A response from the RCO and also let her have a response to that. OK, Hillary.
and also let her have a response too.
That's fine, Mr. Chair, we may. So.
If we we just need to be clear for taking public testimony today or not, and if we're just holding for additional documents or if we're going to accept any additional testimony at a later time, if so, then we would.
I think what we would probably do then, we would take public testimony the next time after the RCO takes a position, because the RCO probably would have some people want to say something.
So I don't see a sense in doing it today.
I think she puts her case on, and we go back, and we won't close it until then.
We'll let, you know, public testimony and also the RCO, she'll have a chance for a response, and I would think that probably planning would want to wait for that too.
Am I correct?
yeah why don't what jennifer why don't we put this on sure i just i just wanted to be able
to be finished within the next couple months not wait until june that's really my own yeah i
understand okay okay cool so i will put on my case here this is tanya if i could make a
recommendation that we give a timeline for the response from the rco as well just so that this
not being kicked along because we're really booked these days yeah yeah yeah well i think
what we do we say you know this has to be done in you know she has to work out what she has to do
in the next month with the rco wonderful cheer thank you kindly all right proceed thank you
all right so i'm going to present my case then um so like i said uh i'm here today representing
Daniel Katz, who's the owner of 1546 to 48 South 20th Street. I'm just going to walk through some
of my exhibits right now, and then we'll come back to the ones that are relevant to my argument.
We have the refusal here. This is the deed showing that Daniel Katz doesn't, in fact,
to own the property um this is uh the tax is paid the balance here is for 2024 which is not yet owed
but you can see the zero balance um for all previous years uh this is the rco letter that
we were discussing um as well as all of my communications with the rco uh including about
you know meeting again and about scheduling the community notification
letters that were sent out sent out to I think like 288 addresses this is a
zoning map of the area this is our property right here this year nearby
uses that are not single-family homes the zoning archives for these
properties showing that previously they had been a four unit dwelling and also then two units
uh with a commercial use on the first floor as the last documented use
um sorry scrolling through here we'll be coming back to some of this and then also i have the
immediately adjacent property at 1544, was approved for two units in 2019.
We're going to come back to that too as well.
This is the aerial views of our property.
And then photographs here, you can see our postings on both sides of the property on Tasker and 20th Street.
Here you can see this brick building right here.
that's the part of the property that's 1548 and then this vacant lot here is 1546
and then this new construction is 1544 just for reference going forward here you can see the side
garages of the property this is the side of 1548 and these are up and down 20th streets and
Tasker streets and again that's 1544 that was approved for two units we also have our plans
which I'm going to come back to later but yeah so I'm just going to come back to those in a
second in more detail. So let me just go here. Okay so 1546-48 is currently one property but
in the past has been two based on the documents that I can find but I can't figure out when they
were actually combined. But right now, it is a double wide lot consisting of 1546 and 1548.
The entire parcel is a little under 2100 square feet. And it's located at the corner of 20th and
And it's located at the corner of 20th and Tasker in the Point Breeze neighborhood.
Tasker in the Point Breeze neighborhood.
There is two different zoning districts.
1546, which is the lot portion right here, is zoned RSA 5.
And 1548 is zoned CMX 1.
As you can see, there is a vacant lot on 1546.
and 1548 has an existing two-story structure that's a little under 1700 square feet it's a
two-story building that already has two units in in it um and it has a two-car garage existing
on the side as you can see in these photos um our proposal uh let me just go to our plans
is we are going to subdivide the parcel back into two parcels.
The size of those lots are conforming
and did not receive a refusal for the size of the lots.
And then on 1546, there's going to be a new construction built
that will have two bi-level units.
Unit one will be two bedrooms and two baths
with access to the rear yard.
and unit two will be three bedrooms with three baths and access to a roof deck.
In 1548, we will be keeping the existing structure and maintaining the cornice line,
but we will be adding a third story overbuilt to, you know, modernize the building, bring it,
and make two larger units than what exists right now. So again, unit one will be two beds,
three baths, and unit three will be three beds, three baths. All of these units are larger family
sized units that range between 1,150 square feet and 1,300 square feet. We're offering to have
these new and fully rehabbed properties that are appropriate for families. They will be market
rate housing, but because of the nature of constructions and having the two units in each
building, we are able to offer that at a significantly lower price than if you were
having just a single family new construction home. I just wanted to note that both buildings
will have ample outdoor lighting and security and that units that don't have access to outdoor
trash storage will have trash closets and trash compactors put in them. So I just want to go over
I'm going to keep going over the variances for each property. So I want to first talk about
because as we mentioned the subdivision is by right. So I just want to go over for 1546
the only refusal is for use of the property as a two family dwelling um and as i said before
um 15 actually let's go to this page first hold on 15 uh 44 which is our immediate neighbor was
approved in 2019 for um exactly what we're proposing at uh 1546 in fact it's designed
by the same architect and it will just be the mirror image of it. So the most impacted neighbor
here is 1544 and they will be living in a building that is exactly the same as the building that's
going up next to them. Here you can see the decision and
oops sorry one second and here you can see the building. So we're just proposing to build this
building on this lot with the same exact use same exact floor plan just mirrored um so also this is
not as you might imagine from it being this other building being approved in 2019 um this is not
something that's out of character for this block or this neighborhood uh there are at least four
other um non-single family homes on this block uh as you can see there's a commercial with two
residential units, and then three other duplexes on the block. And when you go to the next block
adjacent, the 1600 block of South 20th, you can see that we have a range of mixed use,
another new construction, two residential building, and then up to a five unit commercial
and four residential unit building on that block as well, triplexes, duplexes. And then when you
go on the surrounding block with Casker. We have a mix of commercial and multifamily as well. So this
is this is not out of character at all and especially since we for 1546 you are in the
And for 1546, you are in the middle of two properties that are already two units.
middle of two properties that are
So it's exactly in line with what is already there and literally mirroring the building that is next to it.
I also want to just go briefly to the zoning archive for 1546, which is here.
So the last documented, I'm not sure, I couldn't figure out again, when exactly these properties were combined, and when 1546 was demolished, but all of the existing records going back into the 40s for this property show that 1546, when it existed, was a four-unit residential building, and was only two stories.
And so we're actually proposing something less dense than what was there prior prior to it becoming a vacant lot.
And you can see in here that it was approved for four units as its last documented use.
So, you know, we're looking to use the property in a way that is conforming with the surrounding uses and is less intense than what was there prior.
to us prior to the vacant lot being there so you know we're looking for just one more unit which
we think is the minimum necessary here to provide any release from the hardship that like you know
we're in a neighborhood that is not surrounded by non-single-family homes and not trying to
overuse the property in any sort of way so I didn't want to talk at 1548 is a little bit more
complicated we have use and dimensional refusals there so let me just go to give
me one second so here we have the zoning map as you can see this portion of the
property is zoned CMX1 and as we know you're allowed to have the number of
residential units in CMX1 that are allowed in the adjacent residential zoning district plus a
commercial unit. This building, the prior recorded use here was for a commercial unit and two
additional residential units let me just go here you can see here that we have
sorry this is the wrong property that's 1546 let me just scroll down one second 1548 here
we have on the last approved use was a grocery store and two family dwelling back in the late
80s um right now the building is only two units and we're proposing to continue to use that but
again to having two residential dwelling units is is really um what this building is less intense
use than the building had been used before um and is not an overuse of a cmx2 property that would
be by right a commercial unit and a single-family home. I'd also add that while the adjacent zoning
district is RSA 5, the adjacent residential use is a two-family home. And so while it might not
comply strictly with the zoning code, it is within the spirit of the zoning code of using the property
as the adjacent properties are being used um so hold on one second i also add that the first
floor right now as it is is about 700 square feet which is not super useful for um hold on
one second which is not super useful for a modern commercial space we're also about two blocks off
of Point Breeze Ave, which, as we all know, has a lot of commercial properties and a lot of vacant
commercial properties. So when you're talking about a small space, it's not super appealing,
competing with spaces that may be on a bigger commercial corridor and have more appealing
commercial space. It's not really practical for this to be a commercial use. And it hasn't been
commercial use since my client owned it since um 2011. so um we're looking for a lower intensity
than what would be allowed by right no commercial space just two residential units um in an area
again that has many multi-family housing and will be adjacent to multi-family housing as well
um the remaining variances that are proposed um or the remaining variances that we received
are basically due to existing conditions on the property.
are basically due to existing conditions on the property.
So what we're talking about is the location and dimension of the existing parking spaces,
as well as the size of the rear yard and open area.
So let me go to the parking photo.
We're going to address the parking first.
So this is the existing parking garages, and there are no proposed changes to these garages.
They were grandfathered in.
They've been there for a very long time.
But when we go to subdivide the parcel, you lose the grandfather of the parking spaces.
So nothing's changing.
They're going to stay the same.
um obviously we'll probably do some aesthetic improvements to the facade and the gates and
things like that as the renovation continues um but nothing's changing um i know there was
concerns about the size because one of the variances is for the size of the off-street
parking spaces um and while they are smaller uh after doing some research there are many
city-sized cars, as I would like to say,
that are great to park in here
and completely would fit,
like a Jeep Renegade, a Kia Soul,
a Hyundai Kona, a Buick Encore,
a Land Rover Defender 90,
Volkswagen Golf, Prius C,
Honda Fit, Chevy Bolt,
Mitsubishi Mirage, Audi TSS.
Jennifer, what are you saying?
All the cars that could park there?
or yes because this was one of the main objections from the um community association was they wanted
the parking eliminated because they said that cars couldn't fit okay so i'm just i'm listing
cars that like people have that fit in these parking spaces and i know that's a little
ridiculous but i need to get that record that there are plenty of cars that fit in these parking
spaces um so that that's an existing condition and we're just looking to keep the existing
condition but that generated two refusals for the size of the garages and the location of the
garages um but they are existing and nothing's changing other than the aesthetics um and then
so i also if you look too we also have a parking garage in the adjacent building right here uh
that's similarly small um but in use with the property so it's again not out of character
either with the block. The other refusals are for occupied area and rear yard, and this is
definitely a result of the existing conditions. So if we look at the top of the property,
you can see that we have a property that's pretty much already fully occupied. That's
an existing condition. This building has been here. I found documentation back to the 60s,
but it clearly already existed in the 60s.
So we're probably talking about at least a 60-year-old property,
probably more like 80, 90-year-old plus property.
And so, but again, when we subdivide these parcels back into two,
that existing condition loses its grandfathering.
So that's where we get the occupied area reverts back to,
it's as if we were building a new house.
and obviously we could not meet the occupied area requirements unless this building was demolished
and we are trying to maintain the existing building and just do an overbuild which leads to
the other um the other refusal which is for the rear yard um so let me go here one second
the existing structure at the second floor here is has a seven foot one inch setback
we are looking to just add the third floor in the same dimensions but there's a nine foot
rear yard requirement for when you do the additional third floor um so you know if we
did another additional two feet you would have some sort of weird step kind of it wouldn't look
aesthetically pleasing, and would also result in one of the bedrooms being really kind of small
and awkward, given the dimensions of the existing building. I would also add that there is a four-foot
alley that separates our property from the property to the rear. So when you add half of
that alleyway to our seven feet, you're at the minimum rear yard requirement. So you're still
having that nine foot of separation. And as you can see in here, the building to the rear is
actually built all the way to the property line as well. So it's again in existing condition and it
It's, again, an existing condition and it is, you know, typical for this particular block here.
I would also add that the most affected property is once again going to be the adjacent property that my client owns.
And so any potential new owner would be aware of what was being there.
So it's not imposing itself onto or in any way affecting a neighboring property for this additional two feet.
And like I said, because we actually do have nine feet of separation between where the property line ends and this third story, it will have very minimum, if at all, impact on light and air access.
And again, it would really only impact the adjacent property that my client also owns.
So, what it comes down to here, so, is that, you know, it's really not going to, that setback isn't going to have a significant impact, but it would because of these dimensions of this bedroom, awkward small bedroom, that wouldn't be, we're looking to have units that are functional for families, and if you make a tiny third bedroom, it's less functional for families.
Give you one second, sorry.
And if we were trying to, like I said, the dimensional requests here are all a result of the existing conditions of the property.
We're not trying and we're trying to preserve the existing structure here and just modernize it and provide a little bit more space, bring it up to a full three stories, which is, again, by right to have the full third story.
It's just the rear yard setback, but we're maintaining the back line of the property from what it is.