Tonight the board consists of Trent Sears to my immediate left and then Joe Peterson to my far left and I'm Samantha McLean.

Um tonight uh there are three items on the agenda, but my understanding, Mike, is that item number two, 807 North La Cross Street will be postponed to another agenda.

Yes, that's correct.

The applicant has requested a date certain of January 26th, and we can we're able to honor that request.

It's also worth noting on the agenda for for the ad that was provided for the Ridge Avenue property, the 406408 Ridge Avenue property.

There was a clerical error in the morning call notice that ran and that would have been posted.

It indicated that the use was permitted by special exception.

The use is a by-right use in this particular matter.

So there's no there's no special exception to be considered.

It's staff's belief that the note or that the error was was clerical alone and that the ad still would have provided sufficient notice of the matter at hand.

Thanks, Mike.

Um so with the two items that remain on the agenda, the secretary is going to call each item.

Um when she does, she'll ask if an applicant or appellant is present and if they're represented by counsel, and then if there are any objectors.

If you are an objector for an item, if you could just raise your hand so we're aware.

Um, and then she'll ask if there are any persons interested that are not necessarily objectors to the item, and at that point we ask that you raise your hand.

Case number one, special use application of physniki at 406 408 Ridge Avenue.

Is the appellant present?

Uh yes, represented by Eric Shaw.

The appellant is present.

Are there any objectors to case number one?

Yes, the city objects.

Are there any interested parties not necessarily objectors to case number one?

No.

Case number two, 807 North Lacrosse has been continued.

If anybody is here for that case.

Yes.

The appellant is present.

Are there any objectors to case number three?

No.

Are there any interested parties not necessarily objectors to case number three?

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Um, so we will go with the the first item on the agenda 406 408 Ridge Avenue.

Um I have two witnesses, but what what I thought might make the most sense since the zoning officer and I have had some discourse back and forth as to the concern.

If it makes sense, I would just call him to so that he could raise his concern because then my the architect can address and the applicant can address what I understood to be the city's concern uh that caused them to be an objector, but I don't think objecting to the to not objecting to what we're looking for, but raising concerns that they'd like addressed in my presentation.

All right.

That that seems reasonable to me.

Any more concerns?

Go ahead.

Okay, so I'll I'll call the zoning officer, Mr.

Hanzo.

We have discussed um uh items that I'm oh sure, sorry, yeah.

Yeah, sure.

Mike Hanzo, zoning supervisor for the city of Allentown.

And yes, oh that's right, sorry.

I trust him so much.

I wasn't gonna trust his first year and that meeting just yes, I do.

And I have a couple exhibit packets to present.

So I have four sets here for we can just pass those down.

And Eric, I have a set for you as well.

So while the while the city is entering its appearance as an objector, I suppose a very strongly interested party with a very particular interest is probably a fair term to define the city's interest in this particular matter.

I'd like to make it very clear on the record up front that the city has no particular objection to the request itself or to or to the use per se any more than any other kind of proposal of this nature.

However, there are a couple a couple concerns or a couple code-specific concerns with this property that the the city believes the board should take carefully under advisement and that the city uh hopes the applicant does a diligent job of testifying to in their comments.

Exhibit C1, which I provided is a copy of a pre-sale inspection report for this property.

It's standard protocol.

Anytime a residential property in the city is offered up for sale for an inspector from the city's building standards rental inspection program to perform a systematic walkthrough with an eye toward identifying life safety and code issues.

The city enforces the international property maintenance code.

This is one of the primary mechanisms of enforcement in the city to ensure that all dwellings offered in the city are in some baseline safe and decent condition.

Before the current owner purchased this property, it was owned by a property owner where if you spoke to the rental inspectors would have been would have been known to keep properties in a condition that wouldn't have been compliant with the international property maintenance code.

There's a considerable list of code deficiencies identified in the in the pre-sale walkthrough.

We believe the responsibility for getting the property to the deficient point lies the most heavily with the previous owner.

I also want to emphasize that I believe that the current appellant this evening has been acting in good faith through the process.

They've never given us any reason to believe otherwise.

Exhibit C2 is a stop work order, which would have been provided once again by building inspectors for improvements which were made to this property without without permits.

Obviously, we understand that it's the appellants' intent to hopefully legitimize some of the work and legitimize what was what was started by the previous owner.

But the point to make with the stop work was just that the deficiencies and the scope of the work was great enough that the building department saw the need to use its enforcement powers to be able to immediately be able to immediately get the attention of the of the previous owner.

I will point out that the recipient of this notice is not Mr.

Karamiti.

It's the previous owner of the of the building, Ram Das AgraWall, who was the owner at the time the notice was provided and where the work was provided.

And John, if I can just look on for you one minute on exhibit C3.

This presents the crux of the city's strongest concern with this application is just concerning some of the some of the unique geography or some of the unique property lines in the area.

This property in question is essentially landlocked.

The proposal is to double the number of dwelling units in the building from two to four in essence.

So one of the concerns that will be paramount and that the city strongly hopes to hear from the applicant on is how the applicant would intend to furnish furnish two safe and legal egresses from each of the new apartment units, such that if the principal egress on Ridge Avenue were to be unusable, that there would be a guarantee of suitable egress from the second outlet.

The property itself is highlighted in green with the green dots.

Some of the surrounding private properties that abut directly to the rear and also the rear and tangential are highlighted with the with the diagonal striping.

In order for a second access to be provided, there wouldn't there would be a requirement that the egress would be facilitated across private property.

With respect to the private property issues, obviously the crossing of private property is a matter of is a matter of easement.

One of the legal considerations that might be before the board is how to how to ensure there's always a right of access.

I'd think that from Bellevue Street would be the most likely second egress.

How there's always always a provision for the rear access so that if the unthinkable happened, the occupants of the units could could and any first responders could safely traverse the private property, both without questions of trespass and also without their there being a storage shed or accessory structure or parking area or some other physical encumbrance in the way.

So as I mentioned, those are those are some issues that the city hopes the applicant unpacks.

Those aren't reasons why the city is diametrically opposed to this application anyway in any way.

We full well know we're in the midst of a housing crisis, and the only way we can work our way out of it is creating quality units, but we need to make sure that we do that in the most thoughtful manner that we all can put our heads together to do.

So that concludes the city's remarks.

I certainly welcome any questions on either on cross-examination or by board members.

Yeah, I I just have a few questions.

Sure.

Um you would agree that the items to which you cited are not provisions from the zoning ordinance, but they're they're building code items.

Yes, correct.

They're building code items.

I'm not attempting to hold myself out as a building code official.

I'm not my main intent is just to make sure all parties are aware there's a little bit of a regulatory road ahead to get this use legitimized and that there would be a couple departments that that the applicant would need a closely correspond with along the way.

Um second, you agree it makes sense for Mr.

Karametti to come here first to determine whether the use would be approved before and and he has actually hired uh uh a a well-known Allentown architect to address these issues.

Um so we all agree it makes sense.

This is what we should do first.

Come in here, seek the zoning relief, and then indicate the lengths he's gone to to make sure that he's going to be addressed the address the building code issues.

Yes, it would be it would make sense to get and see if the use can be approved and to see the use can be approved with uh with a solid plan in place before investing any more money in sticks and bricks.

Yes, and we'll be glad to give some detail on what they looked at the code wise, but I just want to make sure everyone's clear we need to know whether we can do the apartments on the first floor, and then and then the next step would be would be addressing that.

And then last and I think you said this you have not had an issue with Mr.

Karametti, and he's actually discussed and talked about getting the the permits to actually fix the problems that he inherited, correct?

That's correct.

We're fully aware that Mr.

Karametti has approached our office in good faith from the from the start anecdotally at risk of at risk of hearsay among the rental inspection department.

I haven't I haven't heard of any concerns with Mr.

Karametti's properties.

He's he's essentially the client is a and the applicant is essentially approaching the approaching the city with the clean slate in the hope of a continued clean slate here, and perfect.

And that's the and that's the mindset we're taking.

But we do see there's a need to show a little bit of a yellow light for a property in a particularly dense area of the city.

Yeah.

Okay, so I'll hand off.

Oh, do you want to do that?

Sorry about that.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think uh questions, but then also can we enter these exhibits in the record now?

Um do you want to wait to end with that?

Well, the cities, I guess I know the rules are relaxed.

I would agree that it's not something the board can't see, but I do want it to go on record that we all agree it is building code provisions that that that exhibit pertains to and not not the zoning issue.

Then the documents that the cities provide will enter into the record.

Mark is C one.

C one, C2, and C3, I add them marked.

Yeah.

And then um just before we move on, sure.

Go ahead.

Yeah, well, just to get some clarity on the building itself.

What's its current use?

Um, it is two apartments on the upper floors.

That was my next question.

Is it a two-story or three-story?

Is it two-story?

It's three stories.

One apartment on each, but two apartments proposed for the first story.

That is formerly, as far as Mr.

Karametti has learned, formerly the last legal use he they thought was an office, but there may have been some work done improperly to try to convert it.

Yeah, and that's correct.

The last use, I believe, was as a dental office.

The previous owner made the previous owner made improvements to try and legally shoehorn two apartments into that space, came into lots of contact with both zoning and building.

The owner sold off the property, it's our understanding he's selling off a number of of his properties in the city.

And our understanding is that the appellant acquired the property with uh with the hope of legitimizing the the four units that were seen to my understanding.

The previous owner went as far as to disconnect some of the some of the connections and fixtures that would have previously provided two kitchens in the apartments, but but some of the work that was done previously remains.

But my understanding is that, and I'll obviously let the appellant testify to their intent, but what we've heard in our dealings is that it's their hope to get everything permitted and legitimized and correspond with the appropriate code officials to to get everything up to snuff.

Okay.

So I just so I can understand it's a three-story building.

Yes.

You have an apartment on the second floor?

You have an apartment on the third floor?

Correct.

And the first floor is empty.

And it had been a dental office.

It was the last knowledge.

But it's not active now.

No.

Okay.

And were these buildings at one time residential homes?

Do you know still?

I mean, they probably were at some point long time ago.

So they were twins at at some point or a duplex or whatever you want to call them.

Yeah.

I I know we're gonna hear from um the applicant, the owner, and the the architect.

So if I think if some of these questions are for them, um we can we but are there any questions for the city?

No, that's all right that's all I had.

Right, right.

No, I just wanted to get some clarify clarification on you know what the building looked like and that sort of thing.

Thank you.

All right, physic.

You go around there and you go into that chair.

A R A M T B If and then I'll have it.

Thank you.

And um you you indicate you're you're Mr.

Carmetty, correct?

Okay, and um answer so the court reports.

Yeah, you have to m verbalize your answer.

So make sure you say yes and make sure you speak into the mic.

Okay.

Okay.

And um you're the owner of the property?

Yes.

You have an entity that owns the property, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

And um, it's the property we're here on, the Ridge Avenue building, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

And um, can you give us a little background?

Because obviously you heard there were some issues with uh the prior owner.

Can you give us some background as to how you came to decide you were gonna buy this property?

I have my friend here, Mike Duca, he used to have one building here.

Now he moved, he sold it in this one and he moved to Redding, he bought another one.

And I'm sorry, he bought in Reading in another city.

He bought in writing.

Yes.

And uh he he always told me, you know, bought one building, one in Alentown, and you know, and when I saw it in uh somebody racuman me, one real estate guy be the same, would be the lady with uh what the Saman real estate here.

I'm sorry, uh uh guy from Stanaland.

Do you know the guy here?

And I saw it in the internet, the building, I like it, you know.

And when I come here, I saw the building, there was two commercial and two double apartment.

I mean uh uh duplex duplex apartment, second to third floor and second to third floor, and uh I like it, but uh the I saw she told me the real estate, she said because the two rentals they was on the first floor, they was never rented, there was dentist's office before like two, three years something.

And she say, you know, I just decided to take take a breath.

So we'll try.

So what you you you you knew someone in Allentown that had had they've left, but you had a realtor who knew a realtor in Allentown and showed you the property.

Yes.

Um and and you admit you were aware that you would need to get approval for the f for the two apartments on the first floor.

Yes.

It was always your intention to do that.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um and you bought the property uh just this summer, is that right?

Yeah, uh July 22.

July of 25?

22.

22, okay.

Closing day.

Um July 22nd, 2025, right?

Yeah.

Um and when you bought it, uh as you've indicated, it was an apartment on the third floor.

Second and third floor, second floor double.

Okay, duplex.

Were there people living in those?

Yes.

Okay.

Do those renters remain in those spaces?

Yes.

Okay.

And you're gonna continue to hopefully have the two rental units on the second and third floor residential units, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Did you talk to the realtor about whether trying to convert the first floor to to uh office or retail made sense, or if as the zoning officer indicated, there was a need for apartments in the city.

You mean be the realtor or be the real estate guy?

Yeah.

Uh I spoke to her, and she said if you want to rent it like that, it's gonna be a little bit difficult.

Uh I spoke to her, and she said if you want to rent it like that, it's gonna be a little bit difficult, but if you want to change it to uh be the residential should be better.

Just try to go to the zoning.

Okay, so you so you talked to her and said, should I try to be because at the time it was only partially renovated to apartments, correct?

And there was some work done, but it will but but it wasn't not good stuff.

No, a lot of roches, a lot of okay.

Um so so you so you talked to the realtor and said, should I try to make this like a retailer office, or uh is an apartment and and she indicated you had a much better chance of uh of the apartments, correct?

Yes.

Okay, and and as you heard, it's permitted to be apartments, yeah, but for you needing some dimensional relief.

Yeah.

Okay.

So you followed their advice and said, I'll try to go through the process.

Um, and you understood there were some hurdles that you had the in other words, some difficult things you had to do.

You had to address the code and you had to get zoning relief, correct?

Yeah.

You you've hired you you've you hired an architect to try to assist you.

Yeah.

I I would speculate not everyone in in this instance goes to that length.

So you you you got you got the right person.

Um so your proposal is to make two apartments on the first floor.

Okay, and they're there are two bedrooms, two bedrooms, yes, yeah, two bedroom apartments.

Okay.

And um, based upon your the success with the upstairs apartments, you you think it's needed there, is that correct?

I think so, yeah.

Okay.

Um if you look at the uh packet I handed you, yes.

Yeah.

Um that's an aerial and the neighborhood is i i is is mixed, is it not?

There there are other houses, there's apartments, and there's some businesses with apartments up top, to the best of your knowledge?

Yes.

Okay.

And is is the building on the second page?

Yours.

Flip to the second page.

Oh, second page?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Oh, this one, yeah.

Yes, yes.

That's that's the building.

Correct.

Okay.

Is that uh sort of right hand showing yes, this one, great.

Yeah.

Then if you go to the next exhibit.

Oh, go ahead.

Yeah, go ahead.

There's two units there, two entrances.

Are we talking about both are these both part of the properties, or is it just one?

One is one of the uh I can't hear you.

Yeah, one is here, they have hallway, they go into the both apartments.

One is here, what did you say?

Uh they have hallway.

And they have steps, they go to two apartments, which one is one apartment here, one apartment, second and third floor, same 406 and 408, and they have door here in hallway to go in this apartment.

They have door here on the right on the 406 and 408 and hallway.

They have two doors to go in apartment, but they have another door to go from in this apartment, 408, uh, to go from here.

They mean like they have a two uh two entrance from hallway and from a side.

Okay.

All right, and this is the basement.

But the whole this is what we're talking about.

Yes.

Now, this is one apartment, living room, dynamic kitchen, and three bedroom.

Same living room, yes.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Um, but there's a lot of doors.

The space we're talking about is the former office space that was started to be redone and is on all on the first floor, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

So here are pictures 2A through 2E.

Yes.

I asked you to send me pictures of uh of kind of what it was like when you got it, correct?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So can you just just page through 2A and through E and just tell the board?

Is that kind of the the unfortunate condition it was in when you acquired it?

Yeah, it was a lot of a lot of box, a lot of rales, a lot of wood rales.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding.

Lot of lot of bugs, a lot of wood pass rale, you know, a lot of wood was routed?

Yes.

And uh I repeat off all the sheet truck demolition, I get the permit.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding.

The sheet truck, I I repet off everything.

I do demolate it, and I just waiting if I get approved.

Okay.

Um so and and and Mr.

Galk will talk about this, but you are trying to gut what is there because you would need would you need to do that whether it was apartments or you tried to make an office or a a retail shop?

You would need to fix the first floor, is that correct?

Yeah.

Okay.

And you you're committed to following the rules and and following the code, correct?

And that's why you hired Mr.

Gaub to help you with that.

Yes.

Okay.

Um and and and Stuart will go through in more detail, but you understand you need relief from certain requirements uh in the zoning ordinance to do that, correct?

Yes.

Um you're not proposing to add an addition on the building, correct?

No.

There's nowhere to go.

Yeah.

There's nowhere to put parking on this property.

Is that correct?

Oh.

It's as in zoning officer indicated, it's completely surrounded and landlocked.

It is what it is.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um can you think of an adverse impact, or do you think it'll are you gonna try to make it so this is a benefit to the neighborhood if you get to redo the first two the first floor into the two units.

You think it'll help help things?

Things it'll be better than a vacant commercial space, I presume.

Yes, much better.

Okay.

It's all the questions I have for this witness.

Does the board have any questions?

Yeah, the photographs that you have here is exhibit two-way.

These are current.

Uh those are when he purchased, but he has gotten you've gotten permits to start doing some of the work, correct?

Uh the demo they just the demo.

You got a demo permit.

Okay.

Just the demo.

Um that's it.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Uh I'm trying to make sure I understand the makeup of this building.

So there's one unit up here.

No, uh, sir, just use the mic.

Well, one one unit is right here.

You see it?

One unit right there, and one here.

It's liverum dynamic kitchen and three bedroom.

Living room, dynamum kitchen and three bedrooms.

So there's a total of two units.

Two units.

Double.

The your attorney indicated that you've had success of these apartments upstairs.

There was a I know it was indicated that that there's due to the uh success of those apartments, you wanted to do uh that similar arrangement on the first floor.

Yes.

Why why not why not one unit on the first floor?

Given the the really really small size of your lot and the intensity of the proposed use.

You could not do one unit on the first floor?

Yes.

But it's gonna be like something you thought about 1900 square feet.

I'm sorry, I can't hear you.

It's gonna be like 1900 square feet is a lot.

Because each one, they I think so.

This one is like 1,000, and this one is like 950 square feet.

Okay, so you've got a really small lot at a big building.

Yes.

Okay.

But on the top, this is like 1600, I think.

So and the other one is like 1500.

All together it's 5,200.

Okay, interesting.

Yeah, thanks.

I don't have any questions.

Okay.

Stuart.

I do.

Stuart, who you work for?

Uh I have my own office in Allentown, Galk Architects.

Um, and what's your relevant background?

Or uh I guess I could ask the board.

I'd I'd like to qualify it as an expert in in architecture, and you've you've qualified before the board before.

Yes.

I can go through more qualifications if needed.

Yeah, we're satisfied.

Yeah.

Um so um you you you've been working with Mr.

Karametti, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

And you were aware there were things that needed to be done to to get to get this building up to snuff, correct?

Correct.

It's in pretty rough shape.

Um fortunately, I was also uh had Mr.

Agarwall as a client, and he was not a not one to follow the rules, unfortunately.

So even no matter how much I try to point him in that direction, he's not uh it's not his his density.

So um but but I I I mean it in Mr.

Karameti's defense, he has been working with you to try to make sure he's going to be compliant, correct?

He's he's made that clear that we're gonna do it all by the book and do it correctly.

Okay, good.

So uh we'll we'll get to the rest of the questions and the details on the zoning, but if we can get the first part out of the way.

Um are you aware of the um the the violations that were noted in the um exhibit from the city?

Uh I did read through them.

Um for the most part it's kind of like a um I could kind of see before my kind of apartment uh inspection, a lot of maintenance items like batteries for smoke detectors and some uh the maintenance items.

I'd actually didn't see the uh the single means of egress issue brought up on that list.

At least I couldn't see it really that clearly, but uh that certainly is something that has to be addressed.

Okay, I'm sorry, that was fine.

Certainly it has to be has to be addressed.

And are you aware of the ways in which you can address that?

Correct.

There's I mean, generally the uh code recalls for two means of egress from uh buildings, uh, but there are some exceptions to that uh and other methods to to get to have egress properly have egress.

Um one of which for residential units, you can have uh a single your provisions for a single egress from from apartments.

Uh there's a chart in the book, I think uh uh Eric has that, uh, but it's uh basically says that if you have a building that it's that's sprinklered, you're allowed to have up to four units per floor on up to three floors.

Uh and they would all could be could access one exit.

Um we actually did a new building not too long ago, just finished it.

I'm sorry, I'm having more uh we had um a building recently that on Front Street that was a brand new building, but used that uh that same portion of the code to have basically had three-story building, four units per floor, single exit in the middle, that all those units use that single exit.

So it's uh it's a well uh well known provision of the code to have that uh to have that one exit provision.

So um while you said there could be other things explored, the fallback is it is absolutely code compliant.

If you said Mr.

Karametti, the only thing we can do is sprinkler lease, he would need to sprinkler them as that to for that option, is that correct?

That's that's the catch.

It's sometimes clients won't balk at the possible extra cost, but that is a way that you can do that.

That's a provision of that section of the code that the uh you see at the note A on the the table 1006.3.3 point uh one there, and there's a little uh footnote A and B, and it does say the building is classified as R2 equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with the sprinkler sections.

Um you also have to have uh your emergency escape and rescue openings, which is uh the uh escape windows out of bedrooms.

Are those currently up to grade this work?

Um the way the building is right this moment, yes, does not, but we will provide those as part of the part of the plan.

So um you've indicated you you had a 12-unit three-story building, new building in the city approved using a similar type of approach.

Is that correct?

Actually, it was a it was a 30-unit building, but it was kind of divided into three sections, each section had 12 and six.

Okay.

So it used that.

So that's how we we did that.

Okay.

So at this point, if if we would get to the point where there would be zoning relief granted to allow the two units, you'd then explore whether it's feasible to do um sprinklering if that was your only option, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Um if not, this would need to be stay i i if if Mr.

Karametti would not agree to the the expense for the code improvements for apartment units, he still would have the opportunity to pursue a conversion to a use other than residential, correct?

Uh correct.

I guess there are uh if it's commercial space, there's other issues there that we go on, but we still have to do something there to provide there's there's also provisions for I think actually in that same page there, there are as long as you're on the first floor, you can have uh like say a business office, which is a type occupancy B.

You could have as long as you were under 49 occupants and had less than 75 feet of travel distance, you'd be able to have a single exit for a commercial space for a commercial office.

So the only point these are decisions that will get made if if Mr.

Karametti finds out whether he can even do the units on the first floor, correct?

Um if he can't do the residential units and has to go to commercial, he'll need to comply with a completely different code, correct?

Correct.

And then you'll work on figuring out a way to comply with that, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Um so let's talk then about the uh the the zoning relief.

Um what's the area of the property?

Actual area of the lot of the uh little less than that's a little less than 2600 square feet, like it's like 2,525 square feet or less.

And was it an accurate statement that it's essentially surrounded by a street and three other properties?

It's land kind of a landlocked property.

Correct, yes.

Okay.

Um what zoning district is is it in?

The uh B1R district.

Okay.

And um as was indicated uh under the current the ordinance we're here under today, a residential conversion to those two units would be allowed from a use perspective, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Now in the B1R, that could be like a retail corner store or things of that sort.

There are other uses, non-residential uses that admittedly could go on the first floor.

Correct.

Okay.

Um you heard Mr.

Karametti's reasoning for uh that there's a need for apartments though, and uh, and and that's why I'm going forward with this, and it's allowed, right?

Yes.

Okay.

Um I have I have a question.

Sure.

While we're talking about that, I think this would go to Matt.

You were saying a residential conversion, you're you're converting it to two apartment units, right?

Correct.

The way I'm reading the chart, maybe Matt, you could or might you can clarify this.

It says that it's not allowed uh if it's uh more than more than one, according to the charts.

And you're referring to the you're referring to the chart and the zoning ordinance, not the not the exhibit in which the appellance council presented, correct?

Okay, and this is part of the reason.

This is part of the reason why we all enjoy the while we're all why we're all pleased that the new code is here.

So there are two differentiations of conversion that are that are made.

There's a conversion of an existing lawful principal business use into one dwelling unit, and then there's also a residential conversion of an existing building to result in an increased number of dwelling units.

If the proposal were to take the space that had been previously a dentist office and and convert it into just one single unit, it would have been the former in this case, since there is the proposal for the for the two units, it's the latter the increased number of dwelling units.

In both cases, it is uh it is a buy right use in the in the B1R.

That said, there is the there's the caveat that conversions are limited to detached struct detached structures.

I'll just put some emphasis on my words, containing containing more than 3,000 square feet of floor area.

Off the top of my head, I do think that we need the 3,000 square feet test for this building.

Mr.

Gapp probably could could mention that a little bit better.

The building is attached on the one side, so that would be the that would be a essentially a dimensional consideration as well, rather than uh rather than a use consideration.

But yes, because we're increasing the number of dwelling units rather than just one commercial one commercial space to one residential, that's why the use has been interpreted as it has.

All right.

And if you look at that chart, it just for for the use we're under, it just adds a second footnote to the requirements, and that doesn't apply here because the one we're converting, A and G apply.

Right.

But G is a buildings four stories or more.

So it's effectively the same as as the one before.

It's just we have we go under the other one because that allows more that allows two units here.

Okay.

Although we're not four stories, so it's almost irrelevant to make that distinction.

Okay.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um there's three items of zoning relief that are needed to create two units on the first floor.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay.

Um the proposed lot area, what is required, and and and I think you've said what you have.

Right.

The um proposed lot area is 6,000 square feet, and we have um 25, 25 square feet.

Um but as was indicated, it's impossible to acquire additional land, correct?

I guess.

I mean, well, without knocking down buildings or buying the backyards.

I mean, there they're they are developed for use as surrounding, correct?

There's not a vacant piece next to us, right?

Yeah.

Number one.

And the building already exists and occupies all of the property.

Correct.

Okay.

Um the second one is lot area per dwelling unit, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

And that one again is just a factor of math.

Uh there's a there's a lot area per dwelling unit, but irrespective of whether this is a retail store occupying the first floor or two apartments, the lot, total lot area doesn't change, correct?

Correct, yes.

Okay.

It's just that now we have four units, so for a residential lot area per dwelling unit, uh, the math just causes that to be a lower number, correct?

Right.

And um, am I correct that there are there are in the city of Allentown other areas where the lot area per dwelling unit in existing buildings when converted does not comply.

Yeah, and projects I've worked on pretty much all of them have that same same machine.

Yeah.

Yeah, I I mean it's a fact that that's typically an item of relief when you're trying to convert a building in the city.

Correct.

I keep doing this.

Yeah, most of the time it's good enough for just the single family only for the current current size of the lots.

All right.

And if the minimum lot area, I'm gonna show you the zoning ordinance.

In the B1R is what area to begin with.

Okay.

Okay.

So this lot is deficient for any use in the B1R because the B1R other use other than residential, because uh we know we need relief for residential, but any use would be deficient at three at 3,000, correct?

Correct.

And then is the last item uh that you would need parking?

Correct.

Yes.

There is no on-street off-street parking, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

There's nowhere to put off-street parking, correct?

There's no way to get to it at all.

Yeah.

Um now, in your experience, you're familiar with the air area.

Is this conversion inconsistent or with with other conversions you've worked on and with the with the uses in the vicinity?

I think I've even worked on a couple in this in the couple blocks that you're not it's the same thing, like it's the lot has been divided.

I'm sorry, it's the same as um same thing.

Other properties I've worked on, it's a similar situation where there's it was a lot that went all the way from one street to the F Street, and now it's been divided in half, and the property has no access to the backyards to get parking.

And that's happened in a couple different uh projects I've worked on over the years.

And if you look at four uh exhibit four, there's uh significant multifamily dwellings in the area, correct?

Correct.

So um exhibit four is an aerial.

The uh building has the red balloon, correct?

Yes.

And then we've marked three buildings in close proximity that are uh have multifamily components, correct?

Uh yes, I see an A B and C there.

Yes.

Yeah, and then the attachments are are are on that exhibit.

Yeah, actually did work on uh the building A and C there.

You worked you worked on A and C.

Yes.

Okay.

Quite a while ago, but yes.

Yeah.

Um it appears that there's parking in the back of C.

Is it the uh there is four or five four or five cars back then?

So it's a large building.

It has it's uh I'm not sure what the exact use is now, but it was converted into like a um it wasn't a multifamily, but um I believe it was maybe associated with Hogar Krea.

I'm sorry, Hogar Krea inside Yeah, that is a mixed-use building.

Right, yeah.

And you're not contending that there's no off-street parking, there is a lot of in the back, yes.

Yeah.

Um but not on that lot on this lot that we're talking about.

The one with the red bubble, the one 40643.

There's no there is no parking period.

Yeah, can't even get to the backyard from the front.

That's the problem with the means of egress.

Okay.

Now look, let's on the parking, let's let's think about this.

Is there a parking requirement for a business use in the city?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, what is the parking requirement for two apartments if they were placed on the first floor?

How many spaces do you need?

So you need 1.5 per apartment.

Okay.

Um there was an office, a dental office there.

Did you look at the number of spaces required for a dental office?

That's the size of the floor if you made the first floor back into a full dental office.

Right.

So a dental office needs um one space for every 200 square feet of the office.

So it's uh, I think we may office um space down there that's available for the office is about sixteen hundred square feet.

So we would need uh nine parking spaces for that.

Okay.

So while parking relief is needed, according to the ordinance, this use only uses one third roughly of the parking that the dental office would need under the ordinance.

Correct.

Okay.

I have a question.

Why do you say they need parking relief?

We were it was indicated that we need relief.

I haven't seen that.

I don't see it in the legal ad.

Oh.

I yeah, I have the same question.

I because I did make the argument originally that it was the ghost parking and I didn't need it, but but then we did put in the application based upon the denial we got.

I don't know that we could even scrutinize the parking results.

Do you agree that we don't based on my analysis?

Because maybe that's why it came out.

In the letter from December 10th from Scott Wiltz, it does mention the parking deficiency of three spaces being required, zero spaces being proposed.

I'm not sure if that's and and we did respond by suggesting that under the section that there was a that before the parking requirement was three on top and eight or nine on the bottom, and thus we we would have that grandfather, but but I don't know if you took it out for that reason because I I I didn't realize that because I went by Scott's letter when I was preparing.

And it says having insufficient parking, but the following I'm going back to the actual review sheet that would have been would have been prepared by the zoning officer.

So it just says non-conforming.

So I can't hear you.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm on that green sheet, yeah.

The review letter just says non-conforming.

On the sheet that indicates that non-conforming parking applies, it can be indicated that there it can be assumed that there would have been some kind of some kind of nonconformity that would have previously been associated with the dentist office or with uh or with a commercial or with the commercial use there at that location.

So this would be a situation where if there was any kind of ambiguity in the in the record looking the MPC would suggest that that would be in that would be in the applicant's favor if there isn't an interpretation needed on the spot here, there would have likely been some kind of some kind of parking nonconformity that would have been associated with uh with the previous with the previous office use, and it's generally been the been the practice to carry those nonconformities forward and with uh with the structure itself.

So I would interpret this as a situation where some degree of park nonconformity would be considered reasonable.

Then I think we're okay.

Because it like I said, we did raise that, but we had the letter from Mr.

Wilt, so we didn't want to miss it when we came tonight.

Okay.

Um so i i in terms of of you know impact on the area, just in your experience, um are you comfortable that two more apartments in this scenario, considering you've worked another there, is not detrimental as opposed to trying to put I don't know, retail or something else in there that wouldn't have that lot requirements to me it's a very reasonable proposition, I'd say um and in your opinion, it's an existing hardship based upon the lot size and and the size of the building.

There's nothing you can do.

Correct.

Okay.

Um based upon this lot size, is it even really feasible to start knocking down buildings to try to I mean I assume it's you you're gonna be stuck with the same issue anyway of the number of units on this lot size, correct?

Right, if you knocked it down, you probably have other even even more issues because of setbacks and those kind of things.

And um based on your view, there's no reason to do that.

This in your opinion can be uh rehabilitated to be a a beneficial use, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

That's all the questions I have for this witness.

Any other I had a few questions uh on this getting back to the sprinklers.

There's two apartments and not nothing sprinkled right now.

Yeah.

Okay.

So that would be in in violation, although I guess I understand this is a non-conforming situation.

Well, these are dundant.

There was no sprinkling requirement.

Right, right, okay.

Um how many people live in the apartments total?

I do not know.

On the apartment?

Yes.

In the the left side of three people.

Okay.

So you're looking at nine.

He's in a wife and osma.

The other one, wife and hosming and one sign.

So you're looking at nine people?

Nine.

And how and these are two bed.

I'm proposing two two bedroom units.

So let's say there's two in each one.

So it's gonna be another four.

So you're gonna have thirteen people living in the building, roughly, maybe more.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um how uh right now there's how how is the uh egress from the second and uh third floor apartments.

How are they getting out?

Yeah, right.

In case of an emergency.

Right now they have the main entrances that the center door in the picture here that goes to a central stairway that goes up to the third floor.

Through the second and third floors.

I guess it goes the second second floor, and then the each of the apartments, so the apartments are one apartment on the right, one apartment left.

So if there was a fire there, the the people upstairs wouldn't not have any way of getting out.

The I believe the if you were on the third floor, you have to you have to come down the stairway to the second level, and then from that second level, you either come forward to Rich Avenue, or there's a stairway in the back that goes back to the backyard.

Were the residents aware of that?

So they have two exits.

They just the rear exit though is has no directing outside public right away.

Yeah, okay.

All right, that's the current that's the current requirement now, but that's high that was not their requirement.

I understand.

That's the that was the current requirement is to have the two exits go to a public running way, but the these not have to comply with that when they were built.

Right.

Right.

So yeah, I mean the the the two existing ones are to your knowledge that you they haven't been cited, it's just they are they were constructed prior to the current code, is that correct?

Correct.

Okay, and I I don't know if this would be directed to you, but there were two uh previous uh zoning hearing board appeals on this.

You're aware of that?

Yeah, I'm sure you are.

Uh that while you're back in 2002 and 2003.

Do you know or does the owner know if was he aware of them when he bought the property?

No.

I mean they're they're 20 some years old.

I I don't I I and I'm not positive, but I don't know that it was a permitted conversion back then.

I wasn't positive.

I do have the I do have the decisions here in front of me, and I'm doing the quick review of the initial dwelling unit, or it appears the same request was presented twice under application 56693 and 5695.

56653 would have would have indicated or it would have been uh it would have been a similar appeal, the a similar appeal to what was made now.

There's there's no mention in the particular decision as to as to whether the use of the apartments was permitted or not.

I can or I can read the I can read the finding of the board if it would be helpful.

I can read the summation of the board's logic into the into the record at this point if there's a request.

You can I've already read it.

Okay.

I see a copy of that.

Yeah, I have it in front of me.

And the second decision in the series, since the two appeals were spaced so close together, the board just basically said we reaffirm our logic of the initial appeal.

And I might I think those were four units in the same space.

Yes, that's correct.

It was a very similar appeal to what's being presented now.

I haven't done a I haven't done a thorough review of the plans that would have been submitted back 20 plus years ago and in full disclosure, but the intent would have been similar to what's being proposed.

It was converting an old dentist office to that.

So I mean there's okay.

I mean, there's not much we can say uh uh uh you know, other than since then the code has changed and these will get sprinklered.

So I I I mean that that that addresses the that issue.

Um you know we don't need parking relief.

Right I mean there's a dental office allowed to go in there, so I mean I I uh I mean you're not bound by that based upon the the circumstances, but and and I um probably the care I the character of the city and the character of the city in this area has changed.

I mean we need we do need as it was indicated that we need housing.

I I very familiar with the area since I lived on at the in the 400 block of of uh of uh second street.

So I I'm gonna go to the right.

On the 400 block of 2nd Street, so pardon me?

I was on born on the 400 uh block or the the second and linden street.

Uh I I lived at second and liberty.

Oh so I'm very familiar.

My family was was from there.

So all I'm saying is in the last 20 years, I think we I think we I think this is a good use to add to that neighborhood in my mind, two new apartments.

And in light of the fact that I I'm not sure we're gonna get a dentist's office or a law office in there.

Um maybe maybe some kind of retail that's probably not what's necessarily needed, and and with the code requirements now with the sprinkling, at least you're getting two units that will be built up to the brand new code.

So I it's it's a time I I understand, but it's you know there's also not much simply not much content in that 2002 decision, and the appellant wasn't represented by council, so it's always possible that it's always possible that the case that was put on in 2002 may just not have that much meet to it in the first place.

One last thing.

I I noticed that there's an open lot across right up directly across the street from 406-408.

And there are cars parked in there to the back.

Right here.

There's actually a lot, a fair amount of parking on the street on uh around the corner and and in front of the macula conception anyway.

I there's a really I I don't know that the I I shouldn't testify, but I do have a I do have photos that'll show you that if that again we don't need relief, but but but there's really there is here I can put this in just just if that's a question.

So thinking that apartments will generate a demand after five o'clock.

So you'll see they're they're dark.

Um you just want to explain the the chart.

Is this is it is the bubble again our unit?

Yes.

And then do we have letters with photographs that I took and shared with you guys?

Yes.

Yeah, these are just showing that there's spaces available.

Yeah.

These are spaces uh part on the street.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm I'm actually have I've had a number of uh clients in this area, and I usually have no problem finding spaces because this is during the day, but yeah, I don't have um a problem finding a space.

No, yeah, you're you may not find spaces right in front of these units because it's where the people live, but um one block away, there's a lot of parking in front of the church normally, and then there's a fair amount of parking that shows around the corners uh after five o'clock.

So it's also worth noting that the parking authority owns some of the vacant properties that you may be looking at at 409 and 411 Ridge Avenue.

So obviously if the if the parking authority is uh is a landholder, the intent is for a parking supply to be provided in the area.

I think there is actually a parking lot.

Like a uh I think it says like the 400 Ridge Avenue a lot.

That's actually a parking authority lot there.

Yes.

Yeah, even though the address is out of number, it's called the 400 Ridge Avenue.

Correct.

Question for Stuart.

Um, the the owner of the building indicates that uh I'm wrestling right with the the this business of the the degree of relief requested is pretty significant.

There's only uh like a one-third degree compliance here.

And uh my question originally was well, what's what's wrong with one unit?

It seemed since I don't know anything about the the rental market that that the space is too big for one.

Is that do you have an opinion on whether or not it's a lot of people?

I think they have the opinion once you hit over 1200 square feet or so there are a lot of homes that are available that the the rent they can charge for a large large apartment is ends up being comparable to renting a whole house.

And people who need that much space would prefer having a house rather than being part of an apartment building, maybe like a single family uh going.

So it's very hard.

Could be just as as intense as too small.

I get that.

Yeah, right, because you have 15 square foot apartment, you're not gonna have three people in there.

It's gonna be probably a very extended multi-generational family with lots of lots of people.

Okay, yeah, thanks.

Lots of people, lots of people.

I mean, first the the size of the larger apartment upstairs is atypical for that area, is that correct?

Yeah, I would say so.

I mean, I don't know all of them, but I'd say it's any time you get over a thousand square feet, that's gonna be a big it's a large apartment for the city valentown.

And then I guess following kind of the the question about the size of uh one unit on the first floor being kind of a comparable or potentially you could charge us the amount of rent for that that as a house, how um difficult or how easy would it be to essentially make these two buildings to uh attach single family dwellings?

So extend you know that for rent.

So make the first floor part of the apartments on the upper floors.

I think we'd be looking at like a over 2,000 square foot house.

Meaning, I mean it's like I think they're like 15, so we're there and eight so we're like between 20, 2,000 and 2400 square foot houses.

Um the way they are they are configured right now, it'd be difficult to do that.

There's one is one stairway that's currently uh accessing the upper floors, so we have to like you have to basically totally reconfigure the building to make that happen.

Okay, thank you.

That was the logic of the board's uh used in the uh earlier decisions in the that the board thought that well there's no hardship.

You could just create two single family dwellings.

That was cited in the old decisions.

Yeah, I and I guess I would suggest that might have made more sense back then, but now I mean I'm not quite sure there's there's how much of a market there is for 2200 square foot down there.

When you rent a single, you rent a 1500 square foot uh row home is probably the a likely size unit down there.

Right, and I mean likely have someone like purchasing needs to create a single family house neighborhood is not going to happen.

It seems to me the the owner might even be disinclined to pursue that and might try to find a uh non-residential use for that floor.

Would seem to be that's what it would seem to me would happen in that event.

Yeah, I think you're gonna either have the two apartments or you're gonna pursue non-residential because it's gonna be infeasible.

There's gonna be no market for the size, according to and and it and it's gonna cost more money to do that.

Right.

Even the configuration on the inside, because I mean the stairway is down the middle.

You almost had end up like with like a U-shaped apartment that you'd have to go from like front to the back to the front to get to the other part of the apartment.

So it really does not lend itself to one large apartment.

And this might be a question for the owner, just in terms of um before you connected with your architect and plan for two units on the first floor.

Did you attempt to market the first floor as a commercial use?

Did you try or try to talk to other architects about or maybe the same architect about uh you know pursuing commercial use?

No.

No.

You I think you you talked to the since it was called since there had been some uh some attempt by the prior owner to go that route, when you talk to the realtor, that realtor indicated you should look at apartments.

So you so you didn't bother to try to do the the commercial the the commercial component.

And and and I did I I just yeah, I I mean the the businesses that would be attracted probably to that, or this probably this seemed like the better alternative from uh or from a code compliance standpoint.

Most projects or most uses that would be considered for this property would would require relief in some area.

Any kind of commercial occupancy there may be there may be some question with respect to parking, even if the property were to be restored to twins, the minimum lot width for for a twin or two family would be 22 feet per unit in an RMH, which is which provides the underlying area and bulk requirements for B1R residential uses.

They're about 40 feet of lock width for this particular lot.

So even restoring twins, the lot would be a little undersized, and there would either be a be a non-conformity there situation that would require a little then would require some minor zoning relief.

I have one final question.

I promise it'll go.

Okay, this one goes to store.

There's a on your I guess this is your drawing.

Yeah, yes.

Um on the back of the uh the unit.

Looks like there's a dashed one.

It looked like a deck.

Is that a deck that's going back there?

Or what is that?

Um it's a deck above.

That's actually how the second floor uh people would come down, and it's currently like a it's been enclosed in a very kind of slap dash way.

And um, is it so it's an existing structure?

It's kind of a it's an existing post that someone filled in at some point.

Okay, and I just it's just a taking that down so that the two units would have the doors opening to the exterior, not to like a little hallway that was created.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions?

Okay.

So I think real quick, we want to enter the exhibit.

So it's yeah, I moved for the admission of uh A1 through, I think I got up to A six.

Five four were in the packet, five was the uh building code section, six was the uh the parking pictures.

Great.

Okay.

Any other arguments?

Okay, I I would just uh in brief closing.

I think you've heard part of my closing throughout through through throughout the hearing, which is um I I you know understand the history of this, but we we have a gentleman drove from New York for the hearing because it meant that much to him, and uh uh he is attempting to do the right thing.

I I I've been here before where people have been hesitant to hire architects for a small project like this.

He has done that because he's looking to comply.

And I do think there's a hardship.

It is what it is, and this is probably the best use you're going to get under 2026 circumstances.

Um, and I'm not quite sure forcing him to go the route of trying to make it non-commercial in some way is the right result.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thoughts?

Um, I'll start real quick.

Uh I looked at the definition of the business dash one residential zone, and it's uh to allow for mixed use areas adjacent to residential zones with limited business.

Um I I know in the chart over here that the uh range of uses allowed in this zone for non-residential are are pretty uh encompassing and pretty some of them seem pretty intense.

Uh when I look at the character of the street, the 400 block of Ridge Avenue, it's almost all residential.

Um I have some concerns about the intensity of the use.

Uh the uh it it the opportunity to avoid the the uh a new res a new non-residential use in that bottom floor seems seems like a better alternative to me.

So I I think I could go along with the with the application.

Right.

Yeah, I I agree with that.

I I'm I'm more concerned with the uh with the egress and the and the fire issue, and uh I I think that has to do with uh uh the objection of of the city and uh uh I don't have a problem with converting the conversion into the two units.

Uh but I would I would insist that uh uh the building be sprinklered and that the windows and all the bedrooms of the of the uh apartments uh uh be uh egress egress windows.

Uh other than that, I'm okay with it.

Yeah, yeah, I I agree with the two of you.

Um I think that there are unique circumstances, especially in terms of the lot configuration, even looking at the surrounding lots, it is an odd shape.

Um, and and the building footprint uh takes up most of the lot as we've we've heard.

Um even looking at like the building frontage on and the first floor facade, like um that if you are looking at a non-residential use, it's a very specific non-residential use.

Um it's not really storefront windows or anything, it's kind of designed to be um residential in nature.

Um, I don't see these two additional units having any adverse uh impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

Um while we've discussed kind of is this the minimum relief required, a lot of the testimony that we've heard um states that maybe other uses, even um uh non-residential uses would have potentially larger amounts of relief required.

Um so for those reasons, I I also I would agree with um you know granting the variants.

So without a motion, um I I'll make a motion to approve.

Do you do you have any specific conditions that you want to attach that code related?

That are the that the building, the entire building be sprinkler, and that all the windows in the bedrooms uh are egress windows.

I could go for uh uh an approval of both requested variances with with that as a condition.

Okay.

From the from the standpoint of the of the city, obviously there are building code officials who would need to verify the acceptability of any engineered solution to provide fire egress.

Would this would this board only want to see sprinklers or if there was some other situation deemed deemed acceptable by either the city's the city's building code official or on appeal of the building code board of officials with that?

I I if there's an alternate way that they come up with, I I'd be willing to substitute the sprinklers for whatever that's if we can have the option to comply to work with the city to comply, and and as we said, it may turn out being sprinklers, it may with the window with whatever, but yeah, if we can if we could just indicate that we would work with the city for for an option for uh on the fire access.

Right and egress and whatever the exact term is, that would be appreciated because we would like to keep so because we haven't gone that far yet until we knew whether we got this relief.

Also, uh as part of the uh award um that would uh comply with the obviously with the building code with the current building code.

And I I guess the permits in already.

So you're so you're on 218 because now it's 221 with the building code.

I don't know how that'll affect anything, but uh if the permits already been submitted.

If you're under design contract before January 1st, you have you have you have a design contract in already.

So we have the contracting with him.

Yeah, all right.

So you're in you're on so you comply with two 2018 building code.

Anything could be conditioned to comply with uh with the most current edition of building codes is adopted by the city and with the condition the uh with the condition the uh fire egress system have fire egress system be engineered for the building suitable with stamp plans suitable to the city down to code official or some language of that nature.

Right.

Okay.

So I hear a motion to approve with those two conditions as stated.

I'll make the motion to approve.

Oh so I'll second the motion.

Okay, all in favor.

Aye.

All right.

Thanks for your time.

Okay.

Um and then we'll hear um the third item on the agenda, but the second item for tonight, um, 1343 Linden Street.

Can you speak as on your first thing?

Yes, I'm Kelly Holzman, K-E-L-L-I, H O L Z M-A-N.

Um Jeff Holzman, J E F F H H O L Z M A N.

And if you can both just be closer to the data.

I got all that when you still have to.

Okay.

So you can both just raise your right hand.

I'll send you both sort of temperatures.

I do.

Yep.

Okay.

Hi everyone.

We're the owners of uh Queen City Realty.

And here we're here in regards to 1343 Linden Street.

It is the building to the right side of the picture.

The one with the audit.

Yeah, the one with the little awning.

The building has three stories.

It has a first floor rear apartment with one person living in it.

The second floor apartment has one person living in it, and the third floor apartment has two people living in it.

And so currently the uh where you see the front windows, that's an office, and um time ago, um the middle the side lot to the right of the tree, it was filled in, and another office was created along with like a break room, like a break room offices.

Um and so when we bought the building in 2022, we left it as offices, and we've had some success, mixed success.

It's been difficult renting them as offices.

So uh we've looked at the space and it lends itself perfectly to an apartment, and we've done a a live works um unit at another property and had success with that, and we thought this this you know space could really it's 12 a little over 1200 square feet could really be a nice apartment or live work unit.

Um, and so that's why we're here today.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Yeah, what what's the current use now?

You you could say there's a offices a three-story building?

It's a three-story building.

And there's offices in all three stories.

No, the second floor is a second floor apartment.

Okay.

The third floor is a a third floor apartment.

Okay, so in the first floor is uh the first floor, the the rear.

If um, I don't do you have this drawing in your pocket in your packet?

Yeah, I do.

Probably this is the best way to look at the first floor.

Um apartment one that's highlighted in orange is the rear existing apartment that one person lives in currently.

Oh, so there's somebody in there as a as a uh an apartment on the first floor.

Okay.

Yep.

When is the lease of oh gosh, so they are a January through December.

So now theirs would would end in December of next this 2026.

Actually, all three are January to December leases, and so their leases go until December of 2026.

Okay, thank you.

So the the space we're here about is um right next door.

So it's basically the side lot that got filled in and made a it's a first floor um structure on the side of the building.

So on the picture on the screen, it's the one story space just to the right of the tree.

Yeah.

Which goes all the way back almost to the alley.

You're talking where they have the double windows.

Yes.

Yeah, so the window, the double window to the left is just a part of the original building.

That's one office.

And then on the drawing, is it in color?

Because okay, on the drawing, the yellow highlighted area.

Um, currently is used as people have tried to use it as an office, right?

Um, it currently has a full bathroom with a shower and toilet and sink, and it has a kitchenette.

It was used as like a break room and office space.

And so since it's in a residential neighborhood and it's easily laid out already, we were just going to make the kitchen at a full kitchen and replace the floors.

We don't have to do anything structural to it.

There's already a back door, um, where it's labeled the bedroom.

There's already closets in that room.

There's uh already an exit door to the back, and then there's multiple doors out the front.

Was this given to us as an exhibit, or where did you get it?

Yeah, it was in our office file that was sent out.

Okay.

Um question.

I I don't have any questions.

Do any other questions from your when I look at the definition of a lived work unit in the ordinance?

Uh it says it's a dwelling unit or other space within a building that's used jointly for residential and non-residential purposes, typically exceed those of a home occupation.

What what uh type of a business level do you have in mind for the occupant to use this for?

Uh the the one that we have currently, the occupant uh is a um is a uh tailor, and so he lives in the the live space, and then he has clients that come in for he sews.

Um it could be um an accountant, it could be anyone who needs.

I think it might be defined what those items could be that could be in that space.

I don't think I've got that with me.

When you say that the I see in the legal ad that it's a uh to convert a first floor office.

What when was the last time it was used as an office?

We do use now.

There's a nonprofit in there that's excuse me.

There's a non-profit in there that's using it as their office space.

Right.

Um with mixed success, they're they've they're behind on the rent, and um they haven't provided um the requisite um insurance that you would need for a commercial business.

So we've advertised uh this space had other people mostly nonprofits coming in to take a look at it.

Um real bites, and we're just kind of holding on to the current tenant just to kind of keep like it's lately it's been about half the rent flowing in.

Um this is a better than nothing.

Um we just don't see this being in some place that you know a commercial business is is gonna come in, but but it's in a residential neighborhood, um great neighbors, the folks upstairs.

Yeah, um, and we need more, like we have no trouble.

We have some apartments, and we have no trouble renting apartments.

Office space is another matter, especially this is more like class B office space.

Um the front ones are are just typical offices, but the whole back area it's looks more like uh an apartment, actually.

Is it consistent with the city's understanding that this property is like a legal office use?

And it could be rented out at any time.

That would be the understanding and the understanding too is that the live work unit itself is a is a permitted use.

There's no action being sought by the board from the board to establish the the live work.

There's some dimensional relief associated with uh with the increase in dwelling units that would be associated with the with the conversion of the previously sole purpose office space to the joint occupancy and dwelling, just as for some of the specific occupations that could occupy the space per the code, retail sales, restaurants, personal services, catering and business or professional services if they're if they're located within the base permitted zoning district.

the joint occupancy and dwelling just as for some of the specific occupations that could occupy the space per the code retail sales restaurants personal services catering and business or professional services if they're if they're located within the base permitted zoning district so given that this is an RH the permitted uses would would mostly be of the of the personal service or some sundry retail type type variety there also would be room for an artistic tenant of of some sort for a for some kind of small scale gallery studio et cetera space not necessarily a performance venue but for if someone wanted uh offer offer small scale music or dance instruction or such out of the unit something like that would also be why did it not qualify for home occupation then home occupation is more limited the the stipulation on home occupant occupation or the phrase that's that's used by our office all the time is phone or paperwork only the ability of a home occupation to be able to serve customers or to or to be able to to pretty much offer any kind of client facing public walk in traffic generation is pretty limited if someone's if someone's a if someone's a consulting business where they're pretty much entirely entirely preparing remote work in an office suite something like that might would be a home would be considered a home occupation live work offers a little more a little more function a little more latitude of the work side of the enterprise to to resemble a traditional business.

Did you say that um because it's a residential zone there would be a a lesser range of allowable uses uh associated with the the live workspace the or the work portion could only be used for uh or for a commercial use that would be permitted within the base zone so the use specific standards section 66084 sub 22 already contain a range of permitted permitted uses for a live work space but then with the caveat with the with the filter to be applied if you will that that then the list can only further accommodate those uses that would also be compatible with the underlying zoning district so that so that a live work can't can't be used to shoehorn a more intense use into a into a neighborhood where it's not zoned for it yeah I if I got this correct Mike I had under consumer service art gallery business support um maintenance or repair personal improvement studio instruction um office walk in office financial service so it's it's more that type those definitions that were read were from the code that took effect January 1st this appeal is still under the under the previous code but the list of occupations that you read pretty lines up pretty well with the lines up pretty well with the previous codes understanding of a live workspace with respect to the specific tenant of a of a tailor that then you mentioned that's the that's the kind of small scale artism that when that actually would fit pretty well in our image of what a live workspace might look like yeah any other questions yeah a parking uh you have apartments there where they park uh I I didn't see an overview of the of the property so I can't really tell yep the one on the third floor parks in a garage the garage on the property by the second floor yeah um behind the property there are garages okay um the uh first floor tenant does not drive okay and this it's the second floor tenant that has the garage and then the third floor uh they each have uh two cars and we have a parking lot at a at 1329 okay which is you're at 1343 then 41 so it's like at the end of the block and they park in in that right I'm just asking uh I I know that's not part of the the variance that you're asking for I was just curious um there's parking in the back and also on the parking lot so there was a previous use as a funeral home at this property so when our office reviewed the when our office reviewed the parking lot that use the property would have been would have had significant parking already okay all right thank you okay um I do know if there's no other questions for the applicants I need to know we have a person an interested person not necessarily an objector would you like to speak or are you you don't it's not required just want to give you the opportunity if you have anything to say Brad Clark can you just let your first LS Bradley B R A D L E Y Clarter C A R T E Right Yes I just came uh just in support of my neighbors uh we only build that 1327 uh the street and um as you said the parking lot is separates our building from their buildings and um we need a previous owner and um they run a nice operation over there with community center and um also with the apartment uses as well uh like she said uh there's really no problem with written out properties in the area and we service a lot of the um people that walk that commute catch the bus what have you and there's a grocery store right across the street so you don't really have to go that far a number of uh community churches in the area and uh public library

And um as she said, the parking lot is separate our building from their buildings.

And um we need a previous owner, and um they run a nice operation over there with community center and um also with the apartment uses as well.

Uh like she said, uh there's really no problem with written out properties in that area, and we service a lot of the um people that walk that commute catch the bus, what have you, and there's a grocery store right across the street, so you don't really have to go that far.

A number of uh community churches in the area and uh public library and things at that sort of playgrounds, and we have two uh new elementary schools as you all know in that same area.

So a lot of our tenants actually walk.

So in our building, we have um a number of uh units, and um most of our tenants also uh walk.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions?

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thoughts?

Um I think they met this is a variance, correct?

Yeah, so it a variance for law area and minimum um law area per dwelling unit.

I I think they met the uh uh requirements for the variance.

My only my only uh add-on to it would be that they would be in compliance with article 15 of the live work live uh live work units or live work space.

Uh there's several items on there uh outlining you know what what what can and can't be put in there since we don't know what what is in you don't you don't have anybody in there right now and you don't know who's gonna rent the space.

But when they do that they would be in compliance with uh with that article.

That would be anything like that.

We anticipated that the secure approval for the tenant's business.

That was that was that how this would work, like you know if they say this were approved.

The the tenant were selected, would they not need a zoning permit?

In I I think the tailor got his own business is acceptable.

In this case, the way that would most likely work since the zoning permit itself would be for the for the live work unit on some level of detail, is that the tenant would need to obtain a city business license and in city business license and applications automatically get forwarded to zoning for review.

So we'd have when the business license came in and came to zoning, then we'd be able to obviously do a little cross-check and determine that the business use being proposed is in compliance with lib work requirements.

So I suppose an appropriate condition then might be that the tenant channel obtain the appropriate city business, maintain and keep the appropriate city business license.

In light of the those that that process, I I don't have any concerns.

Uh I I mean it to me again it's a an opportunity to potentially head off a a use that's not permitted at that's that's not permitted at all in the zone, the offices.

Yeah, I would agree, and also the variance that they're seeking, it's you know, dimensional, it's um it's not that intense or are um you know it's not a huge dimensional request, um, and the property is pretty unique um in terms of the configuration, um, and it really is almost perfect for a live work unit.

It has the office in the front, and then that um almost dwelling unit um configuration in the back.

So I would agree.

Okay.

And I would add on to that that it they would be in compliance with the live work uh work lib, whatever you want to call it, the uh article 15 additional requirements.

Um and then I would just add the the um point that our um that Mike made about the a condition that the tenant shall obtain all city business licenses.

Correct, city business license.

So okay, motion.

Um we have two conditions.

Um do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay, all in favor?

I motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, is there any other business for us tonight?

No other business.

Next meeting.

Next meeting is on January 12th.

The board that evening will consist of Samantha, Scott Unger, we're assuming, and Stephen Davies will be our alternate for the evening.

No Knower once again.

Once again, we'll have we'll have John Ashley's company with us once again to prepare the decisions.

29th or we'll take a week off.