So again, this shows the existing house and then a proposed addition.
The proposal is to modify and update and rehab the existing structure from two apartments to four apartments and to put 12 apartments in this addition.
The original 24 spaces were reduced to 22 spaces to create more open space at the rear yard between the proposed addition and Gerhard Street, but we still have approved code permitted, code required handicapped parking and an additional 21 spaces.
uh the height is compliant um let me move to
some renderings this is a the rendering of the proposed addition it doesn't show the
landscaping that was introduced um there's additional landscaping will be introduced
along here but it is is intended to uh complement the existing structures in the neighborhood you
saw the mansard roof on the original house that this will be attached to. Again, this type of
roof is intended to complement that. The following, this image, this rendering shows
post-construction how this addition fits within the existing block. If you look at the
duplex structures. This would be
example, 488 and 486 here. This roof size is comparable to the roof size of the proposed
addition. The same thing with the two duplexes next to them along Roxburgh Avenue. This roof
line is not out of sorts with the size of these structures. Again, you see the parking area
and how it fits within the open space. It doesn't affect any streetscape. So from
all the streets, this existing streetscape will not be affected.
I'm going to hold off on floor plans and briefly address the RCO's issues. We met
with the neighborhood group beginning back in September of last year. And
there is an email in the package, which I won't read, but I'll just refer to
and that is on page seven. This is a letter from John Carpenter, an email rather from John Carpenter
referencing their on-site meeting and review of the initial proposal. Among the things this email
suggests is that rather than a separate structure, that the developer consider an addition to the
existing structure. So the zoning plan you just saw is the result of this first change.
So the zoning plan you just saw is the result of this first change.
And then, as I said, at the RCO meeting, we've addressed eight other issues, and those are included on the Proviso plan form.
And I described them briefly when I went through the zoning meeting, went through the zoning plan.
We had the RCO meeting. It was well attended.
I think the letter from the Civic says that over 90 people attended it.
The consensus at that meeting was to support.
There was then a later meeting on site with the immediate neighbors.
And as the RCO says in its letter, they're opposed because the immediate neighbors are opposed.
The immediate neighbors are opposed because they like it the way it is.
To be frank, it's nice green open space and they want to keep it that way.
But the misconception that this is a single family neighborhood needs to be addressed. And if I can go briefly to the end of this document and show you a pretty visual representation of what this neighborhood is.
So I previously showed you this block, and the property was highlighted in green.
These are the properties, highlighted in blue in this image, that are now used for apartments.
As I said, 492 Roxborough Avenue is here.
that is zoned single family. This whole area is zoned single family. This was zoned single
family four years ago. A variance was granted to allow apartment use of the 16,000 square foot
parcel for 29 apartments, which is 557 square feet per unit. What's proposed here is a total
of 16 apartments on over 22,000 square feet or 1,396 square feet per unit. So this might be the
least dense development for apartment use in Roxburgh. All of these highlighted properties
are based on public records, and those public records appear at pages 22 to 69 of the second
volume. These are all indicated as having been converted to apartment use.
So if you take a look at the existing property, you'll notice that there are a total of 14
properties that abut the property. Of those 14, nine of them have been converted to apartments.
So the Central Roxborough Civics President Carpenter's letter says that they're opposed,
their position is opposed, because the near neighbors are opposed. Well, the near neighbors
either live in a house that has been converted to apartments, or their neighbor's house has been
converted to apartments.
As I mentioned, the house is not historic.
But there is a great effort that's made in Roxborough
to preserve the neighborhood and its context.
And going back to September of 21,
the developers worked closely with the leaders
of the Civic Association to find a development
that would fit the neighborhood.
And keeping this house is an important element of that, of keeping the streetscapes as they were 120 years ago.
That is accomplished in this development.
And as I showed you from the aerial view, this fits.
This is not dense.
This provides adequate parking.
Just two final things quickly.
I've discussed the matter with the developers. Mr. Krzyzewski will adopt my testimony in a second.
They have carefully reviewed this, and there is no way to accomplish this development
with fewer than the apartments that have been proposed. It's converting the house to four
apartments and introducing the addition with 12 apartments. It is the least modification
possible to overcome this hardship. The hardship is imposing a single family on this property,
this 22,000 square foot property, imposing single family when obviously that
imposing single-family, when obviously that use is not, it's antiquated, it is not current.
Most, there are not less than 57 apartments within, and I'm not even talking about Ridge Avenue,
just the area that is, that is zoned single-family, there are not less, based on public
records, there are not less than 57 apartments now. And the introduction of apartments and saving
this existing house is a common-sense approach to relieve the hardship that would be imposed by
compelling single-family development. It would require the demolition of the house
and the introduction of houses that are completely incompatible with the character
of the houses on Roxborough, Mitchell, and Gerhard Street.
Mr. Oshesky, were you here and present during my testimony?
Mr. O'Brien, let me swear him in first. Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court
reporter? Sure. First name is Steve. Last name is Osheski. It's spelled O-L-S-Z-E-W-S-K-I.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do. Proceed. Thank you. Mr. Osheski, you were here during my test zone?
Yes. And were my comments and statements to the zoning board truthful and
complete? Yes. And do you adopt them as your own? I do. And you have the authority to do that in
behalf of the Zio Baker real estate? I do, yes. Okay. Mr. O'Brien, a question. Yes. That point
of Ridge Avenue there, is that multiple families too? At the corner of Roxborough and Ridge is a
church, a former church that has been repurposed as a commercial office. It was the same development
team that purchased the church and what was then the priory of the church. The neighborhood and
the developer came to agreement to save the church. This was just before the street acquired
its historic status. The developer agreed to save the church, which is now the home of
Vujerio Plant Land Design. There are multi-families. There is some multi-family use
along Ridge Avenue here. That's across the street from the Acme, I believe.
Questions from the board? I'm sorry. No, Chair. No, Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair. I have a Thomas Bryan with his hand raised.
Sir, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
My name is Thomas Bryan.
That's T-H-O-M-A-S-B-R-Y-A-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Are you a neighbor?
I am a neighbor.
I live at 458 Roxborough Avenue.
Proceed, sir.
I would like to defer that it's not necessarily that the people in the neighborhood want the space to be kept green.
The people in the neighborhood want an appropriate construction project for that use and existing zoning be implemented there.
It has very limited access.
Our neighborhood is already inundated with apartment buildings, which creates significant parking and traffic problems on Roxborough Avenue.
It has been significantly increased by the addition of the apartment building on the corner of Roxborough and Ridge, and also the addition of the commercial office space.
We're concerned that the density and the coverage of the space with the amount of parking back there will cause severe runoff problems, especially for the people along Mitchell Street.
We do have significant parking problems, and as we know, that there's going to be more than two cars per apartment, and we believe there will be significant runoff into the street that we already have problems.
We are not necessarily opposed to construction on this, but what we would like to see is appropriate construction be built in accordance with the existing zoning.
And as I can state already, there are just too many apartments in the neighborhood.
It's changing the flavor of the neighborhood.
There's less families and we're opposed to the transient population.
That's basically all that I have.
Thank you for your time.
Mr. Chair, a couple of comments. Mr. Bryan, am I correct that your home is shown on the screen? Is this space right here?
Mr. Chair, a couple of comments.
You back up to the back, your backyard is contiguous with the existing garage. Is that correct?
I am next door to the garage that abuts the south side of your property.
Right. Okay.
I'm on Roxborough Avenue, not Gerhardt Street.
Oh, you're on Gerhardt. I'm sorry, Roxborough. Which address again?
Oh, so you're right here.
I'm down further to the corner.
Okay. Here?
Here. One more down. There you go. That's me.
um and you are aware that there are 16 apartments total proposed 12 in the addition and 22 parking
spaces provided understood but you also have two bedroom apartments and you know there's going to
be couples in there and generally you're going to have more cars than you have parking spaces
also uh the neighborhood is very concerned that you've got about a nine and a half ten foot wide
driveway there with walls on either side that is going to be very difficult to navigate with
pedestrian traffic on this street and we also have a concern that there'll be significant
problems getting emergency vehicles into that area i can address that mr brian um let me
bring up a photograph of the front. Well, this is a rear of the driveway. And
it's not shown there, but I guess the rear is the best view. The driveway is at the entrance
is narrow. Because this is an addition and the driveway is existing, streets review is not an
element of the zoning application. However, the intention of the developer is to widen the
entrance of the driveway in the front yard so that there is an opportunity to enter the driveway
safely from Ridge Avenue so that it is two cars wide, so that there is no obstruction
and no delay to turn off of Roxborough Avenue.
Unfortunately, that can't be done unless and until we get zoning approval
and enter the building phase.
Well, that was never presented to the neighbors.
Well, the developers certainly agree to a proviso that unless the driveway is widened
to provide easy ingress and egress from Roxborough Avenue, that we won't proceed.
Well, we still don't feel that the development and the density of the development is appropriate for the neighborhood. Even though you state that there are a number of apartments in the neighborhood, there are too many already.
Okay. We're concerned with transient populations. We have traffic issues. Okay. The neighborhood needs homes. And that would be the appropriate use of this space. And that's why we are suggesting that no variances be granted on this property.
Any other questions, Mr. O'Brien?
i have no further comments or questions from mr brian uh anyone else in the virtual audience
yes chair i have kathleen mccrossan okay
could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
my name is kathleen mccrossan k-a-t-h-l-e-e-n m-c-c-r-o-s-s-a-n
right and i reside at 460 464 roxborough avenue okay so wait and i oppose this property hold on
hold on one minute please do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth i do and you're against the project yes okay do you want a number of reasons go ahead
First of all, the parking that they want to propose is literally in our backyards.
Everyone's yard abuts this property ground from Gerhard, Mitchell, and Roxborough Avenue.
This area is our sanctuary for peace and tranquility.
This is our green space, and it will now be invaded by 23 parked vehicles running any time of the day.
for us to inhale their fumes is unacceptable never mind the health problems we will suffer
in time with this increased pollution and carbon dioxide. The trees that shade our backyards will
The trees that shade our backyards will now be gone.
now be gone.
The other thing on their proposal is they're not recognizing anybody's property lines where their variances lie.
Then you're talking about the stormwater drain runoff, which normally would be absorbed by this grass, is now going to be running over asphalt.
It's a flat ground, so it's going to run into our yards and flood our yards and our basements.
It's, and in these yards is where we plant our vegetation to give us our food for the year, and that now will be flooded and polluted.
It's a bad structure in the neighborhood fabric that is foreign and not part of the density of this city block.
This block is single family, not multiple, and could make it less desirable for single family.
And then you're talking about the traffic coming in and out of this driveway and the safety of the children on our street that ride their bikes up and down this road.
That's another big concern.
Next is the issue of the trash bins where they want to place these trash bins.
You want 20 trash bins that are going to be manned by a private company on a monthly basis.
So we are going to have to endure the smell.
The vermin and the trash that's not properly removed and or cleaned.
And that's already evident by their property that they own up at 492 Roxborough Avenue, which was not single family.
I believe it was RSA 5, not single family.
And there's been numerous complaints with that trash removal and the smell that have been filed with L&I by the neighbor that lives next door to them.
As far as we're concerned, it's a stranger in the garden. There's no privacy.
The design of the home should be characteristic design of the neighborhood.
This project will impact our quality of life as it stands.
It's an overaggressive use of this property, and the only people it's going to benefit is the developer.
Thank you for calling in. We appreciate your input.
Ms. McCross, I'm showing an image. This former barn, this is the back of your property. Is that correct?
Ma'am?
I'm mute. I'm sorry. Say that again. I missed that.
I have an image on the screen. It shows the back of what was, I guess, once a barn. Is this the back of your property?
That is the back of my property.
Any other questions, Mr. O'Brien?
I also want to say that the house that they purchased, Mr. O'Brien said, was two units, two families, and that's false.
It has been used as four units by the prior landlord, and it was only supposed to be two.
I think it was in 2012.
It was supposed to be zoned for two units, and it was illegally used as four units by the prior landlord.