With that, we were able to get rental licenses and move forward, and we've been able to continue with that.
However, as we're doing due diligence, because this is all under one ownership, we realize that we need to make sure that everything is in compliance.
Again, there are no violations on any of these properties.
We just know that we are out of sync to what once was R-10 to now what is RM-1.
So with that, we did get a special exception.
We got referrals for all 14 structures.
And if I can share my screen, I would just like to go over what our applications consist of.
So we submit it. Again, thank you for allowing us to present. We are in the process of getting our tax clearance certificates, and we will present them shortly after the record is closed for today.
We have deeds, right? But I also want the board to take notice of what's our Exhibit 5. It's a history of the properties in the area, especially located next door or close by to our subject properties.
You can see that there is a ton of multifamily. There's a ton of high-density uses there.
Also, with Exhibit 6, I just want everyone to take notice that the block with these properties
are showing the same amount of density.
And let me just switch to what are...
And excuse me for the squeaking noise.
I have a puppy who is very active right now.
So let's start here to give the board a nice orientation.
So 1545 Page Street, we are looking for four individuals there currently occupied, but the rule is three unrelated, so that's why we're seeking our special exception.
1522 Fountain Street, the same issue. It's a single-family home, three unrelateds are allowed. We're asking to increase our density by one.
1713 West Montgomery to three family dwelling. Again, three unrelated are allowed. However,
we're requesting to increase our density by two units. And you'll see similarly as I go through
the list, the density is not necessarily taking five pounds of sugar and adding it to a one pound
the back. If you could see with 1713 West Montgomery Avenue, it is a 3,700 square foot
building. And we have one-for-one bathrooms in this building. Same, very similar to 1828 North
16th Street, we are looking at a 3,300 square foot building. Same with 1812 North 16th Street,
we are looking at a 2,700-square-foot building, saying 1,800, 18th Street, a 3,400-square-foot
building, a 3,800-square-foot building for both 1922 and 1924, 17th Street. Again,
1926, North 17th Street, and 1928, North 17th Street, over 3,900 square feet.
1930 North 17th Street, over 3,800 square feet, and 1934 North 17th Street, over 4,000 square feet.
Similarly, with 1940 North 17th Street, over 4,000 square feet, and for 2005 North 17th Street, 2,400 square feet.
with with all of this you know we can go over the floor plans but in essence the the the buildings
are a are in existence they've been existence since prior to at the time when everything was
They've been in existence since prior to, at the time when everything was zoned R-10.
And again, my apologies for the...
So we're looking at standard bedrooms, common area spaces,
um where where there's storage there's commercial trash pickup um for the the buildings that are
that are um that are in greater density uh we have multiple bathrooms for for each of the units
and the residents. So common living is the nature living around temple. You have the dormitories,
you have the apartments. This is very similar. So even though we're asking for density,
we believe that we're not creating any significant impact to the surrounding area.
So if I can want to show the maps, here is our zoning map.
Highlighted in red are our properties.
So as you can see, everything here is RM1.
You have 2005 North 17th Street.
You have the properties on 17th Street.
everything is arm one and we're we're literally we're no more than one block away from the spins
district which encompasses temple university also what i want the board to note is that the
the lower north district plan put together by the planning commission part of its 2035
comprehensive plan. I want to make note that this dark gold color makes reference to residential
high density. And as we flip through and look for our area, we're near Temple's main campus
In black, everything here fits that high-density recommendation that the Planning Commission suggests.
We have aerials.
Again, just in terms of if the board is concerned about rental versus home ownership, because we are very near Temple,
there's a ton of rental space here. Now, we have several photos of the various properties.
Again, this is just a four-bedroom, one-bathroom property. We're looking at four-bedroom,
two bathroom. This is 11 bedrooms, 11 bathrooms. And if you can see, it is the largest building,
largest structure on the block. That's the aerial. And then we're looking at a fairly
new construction, 11 occupants, 11 bedrooms, seven bathrooms. As you can see, the commercial
trash pickup is there. Again, we're looking at eight bedrooms, six bathrooms, eight bedrooms,
8 bathrooms, 10, 10, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, 11, I feel like I'm on a time loop, 11, 11.
Again,
We're looking at all of these structures that are already in existence, very much near Temple University.
Our interiors, you know, again, these properties have not been cited for any violations.
We comply with the building code.
There are no issues outstanding.
there are no issues outstanding again we're coming before the board because we in our due diligence
Again, we're coming before the board because
we realized that we needed to reconcile the fact that we're no longer r10 and we have to be
compliance with rm1 so with that all the properties had are occupied they have students
and they did accommodate us
as we went in to take photos.
It's very similar to dorm life,
but there, again,
there's no overcrowding of the space
or of the structures.
No overcrowding.
that's photos of the notice that we that the postings that we made
apologies
So with that, I am actually submitting that we, because we do not have any impact to the
resources, to the manner in which we use the property, the manner in which that the level
of density that we're requesting, given the fact that we are requesting this density,
we're submitting that we are in no way creating a negative impact with the surrounding area.
We did meet with the community, and in meeting with the community, I think we all know that there's always town gown issues, but given the fact that this particular property owner, my client, he has been steadfast to always make sure that he satisfies any community concern.
Again, if we look at the photos beyond the notice, the exteriors, there's always issues about trash.
There's always issues about the students throwing away trash.
My client, he takes pride in his properties.
He engages with the community.
He engages with his tenants, and he tries to ensure that they are good neighbors as well as good tenants.
So with that, I do believe we did meet with the RCO.
I believe that there were two RCOs that were suggested we meet with.
And I believe you have a letter from Beach Corporation, I believe.
And with that, they did make a request that we comply with things that are beyond the application.
but we're we we can't help him in that respect but nonetheless the the the presentation that
we made with with the rcl they did agree that my client was one of the better ones but if not the
best and we and he continues to engage in the community so if there's any issues they can call
him he's always made that effort and and we are more than happy to answer any any questions that
the board may have thank you any questions from the board yes mr chairman i have two questions
one is what is the hardship and my second question is
you're requesting
the code under which you're requesting
is single room residence.
Is that correct?
That is how
That is how LNI is defining it. And let me just back up for a moment. So your first question is, where's the hardship? You know, respectfully, we were given referrals for all 14 structures. We weren't given a refusal.
LNI is defining it.
And let me
let me
So, and that, of course, just to put on the record, because it's a special exception, it is allowed, but the board is just obligated to see what kind of impact with resources may occur.
And what we're suggesting is that we have no negative impact. We don't burden any light or air. We don't burden the community with our trash because we have commercial trash pickup.
But because we rent to students, we don't have issues that one may have if this was single-family homes with cars parking all over the place because we have the increased number of long-time residents.
What we do have, we have structures that are abutting Temple University that have been long used by students, and we are in the position now to seek the legalization of what our historical uses have been.
thank you but your zoning notice refers to single family residents
correct i i i believe the zoning notice refers to single occupants yeah not single family so yes
single okay single room resident yes okay now with single room residents private bathrooms
are not permitted and I'm looking at the 1713 Montgomery floor plan there are several private
bathrooms and and that we are in compliance with the building code we if L&I the these plans were
submitted to L&I and had they I believe I don't think they missed it I believe they interpreted
that so long as this is already in existence, it's allowed.
But it's still private bathrooms
since you have to go through a bedroom to get to a bathroom.
I don't think with all the properties, it's like that.
You know, the 11 bedrooms with 11 bathrooms,
I believe that is each bedroom has its own bathroom.
I only have plans for about 10 and most of them are you have to go through the bedroom
to get to the bathroom.
Let's go over.
look at 1713 montgomery avenue i'm trying to call it up now
would the board just indulge me for a moment i just have to deal with this puppy hold on
Thank you.
Excuse me, sir, you're still muted.
1713 Montgomery Avenue.
Just to walk through, we have the first floor here showing utilities.
we have the first floor apartment a um the next level you have a bathroom
you see that you have to go through the bedroom to get to the bathroom so they become private
bathrooms yes i'm looking at bedroom two you have to go through the bedroom this
looks like it's a bathroom dedicated to bedroom one when i look at bedroom three
i see a bathroom dedicated to bedroom three i look at there's a door entry and that bathroom has
has a door immediately next to the entry i'm looking at bedroom one
and it looks like it's a bathroom
dedicated to that bedroom.
And what I see similarly
to the second floor
is that we have a bathroom,
bedroom one has a bathroom dedicated
and bedroom two,
there's a bedroom door
and then immediately to the right
is a bathroom that's dedicated
And bedroom three, I see the same.
And with bedroom, the third floor, I see bedroom one, dedicated bathroom.
Bedroom two, dedicated bathroom.
Bedroom three, dedicated bathroom.
And same with bedroom four on the fourth floor and bedroom five.
so i i and again right i i would like the board to also be mindful that the a single room residence
right my understanding of the code is that it's a building containing a room rented as living
quarters without a private bathroom and and that will be something where where you will find that
in a dormitory. You'll find it in rooming houses. You will find it in supported living
facilities, whether it's a nursing home or some sort of health care home. And that's not what
we're suggesting here. We're suggesting that these are students that are living together.
They do share common areas, but in some of the structures, they actually will share the bathroom. Other structures, they'll have their own bathroom.
So under no circumstance are we creating a dormitory-like situation, but what we are doing is creating an environment where students can live together.
And again, what we're seeking is a slight uptick in our density because we have had a long history of using the property as presented.
And we believe that by doing so, by granting our special exception, it's being done so without any impact to the nearby neighbors or to the overall neighborhood.
Why? Because we are right next to Temple University.
And again, had we been R-10 still, this wouldn't be an issue.
But because the RM-1 took out this distinction, we're coming back to try to put the structures in compliance.
Solomon, any further questions?
Well, just that single-room residents do not permit private bathrooms, and most of your buildings have private bathrooms.
So, I don't know if you're going to do a revision on the floor plans, or you're just submitting them as is.
a revision of the floor plans, or are you just submitting them as is?
What we're saying is that, and our position is that, we're not a single room resident.
What we are, we are group living, and we are very similar.
And what we're looking to do is increase our density.
That's basically what it boils down to.
Well, group living, single room residence comes under in the code under group living.
I understand.
And that is actually an issue that we argue with L&I because that distinction was made before the code.
And here we are, you know, we are now no longer in compliance, so to speak, because group living is now being mixed in with defining single room residence.
And that has created a whole mishmash.
And I predict that this board is going to be dealing with this issue when it comes to this type of use.
at, that are at or near institutions.
I'm telling you, this has been a long story,
one of the issues that the Zoning Code Commission
should have addressed,
but nobody can think this far into the future.
Thank you.
Thank you, any further questions from the board?
anyone else like to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
so chair um miss mary jones has her hand raised i will allow her to speak at this time
good morning miss jones please identify yourself and i'll swear you in
yes good morning board uh mary jones um council president daryl clark city hall room 494
are firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do
yes um well the um council president is opposed to the granting of these special exceptions to
legalize these structures um the there is a concern um that many of these are new construct
newer construction and they were overbuilt purposely and now we're trying to come into
compliance. Through reports from the RCO, we have complaints of these illegal uses over the years,