We have our letter from the RCO meeting.
Our project information form.
Tax clearance for myself
and then the tax clearance for Walter.
Here's our notice of refusal for the project.
Again there's the refusal for the height and then refusal for the eight foot setback.
the zoning drawing you already saw and then the application for appeal
what you what you want to do now is go to the the drawing shop
and and let me ask you this question is there anybody else on the block who was already
built up yes yeah there are a few um say would it be three-story buildings yes you want to have
four story um yeah the fourth story would be set back um so you wouldn't see it from the street it
would since it's a partial fourth story the rear of the building there am i correct
yeah so the rear of the building it would go all the way to the fourth story
back street behind you are they have buildings that went up to
there's three stories yeah behind us is three stories
but you'd be four stories in the back correct
um okay question questions from the board
Was there an RCO meeting?
Yes, there was.
Opposition.
Opposition.
Say it again.
Opposition from the RCO.
The RCO.
Also opposition from Council Member Squill.
Gotcha. Okay.
Yeah, the RCO voted in opposition three to two.
The maximum height area is, I believe, probably 38 feet, right?
And you're asking for 41.
Correct.
And is there a layout of what these floors are going to look like?
This looks like the elevation.
Do you have something to show what's going to be in these floors here?
Yeah, I can pull that up. Thank you.
one of the other things while you're pulling that up it looks like you're eliminating
the shared um like alleyway between you and the neighbor on the plane that's no
we're not eliminating the alley oh we're not eliminating the alley no
There is a current alley, and the alley will be there.
Covered area on the first floor, at the ground floor level.
Yeah, he's talking about between the two buildings.
Between the two houses.
Your kitchen comes out.
There's like an inch, a little hook line there.
I mean, it straddles.
That opening straddles both properties.
And it looks like from your plan, from your roof plan, and from your elevations that you're eliminating that space, at least on your side.
Do I need to be sworn in to answer?
Why don't you state your name, please?
My name is Walter Deering, W-A-L-T-E-R, last name Deering, D-E-A-R-I-N-G.
for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes
so the currently like our house like you're saying it it cuts in on our property and then
there's an alley on the addition um we're just building out the addition to the existing footprint
of the like basic part of the house the original house so that alley will still be existing
will not be encroaching on the alley so you're gonna pull up the floor plans
what was that i said you're gonna pull up pull up the floor plans
yeah so we're just filling up our part of the property not the shared yeah
is your architect on on on the line would he have access to it yeah i think all right mr toner
mr toner yes can you hear me mr could yeah could you please state your name and spell for the
course sure uh ian toner it's spelled i-a-n-t-o-n-e-r we're referring to tell the truth
the whole truth nothing but the truth i do do you have access to the to the floor plans yes
could you please bring them up um yeah i just need to get promoted to be able to share my screen
we'll promote you go ahead he's coming back in as a panelist now chair
okay hey everybody
okay are you able to see those plans
So here's the first floor plan, and you'll see, I mean, it's a skinny alley, but this is what there is at the ground floor in the existing building.
These gray walls are the existing walls, and the first floor addition is just going to extend straight back from that wall.
So the alleyway just will extend under the building.
On the upper floor, it overhangs the alley just like it does on the existing second floor.
So we're not encroaching on that alley in any way.
We're not making it any lower or narrower or anything.
Gotcha.
What about the rear yard?
Yeah, so the rear yard, with the existing building configuration, the rear yard is five feet.
When we demo and we make the addition a little bit wider, we're also making it shallower.
So the rear yard is going to come into conformance at seven feet.
The only other thing I wanted to address, and I don't know how crucial it is, but the height refusal is, the measurement that they gave on the refusal is the measurement from the sidewalk, but the legal height of the building measured from the average grade plane is slightly less, so it's 39, 11 and a quarter, as opposed to 41.
is slightly less. So it's 39, 11 and a quarter, as opposed to 41, 0 and a quarter. So basically a foot lower than what's in refusal. And all I would say to that is that a normal three-story house, the roof can be up to 38 and the parapet walls are allowed to be 42 inches high, giving a building an effective height of 42 feet.
41 feet-ish, so we are below that. We're not proposing a deck on top of the fourth floor
here, so the effective height of the building is very similar to a typical three-story with roof
deck home, so I just wanted to toss that out there for conversation. Are there other three-story
houses on the block. Yes, down the block there are. And there are some behind on Dickinson Street
as well. And this house is in the middle of the block? Is that what I'm seeing in the picture?
So there's a building that faces 12th Street. And then so it's kind of a long side of it is on
on Wilder Street, then there's a row house, and then there's this house. So we are a little bit
in from the end. But it's not quite, it's not the middle, it's closer to the end of the block.
And so you currently have how many bedrooms?
Two bedrooms.
Currently there's two bedrooms. And with this addition, you're going to have how many?
Three bedrooms.
Mr. Turner, the three-story houses on this block, but they're not 38 feet, right?
I couldn't say for sure they are under three-story homes.
You're going up four-floor or three in the front and four in the back, right?
That's correct, yeah.
So the four in the back are measuring at 42?
They're measuring at 3911 from the average grade plane.
So a little bit under 30, about 39 feet from the backyard.
They're showing 41 feet here, right?
From the sidewalk.
But if you look at the zoning plan, you'll see the dimension is 3911 and a quarter from the grade plane.
I got it.
Other questions for the board?
questions or comments from the virtual audience i mean i'm sorry our our attorney hillary emerson
not at this time mr chair questions or comments from the virtual audience
planning commission no i'm sorry chair we do have um matthew in the audience
matthew you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair could you please state your name and spell
for the stenographer sure my name is matthew krebs m-a-t-t-h-e-w-k-r-e-b-s i'm a resident
at 1205 wilder street across the street you swear or affirm the total truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do please proceed so just a few clarifications there is one three-story structure
on Wilder Street, the rest of the structures are two stories outside of the ones that border 12th
and 13th Street, which have several three-story structures. Additionally, in front, this is
actually going to be about three and a half stories in the front, considering there's a roof deck on
the front half of this structure. Now, the one thing that I do want to address is really a quality
of life issue for the residents on the north side of Wilder Street across from this proposed property
simply because they are on the south side. And the quality of life issue that is going to be
addressed needs to be addressed is the fact that a four-story structure is essentially going to
block about 45 percent sunlight that comes into the north side of the street during the months
November to March. So there's gonna be a dramatic reduction in the amount of sunlight that accesses
the streets across the house. That is really what drove the refusal from the RCO meeting
and continues to be my main issue here. Thank you, Mr. Krebs, for taking the time to call us.
Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Chair, we have Hannah Carlton.
They have been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Yes, of course.
My name is Hannah Carlton, H-A-N-N-A-H-C-A-R-L-T-O-N.
C-A-R-L-T-O-N.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
You swear or affirm to tell the truth
Yes, I do.
Are you a neighbor?
Yes, I am. I live directly across the street at 1205 Wilder Street.
With the same person that just testified?
That is correct. He's my husband.
I know, but is there anything else you can add other than what he said?
My primary concerns are, yes, that of access to sunlight, but also our privacy by not respecting
the eight foot setback there will be windows directly across from us and looking down into
our property because it is a very narrow street there's one side of the street parking additionally
the new structure will stand out because it's an eye floor it's out of proportion with the rest of
the neighborhood our community has a character that we want to maintain it's important to many
of us such a drastic change will set a precedent for future developments that might diminish the
character of the community. So I strongly urge the board to consider that we should strive to
maintain the integrity and appeal of our neighborhood, ensuring developments are in
keeping with the established standards, and then also do not adversely affect the quality of life
for our existing residents. Thank you for your taking the time to call us. We appreciate it.
Anyone else in the virtual audience? I see no hands here. Plainty Commission.
This is Ron Bednar, City Plumlee. The property is indicated for residential use on the city plan. Given the documented use history and the physical condition of the property, we recommend the request for variance be granted, provided it include a setback of eight foot for the third and fourth stories.
in my 2024 001 323 1204 waller street um i vote yes um
third floor setback fourth floor no the the rear of the property no larger than three floors
so there'll be a setback on the second in the front and the only three floors in the rear
uh mr mr let me just clarify the proviso so what you're saying is maximum three stories
and then um eight foot setback at third story front
my vote is uh yes uh with proviso and that would be they would still comply if they comply with
a maximum 38 foot height? Okay. My vote is yes with provisor.
Sorry, just to clarify. So that's actually an additional proviso. You're saying that
must comply with 38 foot height limit because currently that's a...
You go up three floors at will, right? Yes, but you should clarify that because that is a refusal.
So then that's an additional proviso. Mr. Chair, do you adopt that proviso as well?
I do adopt it. Yes. Okay. All right. Sorry, Ms. Gaston. Yes. With that, Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisants.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with both provisants.
Thank you very much. Just to clarify, it sounds like,
I mean, the two refusals were the height and setback. So it sounds like it's really a no vote
or it's a yes vote to comply with the code is that correct it's a yes vote and they're applied to
the provisos right but I mean the provisos were to meet the height and setback requirements which
are the only two refusals that we have so okay so is this I'm not trying to be difficult I just
want to know the process wise we're handling this like we're going to submit revised plans
to to get this zoning permit as opposed to getting a no and submitting for a new zoning
permit is that correct process right hillary i may have to check with l and i about that because
we with the yeah i thought there was one additional refusal to related to the roof deck but it was
it was a different property um yeah so it's essentially i mean it's essentially no vote
because you have provisoed out i mean yeah you provisoed out the the refusals so it would have
to be marked as a denial okay all right thank you appreciate it can i ask a question so for it
Just from my mind and a design standpoint.
At 38 feet, you'd have a three-story.
There's no reason that that's there couldn't be a loft in that three story. Correct. That wouldn't make it a full story. Correct.
There's no reason that there couldn't be a loft in that three-story, correct?
I think that's right. Yeah, that's right. All right.
So perhaps we should just revote it and deny it because that would that makes a little bit more sense than the provisos.
Because we're basically saying when we tried to say you go up three floors, you can't go to the fourth floor in the rear.
is what right well they can but they could go up to three floors but they just have the height and
they can't not have the setback so that's what the two that's what the two refusals were formed
so we're basically when i write it up it would basically be a denial but i mean i mean provisos
i could go with i could go with the what was it the 40 feet or whatever i you know it's up to you
guys but do we want to take this one back to executive session what do we do well yeah
Connor, we'll take it back to the executive session.
We'll figure it out, and we'll come back and re-vote it on next week at 2 p.m. on Wednesday.
Great.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
So just to clarify for the record, that case has not yet been voted.
The board will be re-voting next week at 2 p.m.
Number seven, MI 2024-003-086-7330 Ridge Avenue.
Catherine Mismer is the attorney.
There's also a second attorney involved, Pan Lagman.
There's a recommendation of unanimous non-opposition from Upper Roxburgh Civic Association.
There's a letter of support from Ridge Park Civic Association.
There's a letter of opposition from Durnley Park Civic Association.