The subject properties before the board today were previously zoned RM1 as recently as 2018
and were zoned for multifamily at the time my client purchased these properties in 2016.
On the aerials at Exhibit 8, the board will notice several new developments just to the
rear of this property along North 8th Street. All of these developments are exclusively multifamily.
Further illustrating the mixed character of this particular area, the board will also notice
directly across North 8th Street, as I'll point with my cursor, is a very large industrial use.
The west aerial that I now have up on the screen more clearly shows the adjoining multifamily
properties on North 8th Street, and the property you can see with the little red teardrop.
At Exhibit 14, I have presented some additional street-level photographs showing the existing
condition of these long-time vacant lots. You will again note in these photos the newer
developments immediately to the rear of these two properties. The next photo will give you a better
sense of that heavily industrial use directly across the street.
On the opposing end of North Jefferson, you'll notice the Prestige Pavilion,
which is a mixed multifamily and commercial property. And in the next photograph, you'll
see the subject properties are shown here to the right. And you will also notice the newer
multi-family infill development that is mid-block. Directly across the street here,
you can see with the graffiti on the building, is another mixed multi-family and commercial property.
My client's proposal, I'll bring up the zoning plans, is to consolidate the two lots and erect
a new six-unit dwelling on the new combined property. The zoning plans are up on the screen
at Exhibit 5. We've also included floor plans at Exhibit 6. The proposal will include four
two-bedroom units that are roughly 700 to 850 square feet and two one-bedroom units of around
500 square feet. The trash will be stored in each unit and can be serviced via an
The trash will be stored in each unit and can be serviced via an exterior trash area in the large rear yard.
The elevations that I have up on the screen, also at Exhibit 6, show that the proposal has been designed to be reflective of the style of newer development just two doors away, as well as those just south on North A Street.
Now regarding the refusal, because the properties are currently zoned RSA 5, we are required to seek a variance for the proposed multifamily use.
The applicant submits to a hardship in erecting new single family homes on these lots for several reasons.
First, as shown on the deed at Exhibit 3, my client purchased these properties in 2016 with the expectation of eventually developing a multifamily project on these lots.
The recent rezoning has frustrated that expectation.
More critically, the applicant submits to a hardship, given that the rezoning of this area does not reflect the character of the neighborhood and the existing uses in the surrounding neighborhood.
Notably, the predominantly multifamily and industrial uses surrounding this property would make erecting any single family home on these lots unviable.
unviable. At Exhibit 9, I have included zoning permit history for most of the immediately adjacent
properties, but I've also summarized all of those findings on the exhibit list for
easier reference. As the board can see, nearly every single property surrounding this property
contains between two and five units, including quite a few just north on North 8th Street
that were recently granted variances as a result of the rezoning effort.
Further supporting the hardship presented today is the recently approved project that was granted
variance relief just across the street at 1422 North 8th Street last November.
And for reference, you'll see that that location is noted with my cursor in this existing building, just diagonal on A Street from these properties.
That project was just approved for 62 dwelling units and a vacant commercial space.
accordingly this evidence submitted today establishes that it would be a considerable
hardship to establish any single family use on these properties at this time the proposed six
unit development is most consistent with the multifamily character of the surrounding
neighborhood we also submit the requested variances are the least minimum variance
there are no dimensional refusals associated with this request the density of similar
multifamily properties in the surrounding area ranges from two all the way to 62 units just
across the street. While the area is redeveloping, as you can see in the photographs, the remaining
industrial uses in this immediate vicinity necessitate a higher density proposal to ensure
that these units are marketable and consistent with surrounding structures. We submit that the
proposal will not increase congestion. The property is in a heavily transit-oriented area,
not too far from North Broad Street. Given the vacancy in the immediate neighborhood,
there is still available on-street parking. This proposal will not impair light and air and is
designed to be three stories similar to the adjoining structures. Accordingly, we submit
that the proposal and the requested variance complies in full with the requirements of code
Section 3038E.2. And a full analysis is provided in the memo of law submitted to the board at
Exhibit 10. And at this point, I'll bring up my client to adopt my testimony. Dave, I believe that
you are with us today. If you could raise your hand. Hi, sir. Could you state your name, please,
and spell for the court stenographer? David Ostro, D-A-V-I-D-O-S-T-R-O-W.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed, counsel. Thank you. David, you are one of the members of Terp and LLC, correct?
That is correct. And have you heard all of the testimony that was offered before the board today?
I have. Would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate and would you
I have.
Would you agree that that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt that testimony as if it were your own?
I would.
Thank you very much.
Questions from the board?
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Planning Commission?
The Ron Bednar City Planning property is indicated as residential on the city plan in 2017.
The zoning map was amended single family at this location in accordance with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
The appellant has not shown that the property cannot possibly be used in strict conformity with the code
And that a variance is therefore necessary to enable a viable economic use of the property. City Planning Commission recommends that the zoning variance be denied.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, respectfully, as always, I would I would disagree with that.
And just based on common sense alone, putting legal standards aside, common sense would would dictate that new single family homes are not going to be built across the street from such a heavily industrial use.
It's just not realistic.
So we understand you disagree.
So this case will be resumed on July 26th at 3.30 p.m. for any additional public testimony in light of the discrepancies between the hearing date announced on the record, July 12th, and the hearing notice that was distributed.
Thank you all.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose 3.30 case has not been called?
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I just wanted to note in the last case, we will leave the record open until the resumption hearing in case anybody wants to submit any additional information. Thank you.
Thank you.
Chair, I see no hands at this time.
Thanks, everybody. A little better than last week. Thank you very much.
Good job, Chair.
All right, here we go.
Good night.