Harrisburg City Planning Commission Meeting - 6/3/2026

I must have guilt

must be guilt

like to call the house for reclaiming

commission meeting order at

approximately 6:35

6:39

U commissioners you receive the May 6th

uh meeting minutes are there any

additions

deletions or changes

If not, could I get a motion for

approval?

>> Motion to approve.

>> Is there a second?

>> Second.

>> It's been moved and second.

With no changes, all those in favor

state by saying I

>> I

>> opposed.

>> One extension

and

motion carried.

>> Under old business, this is the um

zoning code amendment to uh uh signage

uh regulations outlined in chapter 7-325

of the zoning code. This is filed by the

Harrisburg Planning Bureau is to revise

and streamline the uh ordinance to

support city business and organizations,

accommodate modern uh signage best

practices and ensure new signage designs

are compatible with surrounding

neighborhoods. If you remember

correctly, commissioners, this is we

move to move this to this meeting so

that G and a few other members who

weren't here before

uh can make any comments. So with that,

I'll go to Jeffrey just quickly.

>> Uh yeah, so uh as you said, uh council

uh chairman um um you know, we've kind

of continued it for a few uh months

here, but I think at this point um all

commissioners have been in attendance.

uh one of the meetings uh and had um an

opportunity to provide some input as

well as you know outside of the meeting

except for I think Vern we hadn't heard

uh given him an opportunity to uh speak

on the record uh about his thoughts on

uh the signage regulations. So I think

we were kind of uh rolling it over to

this month um to hear from uh

Commissioner McKisik and what his

thoughts may be on the proposed changes.

Certainly, I think I think there's been

a lot of thought put into it by the by

the planning bureau. Um, things do like

this do have to evolve in recognition of

the technologies that have changed and

uh um you know I have no problem

supporting at this point as noted. I

appreciate your give me the opportunity

to provide a comment.

Is there any other commissioner want?

[laughter]

>> You got a half hour. I can get going.

>> Commissioner said we should move.

Do I have to make a motion?

>> Uh, yeah, I would make a motion.

>> Okay, Mr.

Motion for approval on this.

>> I'll make a motion to approve the zoning

code amendment for chapter 7-325.

>> Is there a second?

moved a second for approval. Uh all

those in favor say I.

>> I

>> uh so um we'll coordinate with the law

bureau on uh the uh exact process for um

uh publishing and notifying the public

uh for you know a citywide reg uh

amendment like this. It's not quite as

easy as just posting a property or

something. So, um, and, uh, we'll

coordinate with the city clerk's office

on, um, you know, getting this scheduled

for a public hearing at some point in

the future here.

>> Correct.

>> Do council, do you have any?

>> No, that's correct. It still has to go

through the public

comments.

I'm assuming

that I don't know. City council may have

their input as to what it looks like,

you know, what kind of comment they want

to do, but it does have to go to a

public to a public hearing.

>> Correct.

>> Thank you.

Um under new business uh item number two

is the varants and step conception

application for 423 division street

which is zone RM. is followed by

Christopher Jackson with Upscale

Properties LLC and it's to convert the

former place of work to use into a

recreation indoor use and to request

relief from the Associated Park

Department.

>> What's the What's the person name?

Steph,

>> the applicant is proposing to redevelop

the property as a recreation indoor use

with associated site and access

improvements. The proposal requires ZHB

approval of special exceptions for the

proposed use per section 7-305.7

of the zoning code and for relief from

the off streetet parking requirements in

section 7-327.6

of the zoning code.

The property at 423 Division Street is a

38 acre 16,553

foot lot featuring a two-story 10,295

foot structure which was constructed

between 1954 to 1955 per the city's

historic preservation specialist. The

property is bounded by Division Street

to the north, North Fifth Street to the

east, Elser Alley to the south, and the

property at 401 Division Street to the

west. This detached structure features

elements and forms typical of the

international style from the mid- 20th

century. It was the former site of a

synagogue of the Chisik Emuna

congregation until fire damaged the

building in 2009 and has been vacant

since that time. Character defining

features include the beige brick, the

asymmetrical building design, the

substantial concrete surrounds for doors

and windows, the inclusion of strong

horizontal lines, and the unique

circular windows with religious

iconography.

The main entrances feature full view

metal doors bracketing metal single pane

sidelights and topped with a large

divided light transom. They are set in

recess substantial concrete surrounds

with lettering edged above the entrance

on division street. There are other

doors along the side western and rear

facades of the building. Fenistration

features aluminum ribbon windows on the

second floor of the division street

facade with metal casement awning

windows and circular divided light

windows set within circular concrete

surrounds arranged at various points

around the building.

The structure is topped with a

multi-tered flat rubber roof. The

property features minimal landscaping

with grass yards along the northern and

eastern frontages with a freestanding

sign facing the division street north

fifth street intersection. Despite being

significantly damaged by a fire, the

building retains a significant amount of

its historic and architectural

integrity, which reflects the property's

contribution to the neighborhood's

cultural history. While differentiated

from many of the surrounding residential

buildings, the property reflects the use

and design of other institutional

buildings along Division Street and thus

contributes significantly to the

historic, architectural, and social

character of the corridor.

The planning bureau staff recommends the

request be approved with the following

conditions. One, the applicant should

submit a proposed floor plan for the

building for review and consideration by

the codes bureau and to confirm

conformance with all applicable city

regulations. Two, the applicant must

ensure all proposed signage is in

conformance with the applicable zoning

regulations and if not must submit the

required zoning relief for such signage

for review and approval by the planning

commission and zoning hearing board.

Three, in consideration of the proposed

reconstruction of Division Street and

potential redevelopment of William Penn

High School campus, the pling bureau

advises the applicant to identify

potential parking spaces for lease in

existing accessory parking lots in the

surrounding neighborhoods.

Planning Bureau staff recommends the

request be approved for the following

reasons. One, the project represents a

viable adaptive reuse proposal for a

long vacant fire damage building along a

principal eastwest corridor in Uptown

Harrisburg. As such, the project will

enhance the character of the

neighborhood, improve the streetscape,

and conform to the goals, objectives,

and action items in the comprehensive

plan. Two, the project site is located

in a mixeduse corridor with nearby

residential, commercial, and

institutional uses and thus the proposed

use should not have an adverse impact on

the neighborhood. And three,

although the applicant is requesting

full relief from the associated off-

streetet parking requirements, the

proposed restrictions on clientele

on-site and limited staffing will reduce

the parking demand, and the

bureaucracing

to accommodate the use given the

frontage of the property along two

streets and the ample on street parking

along Division Street.

>> Thank you, sir. Could you state your

name uh address in relationship to the

project?

>> Yes, my name is uh Christopher Jackson.

My current address is 1865 Pebble Court,

Harrisburg.

>> Um, you heard the staff report with the

three conditions. Are you acceptable

with those conditions?

>> Yes. Uh, just for clarity, I just wanted

to make sure the the outside of the

exterior of the building is I was

requesting that uh be allowed to uh

change it.

Yeah, the planning bureau did not make a

recommendation on the exterior of the

building. Um although the property we

feel the property does have, you know,

architectural and cultural significance,

the property isn't located in a

municipal historic district, nor is it

individually listed. Um and while we

certainly recommend maybe uh retaining

some of the aspects like the monumental

concrete entrances, uh there is no

regulation um requiring

uh retention of the brick facade.

Okay. So, yeah, I'm just to be clear, I

just I'm going to keep all the

architectural keep all the windows. I

just wanted to update the the frontage

of the building cuz the yellow brick we

tried but from the fire is pretty

damaged like the stain of it.

>> Okay.

So, you have the you have that option.

So,

>> okay.

Um the only not concern but I still

agree with D's report as far as the

parking concern at point now it appears

to be okay with parking but as you said

with William Pen they might like a

squish fill or you know I know

in the past that whole side everything

would get filled back around the

neighborhood. Um so you know You could

pro find a you have time now like to

find maybe another place to have parking

for that maybe in a year or two. But um

I know at the uh right down the street

at the Zumbbo Mos

>> I tried. Yep. I went there parking down

here and I and I know they they released

a lot of different people but

>> Right. Yeah. I went there initially

after seeing the person that previously

had the property. I know they went

there. So, I went there and they told me

right now they were booked, but try back

in like nine months.

>> Okay. Yeah, you have the time, I guess.

>> And I would say that I think the bigger

um issue would be the eventual

reconstruction of Division Street when

they'll be milling the street and

obviously they won't be able to park or

drive on sections of it.

>> And that'll be a shortterm issue, but

you know, who knows how long it may

take, six months maybe to to redo

something like that. So, you know, the

applicant should be aware that that is

coming and alternative arrangement when

that happens.

>> With that, commissioners, that was my

only concern. We'll start with

Commissioner McKenzie with any concerns.

>> Um, can you just describe a little bit

more about your function that will be

inside your performance training?

>> Yeah. So, basically, it's just um mainly

advertised, marketed to the youth for

training. So, we'll have some trainers

around the area. Um Sean Lee's one,

Jawan Chisum, uh Brian Majors I talked

to. So we'll have some like a basketball

court inside,

uh Turfield downstairs for like soccer.

Um we also have another court for like

pickle ball and volleyball and stuff

like that. Just sports related. And it's

a couple classrooms. I talked to a

couple people about some after school

stuff, but I just want to right now just

focus on that cuz they had classrooms

down there that we plan on using as

well. But we're at the renovation stage.

So

>> just want to keep it like a sportsbased

training for the youth.

>> Okay. Now the uh what what do you see

the hours for that?

>> Uh mainly it's going probably from 4 to

9 or 4 to 8.

>> Mostly evening weekend.

>> Yes sir.

>> Okay. And how big did you say it is?

It's about 11,000 square feet. Did I

say?

>> Uh it's 10,000 square feet upstairs and

it's 10,000 square feet downstairs. I

>> saw it was total 20,000 square feet.

>> Yes, sir.

>> Okay. That seemed a little bigger than

Yeah. 10. Um, what is what is the

totality of the relief if we were to

hold if if plan was available and that

function was to be

>> parking under zoning? What would the

parking count that's being relieved here

be?

>> Um, so the this is a fairly um unique

use at least during my tenure here. Uh,

we haven't really had another recreation

indoor. Uh it's um the regulation is I

think one space per uh four uh people of

capacity and then one for uh staff uh

each staff. So um as the applicant noted

in their application, they'll have

probably up to 20 uh uh youth or adults

there at a time with up to three staff.

So uh the 20 divided by four gets you to

five um spaces and then the three staff

get you to eight. And what

classification are you using to

>> uh recreation indoor

>> and do we is that in the zoning? I I

don't remember.

>> Correct. Yeah. And again we haven't used

it before because we you know we haven't

dealt with a lot of larger buildings and

you know a multi- uh sport use like you

said pickle ball, soccer, basketball. So

>> Sure. Sure. Sure. I I mean I hopefully

you'll have more than the 20 you're

talking about. I could see with a

facility like that having more and again

that's not really an issue

>> uh in my mind. Um, did I the images that

are in here? It looks like there's been

work already started in the building or

is that work that was done in the past?

>> It was some work that was done recently.

Yeah.

>> But this was

>> so the windows and

>> this wasn't work you did.

>> Correct.

>> Okay. So, this is not an after- the-act

approval.

>> Well, the applicant uh did do some work,

but it was to secure the building

envelope. So, uh, he got a conditionally

approved last year to, uh, redo the roof

cuz there had been a fire a hole in the

roof from the fire. Um, and to basically

secure the building exterior against

elements and against trespass. So, uh,

but as far as like the building

operating or anything or being complete,

it's not

>> right. Right. I've probably using AI or

something. You have some very nice

renders in finished mode in there. It

looks great.

>> You're smart. [laughter]

>> I tell you what, it saved me some money

there.

>> Yeah.

Absolutely.

>> I'll tell you what, it's the best intern

I ever had. [laughter]

Doesn't doesn't call off sick

[clears throat] vacations.

>> Parking space.

>> Yeah, I mean parking space. There you

have it. So, all right. Nothing else.

Thank you.

>> Yeah. Yeah. This is a unique property. I

mean, as a former synagogue that, you

know, the worshippers would walk to

there and it was never intended to have

need ever needed parking. So, I think if

we're not willing to, you know,

be a little lax in our parking

requirements, this probably will never

find a use. So, uh, and if it doesn't

require any more speed bumps on Division

Street, all [snorts] in favor,

[laughter]

>> right? Uh Chris, did you talk to any of

the neighbors just to let them know what

you're doing and and get them, you know,

behind the project?

>> Yes, sir. So, I talked to a few of the

neighbors and they was in a in a

positive way. They wanted something like

that and they were sitting there talking

about the youth, giving the youth

something to do and just uh they all I

ain't hear nothing negative. So,

>> got nothing

>> besides the outlook of the building that

they were actually stuff like that like

Right.

>> Uh, Commissioner Reed,

>> just a clarification, is this a private

facility, right?

>> Correct.

>> Correct. And no, no large group, no team

sports, just all small,

>> right? Oneonone,

>> right?

>> Okay.

>> Yep. Just personal training. That's all

it is.

>> Okay.

Thank you,

>> Commissioner Mark.

>> Yeah. Thank you. Few of my questions

already got I think um I appreciate

seeing this type of you know specialized

reuse for a building that's pretty

dilapidated that fire it looks like

>> these photos are kind of showing the

extent of the fire damage. So I can

completely understand needing to do some

shoring up of the building envelope here

and and you know

>> starting on that sooner than later. Um

so I don't have an issue with that. And

you asked about like the exterior of the

building facade. I would say I mean it's

apparent there needs to be some

remodeling done on the facade and the

brick. Um I would just say like and it's

a condition you know that that they

staff read off about signage. So if you

are looking to do signage like just it's

something to conform to the zoning code

or come in for approval if it deviates.

So

>> that's that's really it.

>> I guess [clears throat] Jordan

>> I always wait for him. Is there anyone

from the public who are against this

project? Start to my left, the center,

and my right.

With that, commissioner, could I get a

motion?

>> Is there a second?

>> Second.

>> It's been moved and second for approval.

Three conditions. All those in favor by

saying I

good luck.

>> Thank you. Appreciate it. Thanks,

Um item number three, this is a variance

of special session application for 2100

North Third Street and 327 and 329 Mlay

Street which is zone RNA

by Adam Brenamman with Brenamman

Properties LLC to convert the principal

property into a 13 unit affordable

multif family dwelling and to allow

development of the associated properties

along the clay street into an accessory

parking lot to provide required off

street parking for the principal wise

you gentlemen state your names address

and relationship to the project

>> y good evening uh chairman Ash Mccomi

with mcnes Wallace and

uh Michael White with Bren enemy group.

>> Uh Jeff, just a quick question. This was

presented before. Is this the same group

or

>> No, the the uh previous review I think

was in 2021, I believe. And uh that was

a different individual who was actually

going to be living on site with like I

think he had a fairly large family. was

going to be occupy

[clears throat]

uh and so the building is sat vacant

since then.

The applicant is proposing to convert an

existing three-story building into a 13

unit multif family dwelling on the

principal parcel at 2100 North Thirdrd

Street and a sixspace accessory parking

lot as the principal use of the

associated parcels at 327 and 329

Mcclelay Street. The proposal requires

ZHB approval of a special exception for

the proposed use per section 7-305.7

of the zoning code and ZB approval of

several variances regarding the use and

relief from dimensional standards

associated with the establishment of an

accessory parking lot as a principal

use. The project proposes the

construction of 13 affordable housing

units, two studios, and 11 one-bedroom

units available to low-income residents,

making 60 to 80% of the medium family

income, and is eligible for the zoning

relief, a for project submitted through

the city's affordable housing

certification program.

The project site is comprised of three

panels totaling.17

acres. Two of the lots are vacant and

the only property that features any

existing development is at 2100 North

Thirdrd Street which is a.3 13 acre lot

with a three-story 963 ft structure

which was constructed in 1910 per the

Dolphin County property records. The

principal project site is bound by the

property at 21104 North Thirdrd Street

to the north, North Thirdrd Street to

the east, Mcclelay Street to the south,

and the property at 252 Mcclelay Street

to the west.

This detached brick structure is an

unusual early example of the Second

Empire architecture, which was the

prevailing aesthetic for Uptown

Harrisburg's Cottage Ridge neighborhood.

Established in the late part of the 19th

century, the building was operated as

the Charles C. Baker Funeral Home and

later the Jesse H. Geel Funeral Home

from the late 1920s until approximately

1973. The building is currently vacant

and has been so for several decades.

Character defining features include the

brick facade, the elevated first floor,

the multiple access points around the

building sheltered by various porches

and awnings, the substantial wraparound

porch on the front elevation featuring

turnposts a top brick bases and a

prominent roof featuring modilians. The

bay oral and turret window arrangements.

The awnings over the second floor

windows on the side elevation. The

substantial wooden corners over the

second floor featuring modilians

matching the porch roof. The Mansard

roof featuring real slate shingles, hit

thirdf4 dormers with box gables, and a

prominent roof turret. Fenistration

primly consists of one over one wood

windows of various sizes and

arrangements. The subject property has a

rear edition of an indiscriminate

architectural style that was added at

some point between 1929 to 1956.

As a conspicuous corner lot with an

interesting history of a variety of

uses, it is a unique property at the

crossroads of Midtown and Uptown

Harrisburg. Even with the various

alterations from former owners and the

deterioration of the past few decades,

the subject property contributes

significantly to the historic and

architectural character of the

streetscape and neighborhood.

The planning bureau staff recommends the

request be approved with the following

conditions. One, if granted approval for

the requested zoning relief, the

applicant will subsequently file a land

development plan and receive approval

from the planning commission and city

council. Two, the planning bureau

recommends the proposed accessory

parking lot at 327 and 329 Mcclelay

Street not be approved. Not only is the

parking lot unnecessary given the

availability of on street parking along

North Third Street and Mcclelay Street

and the prevailance of existing surface

parking lots in the surrounding blocks

from which spaces could be leased if

necessary, but it precludes use of those

properties as housing, which as the

applicant notes is a pressing issue for

the city and neighborhood. Three, the

planning bureau recommends the project

have fewer and larger units than

proposed. Specifically, the bureau

recommends that 11 units be permitted

through the con consolidation of

proposed units D and E on the first

floor and proposed units L and M on the

third floor. The loss of any potential

income from additional units could be

accounted for in the larger units and by

not having to develop the access the

access parking lot at 327 and 329

Mcclelay Street. Four, while the

property is not located in a municipal

historic district, it does have

significant architectural and historic

value which should be preserved as much

as possible in any proposed rehab

rehabilitation of the property.

Planning Bureau staff recommends that

the request be approved for the

following reasons. One, the property has

been vacant for decades through various

economic cycles and has even seen a

previously approved four-unit multif

family dwelling project be abandoned,

demonstrating the need for a financially

viable proposal that requires relief

from current zoning regulations. If the

conditions of the planning bureau are

adopted, it will minimize the amount of

zoning relief to only require special

exception approvals for the use and

relief from off- streetet parking, which

could be obiated if applicant secures

parking leases and a reasonable variance

request for a project denser than

permitted by the city's affordable

housing program. Two, the project the

property is a prominent historic

structure located on a conspicuous

corner on a busy intersection of two

main arterial streets that has remained

vacant for decades, severely

underutilizing a large structure that

could otherwise provide viable housing

units. Three, the project will enhance

the pedestrian experience for

neighborhood residents by improving a

historically and architecturally

significant yet unmaintained structure

with an affordable residential

development. and the proposal will

result in the removal of a vehicular

pedestrian conflict point and creation

of an additional on street parking space

along Mcclelay Street. Four, as noted

throughout the case report, parking for

the proposed project can be located

either on street or on nearby service

parking lots in the surrounding blocks

which are closer than the proposed

accessory parking. This would make the

two parcels at 327 and 329 Mcclelay

Street available for development as

housing units.

>> Okay. Thank you, sir. Could

[clears throat] you state your name,

address, and relationship?

>> Ash McCcomi, Mcnes, Wallace, and Nurk,

100 Pine Street, Harrisburg,

Pennsylvania. It's good to see you

again, commissioners. It's been a while.

I hope everyone is well. Um, I think the

>> Oh, Mike. Go ahead, Mike.

>> Okay. Uh, Michael White, Brenamman

Group, um, 24 South.

>> You You both heard the conditions. Are

you acceptable or

>> uh certainly conditions one and four uh

as to condition number two uh regarding

the parking um you know the the

application that we submitted our intent

was to find a way to provide parking.

There is no parking at the property. Uh

we certainly understand where the

planning bureau is is coming from and if

it's the board's decision that we don't

provide parking um you certainly aren't

going to hear complaints from us for it.

We were just trying to find a way to to

provide some off- streetet parking as

required by by the ordinance. Um, but I

think the planning bureau is correct

that there is significant on street

parking nearby. There bus stops nearby.

Uh, with the location we chose

specifically. Um, it's being used as

illegal parking right now by whoever's

in the area. Uh, so part of our thinking

was by taking that lot, cleaning it up,

putting up some landscaping, lining it,

and putting a towing sign up, at least

you're not going to be get getting the

random vehicle that that pulls in. Um,

it may be used more for tenants. Um, but

again, I think that's one we're we're

willing to concede if if the planning

bureau is adamant about uh not having it

and and the zoning hearing board is is

okay with us not having it. um condition

number three, which was the 11 units

versus 13 units. Um this this project as

as affordable housing and with the work

that already needs done requires grant

funding just to make it viable at 13

units. Um there's no way the project can

go forward at at 11 units. Uh they're

working on a over $1 million grant uh

which would be needed just to make the

project viable with the 13 units that

are proposed. the one smaller unit, I

think it's 294 square feet. Um, the hope

is one of the grants that they are after

would uh allow that to to help pay for

kind of a an on-site not manager

necessarily, but kind of on-site social

worker. How would you describe that,

>> Mike? I think that that [snorts] one of

the one of the proposed uh grant funding

sources for the viability of the project

um that we've been in communication with

and been considering is is the mental

health collaborative. So you know the

idea you know being that it's an

affordable project and would be that we

could place supportive services of

various kinds there that could be a you

know organizational office for

healthcare workers for you know for case

managers and of course that would be

dependent upon um our grant funding

partners but that was the idea of of

that unit. it given some of the

constraints, you know, from a design

standpoint that were noted um in the

bureau's uh report, you know, we were

thinking that the best use of that would

be to have services in place to, you

know, to benefit the re or the residents

and in coordination with uh a grant

funding partner, which would likely be

the, you know, the mental health

collaborative. So,

>> yeah. And so I think while we certainly

understand where the planning bureau is

coming from, you know, that there is a

need for two and threebedroom affordable

housing units in the city of Harrisburg,

no doubt. Uh but I think there's a need

for affordable housing generally. Um I

can tell you when when I lived the last

time I lived in a city, uh I had an

apartment that was 307 ft. So I know

people will live in in those units uh

when when they are out there. Um, but we

we certainly understand where the

planning bureau is coming from, but this

is one of those cases where it's, you

know, it's not a matter of making more

money, it's a matter of making the

project in the black versus in the red.

>> Okay.

Jeff, on the parking again, what's the

requirements? I know it's under the

affordable act.

>> Yeah, it would be six and a half spaces.

Um, and it says to round to the round uh

to a whole number, but doesn't say which

direction. So, you know, conservatively

it would be seven spaces. Um, and uh and

uh as you know, we noted in the case

report, um there definitely is available

parking along North Third Street,

especially um on the east side of North

Third Street. Um where you have the

right aid, uh there's available parking

up and down that uh side. And as noted,

uh, the removal of the, uh, driveway

curb cut into the basement would create

an additional on street parking space as

part of this project, uh, which kind of

offsets at least one of them. Um, and

there are, um, you know, surface parking

lots and surrounding uh, uh,

neighborhood. Um, specifically just to

the south, um, there is a like I think a

youth advocate uh, program uh, building

uh, with a large service parking lot.

And again, similar to what we saw with

like 1301 Berry Hill Street, when you

have like a daytime nighttime use, you

can kind of share the spaces between

commercial and residential. But I think

a more likely target would be at the

northern end of this block. Uh there is

a large probably 100 space parking lot

uh owned by a church u that's actually

closer to uh this property than the um

lot that the applicant is proposing. Um

and in addition, it's uh on the same

block, so it doesn't require crossing

Mccclelay Street and Third Street um to

get there. So, you know, we think there

um between the on street parking, the

availability of bus routes, and the

potential to secure um spaces in uh

surrounding lot, existing surrounding

lots, um if necessary. Uh we feel that

the properties at 327 and 329 Mccclelay

Street would be better reserved for

eventual redevelopment for housing as

opposed to um providing off streetet

parking. And again, in a in a location

that might not even be used. I mean, if

you're a tenant here and you're driving

by the property and you see a parking

spot on North Third Street, you're

probably going to drive there rather

than drive three blocks away and then

walk back. Um, and again, the

opportunity cost of losing potentially

two housing units, uh, we think is

probably a trade-off, not that's not

worthwhile.

>> Yeah. And I I think we [clears throat]

can be on the same page with with the

planning department with that. I think

the only place I would push back on is

the idea of leasing parking spaces.

We're talking about affordable units,

right? And so, when it's market rate, we

can pass on that leasing cost. when it's

an affordable unit, you know, it's a

little bit harder to pass on a a 2550 75

whatever it is, you know, a month cost.

So again, if if the board feels, you

know, this is really a special exception

to reduce parking to zero, um I think we

would be 100% supportive of that uh and

happy to yield to the planning

department's request in that case. uh we

were simply including this in our best

attempt to provide the parking that's

required under the ordinance.

>> Okay.

I'm not sure if I fully

I won't say understand but as if they

are willing to

get a place like maybe one area that

housing place in for their parking and

they're willing to pay wanted to do

that.

Not sure why. I guess you're against it

because you think maybe those other

development success.

>> Yeah. I mean, the properties up until

2018 had houses on them. Um, I'm not

exactly sure what led to the demolition

of the properties. I believe was done by

the city. Um, but they were viable, you

know, properties. And I think when we,

you know, talk about a variance requests

that are necessary, it's, you know, they

have to be proven to the variance is

require is, uh, the proof for the

variance is that you can't use the

property as, you know, permitted the

zoning code. And you know, less than 10

years ago, there were a building

standing there. There might have been a

fire or who knows what the issue was,

but um we would we would think that um

that they are viable opportunities for

redevelopment being that they're vacant

lots as opposed to like a crumbling

building or something like that. Um

especially if Mr. Fernandez is involved,

he's been doing a few affordable housing

projects here in the throughout the city

that the commission may be aware of. And

so he may um you know especially uh be a

good candidate for someone to redevelop

those sites. And and again it's at the

end of the day it's up to the planning

commissioners what they feel but the

plane bureau's perspective we would

rather see housing there rather than

cars.

>> Okay. Other you said if it was the right

thing there of course it's empty now but

I'm sure someone will purchase that and

make that supermarket or another

whatever. So with that, they wouldn't be

able to use that, you know, once that

comes about. So

>> yeah, and that's why I didn't recommend

they try and secure parking there

because I know that that state that

property is in limbo. We've had various

questions about it, various, you know,

preliminary redevelopment proposals and

so who knows what's going to happen. Um,

frankly, I I would love to see a um

affordable housing project go there. uh

it could allow a 50-unit multif family

dwelling by right. It's a really large

property and provide off street parking

at the rear of it. It's um so we hope

that something like that comes out of

it. Uh but um yeah, in the meantime it's

again in limbo and who knows what's

going to end up happening with that.

>> Okay. Um did you talk to the uh

community in that area? [clears throat]

>> Yeah. Um, on our various site visits,

we've we've met with neighbors. I mean,

I think that that the the main concern

that I heard was just that something's

going to be done. I mean, I think that

the people that uh live adjacent to the

building have lived adjacent, as noted

in the report, to a vacant, you know,

building, nothing being done for a very,

very long time. And I think that they

would just like to see and I you know I

obviously don't speak for all the

residents but you know the neighbors

that we have talked to when we were on

our site visits that live right next

door have have told us a number of times

they're like please you know do

something here you know cuz because it

would really it's and in the Mcclelay

corridor I think that it's it needs to

be activated. Um you know it's a it's a

wonderful location. Um there is, you

know, as we've noted, there's tremendous

vacancy all around of of of large

structures and um so I think that was

the message that we got um speaking to

residents. And if I could just also add

that um in terms of the the feasibility

of this project um that it's it's not um

at 13 units part of the part of the

consideration is that we want to provide

that supportive services space but you

know also it's that the project is

unbelievably challenging probably the

most challenging project that we've

underwritten in Harrisburg. I mean, we

um typically on our um market rate or

affordable development projects, but I

will say we do have an affordable

project um coming to the planning

commission in the near future that's

going to feature all three-bedroom

units. So, when we can, you know, we are

we are doing that and that's the the

black and white buildings on Sixth

Street that we hope to be able to to to

bring soon. Um and you know, we we agree

that that's, you know, that's needed.

But for this particular project um as

compared to other projects typically we

are trying to get bank financing um in

the 70 to 80% range of of the total cost

of the project which would be like a

market standard. Um now the remainder is

cash. It's it's it's equity from us or

it's equity from investors. Um in this

case um being that it's 100% affordable

uh you know we have to raise money grant

funding to to make the project viable.

And what we are currently um uh

predicting and and what we're going

after is that we need to raise at least

50% of the total project cost at 13

units. Um so it's it's you know that's a

right now it depending upon the sources.

I mean we're looking at $13 million. I

mean it's going to be a tremendous

effort for this project to be viable at

at 13 units. Um and that's not to be

viable in terms of profitability. That's

just by the skin of our teeth to even

get a loan for the additional 50%. Uh we

don't we don't plan to make uh a

tremendous amount of money on this

building. You know, we we we want to

see, you know, density, vibrancy, and

and affordable housing in the city of

Harrisburg. And this building's been

vacant for, you know, for so long that

um and I think that it's I think that

it's position too is very prominent and

interesting. I want to do an affordable

uh project right by the governor's

mansion, you know, and and on the

Mcclelay corridor and like activate that

um you know, that corridor. So, I just I

I do just want to underscore that um

it's it's very challenging. We're

already only you know going to seek you

know 50% debt and have to raise the

rest. um and that a lot of the the

nature of the the project from a design

standpoint given that it's elevated and

we need accessibility ramps, it's it's

pretty expensive uh conversion as

compared to others that we've done. Um

and then I guess the final thing that I

would say in absence of of um

uh clarity on the LERA um that that's

another major headwind that we have no

idea what's going to happen uh with the

school board on the LER side and you

know that if if given that there isn't

clarity on a portion of the of the tax

burden that that's something that we

can't really predict right now and if it

doesn't you know if we don't have 100%

you know 10-year abatement and the tax

thus the operating expense increases is

it's it's just I would say the number of

projects that I know that are sidelined

because of that right now is is

unbelievable and um that it makes

housing less affordable and it's

certainly the case for this. So, you

know, I just wanted to speak to to some

of the headwinds um and the position of

the project and and of course make an

argument for the for the 13 units as

like crucial to to viability. So,

>> thanks Mike.

>> With that, I'll I'll go to the

commissioners

and I'll start with commissioner.

McKenzie, any concerns or questions?

[clears throat]

>> Oh, I appreciate the challenge that

you're facing with that building. I

mean, it has some unique features

because of what it had been, which I

think you your plan does try and taken

account of. Um, I not sure I agree that

rediction to 11 is is necessary, but I'm

struggling with the reach to get to the

13th unit. Um, hotel rooms are bigger

than that.

>> And, uh, I know that for a long time

we've struggled to prevent that type. We

spent decades trying to get the sizes up

so that they're truly livable uh, and

not a flop house. And I'm not proposing

that that's what you guys are doing, but

it's almost too small to be usable. I

think your thought of using it as

program space or adding a bedroom. I

mean, I know the money follows the

number of restrooms and toilets, you

know, on bank appraisals. I mean, it's

just how it goes, you know. That's why

we don't see three bedroom units out

there because it doesn't pencil out the

way smaller units do. So, I I get your

struggle there. Um, I'm not sure I agree

that u the proposed parking uh is

something that

we should be waving uh because I or not

giving to you because I think to some

degree uh even if you've got a mix of

single, you know, single persons and and

double there, they need to be able to

find their way to work. They need to be

able to get somewhere. And I'm just not

sure that having no parking is going to

help you fill it. Uh so I I suspect

that's in your mind as well. Even at

that, you're probably providing a third

of what you probably ought to have, you

know, six units or whatever uh for 12

building to all kind of 12 unit mixed

use. So um I'm not sure I I agree with

that one completely. I know where you're

you're hoping to get more, but I think

we have enough empty land in town, we

can find a place to put some more units

in. Um and and if it was a building

coming down, I'd be absolutely in

agreement, you know, but it's already

the damage has been done, uh the sin has

been committed or whatever you want to

say at the other site. Uh so I would be

I would propose to to that we talk about

that a little bit more. Um and I say in

my mind, I see I see the the the third

that one unit of 274 square feet. I'd

have to pull out the code book and see

if we can even get that small u you know

under under IBC, you know, for bedroom

sizes and things like that. Perhaps you

do. I mean, some of the bedrooms because

the nature are nice 11 by 17. Those ones

in the front are very nice. Um so that

is that is all I can offer, you know,

for the mostly for the commissioners to

consider.

>> Okay. Commission to Vern. So I

understand you're you're you're

suggesting I guess that we eliminate

condition number two and allow them to

to move forward with their plan with a

parking

>> that would be

>> okay. Yeah, I understand Jeff where

you're coming from. You just you'd hate

to take a building, convert it to

service parking.

>> U so yeah, I mean the fact that they

came to us with a plan I for parking I

yeah I can't see us really taking a hard

line on the parking issue. Uh who who

owns the 327 and 329? You guys own that

now or do you have a option to buy?

>> So, um yeah. No, we we own the lots. So,

we we have a partnership with with

George Fernandez uh a special purpose

entity for this development. we're going

to, you know, work with Latino

Connection and and he purchased uh both

lots um as uh and contributed them to

the project um with with an eye of

course of, you know, satisfying what we

know to be the requirement uh for an

affordable development for for parking.

Um and then I also just to highlight on

that on that 27 we it is express the

express design consideration there and

idea is that it's going to be a a

programming and convenience space. So,

we don't really imagine, to your point,

as that being the most um obvious or

viable like long-term residential unit.

Um, but we do, you know, imagine that as

as a space that can be utilized to the

to the benefit of the residents. And we

started to have conversations about and

then that connects too to the to the

fundraising because that would be a

grant-f funed, you know, as a lot of

casework is um just in my experience um

in behavioral health prior to real

estate, you know, a lot of those

positions are grant funded. So, and you

know what we hear from a lot of uh uh

you know partners that we work with is

they want that supportive service there.

And so we you know Jeff noted the design

constraints between you know the

stairwell and the structural wall and

that so that's really the that's the the

idea there.

>> 320 I'm trying to think that's that'd be

across the street from the uh right aid.

>> No it's a it's um it's on the next

block.

>> Okay.

>> Yeah it's on the next block. So it's

it's halfway up the the next block. And

I think that too I would just note that

like I of of all the vacant space that

you said, you know, that could be

developed into into housing that I think

that this space though I I have

tremendous faith in the city of

Harrisburg and you know that the

viability of of all the property that

this seems like a very very very like

longterm prospect that there's going to

be housing and if you were if you were

standing on these lots given the the

width constraints and I just really

seems like that there's it's going to be

a long time um if ever.

>> Yeah, the the one I think the one lot's

14 feet wide and the other one's 15 feet

wide.

>> All right. Yeah. As far as the density

issue, I'll just see how that plays out

here. Nothing further.

>> Commissioner,

>> just for clarification, the smaller

smaller studio,

>> yeah,

>> would be more of office space versus a

bit.

>> Yes. And I I think that um but that it

could also be if there was overnight

staff or if that were if there was an

extended stay of a supportive

individual, you know, for whatever

programming purposes. I think that we

would let that be dictated by the grant

funding source depending upon where that

was just in council with with George

Fernandez and just in other projects I

think in uh sycamore homes and other

things that he's programmed that he's

just heard over and over again that like

hey if you can give us a space that can

serve as an office you know and as a

residence that that we can plug somebody

in um to you know support

you know whether it be mental health

collaborative or you know depending upon

who we work with that can support the

residents that that we're funding for.

That's a that's a real like positive for

us. Um so it would be both.

[clears throat]

>> Commissioner.

>> Yeah. Thanks. I appreciate the um you

know the motive to move forward with uh

getting this building redeveloped and

occupied. Um I was remember remembering

the 2021 applicant and wondering what

happened there. So it's it's a shame

it's been vacant. Um,

and you're being proactive, you know,

with providing the required or needed

accessory parking um, for the project,

which is great. I hear the bureau's

argument.

Um,

but I think my two questions slash

concerns and I think they've been

brought up um or at least touched on

with the size of those lots and perhaps

the bureau I don't know how

you know thinking thinking that through

and thinking ahead with the size of

those lots if they were to let's say be

consolidated what is the feasibility of

truly developing

a residential on them without

significant variances or exceptions.

>> So, I would probably say that I would

not anticipate that it would be two row

homes side by side. I would anticipate

it would be a three unit, maybe a

four-unit multif family dwelling, you

know, um maybe like three stories with

like a unit on each floor or something

like that. Because if you've got a 30 29

foot frontage of the building, uh the

lots are fairly deep. um that you would

have yeah two or three units maybe um on

like a threestory building. So and what

are the what is the likelihood? I mean I

think uh uh we don't see a lot of infill

development you know and single lot

situations here in the city. A lot of

them are in the m middle of the block

and it's much harder to build between

two existing structures than it is at

the end of the block. Um, but yeah, I

mean, I think it is a, you know, I don't

think there's a whole I don't think

there's probably somebody that looks at

that and goes that spot is going to be

mine. It could be part of a bigger one

certainly. I mean, there are other

properties on Fourth Street that uh that

this that this body just reviewed last

month at 2040 and 2042 North Fourth

Street. And if you'll remember, there

are vacant lots on either sides of

those. So, I could see somebody doing

like a consolidated thing similar to uh

what was brought with Mr. uh with Tariq

Steel's project last month where he did

a scattered sites with a couple

different buildings on across nine lots.

I could see somebody doing that. And um

you know, at the end of the day, uh you

know, we again we'd always rather see

housing for people than housing for

cars, frankly. Um and the other thing I

kind of have some concern about is you

know, we have lots of vacant lots. We

have lots of people ask us, can I use

this vacant lot for parking? And if the

development community sees vacant lots

being used for parking, we're going to

see a lot more of that. That's going to

take more and more lots off the table uh

here in the city. Um I'd also note uh

that especially along uh the that c part

of uh Mcclelay Street corridor, the like

300400 block, there's a lot of vacant

lots or no there's a lot of parking lots

on the north side of uh the street.

There's actually like two I think

directly across the street from that or

like a little up that might be

associated with a church or something.

Um so we have a lot of surface parking

in this and so it seems kind of

counterproductive to me if we're talking

about how to redevelop our corridors

activates our streets is to create new

parking when we have these large parking

lots already lining the north side of uh

Mcclay Street. So, you know, that's

really where uh the planning bureau is

coming from is um you know, we think

there are alternatives for parking uh

that don't involve building new parking.

And I would also note that if we're

talking about, you know, the to the

applicant's point of we don't want to

lease spots, well, building parking is

going to cost money, too. So, um you

know, just it's not like leasing spots

is money and this is free to build. Um

you know, there's still cost either way.

Um, and if if we have vast expanses of

asphalt here in the city already, why

build more? I think that's kind of like

really the perspective that we're coming

from.

>> Thank you. Um

yeah I

I mean this isn't just standalone

parking though and I know we have had

applicants come before us where they do

they are proposing sort of this like

standalone accessory use or you know of

just parking and we've denied those uh

before and I I think we can certainly

would continue to consider that as as a

a denial. We're not trying to just have

standalone uh accessory parking uses,

but this is specifically in conjunction

with meeting, you know, a variance like

the requirements, right, of of a type of

project like this.

>> Um

I struggle with so so it sounds like

there is some very future down the road

possibility of potential residential

development on these lots given the

right circumstances happen. I do think

about it just professionally from a

construction costing and co you know

costing that out. I know right now

infill projects such as this that just

the construction costs alone are

prohibitive. I mean that's why we're not

seeing that. It's just flat out the

numbers don't work.

Um we would need economics to change not

just in the city but but you know bigger

picture. Um

so in it's like in the meantime you know

waiting for that to happen what happens

with the space in the interim right now

it's just illegal parking we hate to see

that nobody none of us want the illegal

parking right and we are trying to curb

that as much as we can as these projects

arise so if the developer has acquired

this these parcels um and is willing to

make that conforming and and legal use I

I I think I'm leaning more towards

having that happen than keeping it as um

kind of this existing vacant illegal

usage uh area right now. Um you know

with with the other condition and I I

think I'm sharing some similar

sentiments to the other commissioners on

um the units. I can you know understand

I think I'm not as concerned about um

making units L and M larger or

consolidating those into larger units as

I am about unit I and the size of that

one. Um for me, I'm really not

comfortable with that unit being a

rented out apartment as as I would much

rather see that be a

services space, laundry for service, you

know, for the tenants, just some another

type of of usage in in that rather than

a formal leased unit there. Uh it would

knock it down by one, but the size of

that unit

>> that if you get that grant funding, I

can't imagine it it being that cost

prohibitive.

>> Yeah, I mean that that is that is

absolutely the intent. And I'm not, you

know, given that it's a it's a fairly

novel thing. I'm not I'm not exactly

sure, you know, how that would be if we

were to if we were given the density and

that unit did exist at that size, you

know, how we would at this point mark

that out. I could say that that the the

sole purpose of that unit is is for what

I've stated. So I, you know, I I I'd be

fine to to talk about how we, you know,

codify that, how we commit to that, how

we follow up on that. Um but that is I I

I agree with with your sentiment about

the size of the unit 100%. Um and uh

especially in a in a city that is you

know affordable maybe maybe in you know

a Chicago or a New York where you see

that this this drives affordability. the

smaller the better almost, you know. Um

but for you know for us this was you

know in support of what we hear uh over

and over and over again is that

affordable developments lack supportive

services and lack programming and space

for so and it so we're just whether it

be with the parking and you know the the

acquisition and contribution of the

parking to the site or whether it be you

know this space here we're just trying

to to do the project in the way that we

hear from those that are most expert

whether it be our partner you know

George Fernandez or whether it be you

know our funding partners of of what

they need and what they see missing in

existing um

>> Yep. Yep.

>> Yes. So you got to do some things.

So then would a a reasonable

modification to that condition maybe be

12 units conditioned on

unit I being used for the services that

that Mike was talking about pursuant to

the grant and otherwise being used as

some other service area whether that's

laundry or or something else up up

there.

>> [laughter]

>> Yeah. No, I I appreciate you guys being

being open-minded to that. That's that's

something I I would be looking forward

and comfortable with.

>> Thanks.

>> No other questions.

>> Um, go to the public.

>> He's with me. He better not have

anything to say. [laughter]

that I

I actually I don't usually go against

the staff report, but with the changes

with the parking,

I think you recommend it about the

parking and and we just talked about the

room size. If we put that in there, I

would be for the project. But that's

called a motion.

That's a question for how far away are

those 327 and 329 proposed parking from

the building?

>> 470 ft.

>> Oh, a block and a half.

[clears throat]

>> Two blocks.

>> Yeah. I mean, there's the the right a

block and then it's on the next block.

I think that that you know this the

spirit of it is that when you're driving

home from work, you know where you're

parking.

>> Yeah. You don't have

>> Yeah. You don't you don't have to to

wonder. I think that

>> Yeah. You don't have to wonder what's

going on. you know, if you're going to

be able to park, anybody, you know,

who's, you know, lived in the city, um,

it's nice to know when you when you go

out at night, you know, that you know

where you're going and it's a secure own

space and that when you're driving home

from work, you know where you're where

you're going. And then also just is in

in the spirit of being in compliance

with the ordinance. I mean that that's

is also the intent is that just to when

we usually have the opposite challenge

and and we just wanted to make sure that

that we weren't um you know uh we

weren't offending that. So

[laughter]

>> that much

>> I would I would love to see I would love

to see a a 50unit development there an

affordable development there like like

Jeff proposed. So, we won't be able to

park there. You know what I mean? I'd

like to see all the

>> Not my money. So,

>> yeah.

>> Do we want to change item number two?

>> We would be removing

>> and revise

>> number three.

>> Number three,

13 to 12.

in number three proposal.

>> I'm sorry. Just want to make sure I'm on

the we're on the same page. So, I think

that that what we had I thought that

what we had been talking about was the

full units if that unit I is used for

this other kind of

>> grant funded tenants services, right?

Okay.

>> That' be 12 units total.

>> Yes. Plus that. Yeah.

>> Plus the

>> plus that. Thank you.

>> Appreciate that. Now I got it.

We will

space

Make that motion. I think

concerns that we have other projects

looking

with that. Is there a second?

>> I'll second.

>> It's been moved a second for the

approval of the three conditions. All

those in favor say I.

>> I.

>> Thank you.

>> Thank you.

other businesses.

>> That's it. Nothing on our end.

>> Was there anything?

Anything for the good of the water

council?

No. Should I move for a journal?

Is there a second?