structurally speaking you'll start to notice from this image here that the structures on the east
side of wood lawn are generally early 1900s construction that contain a mix of uses that
include single family homes institutional and religious uses group living and multi-family
dwellings contextually speaking this entire area is just about a half a mile from germantown avenue
and just south of east chelton avenue on the west side of wood lawn street
The single family dwellings on the West side of the block, you can see are mixed between attached homes along Morton street, and then single family semi detached twin style homes for the majority of the block leading to Magnolia street.
The context of this area is a bit more clear on the photographs that I've included at exhibit 16.
here you'll see the large vacant lot that is the subject of today's request
this lot has never had any structure on it at least not since before 1895 which is the
farthest records that I could find the next view of the property looks towards Magnolia Street
where again you'll see one of the trees that's at issue before the board today
leaning over the street and caught up within the power lines.
leaning over the street and caught up within the power lines and again you'll start to see
across the street if i move to the next photograph you'll start to see the division of structural
characteristics of the single family homes with the attached homes to the left and then
the start of the semi-detached twin homes to the right
in the next view here from morton street you'll see that east woodlawn is a fairly wide street
with the homes across the street you could see this here sitting at a higher elevation
than the street itself the board may also take note of the aesthetic character of the
existing semi-detached homes that flank east woodlawn street and you can see that here on page 77.
this was a highly relevant factor in terms of how the architect designed the project that
is in front of you today you can also see
some additional views here that are reflective again of just the general aesthetic character
of the block again this is looking towards the subject property you can see that with the arrow
and again you can see here the semi-detached twins that are highly characteristic of this area
and again you can see from these images the elevation at least of these homes
that is higher than the street itself they sit quite a bit up
And then again, flipping to the east side of the block, you'll notice some of the larger old structures, as well as existing driveways that ingress and egress to Woodlawn Street in their current condition.
And then we did also include photographs of our quite colorful, timely posting of the property, which did occur per the code.
Exhibit 7 shows the is it do this to me exhibit 7 shows the proposed subdivision plans
oh I let me scroll there we go
zoom in on the lot here
Exhibit 7 shows the proposed subdivision of the one lot into four new lots
The two end lots in the image, proposed parcel A and proposed parcel D, are proposed to be 2,749 square feet and 22 feet wide, and the two interior lots, shown as parcel B and C, will be slightly larger at 2,912 square feet and 23 feet wide.
this is the source of two of the refusals as the rsd3 requires a minimum lot size of
5 000 square feet and 50 feet wide i'm going to skip exhibit eight momentarily and move
into exhibit nine which is the proposed zoning plans i will summarize them for you and then
our architect can of course be available to answer any questions that you might have about these
THESE PLANS. THESE ARE ALL SINGLE FAMILY, TOO? THAT'S CORRECT, MR. CHAIRMAN. THESE ARE SINGLE FAMILY.
THE PLANS SHOW THAT THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES ONE NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON EACH OF THESE LOTS.
HOWEVER, THEY ARE DESIGNED AS SEMI DETACHED STRUCTURES, EACH WITH A SHARED DRIVEWAY LEADING TO AN INTERIOR GARAGE.
EACH HOME, OF COURSE, WOULD ALSO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF PARKING IN THE DRIVEWAY AS WELL.
to further limit impact only two curb cuts are proposed providing shared access to these homes
as a result of this particular design the ingress and egress conditions are identical
to those that would exist if there were less homes in the back each home will have a deck
at the second floor as well as a ground level patio here you will see one of the refusals
which i did mention at the beginning which we submit is not correct and let me zoom in so you
can see this measurement here the zoning code requires measurement of the rear yard from the
back of the rearmost structure which in this case would be the deck and you can see the deck indicated
here rsd3 would require a 25 foot rear yard however according to the zoning code measurement
Each proposed rear yard measurement here is 19 feet, so only a six-foot deficiency, although from grade, you can see here, meets the full 25 feet.
although from grade, you can see here, meets the full 25 feet at the grade level.
In this case, the examiner improperly measured the rear yard from the patio, which is not considered a structure for purposes of rear yard measurement.
So, of course, it's still a refusal. It's just less of a magnitude in terms of the refusal.
aside from the technical nature of the refusal itself we also submit that the requirement here
is functionally exceedingly met as the actual rear yard behind these homes is well over a hundred
feet to the absolute rear of the addition on the locust project as the board might recall
All, the Locust property has a considerable slope from Locust Avenue down to Woodlawn Street, rendering the vast majority of the midsection of the property completely undevelopable and available to serve the purpose of the rear yard code requirement to provide sufficient distance from adjoining properties.
and that area would be just off the right of the screen here just in terms of the context
addressing another one of the refusals quite quickly because i suspect it does not require
much discussion as the board can see here rsd3 requires each lot to maintain 30 open space
we will assume that the board would agree that the proposed open areas of 30.1 and 31.8 percent
are unquestionably de minimis and not requiring of a hardship argument so we won't address that
in detail unless the board requires additional clarification now in terms of the original
proposal that was before this board and continued i will bring up exhibit eight
you'll see the original zoning plan which were for nearly identical structures that would have
each contained two dwelling units for a total of eight dwelling units you can see here that there
was no interior garage proposed and only one parking space would have existed in each of
the driveways as a direct response to the community feedback my client went back and
reconsidered the proposal and returned for a second meeting with the community showing the
revised proposal for single-family homes. As a result of the modification, the use variance
that's shown on the refusal is eliminated, as well as the parking refusal. The four homes that
are proposed today will now have code compliant, at least the code compliant one parking space per
home within the garage but realistically each have much more with the available driveway space as
well we did submit revised zoning plans and a revised plan proviso form to the board for
consideration the floor plans are shown at exhibit 10. each home will have a partial basement for
personal use the homes will each be 3100 square feet each with three bedrooms three full bathrooms
ROOMS AND TWO POWDER ROOMS. THE GARAGE IS ENTERED FROM THE FIRST FLOOR WHERE THE HOMES WILL ALSO HAVE THEIR MAIN DINING AND KITCHEN AREAS. LIVING AND GYM SPACE IS PROVIDED IN THE CELLAR ON THE SECOND AND ON THE SECOND FLOOR WITH A WET BAR AREA THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE AND THEN BEDROOMS WILL BE ON THE SECOND THROUGH THIRD FLOOR. BEDROOM LEVEL LAUNDRY FACILITIES ARE ON THE THIRD FLOOR. AS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED THE HOMES WOULD
Each also have a roof deck off the rear. However, this was a particular concern of the one immediate neighbor along Woodlawn, and my client is perfectly willing to accept a proviso that would eliminate the roof decks, not just on the closest structure to the neighbor, but across all four homes as well.
as a reasonable modification to address that particular concern given the extensive outdoor
space that is already available for these homes. We submit that this conclusively addresses at
least one of the comments in the RCO letters. A rendering of the homes is also included at
Exhibit 11, and I have up on your screen, showing a mix of stone and hardy siding.
logan can certainly speak to the aesthetics in greater detail
having addressed the refusals for the open area and the rear yard i'd like to briefly address
the refusals for lot size before i move to the heritage tree referral simply stated board it
would be unrealistic and economically chilling to develop this lot for any less than the four
homes that are proposed particularly since this is already half the density that was originally
Particularly since this is already half the density that was originally requested.
requests.
There are a variety of reasons that this board may consider in terms of unique and unnecessary hardship to buy right development of just one home on this extraordinarily large lot.
As the board is aware, there is a nationwide housing shortage with a particular focus locally on the lack of single family dwellings.
every additional single family dwelling constructed gives another family the opportunity to move into
the city into a beautiful new construction home to start or build their family however those homes
must be marketable and characteristic of the local neighborhood in designing the twin semi-detached
structures the applicant sought to balance the competing context along woodlawn avenue
Avenue and Locust Avenue, which you saw is largely comprised of early 1900s detached structures,
which cannot be replicated as well as predominantly attached and some semi detached.
The visual presence of the homes should carry infinitely more weight here than the invisible
lots that the homes sit on and the applicant would submit that this proposal achieves an
important balance with 3100 square foot homes that are visually consistent with the east side of the
street while sitting on lots that are more characteristic of those on the west side of the
street sitting directly across from sitting directly across woodlawn from the property
the lots range from roughly 1300 square feet to just over 3000 square feet and between 19 feet
12 feet wide and 30 feet wide with the larger lots accommodating the twins attached homes that are characteristic of what is proposed here.
Here these lots are 2,700 or 2,900 square feet and 22 or 23 feet wide.
So reasonably comparable to what exists as the board heard in the presentation we made concerning 449 locust.
This is not a dominantly single-family block on the east side of the street, further establishing that any less than the four homes in this location would not be viable or characteristic of existing density.
The block contains uses such as a church at 419 locust, a fraternity house at 431 locust, and a rooming house at 477 locust.
most relevant and i'll bring up the aerial for context this structure here at 424 east woodlawn
just next door recently received permits for group living medical type of use a neighbor that
appeared during the hearing for 449 locust seemed to indicate to the board that that structure is
in the process of being converted into some kind of a recovery house now character aside as you'll
hear from our civil engineer, this is also an extremely challenging and expensive site
to develop with significantly added costs stemming from the required stormwater management approvals.
The land development itself has to be supported by an appropriate number of homes to justify the
horizontal site improvement investment. My client will expand in a moment, but the sale price of
single family homes on this lot this the sales price would render the development of two homes
on this lot completely impossible i will note that even two lots here would still require relief from
this board and from a design perspective would likely change very little respectfully it is
not reasonable to suggest that two single family homes versus four single family homes would have
any material impact in congestion in the neighborhood other than as we would submit a
positive one in bringing two extra homeowners to the neighborhood given the mixed use profile of
this neighborhood the original proposal was reasonably so for duplexes however my client
heard the concern from the neighbors for that density and directly responded accordingly
even that change did not materially alter the aesthetic character of the proposed buildings
or the access points unfortunately despite my client delaying the hearing for many months
and cutting the project in half it unfortunately seems as though the goal post continues to move
despite this particular revision eliminating all manner of use refusals and leaving only the need
for dimensional relief briefly in terms of the heritage tree issue we would submit that the
we would submit that the board can find that the heritage tree section of the code
board can find that the heritage tree section of the code
should not apply here i'll bring up the landscape plans just to give you a visual on this
as the board knows with the subdivision the code looks at each individually subdivided lot
for purpose of determining open area rear yards and other dimensional requirements
the landscaping requirements of the code only apply to development on lots of over 5 000 square
feet here the development is occurring on lots less than 5 000 square feet we have a refusal for that
and in this case the development is of new single-family homes
14705 1a.2.b of the code states that on-site landscaping and tree requirements do not apply
to lots with a principal single-family use. Again, that section alone should have excused
compliance with the heritage tree section of the code. But taking it one step further,
the applicant did actually commission and submit an arborist report, which is in your packet,
again at Exhibit 12, showing that the two heritage trees at issue, and I'll highlight them, there is one 36-inch silver maple right here towards the front, and then there's a 48-inch silver maple here towards the north end of the site.
The Arborist report shows that these trees are in an irreparably diseased state and pose a threat to the health, safety, and welfare of the community and are recommended for removal.
unfortunately the city rejected the report and instead did require the applicant to procure the
special exception given the layers of arguments that would warrant the board finding that the
requirement should not have applied in the first place i won't go into considerable detail on the
heritage tree issue again unless the board requires it a full argument on this issue is in your memo
of law at exhibit 13 i'd like to ask our civil engineer leslie to come up and answer a few brief
questions directly in response to the rco letter and while she does that as the board saw the
community expressed that their major concern here surrounds stormwater i do have a few questions for
leslie that i believe can conclusively establish why this is not a reasonable concern for this
proposal and that the board should not assign that concern any weight in reaching your decision on
the requested relief so leslie do me a favor could you get as close to the mic as you can
and that way everybody yeah a little pull it towards you too like i mean put it'll you can
pull the whole thing here you go here you go hi could you state your name and spell it for this
sonographer. My name is Leslie Cunningham, L-E-S-L-I-E-C-U-N-N-I-N-G-H-E-S-WARE. We're
affirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Counsel? Leslie, what is
your background, if you could share with the board? Good afternoon, members of the board. As I said,
my name is Leslie Cunningham, and I'm a licensed professional engineer in the Commonwealth.
after graduating from purdue with a bachelor of science in civil engineering
i've worked in the industry for over 24 years now specializing in land development
zoning storm water management and so forth currently i'm a principal partner at cornerstone
consulting and have worked on hundreds of projects in the city and testified before zoning boards
planning commissions board of supervisors and other municipal boards throughout the state
I have previously been accepted by this board as an expert witness on multiple occasions.
And what was your involvement on this particular project?
We are the civil engineer on the project and have worked with the design team on the site layout and obtaining the prerequisites for the zoning permit application.
Specifically, we did the plan design and approval of the conceptual stormwater management plan for the water department.
and leslie in the exhibit packet i have your cv does this accurately reflect the cv that you
shared with the board today yes so we would ask the board uh to accept leslie once again as an
expert in uh her field in terms of stormwater management we will thank you and were you also
involved in the project that was immediately adjacent to this at 449 locust avenue yes okay
yeah thank you generally speaking what does the grade of this area tell you as it relates to
the neighbors existing concerns surrounding flooding uh that they experience
in their homes or around their homes as a first step for development we our office completed a
in their homes or around their homes as a first step for development
topographic survey of the lot um and and the topography the topography for this block
slopes in a southwesterly direction from locust avenue to woodlawn street locust avenue sits
approximately 30 feet higher than woodlawn street specifically this site slopes directly from locust
avenue to woodlawn the existing slope of this property does not push water onto the adjoining
parcels and that's as it currently exists in its undeveloped state
correct so the you it's reasonable to say that the existing condition of the property
has no bearing on any existing flooding conditions that the neighbors are experiencing today.
Is that correct?
Based on the existing topography of the parcel, that is correct.
Does this proposal, and I'm specifically referring to the proposal on Woodlawn,
does this proposal require stormwater management?
And did PWD, Water Department, review and issue a conceptual approval for this development?
Is that shown at Exhibit 18 that I have up on the screen here? Is this the plan that they approved?
What is, just generally speaking, what is the proposed stormwater management control for the woodlawn side of the project?
so the woodlawn side is controlled by a rain garden that's located but between the two attached
dwellings right in the center of that lot of the existing lot excuse me and although it's not
directly relevant to this case before the board today the project that the board previously heard
at 449 locust also requires storm stormwater management is that correct correct and what
will those measures do as it relates to any existing flooding that generates from the property
which you previously testified would effectively be none right um the locust avenue parcel has