Harrisburg City Zoning Hearing Board Meeting - 10/20/25

Good evening everyone. Today it's

October 20th. This is the uh monthly

meeting of the Harrisburg zoding board.

Okay.

All the people in attendance to my left

Mr. Hob James Hops

left right to my left Mr. Michael our

solicitor. And to his to his left is

Michael Connor.

And in front of me is the director of uh

planning for city of Harrisburg.

And to his right is the is somebody

somebody from the city law office, Miss

Cameron representing city. Okay. And I'm

chips.

So it over.

>> Yep. We're ready to go. Sure. Well, um I

just want to remind everybody that the

zoning hearing board is a quasi judicial

body. Uh we're going to hear evidence

tonight on five different applications.

Um for all these applications, we we

will have Jeffrey Knight, the planning

director of the city of Harrisburg, uh

here and attorney uh Tarsa Cameron from

the city of Harrisburg Law Bureau. uh

the zoning hearing board um once it

receives evidence um from each uh one of

the applicants that will apply the law.

Uh law in this case is the

municipalities planning code, the city

of Harrisburg zoning code and also

relevant case law. We have a court

reporter here um by law uh we have um a

court reporter who's going to take down

word for word what everybody says um in

case one of these cases should be

appealed. Uh so that being said, we want

to make sure that we don't talk uh over

one another uh so that we have an

accurate transcript and also I just want

to remind everybody to silence uh their

electronic uh devices so there's no

interruptions. The first matter uh this

evening is uh matter number 2615. It's a

special exception request relative to

property located at 2017 North Sixth

Street. This property is zoned general

uh commercial general CG. Um and it was

the application was filed by Robbie

Singh with uh 2017 North Sixth Street

LLC

uh to request relief uh from the off-

streetet parking requirements associated

with the redevelopment of the site in

question and expansion of a convenience

store.

Uh so with that being said um we're

going to um first uh swear in Mr. Knight

um who's the planning director. Um and

Mr. Knight, when we swear you in, you'll

be sworn in for every uh application

this evening. Do you swear or affirm

that the testimony about to give before

the board will be the truth and nothing

but the truth?

>> I do.

>> Okay. Um M Mr. uh Nolman, you're uh

representing your client this evening.

you want to introduce yourself and also

anybody that you might have testify,

we'll swear them in all together and get

that out of the way.

>> Okay. Uh good afternoon board. Uh my

name is Jacob Domen. I'm an attorney

with Stevens and Lee here on behalf of

the African 2017 North Sixth Street. Uh

with me today is Sean Hos uh to my left

here and then as well Robbie Singh uh

the member of the LLC and they will both

be testifying. Sean Hos more directly.

Uh Robbie's here for if the board has

any questions.

>> Okay. Um Mr. Hos, um you gave the court

reporter your card.

>> Yes, I did.

>> Okay. So, we have the right spelling.

Your last name is spelled how?

>> H A S.

>> Okay.

Okay. And then uh Mr. Singh, you're here

present also. Could you both raise your

right hands? So, we'll swear in

together. Do you uh swear or affirm that

the testimonial you'll give before this

board this evening will be the truth and

nothing but the truth?

>> I do. I do.

>> Okay. Thank you.

Um Mr. Knight, what we usually do is

we'll have the planning director give an

overview and then you could present your

case. Okay. So, Mr. Knight, would you

like to give us an overview?

>> Uh yes. So uh the uh project for case

2615 uh involves the redevelopment of uh

the existing gas station with

convenience store um aspect or

development um into a larger convenience

store component of that use. Um, as part

of this project, uh, they will be

demolishing the existing structure on

site and, uh, constructing a more

modern, larger convenience store at the

eastern end of the property, which is

currently a gravel lot, um, enclosed by

a chain link fence. Um and as part of

this uh proposal uh because the off-

streetet parking requirements are based

on the square footage of the uh retail

store um the increase in the size of

that um component of the project uh

necessitates a significant increase in

the amount of off- streetet parking

required um and because the applicants

are not able to uh meet that on site uh

they are uh requesting a special

exception for relief from the off-

streetet parking requirements. I believe

under the current uh zoning code, the

current configuration uh would require

about 25 spaces and I believe the um new

one would require uh 58 off- streetet

parking spaces. Um and the applicants

will be providing 31 spaces on site. Um

as noted in the uh planning bureau's

case report uh you know we do feel uh

that there are justifications based on

the criteria in the zoning code uh to

grant uh the requested relief um both

because there is available on street

parking um along uh adjacent nearby

roads uh specifically uh North Sixth

Street south of the project site as well

as on um some of the uh some of the

streets between North Sixth Street and

North Seventh Street nearby. There are

also um several uh bus routes that uh go

up and down Sixth Street and across uh

Mccclelay Street. Uh but from a more

practical perspective, um the proposed

use uh generally has a fairly um

transient customer base with a short

turnaround times. Um you know, you might

get a significant amount of traffic

coming to the property, but it's likely

that um clients, customers uh will only

be there for several minutes at a time.

And so there's anticipated to be

significant turnover um of those parking

spaces. Uh and it should be noted that

the existing use um again while a

smaller uh uh building um has not really

experienced any issues with off-

streetet parking and with parking from

the use overflowing on the surrounding

uh streets. Um and given the increase in

proposed number of spaces uh on site um

it is anticipated that you know this

condition would continue going forward.

Um and uh you know again as noted I

think it's unlikely somebody takes a bus

to a gas station. Um but uh you know it

is there are uh bus routes alongside the

the site that would um you know meet the

criteria outlined in the zoning code. Um

so with respect to that uh the

planning commission recommends the

zoning hearing board approved the

request with the following conditions.

Uh the applicant should consider

removing the western most proposed curb

cut on the Mccclelay Street frontage of

the property given its proximity to the

intersection and potential to create

confusing and dangerous traffic

circulation for both drivers and

pedestrians with traffic anticipated to

increase upon completion of the building

directly to the north. Um and that's the

Atlas building across Mcclelay Street.

Pedestrian volumes will likely increase

at this intersection as well. Um and it

should be noted the applicants are

removing one of the um curb cuts onto

the property uh the northernmost one on

North Sixth Street. So, we're basically

requesting a similar removal of this.

Um, but it's more of a recommendation

than, you know, a requirement. Uh, the

applicant must coordinate with Capital

Region Water regarding the site

disturbance and proposed development

footprint to ascertain what storm water

mitigation efforts may be necessary. The

applicant should consider installing low

plant screenings in the setback areas

around the perimeter of the site to

improve the aesthetics of the property

and or incorporate storm water

management infrastructure if possible.

Uh, the applicant must ensure that the

proposed dumpster dumpster enclosure is

designed and constructed in conformance

with the regulations in section 7-331.12

of the zoning code. And finally, the

applicant must ensure that signage for

the redeveloped site is brought into

conformance with the zoning code and

that current non-conforming signage such

as feather flag signs and electronically

changing signage is removed and not

reinstalled. The planning commission

recommends that the Harrisburg County

Hearing Board approve the request for

the following reasons. The proposed

development will replace an outdated

makeshift structure and overgrown

undeveloped lot with a blighting

influence on the streetscape with a

modern convenience store building that

will enhance retail options for

surrounding residents and workers.

Because the use is already operating on

site, approval of the proposal will not

alter the essential character of the

neighborhood and will provide benefits

such as temporary construction jobs,

aesthetic improvements, and improved

traffic circulation.

And finally, the project will result in

the removal of one unnecessary curb cut

along North Sixth Street. hand, if the

bureau's conditions are adopted, a

second curb cut along with Clay Street,

clarifying vehicular access to the site,

removing vehicular pedestrian conflict

points, and making access and

circulation safer for all road users.

>> Thank you, Mr. Knight. Um, is there

anybody here um

that is uh opposed to this application?

Okay. Uh before we start, I'm going to

mark uh exhibits that the board has

received. Um so we have them in the

record. Um I've I've marked these as all

board exhibits. Um so board exhibit

number one B1 is the proof of

publication. The time and place and

particular nature of this matter was

advertised in the Patriot News which is

a newspaper of general circulation for

the city of Harrisburg. It appeared in

publication on October 5th and October

12th, 2025.

Exhibit B2 is a letter dated October 16,

2025 from planning director Jeffrey

Knight to the applicant notifying the

applicant of the time and place of the

hearing. Board exhibit number three is

the hearing notice which was posted upon

the property and that occurred on

September 25th, 2025.

Board exhibit number four are the

notification letters to the required

neighbors and a certificate of mailings.

The board exhibit number five is the

application packet with the attached

narrative photos of the property and

plans for the proposal. Board exhibit

number six is the deed establishing the

applicant standing to pursue zoning

relief this evening. Board exhibit

number seven B7 is a planning bureau

case report. And board exhibit number

eight is a city of Harrisburg planning

commission resolution. So we have board

exhibits one through eight

which will be admitted um into evidence

in this matter and Mr. Domen um

it's all yours.

>> Thank you attorney Pos. Uh again my name

is Jake Domen with Stevens and Lee here

on behalf of the applicant 2017 North 6

Street LLC. The applicant is in the

owner of a 0.52 acre track of land

located at 2017 uh North Sixth Street.

Uh as uh Mr. Knight has testified, uh

the property is located in the

commercial general zoning district and

it's currently improved with an existing

convenience store and fueling station uh

which are permitted uses under the

zoning ordinance. Uh the project before

the board uh is a um applicant looking

to redevelop the property. Uh the

current conditions are looking a bit

tired. Uh they were built back in 1965.

Uh so they want to redevelop the

property to construct the new roughly

4,320

ft convenience store. uh remove a

portion of the fueling canopy that's

currently disrupting uh internal access

drives on the property as well as uh

renovate the parking area and internal

drive aisles. Uh the status of the

application uh we submitted the

application to the city of Harrisburg as

a dimensional variance on September 4th,

2025. At the planning commission meeting

on October 1st, the Harrisburg staff

recommended that we seek a special

exception rather than a dimensional

variance. Uh the applicant just wants uh

the board to know that to us um

methodology doesn't really matter. We

regardless whichever relief that the

board sees fit uh we're just looking to

have a bit of a reduction in the general

parking on site. Um but today we're

going to be talking about the special

exception as it relates to section

7-327.8

uh which is the standard set forth for

reduction of on off streetet parking

requirements. Uh with me today is Sean

Hos. He's a professional engineer with

Langan Engineering as well as the

applicant Robbie Singh. Uh he's more

here board has any uh questions about

the business itself or the operations. I

have exhibits to hand out as well.

Uh much of the exhibits that you'll find

in these binders are similar or the same

exhibits as the ones that were admitted

by attorney Posh. Um to get started,

Sean, could you please introduce

yourself?

>> Uh yeah, my name is uh Sean Hos. I am uh

employed with Lang ing our home office

or my home office is in Doylestown, PA

located at 2700 Kelly Road, Sweet 200.

Uh, Warington, PA is the actual address.

Um, I'm a senior project manager with

the firm. I've been there for not quite

15 years and I and I head our site civil

department out at that office. Um,

general responsibility is I oversee our

site civil team. Um, including the

design and management of a whole facet

of different projects which includes

numerous convenience stores in

Pennsylvania. Are you a licensed

engineer in Pennsylvania?

>> Uh yes, I'm a licensed uh professional

engineer in PA and I'm also a certified

professional in erosion.

>> Are you familiar with the site and

surrounding area?

>> Uh yes, I am.

>> And if we turn to applicant exhibit A1,

uh can you tell me what this is?

>> So this is the uh cover letter for our

zoning.

>> Okay. And the entire exhibit is the

actual application itself as well as the

narrative attachment. Is that correct?

>> That is correct.

>> And are you familiar with the city of

Harrisburg zoning ordinance?

>> Uh yes, I am.

>> Are you familiar with the needs of the

applicant in developing the property?

>> Yes.

>> And if you turn to exhibit A2, can you

uh tell the board what that is?

>> Uh so this is a deed for the property

>> and the ownership is vested in 2017

North Sixth Street. Is that correct?

>> That is correct.

>> And then if we can move to exhibit A3.

Is this the concept plan that was

submitted with the application?

>> Uh yes, it is. It's the it's a concept

plan uh prepared directly with my

oversight and by my team last dated June

13th of this year.

>> And does it show both the existing

conditions as well as the proposed

project plan?

>> It does. Um in the forefront is the

proposed plan which is the 4300 4320

foot building with the u associated

curbing and striping adjustments to u

the parking that we have currently

proposed with the driveway adjustments.

In the background you can see the

existing building, the existing fuel

canopy and the existing curving

driveways.

>> Can you just briefly discuss the

existing conditions of how the site

looks today?

And uh for the folks in the audience, we

also have uh the exhibit A3 over there

to the left. Um so I can show that. But

um generally just to orient everybody to

the plan. So uh north is at a slight

skew. Um but generally to the the top of

the plan, to the north we have Mccclelay

Street, to the west we have North Sixth

Street, to the right we have Wall

Street, and then to the south of the

property we have commercial uses. Um the

site as as Jay previously mentioned the

site's located in the commercial general

zoning district. Um it's also generally

surrounded by other commercial res

>> and the parking numbers of the existing

uh building and site those are more

approximate. Can you tell me why?

>> Yeah, so it's more approximate and we do

have a survey for the site but we also

have you know aerial aerial photography.

We've also stopped by a few times.

Generally, you know, the the site's in

need of a of a, you know, a bit of a

uplift here. Um, reason being the

striping isn't really existent on site

anymore. So, there's some striped out

spaces immediately adjacent to the

existing building, but largely it's a

paved open corridor um with limited

signing strip or kind of anything to

help you maneuver throughout the site.

We do approximate the parking spaces as

20. That's utilizing all space available

and it also includes the eight fuel

stations at each one of the gas.

>> And that that number 20, that's if

everyone parks in a very organized

fashion. Correct.

>> That's that's correct. And it does

include the the eight fueling stations

as well. I mean, right right now as it

is, it's more of a a free for all on the

property.

>> If we flip over to exhibit A4, can you

just tell us what this exhibit is?

Yeah. So, as I mentioned, um, A4 is is

generally some of those site photos

either taken from Google Street View or

or an aerial photo of the site, but it

confirms the the notes that I said

there. I mean, you can see the existing

building. You see the the fueling canopy

and the stations there. Some of the

other site improvements associated with

the convenience use. You see both of the

existing curb cuts and driveways off of

Mcclelay Street and North Sixth Street.

And um to the east or on the middle

photo on exhibit A4, you can see the

vacant property uh along the street.

>> And that that vacant property is where

the new building is going to be.

>> Yes.

>> So talking about the new building, we'll

go back to exhibit A3 here. Can you

discuss the proposed modifications of

the building or of the property? Yeah,

absolutely. So, once again, the the

general idea is just to bring this this

site up to modern standards. Um, part of

that is is proposing a slightly larger

building that can provide, you know,

additional services or just more square

footage for the retail use. But, um,

with the property, so the property

already includes the the vacant area

along the Clay Street. So, what we're

proposing is to utilize that area for

the development of the building. We're

proposing a 4320t

building. It's roughly 48 by 90 if you

want to think of it in that dimension.

But we're taking the building off of the

southern property line, rotating it, and

aligning it to the eastern property line

um with that. And as as mentioned

previously um by Mr. Knight, the there

was two driveways off of North Sixth

Street. We're consolidating those into

one driveway, slightly larger width. Um

we have two driveways off of North Sixth

Street. Those are being shifted uh

slightly. The the western those

driveways being shifted to provide a

greater distance off of the intersection

with North Sixth Street meeting um

township ordinance for center to center

offsite offsite offset from North Sixth

Street. U but we're we're maintaining

those two driveways. And basically by

having that configuration where we have

a shared driveway off of North Sixth

Street and two driveways off of

Mccclelay Street, we can propose two-way

circulation throughout throughout the

site. There's no dead-end parking.

There's full access to the canopies. If

you have a gas um if your gas connection

for your vehicle is on an opposing side,

you know, you can still swing around and

get there without having complications

with traffic backing up or anything like

that. But ultimately, you know, with

this, we're also proposing to delineate

those parking spaces. So, we have 31

parking spaces, which is, you know, I

guess with the the general statement

that we have 20 in the existing

condition, we're we're increasing it by

11. Um, you know, based on our

experience with convenience stores, we

think that's plenty suitable for this

type of use. We're meeting ADA standards

by proposing two ADA spaces against the

building and also relocating and

enhancing the trash enclosure that's

there as well.

>> And just two points of clarification,

this is an entirely new building. It's

not an addition to the existing

building. Is that correct?

>> That's correct. The existing building

will be demolished as part of this.

>> Okay. And then the the other point too u

with regards to the access points um the

applicant is expanding the one driveway

on Mlay Street or sorry North Sixth

Street uh but removing the other one.

Correct.

>> That's correct. And um the driveway

that's being removed is the driveway

closer to the intersection

>> and the the area of the proposed

building that was already impervious

coverage.

>> Yeah. compacted gravel and that can be

seen on exhibit A4. But yeah, the site

as it stands is almost entirely

impervious coverage.

>> Okay. So, we're not really adding or if

we are adding any, we're not adding very

much impervious coverage to the site.

>> Okay. Uh let's move on to the actual

relief that we're here for today. Uh now

that we have a general background of the

project, uh so we are seeking a special

exception pursuant to section 7327.8.

which is the reduction in off streetet

parking requirements. Are you familiar

with that section?

>> Uh yes, I am.

>> Is it your understanding that this

section allows for a reduction in off

streetet parking if some of the criteria

listed there can be met?

>> Uh yes, it can be at the discretion of

the zoning hearing.

>> Okay. So, let's go through some of the

criteria that we found applicable as

well as what uh Mr. Knight found

applicable as well. Uh so, and we'll

keep this brief since Mr. Knight had

already testified on some of this. So,

adequate commercial or public parking is

available in the vicinity. Is that

correct?

>> Uh yes, on street parking is available

in the general vicinity of the site um

including locations within about one or

two blocks

>> and you testified that you you believe

in your professional opinion that 31

spaces are sufficient. Can you just

explain as to why?

>> Yeah, absolutely. It's a it's the nature

of the use. So, I mean it's a

convenience store. It's not a it's not a

retail store or grocery store or

something like that. The idea is to get

in, get what you need, get out or stop

at the fueling station, maybe you go in

the store from there and then get out.

So, it's it's short-term parking,

frequent customer turnover. Um, you

know, for both the the convenience store

use and the fueling stations.

>> And then if we flip to exhibit A5, uh,

which is the report from the, uh,

this is the planning borrow burrow's

case report. Uh did the staff in the

bureau uh provide comments regarding

this criteria?

>> Uh yes they did.

>> And what was their comment?

>> Uh generally they believe that we we

satisfy the the various criteria.

>> Okay. And then 7-327.8

parenthesis 2. Uh this is public

transportation services deemed adequate

to uh the needs for such use. Um can you

describe whether or not you believe the

applicant meets this criterion?

>> Yeah. So, uh, to my to my knowledge,

there's multiple bus routes in the area

along both streets. Um, there's also a

bus stop immediately against North Sixth

Street on the west side of the property.

>> And although bus stops uh, doesn't seem

very useful for a gas station, this is

also a convenience store and people can

go inside and buy merchandise. Is that

correct?

>> Absolutely.

>> And then for the other three, uh,

7-327.8

3 through five. U generally uh do you

believe this criteria is applicable to

the project?

>> Uh no. Uh the use does not have multiple

tenants. So it's a one tenant convenient

store with fueling use. Uh nor does it

have a need for mass transit other than

you know folks coming stopping by

quickly for uh for the use.

>> Okay. And as stated does pursuant to

section 7-327.8

Does the applicant have to satisfy all

of the criteria listed there?

>> So, moving on to the general special

exception requirements and these are

found in 7-323.6B

parenthesis 1. Um,

are you familiar with this uh special

exception regulations in the ordinance?

>> Uh, yes. So the first one is such use

will not clearly be in conflict with the

other city ordinances or state or

federal laws or regulations. Uh the use

of the convenience store and fueling

stations is permitted in this district.

Is that correct?

>> Yes, it is.

>> Uh will we will the applicant be

compliant with all city, state and

federal laws?

>> Uh that that is our intent. Yes.

>> So generally you believe we satisfy the

standard.

uh for parentheses B. Uh such use will

be will include proper traffic and

egress to the property uh with

particular attention paid to vehicle and

pedestrian safety and will involve

proper access for emergency vehicles.

Are you familiar with this ordinance

standard?

>> Yes.

>> Is the applicant providing changes to

the overall layout to improve public

safety?

>> Uh yes, we are. As I defined earlier, as

we went over exhibit A3, you know,

generally I think we're enhancing the

property quite a bit by proposing

striped out parking spaces, delineating

drive aisles, meeting the uh width

requirements of the of the ordinance by

um reducing the number of driveway

connections to North Sixth Street and

then also by shifting the western most

driveway the inter

>> and we we you mentioned that the

applicant's also removing a portion of

the canopy. Can you describe how is also

improving safety.

>> Uh yes. So um that canopy column was

essentially connected to the existing

building. If we demo the existing

building, it would be a free floating

column in the middle of a drive aisle.

Obviously not the not the best

situation. So that will be removed.

There'll be a structural analysis

associated with the canopy to make sure

that it stays in in good structural

shape, but by doing so that allowed us

to propose the parking and drive

configuration.

Thank you. And did the staff provide the

Harrisburg planning staff provide a

comment regarding uh whether or not the

project is improving safety?

>> Uh they did.

>> And what was their comment?

>> Um they they believe that the project

represents an improvement for pedestrian

access and

>> that can be found in exhibit A5. Is that

correct?

>> Correct.

>> And did did they also provide any

recommendations regarding access?

>> Uh there were several uh

recommendations. One of them was to

consider removing the western most

proposed curb cut on Mlay Street.

>> And is the applicant considering this?

>> Uh we are considering it. Um we did do

an investigation between our our last uh

representation at the planning

commission and tonight uh has a traffic

engineering team internal to uh to our

team. I met with them earlier today

today to review this. Ultimately, we

think that what we're proposing uh is an

improvement to the condition that's out

there right now. By reviewing the

ordinance section 732710

C, the allowable offset from a from an

intersection measured center to center

is 75 ft. We're showing 85 ft with the

proposed improvement. Um it's a shift of

about 22 feet to the east. We think that

meets the ordinance and and the

requirements associated with this. Um we

did, you know, further review um that

requirement uh versus PA code. Uh I have

an exhibit in front of me. It's it's

chapter 441.9.

Um and it's a driveway layout

illustration. Ultimately, this shows a

curve measurement from North 6 Street to

the curve measurement for the driveway.

If it's 20 ft, that's suitable for PA

code. And we that um almost twofold. But

ultimately, by taking those two

together, we think that one, we're

proposing an improvement to the site,

two, if we blocked off this intersection

would be causing a dead end traffic

pattern. That dead end traffic pattern

plus circulation getting into both sides

of the the fueling pumps. Um once again,

noting that there could be fueling on

each side of the vehicle, meaning you

want to pull in on opposite sides. We

think it's best that this stays open

because if not, I think you're looking

at the potential

that that's conflicts both inside the

property and also external. Correct.

>> Yes.

>> And the the applicant has also looked at

alternatives to this as well. Uh can you

briefly just describe whether or not

those alternatives seem to be more

fruitful than the current design?

>> Yeah, the alternative would be would be

deadend parking. So you close it off,

you create a dead end. Um ultimately

it's going to be more difficult to get

into these fueling stations and that's

where you know cars access the northwest

corner. The parking in the northwest

corner. If they're trying to get there,

but there's a car making a clockwise

movement around the fuel camp. He's

trying to get in the same spot, you

could end up with, you know, those kind

of traffic circulation conflict that I

mentioned previously.

>> And the applicant is still considering

this and investigating the issue.

Correct.

>> Correct.

>> Okay. And will the applicant during the

permitting period be be in contact with

Harrisburg staff uh to discuss the

comment uh the consideration to remove

that curb cut uh and provide them with

our findings.

>> Yes.

>> Okay. So, moving on then to uh

section 7-323.6B

uh parenthesis 3. Uh the applicant shall

show that the use will not create a

significant public safety hazard

including fire, toxic or explosive

hazards. Uh will this use create a

public safety hazard?

>> So, I mean, as mentioned in my previous

testimony, we're proposing new We're not

changing the use, so it's still going to

be a fueling station uh with that

convenience store. The underground

fueling tanks are located to the

southwest of the existing canopy and

those will be remaining as is. Um so do

I believe that this will create a public

safety hazard? No. As the underground

fuel link tanks will stay as is and

they're currently compliant with all

necessary regulations, federal and

state. Um any improvements that we do

make to the site will also

and for parenthesis 4. Uh such use will

not significantly uh negatively affect

the character of an existing residential

neighborhood such as causing substantial

amounts of heavy truck traffic to travel

through a residential neighborhood or a

significant odor or noise nuisance or

very late night early morning hours of

operation. Can you just discuss the uh

whether or not in your opinion you

believe that the proposed changes to the

site will cause any of those issues?

>> Yeah, so it's a very similar statement.

The use isn't changing. We're not

proposing add fueling station. So

ultimately, you know, we have a a

slightly bigger building that we're

proposing, but it's the same use, just a

larger footprint for, you know, more

goods and services. Um, ultimately the

use is surrounded by other commercial

users and that it's been on there since

I believe Mr. Dan mentioned 1965. Um, so

over 50 years. So although the store

size is increasing, we do not expect a

dramatic on the neighborhood or

additional truck traffic. And for the

additional truck traffic, uh the amount

of fueling stations are going to remain

the same. Is that correct?

>> Correct.

>> So, okay. Uh so there's not going to be

more fueling stations since more fuel

trucks having to come and refill the

property.

>> Correct.

>> And overall, would you say that the re

redevelopment will improve the character

of the neighborhood? It may also

encourage further redevelopment in the

area as it's being really a facelift of

one of the properties nearby.

>> Yeah, absolutely. I think enhancing this

building on on a critical corner for the

city is a is a great move and um can

bring in new business.

>> So moving on to parenthesis 5. Uh such

use will involve adequate site design

methods uh including plant screening

walls, fences, BMS, site layout, proper

uh direction and shielding of outdoor

lighting to avoid glare, setbacks of

refuge areas and loading facilities as

well as other setbacks as needed to

avoid significant negative impacts on

adjacent uses. Uh the development of the

site will uh be compliant with all

regulations while we go through the

permitting period. Is that correct?

>> Correct.

>> And one of the conditions uh offered by

the planning uh was for the plantings on

the the small size plantings around the

edges of property. Uh based on your

discussions with the applicant, are they

willing to accept that condition?

>> Yes.

>> Uh parenthesy 6, the applicant shall

show that the use will comply with the

environmental performance standards of

the zoning code as stated in section or

chapter 7-331.

Uh does this does this project comply

with this section?

>> Yes.

>> And is it the same use? It's just

getting a facelift. Exactly.

>> Okay.

>> And then the final one, parenthesy 7,

the applicant shall approve that any de

demolition or negative impacts upon any

buildings with historically significant

architecture on the site have been

reasonably minimized. Uh is there a

historic structure or are there any

historic structures on site?

>> Not to my knowledge. So this section

would not apply to this.

>> Okay. Is it your opinion that the

applicant satisfies the special

exception criteria percent to sections

7-327.8

regarding the reduction off streetet

parking as well as section 7- 323.61B.

>> Yes.

>> Is there anything else you would like to

add?

>> Uh no. I I believe that's a a great

summary of what we're proposing to do

and

>> then the final exhibit, exhibit A6. Uh

this is just the list of all the

neighbors that the mailing was sent out

to. Uh we also have the uh full list of

the letters with the certified mailings

there as well, but I believe you entered

that into the record. Is that correct?

>> We did.

>> Okay. Uh with that, the applicant rest

its case and offers the board the chance

to ask us any questions.

>> Okay. Does the board have any questions

of uh Mr. Hos?

No.

I did

the property in question. I'm very

familiar with that property. Okay.

You're relocating the convenience store

to

right.

You're going to take the fence down

that's fenced off that that area. In

that area, you're going to relocate the

convenience store. Okay. And then what

borders that smallest street. Okay. Will

there be any type of fencing put up at

the back of the convenience store to

Will there be any other type of fencing

or put behind that?

>> I I believe there's fencing there now.

So, that fencing would would stay. Um if

you know additional or upgraded fencing

was a regulation of the city or within

the ordinance, we would certainly intend

to meet that. Um

as we as we uh provided testimony on

earlier, one of the conditions of the

the planning commission was to was to

provide some additional planning. So

we'll also be looking to install those

types of

so you wouldn't see any entry to the

convenience store area from Wallace

Street. You're going to either come up a

clay sheet or off of Six Street to enter

into this.

>> So the the front door will certainly be

internal to the site. So, if you think

of a typical entrance to the building,

it'll be near the the ADA parking spaces

that are on the west side of the

convenience store. Um, at this point, we

we don't have an architectural layout

for the building. So, this was kind of

step one of a multi-step process. Um,

there may may be some level of an access

door off of the east side of the

building. We have we have provided um a

minimum of five feet off of that wall.

Uh, so there is a 5yard front yard

setback. So, we did consider Wall Street

a front yard in terms of meeting that

requirement. I believe the building is a

minimum of I'm looking at our exhibit

A3. It's a minimum of 5.8 ft off of the

right way of street.

Let's talk about security because you're

going to basically relocate the building

for a new it's going to

you're relocated on the property. What

type of security you

security. So I believe

>> I think Robbie might be able to answer

that one a bit better. So you said the

security for the property.

>> Yes, it's a convenience store. So will

there be cameras or will there be any

type of control entry points or

>> let's go one last question. Okay.

Security. Um the pump area. I noticed

you're not relocating the pumps, but the

Okay. The the cutaway for I guess the

refilling of the gas tanks underneath.

You're not changing those. You're not

moving those. But I'm looking at the

parking spots that you designate in your

example. That's pretty darn close

for those parking spots are they not?

>> So we're proposing a minimum drive on

both the west and the south side of the

fueling canopies. So if you look at

exhibit A3, we have shaded boxes at each

one of the the fueling stations, right?

>> Those uh those shaded boxes meet the

minimum length and width requirements

for a parking space. Um so if you take

that part of the space and then offset

it by 20 uh 26 feet, that's the drive

that we're showing ordinance

requirements. Um, in terms of loading,

you know, loading will continue to um be

performed as it is right now. Uh, we

believe that is backing in off of Six

Street into

the southwest corner of the site of that

southwest.

So, I seen your example the new cutaway

from Six Street. Um, and cut

you relocated from where it's at now.

So, right now those fill up the where

the you get this where you basically

your fuel resupply the resupply those

pumps doesn't sit directly there's a

little barricade there I mean there's

little cutaway that you don't drive in

right off the sixth street you have to

pull in and then turn around and your

your supply trucks have to turn around

to the refill pump those those

underground tanks in the cutout

you the it's like It's right over top of

>> Yeah. So, it's it's over over top the

tanks, but it's not over top.

>> Okay.

>> So, there's manholes associated with

that underground tank, and those are in

the open paved area.

>> That's for me. I I asked the question

so many questions that way, but I'm very

familiar with that. I appro

I remember where it was built in 1965.

Okay. So, yes. Well, thank you.

>> Um I had a question for Mr. Knight. Um

if this moves forward, will there be a

land development plan?

>> Um we don't require land development

plan when it's just like the relocation.

Effectively, it's a relocation of a

building on site even though the uh

footprint is expanding. um the actual uh

imperous surface coverage isn't going to

change as part of the expansion because

we consider the compacted gravel to be

an impervious surface for the um point

of calculating um that in the zoning

code.

>> Okay. But either you or the city

engineer will check the flow of traffic

within the site to make sure.

>> Uh yeah, I mean the city engineer uh

will definitely take a look at

especially because there's going to be

impacts to the public right away with

the changes in the curb cuts. He'll take

a look at it, make sure um it conforms

to best practices from an engineering

perspective. And as the applicants

noted, they have relocated um the design

uh the western most curb cut along

Mcclay Street uh further to the east,

which brings it into conformance with

the zoning code um but uh also likely,

you know, brings into more conformance

with engineering standards for something

like that.

>> Okay.

>> And do you have any questions of the two

witnesses?

>> I do not. Uh

>> Attorney Cameron, do you have any

questions?

Okay,

>> go ahead. Sure.

>> Right now, it's

our zod our zoding code says need 58

slots and you've only you've been able

to account for

31 slots which means there's 27 slots.

You should still try 27 slots.

>> Hypothetical.

What if we would say we got those 27

slots or some portion of that? Do you

have an alternative plan?

>> Are you just asking for cut it back to

31 slots and give us the money on that?

But

>> I would say, you know, based So, first

off, based on my experience, I have some

experience with other gas station

companies that I ke that name. But

typically, a building of maybe 6 to

7,000 square feet would have an optimal

parking space of 46. Um, up to that 58

there's a lot more turnover with those

type of you know convenience stores u

with this one ultimately to answer your

question if we had to propose 58 spaces

I don't think we'd be proposing new

buildings so I I think without this

relief the city and the neighboring the

local neighborhoods lose the idea of

upgraded building facility

>> so you're banking on the fact that the

the transient portion of part of

customers coming in and out. They're not

there. They're not there to stay.

They're not there, you know, 15, 20, 25

minutes at the max. So, those parking

spots should be turned over pretty

frequently.

>> And that's your county.

>> And that that's that's exactly right.

That's what we testified to.

>> I'd also like to add um that it was also

that there is adequate off on street

parking as well as the uh public

transportation h although bus stops

aren't going to be the most frequent

customer. Uh there are every so often

someone that's coming in for the

convenience aspect of the store rather

than the

>> I don't think there's any parking

allowed on the clay street between six

and seven street but six street going

down to m Yeah, there's plenty of

parking lots and there's also a lot of

street

>> correct and there and there's parking on

like pepper street which is just a block

to the south as well. So

>> yeah, thank you.

had a um question. So with this uh new

building, is there going to be any

changes to the business in terms of

hours of operation or any other I guess

uh services or functions that are not

currently existing?

>> Stay the same.

>> Does the board um want to take a break

or

[Music]

Okay. All right. Um um Mr. Domen, you

indicated that uh you rest it. So um you

rest your case. Uh your um exhibits will

be admitted into the evidence in this

matter. Um the case is closed for

testimony and the board um could

deliberate or make a motion at this

point in time.

I'd like

to make a motion to approve of the

request case 2615

with the accept with the recommendations

from the planning bureau stated.

>> Second.

>> Moved and second. Is there any

discussion?

All those in favor signify by saying I.

>> I.

>> Okay. Well, congratulations. uh your uh

special exception was granted with the

conditions as set forth uh by the

planning commission uh those four

conditions. Um and Mr. Dorman Dorman um

you'll receive a written decision within

45 days of today's hearing.

>> Thank you very much.

>> Okay. Thank you.

>> Have a nice evening.

Okay.

>> Yeah, you're good.

Not a problem.

>> Let us know when you're ready.

>> Okay.

Okay. Um uh next case on the agenda is

uh 2616.

Uh this is a variance and a special

exception application for the properties

located at 1332

North 2nd Street and 122 Calder Street.

The properties are zoned um residential

medium density. Uh this was an

application filed by Adam Brenamman with

Brenamman Properties LLC to expand the

existing nonconforming multifamily

dwelling use uh on the site by adding uh

eight new units to the five existing

units on site uh by converting space

occupied by a former funeral home. The

applicant is also seeking to utilize

existence existing surface parking lots

uh on the properties as uh as a parking

lot or structure commercial use.

Um

I'm going to mark some exhibits um

in this matter that we received. Uh

board exhibit number one is the uh proof

of publication. The time and place and

particular nature of this matter was

advertised in the Patriot News.

Publication uh occurred on October 5th

and October 12th of 2025.

Board exhibit number two is a letter

dated October 16, 2025

uh from the planning director, Jeffrey

Knight, to the applicant notifying the

applicant of the time and place of the

hearing. Board exhibit number three is

the hearing notice posted upon the

property in question that occurred on

September 25th, 2025. Board exhibit

number four are the notification letters

to required neighbors and the

certificate of mailing. Board exhibit

number five is the application packet

with the attached narrative, photos of

the property, and floor plans for the

proposal.

Board exhibit number six is the

agreement of sale for the property

establishing the applicant standing to

pursue zoning relief this evening. Board

exhibit number seven is the deed to the

property identifying the seller uh in

the B6 agreement of sale as the current

owner of the property. Board exhibit

number eight is the planning bureau case

report. Board exhibit number nine is the

city of Harrisburg planning commission

resolution.

Um,

uh, Jeffrey Knight, uh, the planning

director was previously sworn in and

he'll remain sworn in. Um, I just want

to ask if there's anybody, um, here this

evening in opposition to this

application.

>> I don't know if there's opposition, but

there

>> Okay. Um, we're going to Could you uh

do you Okay. Could you state your name,

please?

>> Sure. My name is Zach Fischer.

>> Okay. And where do you reside in

relation to this project?

>> About half block away. We're we're at

116 Street.

>> Okay. Um,

so there's two ways that you could

participate in this matter. One way is

to participate as a party. Um, and if

you participate as a party, um, you

could, uh, cross-examine any witnesses,

um, and you could present your own

evidence in the case. The other way is,

um, you know, you can make an a

statement towards the end of the case

once the applicant has presented their

case and you could tell the board why

you're in opposition or what your

concerns are.

We would need to make that now.

>> If I decide to be a party, do I have to

ask question?

>> You don't make a decision,

>> right?

>> I'm a party, am I also allowed to make a

statement?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Um, let's um

>> I also have concerns too.

Okay.

>> Okay. How close are you to the project?

>> I rent spaces in the parking lot at 122

Street as some of the other neighbors do

as well. Questions with the commercial.

>> Okay.

Okay. Okay. We'll get back to both of

you. Okay. All right. Mr. Patrina, do

you want to um um introduce your client

and uh we'll swear your client in?

>> Sure. Yeah. My name is Phil Patrina. Uh

I'm an attorney at McNeallis.

Uh I'm here on behalf of Brenamman

Properties LLC. Uh with me tonight is an

employee of Brenamman Properties. I'll

have him introduce himself. Uh Michael

White, owners rep for Brenamman

Properties project in general.

Okay. Um, Mr. White, um, we're going to

swear you in. Do you swear or affirm

that the testimony you're about to give

before the board is the truth and

nothing but the truth?

>> I do.

>> Okay. And, uh, Mr. Patrina, um,

we had um, Zach Zach Fischer here who

indicated that he resides at 116 Cer

Street, wants to be a party to this

action. Do you have any objection?

>> I have no objection to that. No. Okay.

And then the same with Betsy Dunn

located I'm sorry.

>> Spell your last name for the record.

>> Du M.

>> Du M.

And uh you uh you reside or you own

property at 113 Cer Street?

>> Yes. Okay. Do you have any objection to

this individual?

>> No objection.

>> Okay. So, they'll be identified or

recognized as parties to this action.

Um, uh, Ms. Dunn and, um, Mr. Fiser,

could you raise your right hands? Do you

swear or affirm that the testimony

you'll give, uh, during these

proceedings will be the truth and

nothing but the truth?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Um, Mr. Knight, do you want to

give an overview of this project?

>> Uh, sure. So uh the issues um involved

in case 2616

uh for 1332 North Second Street and 122

CER Street uh are a variance in a

special exception. Uh the special

exception uh is to expand existing

non-conforming use which is the multif

family dwelling as there are five uh

existing units on the upper floors of

the uh building. Uh and the applicants

are proposing to um establish eight

units on the first floor in the area of

the buildings uh the building that was

formerly occupied by a funeral home. Um

and uh then the the variance aspect uh

is um for use of the remaining spaces uh

in the surface parking lots that will

not be dedicated to uh the required off-

streetet parking for the residents uh

the current residents and proposed

residents um to be utilized as

commercial park as a commercial parking

lot. Um and the board will probably

remember uh they received um a similar

proposal several months ago um for uh

just the use of the parking lots as um

commercial parking lots. Um and uh so

this uh proposal is a bit different in

that um you know I think there was some

expressed concern from the board members

at the last meeting about well we don't

know what's going to go into the

remaining uh space in the existing

building and therefore what the off-

streetet parking requirements would be.

If it were something for example like a

convenience store like they like was

just reviewed. the off- streetet parking

requirements would be fairly um uh

ownorous on that regard or even like a

restaurant which might be two viable

uses for uh that space. Um in which case

more of the existing parking in the two

lots would be required for that proposed

use. Now that uh the um prospective

owners of the uh site um have identified

a use and are proposing that use um the

off street parking requirements for the

full building will be known uh now and

um it will be total of uh 15 units

believe and um

sorry a total of 16 units uh which would

leave between the existing accessory lot

at 1332 North Second Street and 122 CER

street remaining 30 spaces. Um and so uh

the applicants are requesting a variance

to utilize those spaces um as a uh

commercial parking lot to lease to

surrounding residents or um perhaps

employees of local businesses. Um and uh

in looking at the multif family dwelling

aspect um again as noted there is

existing uh multif family dwelling use

five units on site. Uh the applicants

have provided a uh site plan of the uh

or a floor plan of the proposed building

and how those units will be laid out. Um

to the uh bureau's knowledge um the

existing um tenants have not created uh

issues for the neighborhood and

therefore it's likely the uh proposed

units would have a similar impact um

with respect to uh the primary impact uh

off street or the parking demand

generated by whatever use is in that

building. Um this is a unique situation

where the applicants can actually

provide all the parking um on site uh

and in fact have a um you know a

surfitit of parking such that there's

going to be about twothirds of those

spaces will not be required for the use.

Uh it should also be noted uh that given

the area of the property uh the

applicants would be permitted to have up

to 14 apartment units on site without uh

requiring any zoning relief. They're

requesting a total of 13. So they are

within the uh density regulations um of

the zoning code. Uh with all of that

being said, uh the planning commission

has recommended the zoning hearing board

approve the request for the with the

following conditions. If granted zoning

approval to move forward with the

project as proposed, the applicant must

submit a land development plan for the

establishment of 13 residential units on

site. Um and the applicant has uh

provided that documentation uh to the

planning bureau. Uh any existing or any

exterior alterations to the property

must be submitted for review by the

city's historic preservation specialist

and may require harb approval of a

certificate of appropriateness

application. Uh the applicant must

remove the ballards from the sidewalk

along Walton along the Lton Street

frontage of 122 Calder Street and

reconstruct the sidewalk at that

location to allow safe pedestrian

passage. And if you've been out there,

there's just two or three concrete

ballers there. A couple of them seem to

have been knocked over and kind of

damaged the sidewalk at the same time.

But those ballards are located in the

middle of the sidewalk. So, we're

requesting those be removed and the

sidewalk be reconstructed. Uh then

finally, the planning bureau recommends

the applicant identify a method of

controlling access to the lots either

through automated keyed entry gates or

through on-site management of the lots

to prevent unauthorized access and

ensure spaces are available for the

principal users of the lot, the

residents of the multif family dwelling

use. Uh the planning commission has

recommended that the zoning hearing

board approved the request for the

following reasons.

The proposed expansion of the multif

family dwelling use from 5 to 13 units

represents a reasonable proposal for

reuse of the former funeral home space

on the first floor is less likely to

have is likely to have less impacts than

other potential uses for the space such

as a convenience store or restaurant and

will provide new housing units to

address the need evident in the city

generally and the neighborhood

specifically. Uh with respect to the

proposed parking lot or structure or

commercial aspect of the proposal, the

planning bureau notes it does not

require zoning relief for any proposed

development or use but rather who would

be using uh the existing parking spaces

u and thus represents a deminous

deminimous deviation from the zoning

regulations which meets the applicable

criteria in the zoning code. Uh three,

while surface parking lots are generally

not advisable from a planning

perspective as they represent an

underutilization of valuable urban land

and create impacts such as storm water

and runoff and urban heat island effect,

in this instance, it is reasonable to

maximize the utility of spaces in an

existing lot by leasing parking to local

residents. And finally, reuse of the

property to accommodate parking demand

created by residents and businesses of

the surrounding neighborhood can provide

benefits by reducing on street parking

near intersections in crosswalks and on

vacant lots. and can provide secured

parking for those residents wishing to

sign leases and can be designed to

incorporate elements such as landscape

screening that improve the aesthetics of

the property.

>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Knight. Uh Mr.

Patrina, do you want to proceed?

>> Yeah, sure. Just a short presentation

and then we're here to answer any

questions that the board may have and

some of the other residents. So, I'm

just going to pass out a few exhibits

here.

Demonstrate where the property is and

what it existing conditions are.

Okay. So, generally uh we concur with

Mr. Knight's report uh and the the

conditions that he suggested for this

application. Um so I'll keep the

presentation um brief tonight uh in the

interest of of time but did want to

address uh you know some of the the

basic elements of of this project and uh

what Brenamman Property seeks to do with

it. So the property is located at 1332

North Second Street uh and also as part

of this property sale is a parking lot

across the street from it 122 CER

Street. Uh so there's a larger parking

lot that's connected to the building uh

that was used by the funeral home and

then across Cer Street is a smaller lot

that was also uh owned by Bitner

Reynolds, the prior owner of the of the

property. And so this entire property is

located within the RM district uh the

city's old uptown historic district. Uh,

and it's along a prominent stretch of of

North Second Street in the uptown

neighborhood. Uh, it's surrounded on all

four sides by the RM district and

there's a mix of residential and

commercial buildings and offices uh, in

the in the area as well. So, Brenamman

Properties has entered into an agreement

of sale as I just mentioned uh, to

purchase this from Bitner Reynolds LLC

uh, doing business as the New Meer

Funeral Home. Uh the funeral home in

recent years has sort of fallen into

uh you know a state of non-use uh

unfortunately and um so that led to uh

the Hedrickk Bitner family funeral homes

listing this property for sale um

because it just wasn't being used as

much as it once was. Uh so the property

currently contains five multif family

dwelling units on the top two floors and

with the existing funeral home on the

first floor which has been in continuous

operation albeit a declining uh business

uh since you know at least the 1950s but

perhaps even longer. Uh so tonight,

Renamman Properties is here to request a

special exception to permit uh an

additional eight multifamily dwelling

units on the first floor of the building

uh pursuant to section 7-309.2V

of the zoning ordinance. Um,

as mentioned, the property has current

access to the large lot attached to the

building, which is 35 off- streetet

parking spaces. And then there's an

additional 11 off- streetet parking

spaces located at 122 CER Street. So,

that brings the total parking for this

um property up to 46 off- streetet

parking spaces. The zoning ordinance for

a uh for a multifamily dwelling would

only require 16 off- streetet parking

spaces. So that leaves Brenamman

properties with an additional 30 off-

streetet parking spaces uh that it has

nothing to do with um you know with this

existing large parking lot that was

previously used for funeral home. Uh so

that's what led then to the second

request which is a variance from section

7-305.7

to permit the commercial leasing of 30

off streetet parking spaces uh at the

parking lot. And so with that background

of the project, I'll go ahead and call

my first uh and only witness tonight and

then uh we'll walk through some of these

exhibits and then uh we'll turn it back

over for questions. Um so Mike, if you

could Please turn to the first exhibit.

Uh is that an aerial image in front of

you of the property uh and its existing

conditions as it sits today?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Can you please use this first

exhibit uh to orient the board as to

where the property is located uh within

the city?

>> Yeah. So we have um North Second Street

here.

propert

sale there and it's on the south side by

>> Okay, we'll move to admit that uh

exhibit as applicants exhibit A1.

>> Okay,

>> it'll be admitted.

>> Thank you.

>> Thanks.

>> Okay, so Mike, just flip through the

next set of pictures. that's in front of

you and and for the board. Um

are these next set of photos uh do they

generally depict although they were

taken from Google in 2022 they generally

depict the existing conditions of the

property as they exist today at the

parking lot?

>> Yes. Yes.

>> We have you want me to go through these?

>> Uh we can just flip through them. I just

really wanted the board to have them so

that they could see what we're looking

at. This looks to me to be the the

current condition building.

>> So, we'll move to admit the existing

conditions photos as applicants. Exhibit

A2.

>> Um, and these are particularly helpful

for the board if they might have

questions uh about the parking lot.

There are some images in there of the

entirety of the of both lots for this

property as well. So, uh, we'll just

discuss the relief requested by this

application. So, uh, Mr. White, pursuant

to section 7-305.7

of the zoning ordinance, multif family

dwellings are permitted by special

exception in the RM zoning district. Are

you familiar with those requirements of

the zoning ordinance?

>> Yes.

>> Okay.

Sections 7 uh-309.2V

2 and uh 7-323.6

of the zoning ordinance. They provide

specific and general criteria for the

board to consider in permitting multif

family dwellings in the RM district. Are

you also familiar with those criteria?

>> Uh yes.

>> Did you review the narrative submitted

in support of this application?

>> Uh yes I did.

>> Okay. And do you adopt the statements

made in that narrative as to why your

proposed use of the property complies

with all of the special exception

criteria of sections 7-305.7

and 7-309.2V?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. And were you present earlier for

uh Mr. Knight's testimony in the reading

of his zoning bureau zoning report?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. To the extent applicable, do you

agree with the comments and statements

that Mr. night made uh and the planning

bureau's report as to why your proposed

use of the property for eight additional

multif family dwellings complies with

the special exception criteria of the

zoning ordinance.

>> Yes, I do.

>> Okay. Is it true that the proposed use

would allow for um would allow for a

total of 13 multifamily dwelling units

at the property?

>> That is correct.

>> Okay. And so that's the eight additional

that are proposed plus the five on the

top floor.

>> Yep.

>> And is it also true that under section

7-307.3A

of the zoning ordinance uh that you

would be permitted a density of 14

dwelling lot dwelling units on a lot of

this size which is approximately 20,98

square feet.

>> Yes, that is accurate.

Uh

okay. So the proposed dwelling density

then just for clarity is less than what

the zoning ord would permit. Yes by one.

>> Okay.

>> Um Mike let's discuss a little bit about

the floor plan. If you could um tell the

board what are the unit mixes of the of

these um dwelling units and what will

they look like?

>> Okay. So the existing five units are a

mix of three, two and one bedroom units

and they are on the the second and third

floors. Um the current uh funeral home

space uh spans the entire uh above grade

floor plan or uh footprint of the

building. Um and we are going to provide

on that space or convert to eight units

as was stated.

will be a mix of one and two bedroom

units specifically to seven oneb units

one two bedroom um we uh we want the

units to be um affordable um so we're

trying to strike a uh a middle ground

with our our level of finish um so that

to

>> Okay. And by affordable, will you be

applying for formal tax credits for this

property or just generally the goal here

is to have market rate apartments that

are generally accessible and and

affordable for people in the

neighborhood.

>> Yeah, I would Yeah, that's correct. I

would say we're not we're not going to

be applying for any any tax credits or

they'll be designated as affordable, but

it would just be in line with the

development that we've done so farms.

>> Okay.

Uh are you proposing any exterior

renovations to the exterior facade of

the building?

>> Uh not at this time.

>> Okay. And to the extent that any

exterior changes are made, do you agree

to obtain HARB approval for those

changes?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. Um

so ne next we'll discuss a little bit

about the variance request for the

commercial leasing of the parking

spaces. Uh so the the second request for

relief was pursuant to 7-305.7

of the zoning ordinance and as I

previously mentioned it's to permit the

commercial use of 30 off- streetet

parking spaces at the property. Um Mike

could you tell me is it accurate that

you only need 16 off- streetet parking

spaces for this multifamily dwelling

building?

>> That is correct.

>> Okay.

Um,

do these 46 off- streetet parking spaces

at the property uh do they pre-existan

properties interest in the property?

>> Uh, yes.

>> Okay. So, the parking spaces are already

paved and have been for several decades.

>> Yeah,

>> um Okay. Okay. And so if the variance

requested for the parking lot is not

granted, what will you do with the

additional 30 off streetet parking

spaces?

>> Uh we we do not have an alternative use

for the for the parking spaces. So at

this point, we would do uh nothing other

than to attempt to secure the lot. We

don't have a proposed alternative.

>> Okay. And so is it accurate to say that

this large parking lot and additional

spaces present an unnecessary hardship

to your full use uh of of the property

as it sits today?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. And so if the requested variance

is permitted uh for the commercial

leasing of of the parking lot, um who do

you plan to lease these spots to?

>> Uh to the neighbors in the community.

So, anybody that would need access to

parking um in the community that would

benefit from

>> Okay. And do you intend to control and

monitor who accesses the parking lot

with parking placards and parking permit

only signs? Yeah, I would say in this

particular um area we're we're expert in

that um the property will be managed by

Midtown Property Management um who

is responsible for the management of

many parking lots in in the area and has

systems in place to make sure that it's

done uh you know safely and correctly.

>> Okay. And will that also include

security cameras in the parking lot that

will be monitored by Midtown Property

Management?

>> Yes, that is part of the project.

Um, in your opinion, is this the minimum

variance necessary to afford relief to

Brenamman properties um to provide a a

reasonable parking solution and reuse of

this property?

>> Yeah, absolutely. We spent a lot of time

thinking about land use and the best um

use of of available land and this is the

only thing

with the

>> Okay. And are you familiar with the

non-competing parking area of the city

that was defined in the PEDFA

intergovernmental cooperation agreement?

Uh it was dated December 2013. Are you

familiar with that area?

>> Yes, I am.

>> Okay. And is this parking lot within the

city's non-competing parking area is

designated by that December 2013

agreement?

>> No.

>> Okay.

Uh I I think you may have answered this

earlier but wanted to cover it again um

just in case. Did you review the

application and the narrative um in

support of this variance request?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. And to the extent applicable, do

you adopt the comments made therein as

your own?

>> Yes.

>> Okay. So uh in conclusion, Brenamman

Properties uh has satisfied its burden

for a special exception to permit eight

multifamily dwellings at the property

and has established uh it has has

established its burden for a variance to

permit commercial leasing of the 30

extra parking spaces at this lot. And so

we would respectfully request that the

zoning hearing board approve the relief

requested by this application subject to

the conditions in Mr. Knight's bureau

report. Um, with that, I'll turn it over

to the board for questions. Uh, and, you

know, we're also here, of course, to

answer any questions that any of the

residents might have, uh, and some of

the, you know, concerns and how we may

be able to alleviate those.

>> Okay, let's go to the let's go to the

parties. Uh, Mr. Fischer, do you have

any questions of Mr. White?

>> Uh, yeah, couple. Um first um I just

wanted to see if I understand something

correctly with the variance request to

the additional parking spaces for

commercial use. Um that those parking

spots are currently being so is the

current use notant.

>> Can I answer? Yeah. the um the only so

the only leases that we are aware of

just as part of the process of of

purchasing the property is the leases

for Calder Street um and then the

utilization of the the current tenants

on the main building up top and the five

units that they are using the parking um

we any existing leases um we would like

to renew and continue. So we don't plan

to um to cancel any existing leases.

It's actually a benefit and it's

something that we would like to see

continue and they've been uh disclosed

to us or at least the ones on call

street. So

>> So this is the variance is is for

street park. Is that correct?

>> It's for the entirety of the of the

property that's being purchased. So, the

the property being purchased is that

Second Street lot and the Cder Street

lot. Um, but as Mr. White stated, the

underlying leases at Cer Street will

remain in in place uh and and roll over

to the new uh property owner is is going

to be brand new properties. The intent

is to honor the existing agreements and

maintain

notreas.

>> Yes. Yeah, that is the intent. And then

to get we're seeking permission to be

able to lease the unused spaces beyond

the requirement for the addition.

>> Can we talk a little bit about site

improvements? Um my understanding from

Mr.

testimony that the only site

improvements being proposed right now

are the removal of concrete

that correct?

>> Yes. Yeah, that's what Mr. Knight had um

asked as part of his statement and we

had agreed in planning commission.

>> Are you familiar with any uh

deteriorating

on that street parking lot by any

chance?

>> Um other than what he stated? Um no, I'm

not. But we part of our um site

development in general. We're going to,

you know, want to invest in the lot um

on CER and on Second Street.

>> There are some concerns with the

conditions of the street

particular

that's for

that come up. Do you have any intent to

address those those conditions?

>> Oh, absolutely. Yeah. Yeah. I would

actually would love

they could be identified. We would love

to to know their location and and from a

safety standpoint and just from a you

know operation standpoint of the of the

new um units, we'd want the lots to be

as safe and frankly like immaculate as

possible. But right now they're they

seem to be kind of underutilized and and

not taken care of. And we're hoping to

just make the entire site um you know as

as attractive as possible.

>> I guess we're trying to make it as truck

as possible, but there's no intent to

upgrade any of the barriers or gates or

anything like that at this point.

>> Uh well, we haven't um progressed that

far in terms of our development plan. I

think that um once we do get approval um

if we do get approval uh to lease the

additional parking spaces, then there's

also a a land development application

that will deal with more site plan

issues. And then as part of that process

and and then even getting into access to

the apartments themselves, if we have

the ground floor units, there's going to

be access questions and just a lot of

different um details that go into the

way that the site will work. So I am,

you know, expecting that we're going to

have to to make significant improvements

to to the site and the exterior parking

once we get

the other

This is changing subjects a little bit.

The other the other concern that we have

is, you know, one of the one of the nice

things about being on street is that

it's has just been a really

well-maintained block for the 140 years

that the homes have been there. And when

we've had issues um in the past with

keeping the area, you know, neat and

clean, it's been with some of the

renters that are in the area. Um,

>> can you talk a little bit about what the

proposed options are for refuge

collection for the additional eight

units?

>> Uh, I would say as part of it, I I know

that currently there isn't a management

structure in place for the rentals that

exist. And I would say it's part of uh

our management structure that we would

bring in via, you know, Midtown property

management is there's going to be uh

regular environmental checks. Um, and I

just know from, you know, working at

Midtown Property Management and our

existing, you know, properties that we

would plan to be handling any, you know,

refues on the street. Um, plowing and

just general site maintenance is like a

big part of of how we would operate that

doesn't currently exist on the site

because the rentals are not a priority.

>> Sure. I think I think you know with what

we've seen,

you know, with in particular, there's

historical issues with refuge collection

with trash not making it into the proper

disposal bins and when we requested

site visit to address these issues has

been slow and fast issues taken care of.

>> Um so then when we hear that there's an

additional eight units being proposed

when we're already having issues with

refues and there's no additional plans

uh being presented to address that it's

a bit of a concern for us. I know we've

had issues more recently with uh rodents

and other pests making their way into

our backyards because of this issue.

>> Um so I mean I would I would propose

that if you guys uh would like to move

forward with that. I would recommend uh

having a dedicated refuge collection

agency coming in maybe putting in a

dumpster enclosure with the dumpster

of those additional so that

centered and that is that's entirely in

your property and under management as

opposed to um

having all the trash bins out which is

an eyesore as well as some concerns with

dispos.

>> Okay. Yeah. I think that um I can only

speak to just the way that we've

operated in other situations and that um

and that just my experience um working

with the seller and that that I

we it's something that we really care

about in terms of site quality and and

refu pickup and that you know we're

absolutely want to do a better job then

maybe prior you know ownership or

management has and and that I'm glad

that you know you were here to express

the concerns so that we know it's a

particular priority you know if and when

we are able to to convert um and have

eight more units there that um that we

can make it better despite the increase.

>> So I mean

If I'm understanding you correctly, you

are not going to be responsible for the

site management itself. You are going to

be contracting with top property to to

do the site management or is that

something that's still staying

underneath

properties?

>> It's going to be so Midtown Property

Management manages all of Brandon

Properties holdings. Um so and it's not

a um I hang my license at Midtown

Property, you know, so it's a very close

relationship. We're a very active uh I

would say maybe we are the most active

ownership group that they help. Um so

it's not um I'm local so it's not a

distant you know owner that isn't

involved um and actively engaged with uh

the property. Uh we speak with Midtown

property management every single day

about our properties and um you know the

quality of the exteriors, interiors,

leasing. So it's it's more of like it

more like it increases our ability to

make the site uh higher quality as

opposed to a um a situation where we

only with uh obviously without Midtown

be less resources. We have less

resources available. So they kind of

increase our ability to

>> So if I have an issue though, am I

reaching out to you directly or am I

supposed to reach out to Midtown?

>> I would um you can reach out to since

we're talking right now, I say you can

reach out to me directly um and then I

would likely Midtown myself to say,

"Hey, here's the feedback that I'm

getting. Um, I'd like to work on this

together. What's the best way to make

sure that this is better than the

current situation?"

>> Yeah. Yeah. I would be happy to share

Yeah. I'd be happy to share my contact

information. Um, and uh, you know,

gladly address any and all concerns, you

know, by neighbors.

>> Thank you.

Okay. Wait. Okay. So, um, Miss Dunn, do

you have any questions?

>> Go ahead.

>> Many of the neighbors have questioned,

"Are we going to lose our parking

spaces?"

From what I understand, you said that no

neighbors who rent spaces at 122 culture

will remain in that lot.

>> Yes. Yeah. We have no plans at all to

cancel existing uh parking leases and um

had hoped to renew them to the extent

that they're turned out.

Thank you.

>> It's actually good for us to hear that

they're in demand, you know, that

they're valued and the neighbors want to

continue to use.

>> Uh does anybody from the board have any

questions of this witness?

>> Uh good evening. A number of questions.

Um

so if we go back through some of the the

things related to the details related to

parking. So um the CER street property

right is 11 spaces currently. Is that

correct?

>> Yes.

>> Okay.

And how many spaces are currently um at

the at 1332 North Second Street?

>> 35.

>> 35.

Okay.

And

I can see this from the the agreement

with sale, but these are two separate

parcels, correct? That are being

purchased.

>> Yep.

>> Just at one time.

>> Okay.

>> Um,

so I I guess I kind of have a a question

or maybe a point of clarification.

So

the statement about the hardship not

being created, right? it. I guess I'm a

little lost in that because if you look

at the original property, right, 35 and

122 CR Street equaling the 46, the

problem is being created because we're

looking at these two individual parcels

together. Because if you take away,

right, the the 11 spaces, you have 35,

then there's a significant uh less

excess that would be had for the total

parking. I mean for the parking I'm

sorry at the current I mean at 1332

North Second Street. So I I guess I'm I

question or maybe I need to understand

better how is how should we view that

type of situation if we're talking about

two separate parcels that are being

looked at together.

If I don't know who that question goes

to

>> are you asking the solicitor or I mean I

can we can both

the the opportunity presented to us in

terms of the sale and the way that it

was publicly advertised was um for uh

both parcels to be could be purchased.

Um so I I would also say that even

separate from 122 Calder Street that

given the size of the 1332 North Second

Lot, we would still have significant

additional parking if um all residents

utilize their parking, which we don't

even expect all ress to vehicles. So if

we completely utilize uh the 16 spaces

that would be required if we increase 13

units then we would still have an

additional uh 15 plus parking spaces. Um

and we typically in our experience like

we'll have inherent vacancy uh of around

30%. So I expect that you know we won't

have full utilization of the 16. I think

that even separate from Calder, we'll

still have um a lot of unused land,

unused space.

>> Okay. Okay.

Um question. I don't know what do do you

have uh details on what would be your uh

proposed rates for uh leasing spaces and

what the difference may be between

that your proposed rates and the current

rates.

>> Um

The way that I had run it was that um

gone more conservative and thought that

uh $50

per month as I think is currently the

case. Um I'd have to review the existing

is that that's kind of how we had run

what we would do is it would be around

that around that rate.

>> Okay.

I'll probably have a few more questions,

but I'll turn it over to Mr. Fipps.

Let's since we're in we're into the

parking business here. Um, for those

eight units and for the resident for 13

units that are going to be in the

building,

>> parking will be included in their lease

or they or is that going to be a

separate charge?

>> Included, right?

trash collection. I think we spoken

earlier. This would this property

wouldn't be under a city trash. It would

have to be because it's a multif family

apartment. They have their own trash

collection capabilities or contract out

to someone.

>> Uh I believe I don't have a lot of

expertise on what our trash collection

is, but I would imagine for something

like that they would have a commercial

account that would maybe be that would

be handled by the city. you would not be

handled by like a third party trash

collector.

>> Okay, ping pong. I'm back to parking

again. Keeping my notes,

the lots themselves, uh I look at the

the pictures and there's uh for access

control, I think it's it's gated to a

certain point.

>> Uh yeah, I just I could just refer to

the um the current owner statements that

he had done that because not able to

utilize the parking that he had um and

people were parking there overnight

without permission and he felt that it

was a safety issue that he had said that

he was just putting a a chain across

just to stop uh unpermitted parking

spaces.

>> So since this is all part of that will

you will have an some type of access

control?

>> Yes. For you know either the residents

of the apartments or will the as far as

slots that you're going to write down.

>> Yeah, we would like a system in place um

with placards with uh various forms of

access control, security cameras. We'd

like the people who are permitted to

park there to be identified and we'd

like to put a very like cohesive system

in place. The only people that um are

parking there as opposed to right now

the only people that are parking there

are people who are permitted to park.

And one last question about the rental

for the units. You're going to add eight

units on the first floor.

>> Uh, seven onebedroom and one two

bedrooms.

>> Will they be eight? Will any of those

units be ADA compliant?

>> Uh, yeah, we we plan to develop um that

bottom floor in compliance with all code

regulations. ADA. There's a lot of um

there's a lot of uh there could be

significant exterior access and we would

want to do that up to code and

appropriate

that's something we're investigating

with our

I see one of the requirements from the

planning bureau was that they a land

development plan and

is it work in progress or you already

have it

>> so they they've already submitted a plan

we're awaiting a little bit of

supplemental documentation but at the

moment they're on the November um

planning commission meeting agenda okay

Thank you. That's all questions I have.

>> I just want to I just had one or two

questions.

>> You want me to go?

>> You can go.

>> Okay. Um Mr. White, um right now

Brenamman Properties does not currently

own uh the properties in question. Is

that correct?

>> Yeah, we are under contract without

contingency to close at the end of

November.

Well, your agreement of sale um

I think it has a 75day due diligence

period,

>> right? So

>> that I guess to be specific um that we

fully intend to close and do the project

and it is not contingent upon um

the

receipt of you know we've already had

our inspection and we've gone through

that process and we're fully comfortable

you know with the project and we're

already actively working with our

architect and and planning to to

complete it.

>> Okay.

Okay. And Mr. Patrina, the uh variance

that you're requesting is a use

variance. Would you agree?

>> Uh yes.

>> Okay.

Um

Mr. Hobs, do you have any questions?

>> Oh, yes.

>> I'm sorry.

>> Um yes. So for the your tenants, you

said parking would be included. Are

there is there a maximum I guess that

they would have for parking spaces.

>> Um I it's not something that I had

thought of yet. I think it would be on a

on a case by case uh you know basis. I

think um would be based on unit size and

family size but I think probably to the

zoning code requirements.

>> Thank you.

You mentioned with the units that you

are trying to make them affordable, not

necessarily like the designation of

affordable, but market rate, but still

affordable. Um,

what what does that look like?

>> Um, in general, we aim to provide um new

updated, brand new units, but that we

strike financially for something I think

for the HUD designations what is

affordable based on family size

>> and AMI and uh you know all of our all

of our um rental rates that we're

putting in our performer right now are

very closely due to what is designated

by HUD as affordable though we're not

going to seek any kind of designation or

benefit for it and that's just that's

just been our thesis in terms of how

we've developed um we've primarily

developed um affordable and accessible

the market rate units not have top of

the market units across

>> okay ready thank you um and then I guess

guess Mr. tonight you would be the best

person for this question. I was thinking

earlier about

>> how to pose the question. But so when

we're looking at applications in this

case where there's two separate things

variance and special exception those are

even though this part of one application

aren't those those are two separate

issues. Correct.

>> Correct. I mean you could theoretically

grant one and not grant the other. Um, I

don't think them being combined in

application requires them to be ruled on

together essentially.

>> Mhm. Okay. Um, yeah. I guess I'm just in

my mind trying to wrap around somewhat

of what I asked before about the

hardship. Um because I I guess what I

sense, especially with the current setup

of the building, is that

some of the special exception use could

potentially be causing, I guess, the

hardship that's being notated for the

variance, right? If you're changing the

use of the building, that's what brings

up the point of the the variance itself

as opposed to its current u use and

setup. So I think I I'm just trying to

make sure that I'm viewing that properly

um and understanding

all the parameters attached to the whole

scenario even though these the variance

and the special special exception are

two separate

um issues in the

>> that's a if I could say that's a really

good point um and uh it's something that

we've thought a lot about and I think

that what I would just say is that the

current owner is um ceasing business at

that location because the current use is

in his eyes compared to other options

for his business is no longer feasible.

I would say that we you know via our

relationship with Midtown Property Man,

but we have pretty significant you know

feel for um continuation of a commercial

option in terms of having a feeling for

you know who's looking for space and how

it could be utilized. And we did we did

look deeply into that and we not able we

were not satisfied with our

investigation of like a continuation of

a commercial use that that would be

viable. Um and so you know we we're

changing because we think that that's

what the community needs you know the

most community needs housing and that we

think that in general what is very

valuable to to residents is an

opportunity for for secure parking

especially for buildings and residents

that you know in their building they

don't have access to secure parking and

they have to park on the street

sometimes you know far in our house. Um,

so we definitely had asked, you know,

very same question. Hey, can we can we

continue what would be easiest, right?

Just this is fairly uh in good shape

commercial building. Could we continue

some kind of a commercial use that would

be in concert and we were just not able

to be satisfied with the demand and

thought we'd be, you know, left with a

vacant with a vacant space.

>> Okay.

Um,

well, I'll just so I'll just ask this

then as a followup. What is that

analysis look like? Right. To say that,

you know, you looked at options, you

didn't find anything, I guess, that was

viable or that was appetizing to your

operations, right? What does that

analysis look like and what are

determining factors that you can share

with us to to shed some light on that? I

have I have um just to to get a better

idea to your point um I have a public

listing for rent um on the broadest

circulation commercial leasing site the

one the most right now I've had zero

zero response it's been publicly listed

for a couple months just to get an idea

that would even be possible and I've

been shocked I've had absolutely zero I

think that the current use is a little

um stigmatizing

you know that it's like uh and I I think

I was that would be one way um is that

there was a public uh attempt um that

came up you know hopefully short and

then also just within our network um

when I say we you know as in concert

with Midtown Property Man we do a lot of

commercial leasing too reached out to um

agents that do commercial leasing we

reached out to our entire network in

terms of we have a pretty big uh people

that we can talk to about, you know,

interest and we got absolutely zero

interest. And then another part of it

too is that um that given the pricing of

the building um that we were not able to

get, you know, any interest that would

approach what would be required for us

to to justify the the purchase in a

continuation of that use, especially

because it's it is it is a a clean

building on the interior, but it's not a

very like super modern updated building.

That's the toughest, you know, it's not

modern commercial space. especially in

the city right now is is particularly

challenging.

>> Okay. And what does that when you're in

that period of time, what does the I

guess the the timeline for that

evaluation? Um and I asked this because

this you know the previous application

related to this u property was just

heard by here at the zoning hearing

board on July 21st.

>> Yeah. We were um had first tried to we

were in conversation around that time.

Um had been I think the building had

been listed publicly for up to a year at

that time. So it was something that we

were aware of and had been thinking

about you know long prior even before

getting under contract. You know as part

of the due diligence you're going to

>> to look into you know what the

possibilities are if you do find

yourself under contract so that you're

ready to perform on that contract. And

uh

>> so yeah at that time it was were

considering as soon as I was able to um

publicly investigate that as as somebody

that had equitable title to the property

or was under contract, you know, we did,

I think I just described, like make that

effort. Um and yeah, we just were left

unsatisfied that we could not um

continue a similar type use whether it

be office, you know, retail.

>> Okay. Appreciate that response. And I

just want to make a point. The reason

why I'm drilling on this point um even

and I only bring this up because you

mentioned it is even when

the application related to 1332 North

Second Street came up before about the

use of the property in its current form.

The applicant didn't really specify that

there were issues with the business. It

was just more so it it appeared as if

there just wasn't interest or continuing

to operate that business there. it

didn't seem like there was an actual

detailed or documented um you know

issues with with you utilizing the

property in that current use. So that's

why I'm just making sure I get some some

clarity about that point.

>> Yeah. Yeah. I appreciate it's definitely

a big part of what like I said what we

considered and I I feel very confident

in this like level of investigation that

we were able to put forth to to figure

out whether or not that is uh possible.

So thank you for your question.

>> Thank you. That's all.

>> Okay. Um, we'll get to you in a second.

All right. Um,

do you have follow-up questions or I

think you're you're finished, right? Did

you rest, Mr. Vet?

>> Oh, yeah. We're that's all we had. So,

we're just here for questions at this

point.

>> Okay. And then would you like to present

anything or do you have follow-up

questions from the questions that we had

or follow questions? I'm not excuse me.

I'm not prepared to present.

Okay. Are you going to make like a

closing statement of some sort?

>> Uh

I would like to I would like to further

respond if I could to just just as a if

I could just the statement that just

like separate from the proceedings just

as um somebody uh invested in the

community that like I appreciate you

coming out. I care about this is

probably a little bit of an odd format,

but like I care about your concerns and

just on a person like level I absolutely

want you to be able to be in touch with

me to show me you know the concerns

specifically and um and so that we can

discuss them on site. So like just it's

just from you know one person interested

in the city to another like it matters

to me and and I definitely want to work

on it with you.

>> Okay. I appreciate that. And I don't

think I don't think that there's any,

you know, I don't think there's any

inherent um we're not opposed to having

additional housing.

I mean, I think I think that there are

there are some concerns that affect the

the residents and that's why we wanted

to talk about it. So, I appreciate you

um making that comment and um make

yourself available for any issues that

come up. Um I guess one of the other I

remember correctly you had made a

comment that you weren't intending to do

any exterior alterations to the side of

the building. Is that that correct?

>> I think that it's um that we are going

to likely to um comply with ordinance

and and code and law that that that that

may come up and that we're going to you

know if we from a safety standpoint um

or from a legal what we need to do based

on our our layout or what is you know

required uh we will do but it's still

it's still ongoing.

>> Is it fair to say that it's not that

you're you're saying you're not going to

do exterior updates but that that is uh

you're not at a position to to speak on

that at this point

>> in specifics. Yeah, we don't have plans

right now but that it's something that

you know given what is appropriate from

like a safety standpoint or is required

that we definitely will do. And then of

course we want the building to be more

uh attractive in general and within what