The second refusal has to do with the proposed multifamily use of 93 units.
So, first of all, it's not like we're adding 93 units out in there.
You know, there's there there has been a history, a long history of this being an apartment building lot.
And you'll see that apartment building. And when we purchased a property like it was in a desperate state of disrepair and we're trying to fix that property up.
But given the current market conditions of increasing interest rates, high cost of construction and just general delays in permitting, it's necessary for us to have this additional use of another building structure there.
Plus, and I know this is not zoning related, in order to keep these units affordable within the confines of this community, that was something else that was thought of and appreciated by the community.
But we're asking for 93 units. If the zoning changes to RMX3, which we anticipate, this use would be allowed as a right. But given the history of the property, given its proposed change in zoning, and given the fact that the surrounding neighborhood, there's apartment building after apartment building, we think that this project is reasonable under the circumstances.
The third refusal is actually broken down into multiple parts. Again, the zoning examiner chose the most restrictive zoning between RSA 2 and RSA 5. So under RSA 2 zoning, the occupied area in RSA 2 is limited to 40%, which would make it rather difficult under any circumstances, typically, to develop that process.
property. But based on even adding another building structure in there, our occupied area
is just falls slightly short of the 40% requirement where it's basically we have an occupied area of
less than 50% a lot. On the flip side, if you think about it, our open area is over 50%. And
one of the things what we try to do was develop a sense of community by mimicking the current
building structure in the front by building another building structure in the back and to
have like uh like almost created like a little park area for the for the residents um in this
community which you'll see in the renderings the second refusal has to do with the minimum side
yard where eight where it's eight feet is required and five feet is proposed uh the reason um you
though we don't believe that this is as much of an issue, is that the individuals who would be most directly impacted,
there are light and air with regards to this slight request in the modification of the zone.
With regards to this slight request in the modification of the zoning requirements, 1508 Allegheny Avenue and 3121 North 16th Street, we specifically reached out to.
We knew that, you know, this is something that would directly impact them, and we received support from them, and that's in our packet of materials as well.
And then if you will also review the plans of or the or the outline of other surrounding properties, which also run afoul of these requirements, both from occupied areas perspective and a side yard perspective.
The next refusal has to do with the minimum rear yard depth in RSA to residential district where 20 feet is required and zero and five feet are proposed.
Again, we looked at the situation with the zero feet rear yard.
We eliminated, we believe, that refusal by way of our proviso where we eliminated the zero foot setback.
And now we're creating, I believe, an eight foot setback in that one section, which goes more in line with what you would see from an RSA 5 perspective.
and then as far as the five foot in the the other five foot in the rear which will review those
drawings um that you know we are in the rear there's no one behind us other than a park and
that park if you will look at review the site plan there's a 12 foot alley between our property and
the park so first of all it's not going to impact a park right second second there's a 12 foot buffer
already created between our property and and depart and the five foot you know setback so
in actuality if you add the 15 foot or i think it's a 12 foot alley um and the and the five feet
we're already providing we're almost near that 20 foot requirement and then the final refusal
has to do with the height of the property um our roof we are first of all the front building
structure, it already has a roof line of 42 feet. So it's an existing structure, which goes beyond
the 38 feet requirement for RSA 2 or RSA 5. That's building A. Building B, we actually try to mimic
as much as possible, where we have a roof line at 40 feet, which is actually less than the 42 feet
for building A. So building B is at 40 feet. We thought it was in character with the surrounding
area as well as the property that we are on with our building structure. So that's the minimus.
But again, if we were RMX3, we wouldn't have this issue as well. But regardless, like we are getting
a technical refusal for the 49 feet because of where our pilot houses are. And again, we are
required to have two sets of pilot houses where the pilot houses hug the building facade. So that's
where we get that refusal. But again, not out of character to the neighborhood, not out of character
to our property to have building structures above 38 feet. And then the final refusal has to do with
parking, where again, they're using the most restrictive zoning of RSA too, where we're
proposing 18 parking spots and essentially the the zoning code based on the rsa2 is required to
one-to-one ratio no one in the neighborhood has a one-to-one ratio or anywhere close to it we found
three instances in within a one block radius where there's no parking whatsoever and one of the
reasons why we selected this location and why many of the apartment buildings in this area
either does not have parking or has very few parking spots is because we're near a commercial
corridor and as well as public transportation, the Allegheny Station on Broad Street. So to
encourage public transportation, we are providing 18 parking spots, which is well above what many
of the apartment buildings in the neighborhood have. So we met with the community many months
ago, and it was a very good meeting. Honestly, again, when you usually have a project of this
size, usually there's more of a back and forth, but we made inroads and we reached out to the
community well before that meeting. We actually met with the block captain who helped us
meet the surrounding neighboring owners and occupants, which was helpful where we were able
to modify our project. And you'll see that by way of revised plans. But there was overwhelming
support within that room. Also, we provided letters of support.
within that room um also we provided letters of support from nearby property owners now one of
the things that was mentioned especially by uh tayoga united was well you have a lot of the
property owners of the big apartment buildings nearby which are support of this project you know
what about the surrounding occupants like of the of within this neighborhood so we made a concerted
effort, even after receiving this letter of support from the coordinating RCO on behalf
of the community, we made a concerted effort for my client to petition nearby property
occupants.
Now, it's hard to get within that 250 square foot radius of the occupants because of the
largeness of the surrounding lots.
Most of them are apartment buildings.
But we really made an effort, and I believe we got 32 signatures of surrounding property
occupants who are in support of this project um so that's something that we made a really good
effort in um and you know through you know through our efforts pre-meeting and post-meeting you know
we believe that you know this is you know we've we've received overwhelming support um and and
you can see that from the letter now to not to this afternoon or i think either late morning
or early afternoon we received this letter from tayoga united just so you understand one of the
other individuals associated with this project has been in direct communication with this
representative of Togo United, even after the meeting. He had some concerns during the meeting
about the process, about who was supporting this project and life. So we've been in direct
communication with him throughout. So in his letter that which we just received, he said,
you know, indicated the RCO in support was, you know, the coordinating RCO on behalf of the
community. He indicates that his group is in opposition to it. He acknowledged that there is
neighborhood support with regards to this project. And he actually even indicated that
the neighboring church at 1508 West Allegheny is supporting, I believe that may be an apartment
building. But these are some of his issues in the bullet points. And I want to address each one of
them. He said that no proof of mailings was presented to affected RCOs prior to or during
the community meeting coordinated by AWCA, which is the coordinating RCO. I don't believe that was
correct. So during our community meetings, we have a more scaled down version of our presentation.
You know, we show the plans, the notice of refusal, like everything you would see here today,
hey, we show the community, but what we don't show them is the application for appeal,
the deed, the notice that went out to the community, and the proof of mailing, because
we waste enough paper as part of our practice. What we do do is twofold. Two weeks before the
community meeting, we email the notice that we sent to the community along with the proof of
mailing of that notice. So they know first that there's a meeting, and then we mailed it out to
those individuals that live within a 250 square foot radius. But secondarily, what we do is during
that meeting, I have an expanded packet that I give to the coordinating RCO, which is available
and I have an extra copy for myself. So if anyone wanted to see the deed, if anyone wanted to see the
application for appeal, or if anyone wanted to see the notice or proof of mail that went out to the
community, they always have the right to see it. I just don't want to waste paper. But we gave that
information to Tioka United. And you'll see that at the tail end of our presentation with the email
I attached. Second bullet point, 14 addresses shown at community meeting and support were from
all potential developers and current multi-unit property owners, none from a single resident
homeowner. So again, we reached out to the individuals that we knew. We also met with
the block captain, who walked us around the neighborhood, who wasn't really trying to get
signatures, but more to make an introduction of our team to those property owners who'd be most
directly impacted, and in particular, the ones on North 16th Street. Those individuals knew of
our community meeting. No one from North 16th Street, other than one individual who signed
our petition and who attended the community meeting, making sure that we made the modifications
that North 16th Street required showed up.
So no one showed up in opposition,
and the one individual that did voted for the project,
which is in your presentation materials.
Then they said,
Tioga United also questions the validity of the signatures
that will be presented at the CBA hearing.
These signatures were not present during or prior to the community meeting.
These signatures were not present during or prior to the community meeting.
So I admit those signatures, some of those signatures for that petition of 32 extra individuals were not provided to the community at the time of the community meeting.
So I admit those signatures
We had a number of individuals we met with who felt comfortable with the project who didn't show up because we agreed to make certain modifications for the project.
And the, you know, the individuals we did have signed, we thought that was sufficient based on the credibility of the project.
After we heard from Utah United, they wanted more individuals who lived in those properties to be to show their support.
That's why we reached out and got a petition and we circulated that petition.
And you'll see that we have contact for those individuals and they can be verified.
my understanding is that there may even be some individuals here who may be in support of the
project but we had the block we had the block captain again circulate the petition who his
name is philip lockett who we worked with so we've made really great inroads with the community and
we've made great effort in making sure that the community felt comfortable about this project
and we'll talk about the merits of that project and what the community thought of as well
And it said some support signatures addresses are out of the 250 feet directly affected area.
This also did not exist during the community meeting.
Again, it's really hard to get into a lot of these apartment buildings because they're secure apartment buildings.
So we really focus on the individuals with the single family homes and like as much as possible.
But again, these properties that are surrounding us are rather large in nature.
From our lot size, 32,000 square feet for a lot. So, you know, did we go outside a 250 square foot
feet radius? Yeah, we did. But we tried our best to make to me to show that this overall community,
the people who'd be impacted from about this project would support this project.
And, you know, that's, you know, he gives a summary also of why they're against it,
you know, indicating that there's a high school nearby and there's a daycare nearby and
the increased density is going to cause more havoc to them as well. Again, if you look at the
2035 plan, they want to encourage this density where density exists. Again, we're not taking
like a lot that's a 1,440 square foot lot or a thousand square foot lot and trying to put
multifamily in here. What we're trying to do is take a 32,000 square foot lot and again,
which has a significant history of multifamily use. But unfortunately, the building structure
is in desperate state of disrepair, trying to fix up that building structure, and for that to make
financial sense, and to keep the rents down, we needed to build that other building structure,
which the community is in support of, and they're talking about parking, where parking is typically
not around there, you know, we're providing parking of a limited nature, because we're next
to the Broad Street line, which again, which the 2035 plan actually encourages that public
transportation use. So here are revised plans, and you'll see it, but we added an eight-foot
setback to the proposed Building B to provide an opportunity for more light and air for the
individuals on um north 16th street you know here are oops here's the change originally this was all
boxed in right here and and we took away that we added eight foot setback here which also really
I believe reduced the rear yard issue as well um but that's the one change that we did make
Just make sure.
And then, so we created a map of the individuals who signed our petitions and letters to support.
So we're here between 15th Street and 16th Street on West Allegheny Avenue.
We're between West Westmoreland and West Clearfield Street.
So you can see most of the signatures are within that one block radius.
Do we have some stragglers here?
Yes, we do.
And I think my client even got some more signatures, which we don't even recognize on this map, but are on the petition.
He really did try to make a conservative effort with the help of the block captain to reach as many of the surrounding property owners as possible.
And then these are just the list of addresses.
Again, one of them is the individual on North 16th Street, which is directly behind our property.
And these materials were shared with the board, you know, five days before the meeting, and then we have additional signatures, which I think were more recent in nature.
And this petition is the petition that they circulated after the meeting, after there was some concern that there weren't enough signatures of occupants.
after the meeting, after there was some concern that there weren't enough signatures of occupants
who lived in the neighborhood. And then the 2035 plan is this. As you can see from the 2035 plan,
talks about Allegheny Avenue, and this is our property right here. You know, they want to make
that RMX3, and the reason for the rezoning is to promote the development of large apartment
buildings, preferably for senior housing, which is our goal too. Like, our goal is to have
You know, these units, because they're ADA compliant, for the elder section of this neighborhood. And, you know, again, to reactivate this property that has not had any type of usage for some time. So we're going to take building A, we're going to renovate it. In order to make this economic sense, we're building building B.
Alan, have you shown photos yet of the property?
No, I will. I will. Yeah, I will. Again, this is a very impactful project. And I want the board to completely understand, you know, this matter, especially since, again, out of left field, we got this letter of opposition about Tioga United.
So I just want to show the board, you know, the substantial, you know, what's it called, merits of what we're looking to do here.
But, you know, if you look at also the 2035 plan, it talks about concentrating new housing development adjacent to existing transit resources.
And it specifically references the Allegheny Station.
It says increase the allowable density near major transit stations, such as Allegheny, by changing base zoning.
Again, that's why they're looking to do this as RMX3.
So I think, you know, and again, going to the variance, you know, as well, and we'll get to the pictures, Mr. Chair.
But, you know, we're looking at some of these, you know, variance requests regarding side, rear yard, and open area.
And so I looked at the public record, and if you look, you know, nearby 1605 West Allegheny, they would run afoul of all these issues that we're currently running afoul of as well.
And the same thing with 1419 West Allegheny, a nearby apartment building with minimum side, rear yard, and open area as well.
As you can see right here, like, you know, there's, you know, there's basically no sided rear yard in some of these.
And the same thing with 1508 West Allegheny as well.
There's issues with the open area requirements, rear yard, side yard.
A lot of these properties are RSA2, which, you know, make it almost impossible to develop from scratch.
And then, you know, one of the things I wanted to put out here is that 1508 West Allegheny Avenue, there's no parking.
3136 and 3127-27 North 16th Street, there's no parking.
We're actually providing parking.
These are apartment buildings with no parking whatsoever.
And then if you can see here, this is where we are in the neighborhood.
Again, this mixed zoning at 1510 West Allegheny.
And then this is from a Google Maps perspective. Again, we're like a block and a half away from a commercial corridor on Broad Street with a subway system.
And then photographs of the property. So, Mr. Chair, this is what you're asking for.
Again, we didn't do this, but this property has been in disrepair for some time.
And, you know, there's a pre-existing building structure in the front that is, you know, four stories over the 38 foot height limit from the roof line.
And, you know, during the community and it's fenced off and we keep trying to keep the fence on.
But, you know, this neighborhood is, you know, was really begging for development of this building because it's not just our property, it's the surrounding properties as well, where there's a significant crime and, you know, issue here.
And they want, they're hoping that this project will encourage the other landlords in the neighborhood to do better in terms of finding, you know, good tenants, activating this property, which has been a nuisance for some time prior to our ownership.