Harrisburg Planning Commission Meeting 8/20/24

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

uh you received your July 10th meeting

minutes are there any changes additions

deletions

if not I'd like to get a motion for

approval I'll move to approve as

submitted is there a second second it's

been moved and second for approval of

the minutes as they are all those in

favor state by saying I I oppose

extensions motion

carried under old business there's

none under new business uh item number

one is a lot consolidation on land

development plan application for Capital

Heights phase

three this is Zone RM is followed by

Chris Bryce and David long with Midtown

Redevelopment

LLC is to consolidate Lots across six

separate sites to construct misuse and

multi family blowing structures along

with the seated site and excess in

will be provided in

property project

Isis Street to the South oh thanks uh

and Logan Street to the West

the applicants intend to vacate Jud

alley and consolidate the subject

Parcels into nine separate project sites

that will include seven mixed juice

multif family buildings with site and

access improvements and four Town Homes

two along Logan Street and two along

Clinton Street uh per the development

map in the case report the planning

Bureau staff recommends that the case

that the uh application be approved with

the following conditions uh the

applicants will redesign aspects of the

project which were changed subsequent to

the zoning hearing board approval

including the configuration location of

buildings 5 through 7 and the Logan

Street Town Homes uh or will submit uh

resubmit new zoning relief applications

for such changes and receive approval

from the zhp uh those were based on some

preliminary drawings that were received

by the planning Bureau um in the uh

interim uh the applicants have provided

updated documentation on um some of

those issues uh including the removal of

a floor at Building 7 uh such that um uh

much l zoning relief is necessary uh if

the applicants want to move forward with

the uh uh project as proposed uh the

applicants will redesign the Logan

Street town homes so that the property

at 1640 nor4 Street can be utilized as a

public amend amenity incorporating a

relocated community garden which the

applicants agreed to during the review

of phase one of the Capital Heights

project which included the removal of

the community garden on North Third

Street uh the applicants should design

all the proposed residential units

within the project to be at least

visitable if not fully a Ada access ible

including aspects such as zero step

entries for the proposed Town Homes to

ensure the units are accessible to as

much of the population as possible uh

the applicant should ensure that the new

vehicular access point on Clinton Street

uh features a driveway curb cut design

as opposed to the current Street curb

cut design uh the applicants will

coordinate with the city Engineers

office on new or reconstructed sidewalks

and pedestrian markings such as

crosswalks uh the plan Bureau recommends

that the applicants consider sidewalks

full width of the public right away

Along Hamilton Street and North Fourth

Street specifically and uh the

applicants will should should consider

the inclusion of secure ground floor

bike storage in the proposed apartment

and mixed use buildings and will include

bicycle racks near the entrance of the

commercial spaces and buildings uh 2 3

and four as required per section 7-

327.5 of the zoning code the plan bureo

would recommend that such parking be

located near the main entrance and

sheltered if possible uh the applicants

will provide formal landscaping and

photometric plans to inform discussions

with the City Arborist and to confirm

consistency with the applicable

regulations of the zoning code such as

the fence regulations and the

environmental performance standards the

applicants should consider using native

tree species and pollinator plants and

finally the applicants will coordinate

with the Department of Public Works to

confirm the appropriate size location

and design of refu collection

particularly for the multif family

dwellings and mixed use buildings plan

Bureau staff recommends the request be

approved for the following reasons the

applicants have received approval from

the zoning hearing board where the

various relief requests needed to

effectuate the project as previously

submitted and if the bureau's conditions

are adopted will have met the conditions

of those approvals in the subsequent lot

consolidation and Land Development

submission uh the project will enhance

the character of the neighborhood by

replacing vacant Lots with buildings

that reflect the height massing and

configuration of the surrounding

community and will enhance pedestrian

infrastructure throughout the project

area the proposed residential uses both

the town homes and the apartment

buildings will feature two bedroom units

which are inard which are in higher

demand than some of the studio or

one-bedroom developments that have been

more commonplace in recent proposals and

finally The Proposal will add new

residents to the neighborhood and

activate the street and surrounding

community on nights and weekends and

contribute to a growing customer base to

support local businesses okay thank you

Jeff U could you state your name address

and relationship to the

project Matt long with Midtown

Redevelopment uh Andy George with one

law representing Developers

okay um you gentlemen heard the staff

report um with the conditions are you

acceptable of those

conditions um so uh thank you Mr

chairman by the way um I I don't know if

if uh this board because you've seen

this project on many many occasions

would like a presentation on uh the

project discussion around uh the

buildings and uses and Cly Mr can do

that and then we can talk about the

conditions look we can make things easy

I

mean we'll accept the conditions except

one we'd like to talk about with the

Planning Commission and and I leared

Jeff to some concerns um and we like his

input as well too so would you like a

little presentation for us to talk about

the project do that or we can talk about

the conditions I say since even though

we have reviewed it many times but we

these specific uh project yes we would

like a quick review okay and we do have

amended plans if you'd like me to pass

those

out are those different

from there are some minor um uh changes

in the plans with respect to like I said

U building seven in the original plan

set was four stories and 16 units this

one shows 12 sto or 12 units and three

stories um and a few other changes here

and there um with respect to some of the

building Footprints but for the most

part they're pretty similar I don't

think there's any um substantive changes

between the

two oh and uh two more uh one more

change I should note is buildings three

and four on those new sets do show the

first floor commercial space which the

prior set did not

um they just showed it as being sixun

apartment buildings but they still do

have the first floor commercial

space a quick walk through on the

project is these are the vacant lots and

Capital Heights every one of these is

the vacant lot that's been vacant for

sometime um and part of developments

that were started failed started stopped

failed uh repeat over and over about

four more times these are all infill uh

three buildings are uh very much

infill uh spaces that hit Corner Lots um

that are approximately 30 to 50 ft wide

uh they feature first floor commercial

space with a few apartments above each

uh there's adjacent parking uh to each

building um and then there are three

larger 12 unit buildings uh that span

across bigger lots that are about 200

feet long and about 100 feet wide and

then there's one 8 unit apartment

building uh that sits on a about 100

about 100 foot wide and Watt by about 70

ft deep um

the ldps that you have in front of you

um reflect the zoning that was approved

previously in the layout that were

approved previously with one note on our

zoning plans the language that was

listed was to match existing prevailing

setback on

buildings 5 six and seven or de and

app when we received the paperwork from

the solicitor uh the zoning hearing

board solicitor with the order there was

a note after the order on page 22 that

said instead prevailing to match

existing prevailing setback it noted to

move them to the front yard line this is

the only condition we have an issue with

because if you're on these Lots Folton

Street is very so every one of these

would be pushing against fton street

it's very narrow it's only about 14 feet

the total right away is 20 feet so it

gives you 2 6 in sidewall which isn't

legal to begin with we'd have to have

minimum 3T so we'd already be

encroaching 6 in onto the land to make a

legal sidewalk which is the intent what

we'd like to do is move the buildings

back about four or five feet because

you're going to have 15 135t long

building 3 feet off the road on a 14t

wide Road that's our concern is you'd

have a very

narrow lock a road way with a large

building directly adjacent to it and

then our original plan should prevailing

the prevailing block the only uh

instance of this is the existing town

homes on fton street and they sit back

about 6 feet and that was our original

intent is to sit back about six feet so

you're not crowding this big building

right against the road and there's ample

room on the other side to still maintain

plenty of Green Space facing roads alley

and uh Meer alley

um well I mean as to the zoning hearing

board's decision it is as written and if

it was not challenged by the applicants

that's what the zoning hearing board

decision is and so that's kind of what

the applicants need to conform to now

their point about the narrow sidewalks I

think is accurate if you go out there

they're almost certainly not um you know

compliant with the city standards I'm

kind of confused as to why they were

built that way in the first place um but

if the applic intention is to you know

provide a wider uh sidewalk um for the

general public in front of their

buildings we think that's a reasonable

um uh justification for um some

deviation uh for that uh but if it's

just to put a six yard a six foot wide

yard in the front you know as we noted

during the zoning hearing board uh

reviews and the Planning Commission

review of the zoning relief requests um

you know a lot of times these little

interstitial spaces

become useless spaces they become they

get walked on they just become dirt

patches and they're really not

contributing either to the streetcape or

to the benefit of the tenants of these

buildings whereas if buildings are moved

to the front property line you create

more space behind where they can have I

know patios you know fire pit cornhole

whatever a place to go out and uh um you

know maybe walk your do dog or something

um so in the interest of you know having

a more useful uh property I think and

something that I think does better

conform to the overall uh neighborhood

and they're right that the one row of

buildings across the street uh from site

five uh with the town homes is set back

and frankly I think going out there kind

of proves my point is that some of them

are overgrown with lots and it's because

they those spaces have no utility um and

so I think it would give the overall

project more utility the overall project

sites more utility to have them as close

to the front property line as possible

again if it if the intention is to the

applicant's point to try and provide a

more ADA Compliant path along the front

edges of these buildings that that I

think is a good justification um but if

it's just to have a couple of bushes

that are going to die out in a year and

a half or something I I don't think that

um that's frankly good Urban Design or

would be would make the projects look

better just on we would be perfectly

accept making a majority of it sidewalk

but we' also like to still have some

type of vegetation trees if you walk

around the block if you're walking up

Hamilton or you're walking up Harris you

have tree planters every 15 to 20 feet

that's the type aesthetic we'd like to

keep and we you know most of all we

would like to keep the building back so

it's not crowding the street and you're

not walking down you're not right

against someone's bedroom you're not

right up against the building um so we

definitely are not opposed to making it

a majority sidewalk with the ability to

have tree planers say every

15t

um quick

question Jeff yeah if if if that would

occur I believe that would be consistent

with the zoning code right we wouldn't

be in violation of The Zing code with

that six foot setback and with addition

I think the devil's in the details on

that we really have to see exactly what

that looks like I would not feel

comfortable giving a response without

seeing you know something written with

Dimensions well but if if the cach wrote

five foot or match existing prevailing

set back which that would do if we say

they're five foot then we're matching

the Z directly the point being the zon

hearing board rendered a decision with

their decision written out and so the

project needs to conform to that and

this was kind of the planning bureau's

intent from the get-go last year when we

were reviewing this project is not is

again not to have these small little you

know 3 foot x 3 foot front yards or

whatever it's to have a building that is

reflective of buildings literally

throughout the city um I don't

understand frankly the concern about

crowding the sidewalk when you

know blocks throughout Midtown Uptown

Allison Hill have buildings constructed

right to the sidewalk it is what kind of

defines Urban um streetscapes and urban

spaces is to have this um is to have

buildings fronting these uh uh the

sidewalk and directly accessible um to

the public right away yeah my

understanding of the concern though for

the developers Jeff really is the the

size of the sidewalk of area so um can

we reach a an agreement that expanding

the sidewalk would be good for Ada

purposes um to create some additional

space on the sidewalk for people to move

uh like I said I think then widening the

sidewalks to make them you know five

foot wide or whatever however large uh

wide they end up would be a reasonable

justification for that but um otherwise

I would probably say no okay so if if if

we if

we agree to expanding the sidewalk and

subject

to sta planning staff review prior to

the submission and following the plans

would that be an acceptable condition

that's up to the Planning

Commission if it's for the expansion of

the sidewalk that would be a

justification in my

opinion I'm going to um go to the

Commissioners I have no question at this

time and I'll start with commissioner

old yeah I know at this time right

commission

re these units are mixed income units

yes uh the whole overall project has U I

believe about 14% low income set

aside and the town homes those will be

those those four town homes in this

packet are low it doesn't too

low thank

you uh commission mark

uh thank you yep I'll start with an easy

question what's the uh project timeline

that we're looking

at within a year um and again I always

CAU saying this because as Chris and I

can tell you right now we are still

these are all H um we just got for the

project you heard almost two years ago

to the day uh our plans are sitting

with the codes Bureau and they're also

sitting with h waiting for some

revisions to the contract language and

after 17 months we receive new parcel

ideas So within a year is the ideal

time to break ground or complete ground

break okay all

right um so going back to the

conversation about you know the the

frontage of the buildings on Fulton

Street and setbacks or being right up

against

all do you know Matt what the WID is of

the proposed sidewalk presently is it

like a foot less than a foot the

addition I can't see a diens if you

follow what's there now uh they're two

feet 6 wide they're not even up to code

so if you look at our plans you see

about 6 in on there that's to get them

to Legal width right there I mean these

are they weren't built to code yeah and

they weren't built like anything else in

the city you don't have anywhere that

you have a two foot6 wide sidewalk and

the RightWay is 20 feet you got a 14

foot wide road so right so the side that

bit of sidewalks in the has to be in the

right of way of the road because it's so

yeah so that's not even ADA Compliant

correct at the current Dimension

no but

yet one of the conditions is asking for

Ada comp ADA compliance and visibility

at the highest extent possible so we're

sort

of sort of like double like like it's a

little bit hypocritic we're kind of

going double-edged sword here asking for

one condition but then not really

allowing for the other condition to be

fulfilled it's a little contradictory of

what we really want here yeah and and

like I said I agree that widening the

sidewalks is a is a reasonable

justification I would just like if if it

was just to have the setback with a yard

in front for example I would think that

that would not be you know a reasonable

justification right um yeah I mean I'm

thinking about the ADA compliance

accessibility the desire to allow for a

greater visitability of access of the

sites also the vision zero City plan of

pedestrian priority and

safety um so so that's sort of some

things I'm thinking about I going back

in then the planner thought

um would it be a possibility and a

consideration to sit down with Claire at

crw to

discuss um incorporating some of those

tree Wells and

uh the smaller storm like rain basing

you know rain capture areas you could

incorporate some of those if you went to

a six foot plus sidewalk with um it also

might help with some of your storm water

management

requirements on the

sites some food for thought

for is the condition

one all focused around this chain

that

was there other the condition one was a

little vague to me and that might just

be because I don't remember right the

back and forth well like I said it was

uh related to like the Logan Street Town

Homes were set back um and those in the

initial design and Zoning review were

set against the front yard there was the

additional building on um additional

floor on building seven uh and some of

these have been corrected in the um

revised plans but uh additionally when

the zoning her board does render a

decision if a plan is designed to not be

in conformance with those um conditions

of approval they uh the applicants have

to go back before this actually happened

it doesn't happen often uh but it did

actually happen with the molder Square

project where they moved some of the

units from one of the sites into another

building and the applicants had to go

back to the zoning hearing board and get

relief from the condition the zoning

hearing board applied in that situation

so that's why we want to make sure that

the project is going forward in

conformance with the zoning hearing

board decision sure understood that

makes sense

um my last question is around condition

two what is the intent of the planning

Bureau about redesigning that so that

it's utilized as a public

amenity so that was as as noted in the

condition there that was brought up uh

during the discussion on uh phase one uh

which was um the block along between

Third Street and Logan Street and if the

Commissioners may remember there was a

bit of a consternation uh from some

members of the public about the loss of

the community garden there along Third

Street and uh I mean you might not

remember that it was a while ago and I

think the garden itself has fallen into

some disrepair since then probably due

to the kind of Uncertain nature of where

everything stood there but um as a um uh

as a offset uh the applicants um had

noted and I believe it actually ended up

in some sketch site plan uh that they

would be having the community garden on

the Block to the east in fact I looked

it up uh while doing this case report

and I believe commissioner Merck you had

asked about that and they had said you

know we will provide this Garden um to

the East and I believe it was meant to

be a continuation of a brick sidewalk

that went through the uh block of phase

one and then through this site through

this uh block here alongside the Logan

Street town homs

if I can real quick on that um the size

of the town homes have been increased a

little bit which page are you on so

chp-1

c-1 thank

you so the community garden is still

going to be there um and we will update

the plans to show access to it but it

will be at the the where you see site

Logan Clon yeah that's where that so

what we'll do uh before submission and

we'll make you know send to the planning

Bureau is we'll throw a hatch pattern on

there and show this area is dedicated to

community garden if you look directly

above that there's actually an existing

RightWay there uh and there's a pathway

you you'll see it even indicated uh to

your left there's an existing walkway

there that buts the property so still

have a RightWay access um and then we

will show the portion beyond the

townhouse lot as dedicated to communal

space community garden space so there'll

still be access um we might put a note

on there that the portion of

access

within our land will be updated and

upgraded for easier ease of

access what's that yeah if well if the

intention is to expand that over to

North Fourth Street so that it's

accessible to the public and visible to

the public I think maybe that'd be okay

but to just put a little island in the

center of the of the block that's really

only accessible via the parking lot and

bya a maybe 4 foot wide uh Grocers alley

that runs behind buildings like that to

me does not say welcome Community it

does not say this is a community space

it says you know this is a space that's

really off limits to people and um you

know I don't think that was the

intention uh of the planning Bureau to

accept what they're proposing now um

when we discussed this a year ago uh and

you

know the I'm not sure why the townhouse

is just had to be widened all of a

sudden the ones along um uh Clinton

Street seem to be about the same size as

the lots that are along Logan Street

they've just widened the houses uh and

again post discussion of this with the

Commissioners and with you know planning

Bureau staff and uh you

know I I just think the applicant should

be following through on the commitments

they've made in previous discussions of

this project and phase one of the

project um again maybe it doesn't have

to look quite the same as using the

whole block or the whole property at

1640 North 4th Street for public right

away but you know that was definitely

the

uh discussion point at the last meeting

and um to change that then after the

fact after getting approvals is you know

not something that I think is a good

look um when we're changing the design

to something that was previously agreed

upon the applicant has no issue

dedicating four four feet space to the

north to wider access

which would match the

original well I can't Jim in about that

commentary it's between those

two we no toic it was 4T back so it

would be an 8ft

wide um so you have 7 ft right now

between the two but given up the three

foot set

back think the constract ability on it

this one the house doesn't actually

encroach the whole way so we have room

to run on the side this one there

actually built right onto the property I

wouldn't want to give up to 3 ft there

for constru

giving

thist as a dedicated path or an

EAS which would match the original plan

of the wi walkway I mean I'd really have

to see a

um a site plan of what this is as

opposed to a conceptual discussion um

for me to say whether the planning

Bureau felt that this met the intent of

the discussion at previous

meetings can we the Practical question

you're kind of negotiating sitting here

at the table for something that's not

confronted with the board so what are

you asking the board to do well we just

received these on Friday I'm asking what

are you asking the board to do because

how they something that's not in front

of the PID fuel should be

conditioned asking the bo to add

conditions you're proposing tonight I'm

just trying to get clarity what the

board is going to be es well I think I

think um

there are eight

conditions uh

that came along with the recommendation

from the city I think we're asking that

those conditions this board consider

amending those consistent with the

discussion tonight so so they're very

detailed what you're saying yeah and so

I just the clarity of everybody it has

to be very detailed how this what in

front of yeah and I think that along

with that I would say Neil um because I

think Jeff raises a good point that

certainly if the language isn't

perfected tonight but it comes with a

the plans have to be submitted to

planning stand for approval on on

meeting the conditions being discussed

tonight because I know for instance Jeff

ra a concern with look you're asking me

to say what's the sidewalk going to look

like when it's six foot and I don't have

a plan in front of me I want to see what

it looks like where the planners are you

know I think that's that's reason where

saying look I'll reverse the plans back

and you know provide some sort of easer

right away if that's subject to planning

staff review I think that' be an accept

condition I was just trying to get

clarification

trying I'll leave it to Mr

night at the end of the day I guess my

concern is why this plan does does not

look like what was reviewed and approved

at the zoning hearing board I don't

understand why certain changes are made

like that's the whole point is to say

here's what I'm going to do here's a

zoning relief I need to get to do that

and then here's Land Development plan to

effectuate what I said I was going to do

and now we're getting changes between

what that zoning relief is and now and

you know I there without seemingly

justification there seems to be just

well we decided to make the buildings

wider or we just decided to change this

community space we we told people where

it's going to be here and that is my

concern is that this is done kind of

really like I don't understand why these

things are being made when the whole

point of the process as we go through it

is to say this is what I'm doing here's

the

legal uh here's the legal uh permissions

that I need from the zoning hearing

board and then here is the land

development plan that again accomplishes

what we all talked about during the

zoning relief process and then there's

these changes between and if those if

that wasn't what they intended to build

they should not have brought that before

the board is my concern because now it's

just well we have to do it this way and

it's different than what we said

before Jeff you're saying

that we vote

on your report with the

conditions and they're acceptable of

those that's not changing the plans

right yeah and I and I think there is

some wiggle room here given the

conditions it says you know they'll use

1610 North 4th Street uh for um the for

the community space in the garden and

you can do that without having used that

whole property and still meet that but

if it's just hey we'll give you this 4

foot of space between these two fences

here that the community can walk down to

get to this Garden to me that's not a

community amenity that's not what uh the

intent of that discussion was at the

previous

meeting I just raise the issue then Jeff

is it is

it not consistent with the code and I I

think about both of these issues I

mean a plan may have been presented to

the zoning hearing board for the

purposes of relief but if a subsequent

plan is consistent with the code

regardless of what relief was granted by

the zoning hearing board

why does that matter so for example if

you have a

non-compliant not Ada accessible um

sidewalk you wanted to build back um off

of the street further which you're

permitted to do and these with

zoning and your proposal is to expand

the sidewalk and that's consistent with

the zoning code you don't need zoning

releas so even though zoning human board

may have conditioned something and we

may but that's the thing we may you're

you're bringing these things up now when

it's like okay we're what if we do

something different and I said I said

maybe that's something we can work

through but again I've asked for

drawings I don't have you're asking me

to say yes to things that I can't see

and that's that's why I said I think the

proposed The Proposal then from us would

be there's a list of conditions we'd

like to meet with those conditions in a

different way and we're fine if the

condition is that there have to be plans

submit to you planning staff for that's

part of the approval tonight we would

accept that as a

condition again I if if they want to if

the board wants to say we are fine with

adopting these with that condition that

the plan will meet planning Bureau

approval I guess it sounds like you're

asking then if I say well I don't like

this are you going to say you know well

we can do it anyway because what you

asked for is not in the is not

likei you have to approve it so again

you know may I real quick we're we're

going onto a long drawn out conversation

here and what I'd like to go back to is

we got two items we're talking of the

community garden and we're talking about

the

side the proposal that we're asking for

tonight is very clear and doesn't

deviate from the zoning plans it

deviates on language that was adopted in

the order that's open for interpretation

like

they're Illustrated in front of you is

the setback that we're requesting Jeff

is saying it would be acceptable if it

was presented as concrete as a sidewalk

that is our proposal it's that that's

where we're at it' be proposed as

concrete there there's nothing more and

then on the community garden I will note

that the community garden was never in

the Zoning for this phase it was in the

Zoning for a prior phase it was not in

the zoning for what is approved and what

is in front of you what is depicted in

front of you in these drawings matches

the two six of 23 drawings that were

submitted and approved by the zoning

hearing board and this Planning

Commission last year it would still

allow for the community garden and we

are willing to take the additional space

that is not required for the homes and

dedicate that we have two things change

to concrete

and add the additional space to make it

more welcoming as you walk down to the

community

garden I I would argue that the plans

here do not match what was shown to the

zoning hearing board if they did it

would have been brought up at the former

meeting they and the applicants admitted

they they changed the configuration of

the of the roow of the Logan Street row

homes I'm just I'm just asking people to

be consistent when they come before the

boards and say Here's what I'm going to

do if then if they then follow up and do

not do that then you know that is that

creates a problem for me that creates a

problem for me because they've sat in

front of the board and in front of the

public and said we're willing to do this

and especially in regards to the

Public's concerns about the loss of the

community guard say we hear you we're

going to do this for you and now later

they come back and say we're not going

to do it that way and to me that's a

that's a concern that is a concern to me

and I I don't know if it's a question

per se but in the spirit of yeah

continuing to try to refocus and narrow

down I just wanted to share that it did

sound to me earlier having to do with

the setbacks and the sidewalks that a

wider sidewalk which I think everyone

agrees is a good idea could be a

justification for that I guess slight

change to condition number two does that

and I'm not saying and when I said that

I'm not saying I would prove it because

again I have to do this in conformance

with the zoning hearing

board so I was not if if it came across

as that as I was saying like yeah i'

sign off if you change this because I

like the thing you're doing like that

was not my implic it's not my intention

I I appreciate that and I'm not trying

to pass the buff on that I guess I would

share my view that I think I would

Elevate the concern about getting those

sidewalk width up to the legal standard

and hopefully a little bit you know to

be

the elevating the elevated concern in my

mind so I would view that as a

justification for the the piece of that

that we were talking about first I I

know that we were talking about a second

thing as well but I guess I would share

that with the commission at this point

and maybe defer to others who were

around for the first

uh on the community garden piece of

it I know it's not a question but I

wanted to put it in the room

um I'll go around with the Commissioners

after we heard more

discussion commission

have okay I'm still trying to clarify

with you Jeff if

you're I'm that if we

approve the uh project with your

conditions then you're

saying they are in compliance with what

was the zoning hearing board that would

be correct I mean that's basically what

the condition says is you will be in

compliance with the zoning hearing board

decision

I'll go to the public first and then

come back to Mission is there anyone in

the middle war against this

project one to my right

hi I just I'm sorry I I'm sorry my

concern is that

um are we deciding that the changes made

here are minor in nature or adjustments

or correction because if not and if not

if it's not going to match exactly with

the zoning hearing board said then

changes to approv plans need to go back

to the zoning hearing board so I'm

trying to figure out if if Jeff you're

making decision

that if it's not required it's because

it's from minor technical adjustments or

Corrections of information that do not

affect the significant features of the

site plan and the intensity of use as

determined by the zoning officer so are

you telling them that if you accept the

conditions that you're saying or leeway

that you're saying are they sticking to

the Z zoning hearing board's decision or

are they making changes that should be

sent back to the zoning hearing board if

the conditions as outlined in the case

report are adopted it would be in

conformance with the zoning hearing

board decision I mean even with I hear

you saying like well there could be some

leeway like I'm not sure no I'm saying

that might be a justification for moving

the building back but that's not saying

like I'm authorizing you to do that and

there could even be could moving the

building back a minor technical issue or

is

that how I think there needs to be legal

interpretation of you know what I'm

saying like if you're saying if he could

move the building back are you saying

that that would be a minor technical

adjustment or correction from what

zoning hearing said I don't know what

minor technical adjust I mean those are

I I don't even think that's the issue I

I I think that I'm saying I think the

issue is that if you're not approving

what the zoning hearing board already

approved

then it's problematic and I I disagree

because the zoning hearing board didn't

approve Land Development plans that's

not their job what their job is to Grant

relief and the issue that we're

discussing um doesn't go to us asking

our client asking for Relief out of the

zoning hearing code what I'm saying is

that and I I indicated this earlier the

plans that we're submitting which have

the additional sidewalk are consistent

with the Z we don't need relief

in order to submit those plans to Jeff

and say to

Jeff we'd like to have a bigger sidewalk

and build a bigger sideb this is

consistent with the

code we staff approve the plans it's not

his only hearing Court issue at that

point I'm I'm saying changes to an

approved

plan dimenions match exact the

dimensions match exactly what was

submitted for the zoning hearing board

to the team I just looked up 44 feet

rear yard setback we have 44 feet and

and it showed a 5 foot but it said to

match prevailing which would be if you

go by matching

prevailing would be the six foot setback

already

established I think there may be with

respect to the sidewalks maybe some to

your point about being a minor technical

issue uh if the space there in the

setback was used for a sidewalk that

would be considered development still if

somebody does a parking lot and they

build it to to the property lines we

consider that a development that

encroaches into a setback so that would

still be considered development would it

be the Building Development you know no

but it would be a development footprint

of a building like there I think you

could make an argument that that's a

technical issue in that case you know if

if we're trying if we're trying to look

for like whether this conforms to like

the zoning code Andor conforms to the

zoning hearing board decision and saying

like well if you're moving that back

then you're not conforming to the zoning

hearing board decision that's still a

development encroachment into the foot

pack into the setback it's still

development up to the property line it's

just used for a sidewalk instead of the

building so I think in that Spirit of uh

what miss Cameron is saying that could

be considered a minor technical

alteration

um Commissioners there's any other

comments but uh at this time I like to

get a motion to

approve the project with the conditions

[Music]

if not I need a

[Music]

motion another motion

trying to

think um

I would make a motion to

approve with the conditions amending

condition

one to I'm trying to think how to word

this to State how uh to state

that buildings 5 through 7 in the Logan

Street Town Homes will be in zoning code

conformance

I think that would address what we're

discussing about

this is there a second

one yeah a

second with with with the well I don't

need to make a notation but with the

understanding that that result to be

approved by the reviewed by the the

planning bu Bureau I should add that um

statement as well to condition one

seconded the moov and second for

approval with the

amended one yeah all those in favor

state by St

I I opposed

okay we're go to item number two

then item number two is uh by

consolidation and land development plan

application for Marketplace Midtown

which is Zone RM it's followed by Chris

Rice and David long with Midtown

Redevelopment

LLC and it's to consolidate lot to cross

seven separate sites to construct initia

commercial and multi family dwelling

structures along with ass s

excise uh yes so the applicants are

proposing to consolidate Lots across

seven separate sites to construct mixed

use commercial and multif family

dwelling structures along with

Associated site and access improvements

three of the project sites will be

developed as row homes three will be

developed as multif family dwellings one

of the sites will be a mixed juice

building one of the sites will be a food

Hall and three will be developed as

accessory parking for the proposed

residential and commercial buildings uh

the six space 8 space and 43 space

parking lots in total there will be 62

units across 23 individual buildings and

approximately 5,500 Square ft of

commercial space uh similar to the last

one I'll just read the general property

description um as opposed to the

description of each individual site uh

the project is comprised of uh

51 separate vacant Parcels the applicant

the applicants intend to both

consolidate and subdivide the subject

Parcels into 11 separate project sites

that will include mixed use multif

family buildings with site improvements

town homes and a food Hall per the uh

attached development

map the Claim Bureau staff recommends

the request be approved with the

following conditions uh the applicant

should design all of the proposed

residential units within the project to

be at least visitable if not fully Ada

Ada accessible including aspects such as

zero step entries for the proposed Town

Homes to ensure the units are accessible

to as much of the population as possible

uh the applicants should ensure that all

new vehicular access points feature a

driveway curb cut design as opposed to a

street as opposed to a street curb cut

design

uh the applicants will coordinate with

the city engineers's office on new or

reconstructed sidewalks and pedestrian

markings such as crosswalks planing

Bureau recommends that the applicants uh

specifically consider full width

sidewalks on the public RightWay along

cder Street and North Fourth Street uh

the applicant should consider the

inclusion of secure ground floor bike

storage in the proposed apartment and

mixed use buildings and will include

bicycle racks near the entrances of the

commercial components of the project is

required by section 7- 327.2 of the

zoning code plane Bure would recommend

that such parking be located near the

main entrance and sheltered if possible

the applicants will provide formal

landscaping and photometric plans to

inform discussions with the city rbur

and to inform consistency with the

applicable requirements of the zoning

code such as the fence regulations and

the environmental performance standards

and finally the applicants will

coordinate with the Department of Public

Works to confirm the appropriate size

location and design of refuse collection

particularly for the multif family

dwellings and mixed use buildings uh

plan Bureau staff recommends the request

be approved for the following reasons

the applicants have received approval

from the zoning hearing board for the

various relief requests needed to

effectuate the project as proposed and

has met the conditions of those

approvals in the subsequent lock

consolidation and Land Development

submission the project will enhance the

character of the neighborhood by

replacing vacant Lots with buildings

that reflect the height massing and

configuration of the surrounding

community and with commercial space

tailored to small businesses similar to

those along nor Third Street and will

enhance pedestrian infrastructure

throughout the project area the proposed

residential uses both the town homes and

apartment buildings will feature two

bedroom units which are in higher demand

than some of the studio one-bedroom

developments that have been more

commonplace in recent proposals and

finally The Proposal will add new

residents to the neighborhood and

activate the street and surrounding

community on nights and weekends and

contribute to a growing customer base to

support local

businesses thank you Jeff uh gentlemen

you heard the staff report are you

acceptable of those comms yes

Commissioners I have no questions um if

you have any concerns or questions and

let's start with commissioner I have

none commissioner re none commissioner

mer uh just one similar question to

before what is the project timeline on

this proposal uh the same the goal on

this one actually is uh very aggressive

we

hope if approved and reported uh to

break ground on parking the main parking

lot the market building in the towns

soon as possible ideally we've been

talking March or

April hope to get the marketpl building

done before the

market think that may be

likely at this at the rate the city's

going uh I have no other questions

Joe no questions thank you okay is there

anyone from the public for against this

project start the

middle to my right would you state your

name and

address uh my name is Dylan Ziggler my

address is 1422 fton Street I think this

project is

surrounding area um is there green left

in any of these

areas um is that proposed in the project

because I live in this area um most of

the lots that I think because I couldn't

get any information as to exactly which

lots are in this area um those lots are

used by families in this area um it's

not quite the

same those lots don't look the same as

the ones that are up farther north on

Four Street that your other project that

you're doing um these lots are kept

really nice there are family that play

in those yards um in those empty lots

specifically the ones that have grass um

specifically the one that's next to the

church on Maran Street um so I just want

to know if there is any green space left

because now we're turning all this green

space into parking

lots um so these are all inil Lots uh

have you had a chance to look at the pl

directly I have not had any

okay yep and I will absolutely give you

a set here um so a lot of these Lots so

like what we're proposing right now U so

you said 1422 so that that's right at

the corner before the green lot that

sets on Ral correct okay so that lot's

not in the proposal right now just

saying that that's

a yep um so the uh most of these town

homes so there're say I believe we're

consolidating one two 3 four five so in

an area we looking to build seven town

homes or six town homes there was seven

lot previous uh part the planning Bureau

recommendation we're holding them as

close to the road as possible now these

houses are all going to have little

yards in the back um the apartment

buildings will have on one of them will

have green space out back so if you're

going

up fer the one on Maring there'll be

probably

give you an idea of 20 foot that opens

up to about 26 feet by 100 plus feet

will still be

green correct yeah yeah this is all in

fill I mean they're

smaller best we

can trying not to take it

every there is you there is no Act

[Music]

next

that also thaty Street was very

dangerous that not people down that

street as someone with a small

child

child so use specifically C Street

because that is way less traffic got

nice shade trees

actually one second I just want

we like to talk you afterwards because

there is a lot right on the corner of

Maran that it's really nothing to be

built

there

and Y and kind of meeting with you and

some residents in the HOA there even too

uh to discuss plan

for that's

okay thanks for your question

um and I was going to recommend you two

getting together but seems like you s

came to

AG okay

Commissioners any

other questions or

concerns if not could I get a motion

conditions is there a

second I'll second it's been moved and

second for approval of this project uh

with the conditions all those in favor

state by saying I I I

oppos

extensions thank you thank you

uh

Jeff you

have you have any other any other

business uh there is no other business

no

Commissioners could you guys

sorry gentlemen meeting is not over

um is there anything good for the good

of the

W not could I get a motion for

adjournment so moved is there a

second

second

stand give that to