an underground detention basin within the new parking lot at the rear of the building
and those two stormwater management devices will reduce the post-development stormwater runoff
below that of the existing pre-development stormwater runoff for the site. And when I say
the site, PWD requires us to look at both parcels as one site for stormwater management because the
owner purchased it as one parcel. Do you believe that the development of any less homes on this
lot, four, three, two, one, would have any impact to the stormwater management or the flooding
concerns that the neighbors expressed? No, in my opinion, no, because all new impervious surface
must be managed. So is it a fair statement that while the developer certainly respects and
understands the community's concern, that this development will at worst improve the existing
conditions but will unequivocally not add any runoff or flooding that may exist today on any
adjoining lot. That's correct as the existing and proposed topography from the site does not drain
to the neighboring properties and all new impervious surfaces will be managed by the
underground basin and the rain garden and it will directly discharge to the sewer system within
woodlawn so in your experience will the water department require some form of a shared easement
homeowners association something to that effect to ensure the cost of long-term maintenance
of the storm water system on these properties yes thank you uh mr chairman i question leslie
on that last point specifically because in the rco letter there seems to be some confusion
that the developer was suggesting an HOA to manage stormwater.
That's not accurate.
We, of course, mentioned it to them since it's something that the water department
will almost definitely require to ensure there's a common organization
that's responsible to maintain insurance to ensure the long-term maintenance
of the system across this large site.
That would also likely be shared with the owner of 449 locust,
adding another layer of long-term preservation.
I would like to leave a few minutes just to have my client answer a few brief
questions, but I will broadly note that a full analysis of the project's full
but i will broadly note that a full analysis of the project's full compliance with section
compliance.
14303 of the zoning code is at exhibit 13 and i will of course expand on any point the board
requires so i'll have kenny come up and adopt my testimony and i have a few additional questions
yeah he's he's unfortunately traveling kenny brown kenny brown
kenny brown has been promoted to pan thank you
how you doing all right sir could you um state your name is spelled for the stenographer yes
it's kenny brown uh k-e-n-n-y-b-r-o-w-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes kenny could you turn your video on if you have it yes um
is it on no no well i think i recognize your voice but go ahead go ahead thank you
kenny uh can you confirm that you are the authorized member to speak on behalf of kjb
solutions llc yes okay so the community's letter of opposition alluded that they would prefer two
homes on the lot instead of four do you believe that that's a viable option no and why not
Just off the basis of the extensive cost to develop the site, and then also the home
sales and the property values of the neighborhood.
What are you estimating as the cost of construction for each of these homes, accounting for the
proportionate share of the required land development as well?
For the combined, each one would be around $400,000 to $450,000.
with so so looking at exhibit 17 uh can you see my screen here showing exhibit 17 yes did you
prepare this exhibit yes and what does where did you generate this first image from um zillow
what does this show this shows the um the recent home sales in the last 12 months with the criteria
being you know at least three beds at least two bathrooms and over 2 000 square feet within that
east or the east germantown 1.5 1.25 mile radius and are you aware if any of these were new
construction so there's no new construction homes in uh east germantown so generally speaking the
sales of single family homes in the area of comparable size show that the prices would
generally speaking likely not support two fairly expansive homes is that accurate yes the average
home sale was three hundred and fifteen thousand um with the highest one in the last year being
four hundred and fifty eight thousand and turning to the next image can you see the next image here
on the screen yes and what does this what does this show this shows the um houses that are
currently for sale um there's currently 11 again it's the uh the same criteria um well no it's not
the same criteria because i let it be any that were for sale and the highest one is at 4.99
and these were updated homes in the uh descriptions they were said to be like new construction
and the the highest price was 4.99 kenny was your goal in designing a project for this lot to build
large, luxury, exclusive homes that would only cater to a small percentage of buyers?
What was your goal?
My goal was to incorporate the community.
Like I said, I've met with the community many times.
My goal was to be able to bring in the working class home buyer, keep the neighborhood together
and not price anyone out.
Kenny, generally speaking, you've been present for the entire hearing today.
Is that correct?
You heard all of the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board?
Would you agree that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if you had given it yourself?
Thank you.
We, of course, reserve the right to respond to any community testimony.
So, quick question.
So, you started this originally for duplexes?
Correct.
So, you went from eight to four?
Absolutely correct.
And then you started this with rooftop decks, and you took them all?
Correct.
All right.
questions from the board that's a question i think just more from context i do see
that you tried to blend the two sides of the street but i do think that the driveway and
the common drive there are no other properties on this block that look like they have parking in
the front of the house so that is something that is now unique to this project there are long
driveways for sure there's a couple cars that are parked almost at the sidewalk in the long driveways
For sure. There's a couple of cars that are parked almost at the sidewalk in the long driveways, but for the most part, across both sides of this block, every garage is at the rear of the property.
but for
And so I think the decision to one, move the houses up, they're now going to sit considerably forward in the lot.
Then they're sort of adjoining properties is starting to reinforce its different contexts.
I didn't hear that. I didn't hear that.
Oh, it's reinforcing that there are different contexts than the other ones on that side of the block.
So there are quite a few driveways.
I mean, if you look here.
Yes, driveways, but the cars, they all have garages at the rear.
So it's serving as access to the rear garage.
That's the difference.
Not on 408.
Say that again, Kenny.
408 has their driveway in the front.
right next door or 405 they have a driveway they do not have a garage in the front of the house
oh garage correct so all of the cars are driving down a long driveway and supposedly parking at
the rear of the property now obviously if people have multiple cars if people have friends over
but even if you go down google earth there are only three houses even on earth if you go back
for 10 years that even have a single car that's visible from the street so i think like this
design with the garage in the front and the driveway for the additional cars is going to look
like very visibly different than the others on that block with all due respect uh to board member
when that that is not one of the items on the refusal that this is a condition that is permitted
by code and i think if if the board would like to hear from the architect logan i i think that
originally there was a thought to to design it with uh garages in the back but that does have
a fairly material impact in terms of impervious totally understand that much more seeing all the
details yes with my two architect degrees i totally understand i i i but i also understand
that because this was a five thousand this is a eleven thousand square foot lot and it's being
cut into four almost what under three thousand square foot lots is what rendered the need for
them to be in the front so like the subdivision itself is what is driving that design decision
to have to be like that or so i do think that that to me that is still like a very jarring
difference in the other houses on this block it's also taller than all the other houses on the block
so like it's now both in lot in form in driveway and now in height different than everything else
on the block so I do feel like context has not necessarily been met that's my personal opinion
so questions yeah I don't know the question just comment um I I guess I'm concerned um that we
have a minimum required lot area of 5 000 square feet and we're talking here about yeah it's it's
a hop, skip, and a jump from a 50% difference in terms of the lot area that's being proposed and the same thing with the lot width. And so, again, talking about just context and what have you, I just, I just think that
But these are going to be materially different in terms of size from the other homes in the area, which meet the flat area and with requirements for this zoning district.
And I, you know, if it were, if it was a conversion of a property, it'd be one thing, but this is, you know, it's a vacant lot. It's, I just, I think it's a little, I'm very concerned about that. I can, I could understand a variance for some, you know, some, but almost 50% or, yeah, I think that's a little bit much.
so there's two things that i want to address first just to go back to board member win so it
just again in terms of the height i just want to remind the board that the homes across the street
sit at a higher grade so it so there there's that factor and then in addition to that
as you can see here again the existing structures on this side of the street are already high so i i
I don't believe, and again, I would ask if Logan can come on here to address that, but I don't believe that the height is.
uh logan can come on here to address that but i don't believe that the height is
going to at all be out of character with what is existing i'm not i'm not talking hi i'm talking
um just uh yeah area i'm sorry i was her spot yeah yeah okay she talked about it but just
just in terms of of uh your concern board member so i just again want to point out that although
the lot size itself might deviate that the use of the existing structures on many of these properties
does not comply with the rsd3 mandates so so you almost have to compare those two things
for example this structure immediately next door certainly sits on a compliant lot but from our
understanding is being converted into a recovery house that is certainly not consistent necessarily
with the traditional RSD3 mandates. There are, as I mentioned, there are religious uses,
institutional and multifamily uses, which again also do not comply with the RSD3 standards. So
this block already is subject to unique conditions that while some of the lots are compliant size,
they are not compliant use. Here we're trying to balance those two forces. So these are compliant
uses, dimensionally compliant structures, but sit on lots that are not compliant, at least in terms
of RSD3. Again, they are entirely consistent with the size of the lots and the size of the homes
that sit directly across Woodlawn. So it's really trying to reach that balance given the unique
conditions that this block has other questions uh yes could you clarify something for me uh
regarding the decks so um have the rooftop decks been removed from the previous plan number one
and then two i know some of the residents had issues with the rear decks so have the rear decks
remain the same as well so just update on that the our understanding was that the concern was
predominantly for the roof decks because it was it was actually this neighbor in this home right
here that i'm highlighting that was concerned that the roof decks would essentially be right
at their level so the roof decks have to be removed via proviso the rear decks we don't
believe have any impact on the on this particular day we have some um one of the residents um
stated that you know their children's bedrooms are right there so there was some concern about
the rear decks as well. So just, you know, asking if any modifications with the rear decks have
taken place in the design. Yeah, the discussion during the RCO meeting was really centered on
the roof deck. The roof decks are gone, but the rear decks are still in. Yes, absolutely. The
rear decks wouldn't have, wouldn't be at that same level of the bedroom to have that concern. So it
was, it was really the roof decks that were the major concern. And again, that is something that
the board would need to note via proviso it was not something that we were able to change
after the meeting so if you put the properties on a 5 000 square foot lot
one one that increased the price a great deal significantly so significantly so and and again
we submit that that would that would make these a lot more out of character with the neighborhood
It would make them a lot less affordable.
And, you know, I don't mean to.
Because the question is, when you look at the house prices, could they sell for what it would cost?
Kenny, I mean, if you want to if you want to address that, given the cost to construct, do you think that you could actually sell, you know, to two homes on this lot, given what they would probably be looking to sell for?
Absolutely not.
i um looked into it um like i said the the house is the highest house sold for 600 000 that was
over two miles away um and then after that they were all 1.2 million dollars and above and there's
absolutely no way that that would be a sale in this neighborhood
unfortunately with the use of the property next door that that was what drove some of this design
as well uh obviously that's a little bit out of out of my client's concern but it is we believe a
reasonable concern in terms of um okay you know that just the general context of this area okay
any other questions questions from our attorney um so with the um so i i have to go back into
eclipse because i wasn't able to pull up the original plans and look at them in there just
to understand how many pages would need to be submitted if it was granted um
pages would need to be submitted if it was granted um but the if you're removing the roof
decks that should be on the revised plans and noted on the proviso form um and it wasn't and
it looked like there still might be roof decks on the the plans again apologies we were not able to
make that change prior to submitting that we assume that the board has in the past issued provisos
for no roof decks we assume that was something that could just be added I mean we we could but
Ellen I so Ellen I would make probably make you do revised plans anyway and that would be complicated
if we stamped revised plans so all of that would need to be on a revised plan so okay just just
staying that I don't know if the board is is gonna vote today on on this but um it's yeah the roof
decks are being removed that could be put in the revised plans in the proviso form that that would
that would make things a lot smoother if it's granted thank you
questions or comments from the virtual audience i see two more hands raised here just two yes
All right. Thank you. First hand.
Cheryl Smith has been promoted to panelists. Sure.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
hello hi could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
um cheryl smith c-h-e-r-y-l smith smith right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth i do miss smith are you a neighbor i am not a near neighbor i am
the one who wrote the 12th ward rco letter okay please proceed okay um there's several things
that were talked about um in this meeting that i'd like to clarify or speak about um one leslie