Just wanted to point out for a point of clarification here.
you know there are basketball courts adjacent to this property but this is not at all affecting
them this is not any sort of closure of basketball courts this is the grassy lot adjacent to those
recreational courts so there's no sort of impact or any sort of you know demolition or encroachment
on those existing basketball courts those all you know remain the same this is the the two grassy
lots adjacent to those courts. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Kara Rennert with her hand raised. I will now do the speak.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, Kara Rennert, K-A-R-A-R-E-N-N-E-R-T.
That's right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
my testimony pertains to two things um the first thing is the driveway flare and apron
the plan that we looked at a few minutes ago for 423 powleton shows an encroachment of two feet
into the right-of-way of 4221 powleton which is my house via that driveway flare and apron
both streets and ellen i reviewed the plans and confirmed to me via email that it does not follow
code and is not permitted um streets stated that in order to approve that variance uh permission
is quite required by the owner of 4221 paladin to approve the encroachment of the driveway flare
and apron uh streets stated that without that permission the driveway and flares need to be
redesigned to show no impact to the adjacent property owner's sidewalk or property frontage
so I'm the owner of that property and I do not give my permission for any encroachment whatsoever
to my property frontage so Mr. Chairman if I could quickly reply um we obviously I mean I'm
a real estate attorney rule number one we do not build encroaching features into other people's
property it's it shows it shows directly Ms. Renner let him let him finish and I'll give you
chance. Go ahead. To the extent, and I would, Mr. Dry, by the way, who you heard from a moment ago
is our project architect, to the extent that his drawing accidentally shows part of the driveway
apron, which by the way, is just a depression in the sidewalk on the adjacent property. When we go
through the full streets review, which we haven't yet, you go through a zoning level streets review,
But after we get our variance, we must go through a full streets review before getting a building permit.
Streets will not approve anything that encroaches on a neighboring property, and we will make revisions accordingly.
I can assure you that we will not obtain a building permit for or do any building outside of our property lines.
That is a promise, and that should not impact your ability to grant zoning variance.
Renter, do you hear the comment?
Ms. Renter? Unmute, please. Yes, sorry. I did, yes. Okay. And the city surveyor has come out and
marked the points of the property so we know where that line is because it does go over my gas line.
Um, because it does go over my gas line, um, other sort of just to, uh, reply to, uh, Brandon's
Okay. Other
comments in the beginning about sort of the desolation of the area. I just would say that
that's not true. We have a, an active basketball court next door and the lots that he's referring
to were owned by the Wilkerson family prior to selling them to Ludwig, which Saki purchased
them from. So the Wilkerson family used that lot, both those lots. There's pictures on Google to
show it. It was part of that whole family unit. And the church on the corner is the Presbyterian
Church, which is a historical black church. So it's not an area that's been unable to be developed.
It was actively lived in and used until those lots were separated and sold. Okay. Thank you
for your input and calling in.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No further answer, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, sir.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
Do the architect have a site plan that he can put up?
Can you show on the screen the site plan?
Yes, Mr. Holloman.
One moment, I'll get it up on the screen
and if we could allow Logan Dry to speak again.
let's see so the zoning plan is um logan i have you tell me what would help you i have
your zoning plan and the uh survey as well i'm figuring the zoning plan is what you need but
let us know yeah i mean if you want to zoom in so mr holland can see and again this was
reviewed by streets department and approved as part of the prerequisite for the zoning under
Streets Department Review SR 2022-016-011. So if anything's changed since then, as far as the
Streets Department's rules or approval standings, then, you know, I wouldn't know about that at this
point, but this is what we submitted. Streets Department, and they reviewed it and approved
it prior to the L&I examiner completing their review and issuing the refusal.
all. And Logan, can you reaffirm that this is going to go through an even more thorough second
review before a building permit is obtained? Is that right? Yeah, I mean, they'll have to do a
building prerequisite review as well. So if the streets department at that time, you know, provides
an alternate curb depression that, you know, they feel is a better solution to any sort of conflicts
there might be with perhaps stuff that's in the sidewalk, then that would be something to lend
You know, find. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like to recommend this. Thomas, I am going to do that. Thank you.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
No one else, Mr. Chair.
um planning commission it's uh ron bednar city planning property is indicated for residential
and the city plan or adopted district plan recommends no change the existing residential
zoning at this location the applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique
physical circumstances or condition of the property that would prevent it from being
used and conforming with the code therefore we recommend request for vans not be granted
thank you mr chairman um brief response to that is that okay yeah go ahead okay um the last thing
i just want to point out because we have the site plan on the screen i i would ask the board um to
note the difference um the the degree of width of um the property that we are proposing and again
that this really was to enable a project that can fit parking in the rear which was a desire
of the community. And if you need any clarification on that setback issue, this site plan, which you
have in your packet, it sort of shows you that we really are lining up fairly closely with the way
the neighbor's house is arranged on the property. I believe we have a hardship because this is the
the most modest thing we could do beyond building single family homes and the single family homes
right now just don't pencil out. That's it. All right. Mr. Saver, we're going to hold this vote
for two weeks. Okay. We'll vote at two o'clock. But in the meantime, I would appreciate if you
could notify the council person's office, Mr. Goodman. Yes. To see if they have a response to
that yes yes and and i assure you i already have hold up hold up hold up sure and so is
Yes. And I assure you, I already have. Hold up, hold up, hold up.
And so as soon as you have that, I would appreciate you could send that to our council.
OK. And one way or the other, if you're not going to have a letter, then let her know that council person is not going to take a position.
OK. And I'm going to close the case, except for the meeting at the executive session that we have.
OK. OK. Thank you. All right. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
Number nine, MI-2022-007-640-175 West Oxford.
Catherine Mismer is the attorney.
Support from the RCO.
Letter of non-opposition from Council Member Lozada.
good afternoon counsel could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
yes katherine k-a-t-h-e-r-i-n-e missomer m as in mary i s as in sam s as in sam i m as in mary
er 1835 market street suite 1400 19103 you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and
nothing but the truth i do um could you identify your client the relationship to this property
Yes, I am here on behalf of Northern Star Developments, LLC, owner of the property.
Okay, our vice chair has just a few questions.
Paige?
Yes, good afternoon, counsel.
So do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, sir, I have.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you. And are you seeing my screen?
We can.
Great. Thank you.
As mentioned, my name is Catherine Missimer.
I'm here on behalf of Northern Star Development, LLC, owner of the property at 175 West Oxford.
We're here today with an application for a partial demolition of a previously proved addition to a warehouse building, the addition of a non-accessory roof deck, I'm sorry, a non-residential roof deck, and the change of use to an educational facility.
With me today is the owner's representative, Kelly Fox, project architect, Jeff Watson, as well as our prospective tenant, representative, Steve Kersman.
As you can see, this project has the support of the Coordinating RCO, South Kensington Community Partners.
This lot fronts on Oxford, Hancock, 2nd, and Turner Streets.
You should be seeing a site plan as soon as it reloads.
And you'll note that this is part of a larger development project.
Some of you may recall this project came before the board a few years prior to the pandemic.
This was a mixed-use development, including a ground-up mixed-use building here, as well as townhomes here.
But the focus of today's discussion is the existing warehouse building that's located here at the corner of 2nd and Turner Streets.
Following the pandemic, the property owner determined that the prior use that was approved as part of the larger development for this existing warehouse building,
which included both ground floor vacant commercial space as well as office space and additional
residential units wasn't as practical um in the post-pandemic world so that's what's bringing us
back today um with respect to just this this particular portion of the prior project again
it was approved for a two-story addition to the existing building the proposal was to do ground
floor commercial, office space in between, and then residential units above.
Property owner committed to preserving the warehouse, but again, following the pandemic,
alternative uses seem to be a better fit.
Today's proposal is the reduction of that previously approved addition.
So rather than the two-story addition that was proposed, you'll see that in yellow here
on the left, what we're currently proposing is what you see on the right.
So rather than the two stories that we previously had approved, we're going just for this smaller edition, the one-story edition.
Everything in blue is the existing warehouse building that you see.
As well as we're going to do a non-residential roof deck here and in the zoning district that does generate a refusal.
and in the zoning district that does generate a refusal. The proposed use is now for an educational
The proposed use is now for...
facility. The prospective tenant would be Little City Montessori. Little City Montessori is an
existing Montessori school in the neighborhood. They've got a location at 5th and Master Streets.
Given their overwhelming success at that location, they have been looking for a second location,
and this project offers great space, residents on site, and it does provide the space that they
would need to grow that program. What you see on the roof, this would be your non-residential
roof deck. These are transparent panels as part of the eight-foot high safety fence. This is where
the children would play. This provides the safety to give them outdoor space to play, and they're
not going to be at risk of traffic or people coming in and out of other portions of the project.
So it really is a nice fit and use of that space. Little City is a neighborhood school. The bulk of
the students do live in the neighborhood, as well as the teachers and staff. This is the exterior of
the warehouse as we finished. Like I said, this is the existing warehouse building. This is your
addition, and this is a close-up of what that outdoor play area would look like for the children.
Some additional renderings. This is the existing warehouse today.
And some interior and posting photos of that existing condition, as well as the neighborhood.
A little bit about Little City Montessori. It's a family-owned and operated building program, learning program. I apologize.
The founding family, the Kurtzman, still run the program to this day. Their children attend the program.
and they are a community-driven school. They do participate in fundraisers for local community
projects and they are active members of the community. This site is still zoned RSA 5,
which is what brings us here today. The non-residential educational use is not a
permitted use in RSA 5, as well as the non-residential roof deck is not permitted in RSA 5.
Again, this is a unique scenario because we do have that larger project on this site.
It does involve multiple uses, and we think we can fill this space with a neighborhood
amenity, frankly, that provides value add to our community from day one as soon as Little
City is able to open the doors.
So we met with South Kensington Community Partners coordinating RCO.
The meeting was well attended, and several participants did speak about their experience
with Little City at its existing location.
You have a letter of support in your packages.
We believe this project will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, as evidenced by that letter of support, the comments of the neighbors, and the existing surrounding uses.
We will not impair the use or development of the adjacent property.
Again, it's part of a larger planned community here, and it will be a nice amenity for the neighborhood at large.
With that being said, I do have our architect on the line, should you have plan questions, as well as both our owner's rep and representatives from our prospective tenant, Little City, Montessori.
I would just ask Kelly Fox, who's our owner's rep.
Council one. So I saw the letter of support from the RCO, but our records show that Councilmember Lozada is also in support. Do you have a letter from her?
I did not receive a copy. I did know that.
We have a letter of non-opposition from her as well.
Okay. All right. Why don't we have somebody come on and adopt your testimony?
That'd be great. Could Kelly Fox be permitted to speak, please?
Fox has been about to speak.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Kelly Fox. It's K-E-L-L-Y, F as in Frank, O-X.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
Who's he, counsel?
Thank you. Kelly, have you heard my testimony today?
Would you agree that it's true and correct?
And would you adopt it as your own?
Thank you.
Our representatives are available. Should the board have questions?
Sure. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?