

1:41:17

>> Right. I guess a motion to approve with

1:41:20

the stated conditions and including the

1:41:23

um reference to adding the twoft grass

1:41:27

medium

1:41:28

along um the furniture Cameron Street.

1:41:33

>> Is there a second?

1:41:38

>> Second.

1:41:39

>> It's been moved and second for approval

1:41:42

of the condition.

1:41:44

condition. All those in favor state by

1:41:47

saying I

1:41:48

>> I

1:41:48

>> I

1:41:49

>> oppose abstensions.

1:41:59

>> Any other business?

1:42:02

>> Uh well, I didn't have it down on the

1:42:04

agenda, but I have it here on my notes

1:42:05

uh to um have the introduction of the

1:42:08

new commissioner. You kind of stole my

1:42:09

thunder a little bit there of the

1:42:12

meeting.

1:42:12

>> Sound like a couple. Uh but uh just uh

1:42:16

wanted to give uh Mr. Vincent an

1:42:17

opportunity to introduce himself, maybe

1:42:19

give a little bit of his background uh

1:42:21

the board and the general public.

1:42:26

>> Thank you, Jeffrey. Uh yeah, my name is

1:42:28

Boser Vincent. Um

1:42:32

uh let's see, I want to introduce

1:42:34

myself. Um I've been actually came from

1:42:37

a manufacturing background, so

1:42:38

mechanical engineering. uh worked in pet

1:42:42

food for about uh 15 years and then uh

1:42:45

transitioned uh started owned my own

1:42:47

business. Um did a lot of research uh

1:42:50

you know got kind of hooked on the

1:42:52

comprehensive plan started really diving

1:42:54

into that uh did did a did a series of

1:42:57

videos on that and that kind of led me

1:42:59

to to you know trying to want to engage

1:43:02

in this space a little bit more.

1:43:04

actually just previously made a run for

1:43:05

city council. Um and then um president

1:43:09

of young professionals of color. So, you

1:43:11

know, there might be some opportunity

1:43:13

for me to abstain depending on how

1:43:15

things, you know, engage. And then um

1:43:18

yeah, just really really looking to to

1:43:22

learn a lot about this process and see

1:43:25

how the group functions.

1:43:28

>> Again, I said welcome.

1:43:30

>> Thank you.

1:43:30

>> And I think you'll enjoy this type of

1:43:33

relates to your background and

1:43:37

and this meeting tonight was a good way

1:43:40

to get your feet wet.

1:43:41

>> Yes.

1:43:42

>> But this is a mild meeting. We have been

1:43:44

meeting when this place is packed and

1:43:46

we've been here for hours.

1:43:48

>> And the other thing I'll I'll let you

1:43:50

know, there's no pay.

1:43:56

>> The water is our reward.

1:44:06

reviewing.

1:44:07

>> Yes.

1:44:10

>> Well, we usually get it ahead of time,

1:44:12

but Jeff is the only person working in

1:44:14

that department

1:44:15

>> and they have them doing like 20 things.

1:44:18

So,

1:44:18

>> yeah. No. Um, yeah, they've the last few

1:44:22

months have been a little um more

1:44:24

hectic, so they there's been delays

1:44:26

getting them out. Um you previously I

1:44:29

was getting them out the Friday before

1:44:31

usually and this is and this tended to

1:44:33

be a fairly um you know complex project

1:44:37

especially with like the transportation

1:44:39

center. So the reviews uh are a lot

1:44:42

longer at least from my perspective

1:44:44

developing case report are a lot longer

1:44:46

than the discussion was. Um but uh yeah

1:44:50

going forward um I'm going to really um

1:44:53

focus on getting these things done

1:44:55

sooner so that you're not

1:45:04

as far as

1:45:08

>> Oh, no. There's It's always the first

1:45:10

It's always the first Friday of the

1:45:11

month for the following month's

1:45:12

meetings. So, September was last Friday,

1:45:16

August 1st. Um, and depending upon

1:45:19

>> I mean it's Yeah, it's like four weeks

1:45:22

basically. Um, depending upon how long

1:45:25

an agenda is going to be or how complex

1:45:27

the cases are, I may take something a

1:45:29

little bit later or if I've been working

1:45:30

with an applicant on something and

1:45:31

they're just waiting to get in

1:45:33

paperwork.

1:45:34

>> I was just curious whether

1:45:38

>> No, it's it's usually the month before,

1:45:40

but you know, so I've gotten everything

1:45:42

for next month already, but working on

1:45:44

developing this, then I'll be working on

1:45:46

the meeting minutes for the zoning

1:45:47

hearing board meeting. And so by the

1:45:48

time I'm able to turn to the next

1:45:49

month's meeting, it's like two weeks

1:45:51

before And yeah, so

1:45:55

>> Jeffrey, do you know if the budget has

1:45:58

been in so far? Because I'm asking maybe

1:46:03

asking request for pay for it.

1:46:05

>> Uh I mean it we we did put in the uh uh

1:46:09

temporary budget or not temporary uh

1:46:10

draft budget. Um but haven't had those

1:46:13

discussions with the city council yet.

1:46:15

So

1:46:15

>> you did.

1:46:16

>> Yeah. So there's uh there's always the

1:46:19

possibility to change it for the end of

1:46:20

the year. I know there are planning

1:46:22

commissions that do pay them, but

1:46:24

>> yeah,

1:46:25

>> we're the

1:46:27

exception of this,

1:46:29

>> but we do this because we care.

1:46:32

>> Well, because like uh the NBC

1:46:37

planning commission,

1:46:41

>> like a monthly like Yeah, it's like $600

1:46:44

for the year or something like that.

1:46:46

>> Hey, I'll go for that.

1:46:49

>> Better than just this.

1:46:51

Then I can buy my own water.

1:46:54

>> Uh, anything to get order?

1:47:00

>> Yeah.

1:47:00

>> What have you heard?

1:47:10

>> Oh, that economic development group.

1:47:12

>> Yeah.

1:47:16

>> I haven't been in a meeting. I so there

1:47:18

was a um uli had something a couple

1:47:22

weeks ago um uh about uh the downtown

1:47:26

and they had various stakeholders some

1:47:29

developers I believe Mr. Vincent was

1:47:31

there. Um business owners uh were there.

1:47:34

So they've had their engagement

1:47:38

sessions. Um and they're working on

1:47:40

developing a document. I think they said

1:47:42

it would take a couple months. Um so I

1:47:44

did ask for like an early draft of the

1:47:47

feedback that was gathered and they were

1:47:48

like we don't do that. So um they are uh

1:47:51

I think they said they were planning on

1:47:53

having at least some draft document

1:47:55

developed within like two months or

1:47:57

something.

1:48:07

they implemented.

1:48:11

>> Right. Right.

1:48:15

in terms of

1:48:20

>> aside from like I said a perspective

1:48:23

um

1:48:25

document availability date of I guess

1:48:27

late September early October maybe. Um

1:48:30

I'm guessing I don't know if they're

1:48:31

going to do a presentation like city

1:48:33

council

1:48:36

>> the federal tap house. So that's the

1:48:39

capital city music hall uh that was

1:48:41

They're having a session or something.

1:48:44

>> I was not

1:48:49

>> being

1:48:54

journal.

1:48:55

>> Oh, Central Pen Business Journal.

1:48:59

>> I think that's a active construction

1:49:01

zone. So, I don't know.

1:49:05

>> I think there was an article in the B as

1:49:07

well because I think that's how I found

1:49:09

out.

1:49:12

I'm not I'm not aware of that one.

1:49:40

I'm not

1:49:51

with that. Could I get a motion for

1:49:53

adjournment?

1:49:55

>> Is there a second?

1:49:57

>> Second. We stand and adjourn.

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