Zoning Hearing Board Meeting - November 18th, 2024

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e e

apologize for the L

you

first

a

we also

okay yep uh Michael O Conor the first

one is uh continued from uh old business

application

2588 and uh it's 27 43 North Front

Street and I'll read in the uh

exhibits so we got uh B1 is the proof of

publication in The Patriot news B2 is

applicants uh notification letters to

required neighbors B3 is the

application uh with attachments at add

business plan photos of exterior and

interior of the property B4 is a d to

the property establishing applicants

standing to pursue uh the application B5

is the planning case report B6 is the uh

Harrisburg Planning Commission

resolution B7 is a letter sent from the

planning director to the applicant

notifying of the hearing and B8 is the

hearing notice posting uh that was

posted on the property so with that we

got B1 through B8 previously we had A's

one and two as they were continuance

requests so

I

do uh yes so the uh case before uh the

board tonight uh for 2588 uh is a

special exception request uh the

applicant is proposing to establish a

Supportive Housing facility use on site

uh the proposal requires zhb approval of

a special exception uh per section

73057 of the zoning code uh so the

applicant um uh that what existed

previously on site was essentially very

similar use um it was the offices uh for

um I believe uh Arc alternative

Rehabilitation Center I believe is what

it was called um and they managed a

similar population to that of uh what

the applicants are proposing um it was

just an office use so occupied during

the day as opposed to occupied um um 247

uh so the current proposal is for a

facility for um youth that are exiting

the foster care system um and 18 to 24

year olds I believe uh and the

applicants uh organization works with

such individuals to help prepare them um

for life on their own uh teaching them

Services helping them get uh things like

geds um and basically providing a place

for for them to live while they uh get

on their feet um as noted the uh

proposal is very similar to the existing

use um or to the previous use on site so

the it's anticipated that the uh impacts

from the proposed use will be similar uh

and will not have adverse impacts on the

surrounding neighborhood um with that

being said the Planning Commission

recommended that the zoning hearing

board approve the request with the

following conditions uh the applicant

will provide the planning Bureau with

all federal state and County licenses of

the facility operator to ensure that

they that the proposed uses in

conformance with the applicable specific

criteria in the zoning code um the

Planning Commission recommends that the

zoning hearing board approve the request

for the following reasons propos will be

similar to that of the previous business

on site which operated for 23 years and

will accommodate the same population

groups as such impacts should be similar

in nature and uh the proposed use seeks

to address a vulnerable population and

provide them with Services which enable

personal growth and self-sufficiency

allowing them to thrive after their time

at the facility

so David cus um 3510 Road Pennsylvania

owner of the

building

excuse D Allen Thrive Housing Services

I'm the executive director uh 2601

Walnut Street Harrisburg C

1713 and

yes yes so appreciate that very much so

one of the things that's

been we do fix flips but we want to

really for

I but so KN that had already been AAR

there no aders back previously one of

things we did also we did list and have

a meeting withing Comm we have multiple

members from the come and they all

support which we thought was awesome

we approve what we're doing as well um

but that's

what

so the license requires a 24hour staff

and we'll be working with Dolphin County

and the state to provide the services um

the license is from the Department of

Human Services from the state um but the

county is the overseer of the referrals

so they would be referring um kids to

the program but the requirements of the

license is that we have to have the

24hour

St and what and what will be the St in

the 247 like how many people you know

need to be there what type or that Tye

you know what what is necessary um the

license requires a 1 to six at night and

a two to eight during the day um so we

will comply with that but we will have

um additional staff because um our

agency requires two staff um in the

facility at all times since there only

be eight kids um there it's a small

number of kids but we will have two

staff on site at all times okay so it is

like 1 to six staff at Night 2 to 8

during the day right and it is up to8 or

will be eight right whatever but that's

it okay

excent I see the only thing is you know

look through all the exception does look

like we check every single was happy to

see that you for sure

no you

can is there one uh is there a condition

is there just one condition just the one

condition basically about satisfying the

specific criteria got it

okay and the Planning

Commission second

I okay so what

is uh right

2590 right okay

all right so it's application

2590 uh 1100 North 6

Street and the exhibits are B1 proof of

publication Patriot news um November 3rd

and November 10th 2024 B2 is a letter

sent from the planning director to the

applicant notifying of tonight's hearing

B3 hearing notice uh posted on the

property uh before applicants notif

ification letters to required neighbors

B5 is the application with attached uh

photos um and plans B6 is a deed uh to

the property establishing applicant

owner standing to pursue the zoning

relief B7 planning Bureau case report

and B8 is the uh city of Harrisburg

Planning Commission resolution so B1

through

B8 uh yes so uh case number 259

um as noted involves a special exception

uh and that is because the existing free

standing sign itself is legally

non-conforming uh because such signage

is not permitted by right in the RM

District in which the property is

located um so in

evaluating um uh what Z relief would be

necessary um you know we just looked at

as a special exception because the signs

existing as a non-conformance and as an

expansion of that non-conforming aspect

um with respect

uh to the actual proposal uh in the

request uh we had indicated that they're

increasing the signage height from 42

feet to 6 feet it appears that actually

um uh to 7 and 1 12 ft um 90 in and the

size from 7 to 12 squ fet uh the size of

the signage face is actually 24 Square F

feet uh our initial review of the

project was based upon the applicant

statements that would be similar to um

their existing sign and to a nearby sign

for Cumberland Court Apartments and that

was how we had kind of determined that

but we got additional documentation from

the applicant after the Planning

Commission meeting that uh clarified

what their uh new uh signage was going

to look like um so the applicants are uh

basically uh looking for signage uh or

increased signage because their existing

sign is not really visible uh if you've

ever driven down Sixth Street there um

you know in addition uh to uh the large

setback and kind of the small sign where

it's located uh the corridor itself is

fairly busy um and there's a number of

different um uh activities going on

whether it's Broad Street Market or uh

the school the Ben Franklin School right

there and then there's offices and

apartment building that's directly

across the street from this property um

it does make it a little bit diff

difficult to um Identify the property to

to read it uh to determine you know that

it's maybe what you're looking for um

with the existing sign and um I think a

lot of the same uh regulation or a lot

of the same considerations that appli to

the school district's uh signage

proposal for uh across the street at

1012 North 6 Street uh apply here um the

conditions are obviously similar in that

case the zoning District was uh

institutional and not RM so uh although

it was uh less restrictive um again the

same issues with visibility

identification um and conveyance of

information uh apply here in this uh

scenario uh so with that being said uh

um and the applicants are proposing to

relocate the sign uh from its existing

position kind of right near the building

and the uh pedestrian access up a short

flight of stairs uh closer to the

vehicular access uh they have a parking

lot that's uh kind of shared with the

Cumberland Court departments and access

from six Street uh and this sign will be

located closer to that vular entrance uh

and in addition to kind of better

identifying where the parking lot for

the for the facility is um it's less uh

obstructed by trees uh this location so

it will be much more visible uh and uh

you know definitely clear for the

public that being said the Planning

Commission has recommended that the

zoning hearing board approve the request

with the following conditions uh the

applicant will ensure that the sign must

be installed at least 5T from the

property line along North 6 Street uh in

the uh attached rendering I think it

looks like it's probably a little bit um

closer than that so they'll just have to

uh move it a little bit you know kind of

into the site and it looks like

sufficient room to do so uh per the uh

rendering um to ensure that it's 5T

outside of the uh setback uh and then

the Planning Commission recommended that

the zoning hearing board approve the

request for the following reasons uh the

applicant has met their burden of proof

demonstrating the special exception

request should be approved by the zoning

hearing board although the existing sign

is legally non-conforming its height and

size are similar to regulatory

allowances for other types of signs in

the RM district and the proposed sign

does not differ significantly or does

not significantly increase these aspects

uh given the context of the installation

site with the proposed sign located

along a large Frontage and across the

street from a large internally

illuminated freestanding sign that was

approved earlier this year at the Ben

Franklin School it is reasonable to

conclude that the Propst sign will not

create adverse impacts on surrounding

Properties or be contrary to the general

character of the neighborhood uh and the

proposed sign will be more conspicuous

and better identify both the applicant's

location as well as the vehicular entry

point helping to provide safer traffic

circulation for visitors and the General

Public

uh Gary Brinton 105 Holly Hills Drive

Harrisburg Pennsylvania and I

do

I um I don't have much to add except I

hope um we can clearly establish where

the setback should be in working with

our

we'll do that as well make sure that

that occurs and

um I just hope that uh we can get

approval so we can proceed and then

it'll be more attractive and easily to

get to have a lot of people saying we

can't find

you right

and it's mainly just for the planning so

je this one that was in the the uh

exhibit so this would have been

with the application probably later you

know submitt or added that was just

showing you is showing you what these

numbers add up to what I think it is

such as has

24 uh Square ft the total uh it's like

4X six right and it looks to be 7 and

1/2 ft in height so that seems to be

what I'm looking at in this packet seems

to be what what it is so um yeah

and just to make sure that you're okay

as far as with the just that one

condition with it being five five feet

right that's just uh uh right that

that's okay with the applicant as well

just that one thing yep

okay with condition

office from the S the condition stated

in the resolution y

second

I okay

okay so we have 20 application

2591 uh 2537 North fth

Street um and the exhibits are B1 proof

of

publication B2 is a letter sent from the

planning director to the applicant

notifying of the hearing B3 is the

hearing notice posted on the property B4

applicants notification letters to uh

the neighbors B5

application uh with a attachments plans

photos that type of thing B6 is a d to

the property establishing applicant

owners standing to pursue the zoning

relief B7 planning Bureau case report

and B8 city of Harrisburg Planning

Commission resolution so B1 through

ba8 sure uh so the the following three

cases uh although um uh listed

separately as 2591 2592 and 2593 all

involve the uh same applicant the

Harrisburg School District and roughly

the uh similar Sage proposals um and uh

these are relatively similar to uh the

science proposals that as referenced in

the last case uh the boards reviewed and

approved earlier this year uh with

respect to the signage for 2537 North

Fifth Street uh the applicant is

proposing to install a new internally

illuminated freestanding sign which

requires relief from three aspects of

the signage regulations regarding size

height and illumination The Proposal

requires approval of three variances for

a sign larger uh than permitted by W and

that's 33.3 s ft by um versus by right

is 8 square feet sign taller than

permitted by right that's 7.3 feet uh

versus the permitted height of 4 feet

and an internally illuminated sign um

you know I think uh this is very similar

to uh the case for 301 hail Avenue uh

that was reviewed um and is similar in

that the existing um building and the

existing site did not include any uh

signage um or minimal signage both

identifying the property for what it was

and being able to commute uh communicate

information to the to the public uh and

to parents and students um there's

obviously a large uh setback on this

property um with a fenc in yard at the

front and then there's a uh good bit of

space between the sidewalk and that

fencing in which the proposed sign will

be installed um the sign is going to be

facing uh perpendicular to the roadway

so there were some concerns referenced

at the Planning Commission meeting about

potential light spill over onto adjacent

properties um because of the way the uh

sign will be configured uh there will be

no light whatsoever pointed at the um

adjacent properties across North Fifth

Street um um and in fact uh the

illumination created by the signs is

relatively minimal if the um sign at

1012 nor six street is anything to go by

um it's there's not a lot of glare it's

generally pretty contained uh within the

signage face um and so you know we do

not anticipate any adverse impacts like

a internally illuminated light box sign

or something like that that uh that

there would be on adjacent uh

properties that being said uh the

planning

commission is recommending the zoning

hear board approv the request for the

following reasons uh an electronic any

electronic messages displayed on the

proposed sign will conform to the

regulations in section 7-325

.11 of the zoning code regarding light

and glare and prohibited electronically

changing messages uh and then the

applicant will ensure that the sign must

be installed at least 5 feet from the

property line along North Fifth Street

uh planning Bureau uh Planning

Commission recommends that the loing

hearing board approve the request for

the following reason reasons the signage

is consistent with the size height and

illumination of existing of signage

existing at or proposed for other

facilities owned by the Harrisburg

School District ensuring consistency in

messaging across all

properties the signage will be situated

to face Northbound traffic on North

Fifth Street and configured to minimize

or eliminate any potential impacts on

adjacent Residential Properties and

finally the property currently features

no exterior signage which allows the

school district to convey information to

the general public parents and children

the proposed sign will be able to convey

more information about educational and

Community programs activities and

services and enhanced communication

between the school district and the

general

public hi John REI I'm the chief of

operations for the Harrisburg School

District I'm uh Mike Schultz with RPM

signs

you raise your right

hand I

do that's

it yeah really not much more to add uh

but the Harrisburg School District is in

the process of uh wanting to communicate

more to the community we found that the

electronic signs is just another piece

of being able to do that uh being a

important information you know recognize

our students and uh for safety reasons

as well in terms of communicating that

of information

at covered I don't have anything now

uh it's not to my knowledge the school

building itself may be listed on the

national register but the property is

not on any um municipal or national or

nationally eligible historic

districts good thank you

okay

conditions y the conditions of the

planning

second

I thank you all right so

2592 is 1701 North 6th Street

so we got B1 proof of publication B2

letter from the planning director to the

applicant B3 hearing notice posted on

the property B4 applicant notification

letters to neighbors

B5 application with attached plans

photos B6 D to the property B7 planning

Bureau case report B8 is the city of

Harrisburg Planning Commission

resolution B1 through

B8 uh yes so case

2592 um is again a proposal by the uh

Harrisburg School District uh to install

signage uh requiring uh three different

variances uh now this signage is a

little bit different from the last one

uh in that it's uh three wall signs uh

being proposed um and that's probably

necessitated by the fact there is no

front yard uh in which to install any

freestanding signs um and uh the three

variances are are for more signs than

permitted by right and that's three uh

signs proposed versus one permitted by

right uh signs larger than permitted by

right um and that's 88.7 squ ft 103.6 ft

and 105 Square ft and the by signage

area is 10 Square F feet and internally

illuminated signs um so this uh proposal

is for the Hamilton school um and um as

you're probably aware uh having driven

by it um there's very minimal signage

existing there's like very small kind of

light box sign I'm not even sure if the

internal illumination works or not and

then they have a few uh two projecting

banners on either side of the um Central

Courtyard uh that provides access to the

building um and as the applicants have

uh noted in their testimony for the last

case uh their uh intent is really to

standardize their signage across all of

their facilities um and to you know have

The Branding of the of the cougar uh

Academy branding um on their buildings

uh and then the the electronically

changing sign allows them to provide uh

you know information uh to the public um

in uh kind of a differentiation from the

last uh application uh the surrounding

context is of this property is very

different um there are a couple of I

believe vacant buildings directly across

the street and otherwise um surrounding

blocks are are largely vacant um there's

obviously been some recent institutional

developments along the Sixth Street

Corridor um both the uh PA state

archives and the federal courthouse um

and you know they all have um fairly

expansive signage or at least the the

archives does um that you know would not

conform to the zoning code nor would

they have to as as being the federal

government the state government um and

so uh the proposed signage I think will

be in keeping from a size perspective

with other uh properties um in the

corridor uh additionally as the corridor

is developed into the future and there

have already been uh some projects um

both uh proposed approved and uh pending

uh for uh for the Sixth Street Corridor

uh the need for uh more prominent

conspicuous signage advertising the

property and identifying the property

and then conveying information to uh to

drivers um or to people um traveling

down the corridor uh will be made

necessary uh so with that being said the

Planning Commission is recommending that

the zoning hearing board approve the

request with the following conditions

any electronic messages displayed on the

proposed sign will conform to the

regulations in section 7- 32511 of the

zoning code regarding light and glare

and prohibited electronically changing

messages the Planning Commission uh is

recommending the zoning hearing board

approve the request for the following

reasons uh given a lack of any existing

signage on site is reasonable to install

signage larger more numerous and more

conspicuous to identify the site and

communicate with the public uh the

context of the installation site with

the wall signs facing vacant lots and

buildings mitigates potential impacts on

the surrounding Community due to the

internal illumination and finally the

property currently features Obsolete and

insufficient signage for the school

district to convey information to the

general public parents and children the

proposed sign will be able to convey

more information about educational and

Community programs activities and

services and enhance the and enhanced

communication between the school

district and the general

public I have nothing further to that it

was a good

summary is that a real simple question

so with the three signs um I I know the

one is with the push through letters so

the cloud sign just means it's just the

graphic of the sign just that's

illuminated okay all right thank you

no we we were just planning on Sixth

Street as the the Main Street to get the

communication that way out front

might want to do

that the public

right the conditions with the Planning

Commission

y

second

I thank you okay so now 25

93601 State Street

uh exhibits in think B1 proof of

publication B2 letter sent from planning

director to applicant B3 hearing notice

posted on a property B4 applicants

notification letters to neighbors B5

application with attachments the plans

and photos B6 D to the property B7

planning Bureau case report and B8 city

of Harrisburg Planning Commission

resolution okay uh case number 2593

uh so this proposal is um a bit more uh

intensive than uh even the last proposal

um in this case the applicant is

proposing to install uh five new

internally illuminated wall signs uh

which requires uh relief from three

aspects of the signs regulations

regarding number size and elimination uh

proposal requires approval of variances

for more signs than permitted by right

and that's five proposed versus one

permitted by right uh signs larger than

permitted by right um that's 26.5 Square

ft 72.3 Square ft 132.0 ft and two at 36

squ fet uh when the permitted signage

area is 10 Square F feet and internally

illuminated signs uh so this proposal is

um similar to the last one in that both

are uh uh buildings that occupy the

entirety of a block um and so it has

frontages on um multiple rights Subway

um however compared and contrasted to uh

the um case number

2592 uh the applicants in this case are

uh proposing were originally proposing

uh electronic electronically changing

message signs on both uh the North 17th

Street Frontage and the State Street

Frontage and then three different signs

uh advertising the school and the cougar

Academy um in addition to those two uh

the context of the is a little bit

different than a normal building pH or

than a normal sign it's not like a front

yard that's going to be accommoda a

freestanding sign it's kind of a cutout

Notch of the building there um and so

the I think signage um U platforms and

stuff will be a little bit different it

won't just be affixed I think directly

to the wall it'll in fact one of their

signs is like a threedimensional sign so

that'll kind of be coming out and have a

framework behind it um but uh while the

appointing Bureau was supportive of

pretty much all the signs we felt that

only one electronically changing sign

was necessary um for the site um if

that's you know our kind of reasoning

was if it's good enough for the other s

the other school district sites it's uh

sufficient for this site um additionally

uh we were supportive of the other uh

size and design of the other signage

that they're proposing so the issue of

identification uh wouldn't be changed it

would be more of an issue of just

conveyance of information to the to the

general public uh and during the

Planning Commission um uh review the

applicants had um expressed uh uh

concurrence with um the planning

bureau's uh recommendation um but that

still shows up here as a condition uh so

with that being said uh the Zone uh

Planning Commission is recommending that

zon hearing board approve the request

with the following conditions uh any

electronic messages displayed on the

proposed sign will conformed to the

regulations in section 7-325 point11 of

the zoning code regarding light and GL

air and prohibited electronically

changing messages the applicant will

only install one of the proposed

electronic message center boards uh the

planet Bureau notes that the proposed

signage uh significantly exceeds the

allowances for permitted signage in the

ins district and and that there is no

justification for two such signs and

that the signage proposal for a similar

Corner property on a major route at 1701

nor6 Street and again that was case

2592 uh only includes one such sign uh

the Planning Commission uh recommends

the zoning her board to approve the

request for the following reasons given

the lack of any existing signage on site

and the recent establishment or

expansion of an educational campus not

just offices uh so the school district

did move their offices out of that

building um to their new facility on 7th

Street uh it is reasonable to install

signage larger more numerous and more

conspicuous to identify the site and

communicate with the public uh the

context of the installation site with

the wall signs facing a church and a

former charter school and the nearest

resident sitting approximately 200 ft

away diagonally across a large

intersection mitigates potential impacts

on the surrounding Community due to the

internal illumination and finally the

property currently features no exterior

signage which allows the school district

to convey information to the general

public parents and children the post

sign will be able to convey more

information about educational Community

programs activities and services and

enhanced communication between the

school district and the general

public uh really nothing not much

further to add however we did change the

design and now it is there is electron

sign

correct yeah I just trying to make sure

I understood I'm looking at the RPM uh

layouts uh showing the different signs

so it's there's five signs correct there

are five proposed um but we're

recommending that they only have one of

the message board signs instead of

two okay so these

other okay so I just consider one okay

got you okay that was the only question

I had thank you

anybody

second all

right thank you

yep

okay okay so we have right application

2594 26 2 North

Street and the exhibits are B1 proof of

publication Patriot

News November 3rd November 10th 2024 B2

is a letter uh sent from the planning

director to applicant notifying of the

hearing B3 is a hearing notice posted on

the property B4 applicants notification

letters to the neighbors B5 application

with photos of the interior of the

property and the plans for the proposal

B6 is a d to the property

establishing standing B7 planning Bureau

case report B8 is the city of Harrisburg

Planning Commission resolution so we got

B1 through

B8 yes uh so for case number

2594 uh the applicant is proposing to

expand the existing three unit multif

family dwelling through the

establishment of a fourth unit in the

basement uh because the property is

legal non-conforming with respect to the

density a special exception is required

to expand this non-conforming aspect per

section 7-

[Music]

321.com neighborhood zoning District uh

which requires 1,200 sare feet of lot

area per dwelling unit and the uh lot is

actually 111 square feet short of um

doing a bught accommodation of the three

units uh so um it's legally

non-conforming with respect to the

density and because this proposal

um uh or this project proposes to expand

the density um uh non-conformity it

requires a special exception uh had the

structure been um conforming with

respect to the density I think they

would have required a variance and I

think the applicant would have had a

harder uh case to make um for getting a

proposal uh or getting a fourth unit in

the basement uh permitted by right um

however because it is a special

exception that obviously changes in the

criteria and the um standard of proof

that the applicant needs to meet um to

receive approval from the zoning hearing

board uh the property is located um on

the 200 block of North 6 Street besides

mqu um right down the street from um

Elementary uh coffee uh if you're

familiar with uh the property there's

also um a surface parking lot in the

back of this um R buildings and that

surface parking lot is actually on um

part of this property so uh it's both

this row house and the the lot behind it

um and at the uh November 6th Planning

Commission uh meeting uh they testified

that they did have um two um unassigned

spaces uh within that lot uh to

accommodate um the uh any parking needs

from a future tenant of this space uh I

believe they noted that two of the three

um units are occupied by tenants that do

not have vehicles um so there's no

guarantee that a future tenant would

even have a vehicle

um but uh that being said um you know

there's a variety of different uses uh

in the surrounding neighborhood and in

fact a variety of different uh multi

family dwelling um uh buildings um right

across the street I believe there's

eight nine in some of those buildings

and then there's single family row homes

directly adjacent to this property so uh

there are a variety abuses and a variety

intenses of of intensities of

residential development uh in the

neighborhood um um so the proposed uh

installation of a um basement unit um so

long as it's code compliant U building

code compliant should be uh have a

negligible impact on the neighborhood uh

with that being said the Planning

Commission uh recommends the zoning

hearing board approve the request for

the following reasons uh the applicant

must coordinate with the codes Bureau on

any building code requirements such as

sprinkling the basement unit or

providing two code compliant exterior

egresses uh so there is one egress out

the back and I believe the applicants

have indicated their intention to

install a second one like a window well

kind of crawl out from the basement um

if not they could still meet the

building code requirements by sprinkling

uh the basement space if necessary um

and then any proposed exterior

alterations must be submitted to the

planning Bureau for review to ascertain

whether they require harb approval of a

certificate of appropriateness

application uh the Planning Commission

recommends that the zoning hearing board

approved the request for the following

reasons the pl Bureau notes that if the

property were slightly larger the

proposal would require HB approval of a

variance request and that it is unlikely

such a request would be justifiable

however because the existing three unit

configuration is legally non-conforming

the establishment of additional unit

only requires a special exception and uh

because the neighborhood features a

variety of uses including commercial

institutional and the residential units

and residential units of varying

intensity the proposed additional unit

will likely have a negligible impact on

the community

here my name is Conrad Rudy I'm a

partner with seven real estate owner of

the north 262 North uh address is 2939

Maple Road Camp Pennsylvania

71 I

do um so this project was uh born out of

viewing what we saw as just wasted space

um the the basement currently which is

halfway above ground um and has a walk

out basement or a walk out eress in the

back of the property uh is currently

being used for storage and when we walk

through it with the high ceilings that

were available we thought um this is an

opportunity for us to create some uh

affordable and safe

housing um that combined with the uh

parking lot that's attached to the the

property we didn't see any NE negligible

impact in the neighborhood

um we talked to all the neighbors the

adjacent neighbors um personally and uh

they they seem to support the the

project um and if there is any more

concern about the uh the parking there

is also a 24 space parking lot on brid

street that that we share a property

manager with made arrangements if

necessary to

yeah I just had a a general question um

I know you did mention with the uh

development of the unit that there would

be some type of I guess additional I

guess exit point for the the property I

was just wondering are there any other I

guess restrictions um for units that are

considered to be in the basement as

opposed to the above ground um you know

nothing I'm familiar with I'm sure there

are some other building code uh

considerations um otherwise I think it's

probably a personal preference that

whether somebody would choose to live

there or not and uh you know I think um

this is a case of every additional unit

in the city helps uh to to meet uh the

needs and and to provide options to

somebody because this is likely you know

going to be priced considerably cheaper

than the fifth floor of a you know

converted office building for example so

it gives people opportunities to to find

something uh within the community to

continue living

thank

you we're we're looking for fair market

value which is going to be sub 1,000 so

it's 8 to 900 um whatever the market

pairs at that

certain

absolutely

yeah uh what they've they've already

been doing work on the project uh that

we've approved and and for the most part

um all their work is in kind uh

Replacements or um either minimally

visible or not visible from the public

right away for the of some HVAC units um

but if they're proposing I mean the most

conspicuous part of the property is the

front property along North Street I

don't anticipate there being any changes

there that wouldn't be where um any new

egress point from the basement would be

they have kind of a light well in the

back of the building where they'd be

able to install that and that's probably

the extent of the of the major exterior

changes be something like

that uh yeah so uh

with regard to um least the deed that

was provided list a Titania real estate

what is your connection with them that's

a uh that's an LLC that belongs to seven

the the partner group okay so that it's

it's part of the seven it's it's owned

by seven it's owned by seven that's what

I okay

MH yeah yep

m

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e

e e

yes I would like to make a motion uh to

accept application

2594 um with the conditions set forth by

the Planning

Commission

I all

right announc will be our

last hopefully

definitely