ZBA Hearing - August 6, 2025

There's no.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I had one more question.

Specifically, did you talk directly to the owners of 2130 and 2126, saying as those are the two homes that will be, like, most impacted?

specifically 2130 because now they're in between two three-story buildings when you were talking

about neighbor support uh yeah so we we haven't spoken to them directly but like all of our near

neighbors they have been notified you know they received the mailing about the project had the

opportunity to come to the rco meeting um they also see us almost every day and you know and

you know we do have the posting so they haven't expressed any concerns to us um about the third

story okay any other questions questions from our attorney not at this time mr chair questions or

comments from the virtual audience i see no hands planning commission thank you chairman and board

members good morning david fecto with the city planning commission the comprehensive plan

recommends no change to the RSA-5 residential single-family zoning at this location. The city

rezoned this neighborhood in 1977 in a council-supported map change. There is no unique

physical condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in strict

conformity with the zoning code. While most of the homes on this block face have only two stories,

three-story buildings with the third story built to the front property line are not unusual on this

block face we are also currently working with several civics in the area to create a neighborhood

conservation overlay which would mandate mansard roofs for anyone who proposes to build a third

story in a situation like the one presented in this appeal the city planning commission recommends

that the board grant their proposed dimensional variance mi 2025 0000212128 montrose street

I vote yes with proviso.

Revised plans, one page,

stamped by ZBA, August 6, 2025.

Michael Johns, my vote is yes with proviso.

Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso.

Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with proviso.

Brian McAdams, my vote is yes with proviso.

Ellen, my vote is yes with proviso.

Thank you. You have your votes.

Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Thank you. Many thanks.

Number one, MI 2022, 001-943-3113, North 16th Street.

Devin Upta is the attorney.

Allegheny West Civic Association has voted 12 in support, 7 in opposition.

good morning mr chairman good morning morning sir could you please state your name is spelled

for the stenographer yeah devin hooked i uqd ah do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the

whole truth and nothing but the truth i do would you identify your client in relationship to the

property yes so the property is owned by llc 3313 north 16th street llc my client is uh rafi

bullock he is in attendance he should be in attendance our board member tennessee graham

has a few questions for you sir good morning um have you submitted your documents five days in

advance of this hearing yes and do you waive the reading number refusals and stipulate to their

accuracy. Yes. Okay. Thank you. You may share your screen and proceed. Okay.

Are you able to see my screen? It's coming up now. It should be up any minute.

It's up, Devin. All right. Try to move this over a little bit so it's centered.

All right. So this project is 3113 North 16th Street. So this is the deed to the property.

Basically, this was originally submitted to be a 12-unit development. It's a vacant lot.

We had multiple meetings with the RCO. And ultimately, the agreement was to go from 12

to eight units. So we have a proviso and we have letter of support from the

community based on a proviso that we do not build 12 units, we build eight units.

um based on uh provides that we do not build 12 units we build um eight units at the property instead

um here are some overview pictures of sorry this is not center some overview pictures of the

property again this is north philly um allegheny west rco um 16th street between clairefield and

in Allegheny, again, high-level pictures of the property as well.

There's a good amount of development in the area, which you'll see.

Here is the notice of refusal.

Again, this notice of refusal is for application for a new construction of an attached building

with a roof deck and new access structure for use of multifamily household for 12 units.

So, again, originally we went to the RCO for 12 units.

And after a few meetings, we reduced it to eight units, and we were able to get their support.

So currently the property, when it was acquired as a vacant lot, and it's currently still a vacant lot.

The idea would be to develop the entire property and build on the vacant lot.

Here are some pictures of some surrounding areas.

When gaining the support, we presented to the RTO that some of the surrounding areas also had multifamily units.

Here's one of the units.

These are also multifamily.

This is the block that the property is on.

This is commercial mixed-use property that's within a block of this property.

This is an apartment building that's also within a block of the property as well.

Similar here.

Another apartment building within a block of the properties is at the corner of the block.

This is about a block away as well.

These are the new updated plans.

So, again, originally we had, oh, sorry, just zoomed out too much.

Let me zoom out so you can.

Okay. So here are the plans for the eight unit building that we were able to get their support for. So there's no basement living. Basement is just storage mechanical. There will be eight units. Each unit will be two bedrooms, two baths. So it'll be two units per floor.

Can you center the plan so that we can see the front?

Well, it was just cut off.

We could only see about three quarters.

So you want me to zoom out or zoom in?

I guess out.

Make it a little larger.

So zoom in.

Is that better?

Or out?

I was asking for out so that I could see the whole plan at once.

but could you start at the bottom of you're starting at the rear of the building could we

that better a little bit lower

is that better yes okay um so this right here is the where my arrow is is the basement

um so there's no basement living mechanical stuff in storage this would be the first floor

um so as you can see there are two bedrooms two baths this is also on the first floor

let's try to scroll up a little bit it's two bedrooms two baths um so basically each floor

would have again this is the second floor each floor will have two bedrooms and then two baths

similar here, two bedrooms

and two baths.

Do you want me to zoom out?

I know you had mentioned to zoom out.

Do you want me to zoom out now?

Yes, please.

I still haven't actually seen the front of the building.

For whatever reason, on the screen, it's cutting

off the front. Now I can.

Is that better? That's better.

I also have a 3D image of what it will look like later on in the presentation if that's

helpful.

It will be.

Devin, is this a four floors?

Yeah, so it's four floors and then it's just a roof, poly house.

roof poly house so you show this so yeah it goes to the next floors so we can just see it sure

so you show this so yeah go to the next

and then there's a roof deck yeah so i highlight the roof deck um so this would be over here is

the third floor just scroll down so you can see the floors this is the third floor over here

again similar to the first and second floor two bedrooms two baths um and it also

two bedrooms two baths and that's the third floor fourth floor again also two bedrooms

two baths two bedrooms and two baths it's on the fourth floor and then there's a roof deck

the pilot house here and this if it I'm gonna zoom out so you can get like a

3d image of what it would look like that's helpful so this is a 3d image of

ideally what it would look like using about a little bit more so the whole

image is visible yeah it's like being worried when I zoom in and out sorry

sorry about that yeah is that better much better all right

so in the plans it's like a small front yard there's also these they're not connected so this

would be a side yard a rare yard as well um and there's a backyard we also mentioned um in a in

the letter of support that we would do um like a dumpster in the rear so that you know they can

store trash which is also mentioned in the letter of support that we agreed to do does that does

the front face of the of your building uh align with the front face uh facade of the adjacent

buildings or the front of the porches of the adjacent buildings so they align with the porches

but not the building okay so i guess this one it would align with because it's an enclosed

porsche but not the one directly next to it well across room because they're not connected

um but another sorry go ahead

all right questions other questions from the board yes who has access to the roof deck

so i believe all of them would have access to the roof deck i believe rafi you may correct

me if i'm wrong but i believe everybody will get access it appears that way from your plan

because the common stairways go to the roof yeah can let me ask if your building was set back to

align with the uh face of the uh brick facade of the adjacent buildings or the main facade of the

adjacent buildings will you still have the uh required rear yard

they don't have it now oh they'd also they're also they don't have it now okay so that's what's

required. They're at 7 foot 10 now.

Okay.

Isn't that the 48?

That looks much

bigger on the plan.

Yeah, that's a huge yard on the plan.

Am I right with that,

Devin? Oh, sorry.

Let me go back to it.

The proposed

structure does not comply with the rear

yard depth required of an RSA 3

zoning district. 20 foot's required.

7 foot 10 is proposed.

Yeah, I believe that was in the original plans, Mr. Chair. I believe that the revised plans have different dimensions for the building and the yard.

It's 43. There's no reason they can't recess.

Right. That was my point. There's no reason they couldn't move the building back.

So it's not so aggressive on the street facade, front facade.

So your question is if we could move it back and then still take away from some of the 43 back here and just move the entire building back some?

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, you've got your adjacent facades that have these sort of gracious porches for the most part and nice front yards.

And you've moved it up to the face of the porch for no real reason other than it's there.

right um and there's no reason why it can't be pushed back to align with the face of the facade

of the main facades of the building so it's not so you know it's four stories the rest of them

are three so you're already bigger and you know kind of more mass so if you've shifted it back

at least it would be less aggressive and you're saying shifted back three feet

And you're saying shift it back three feet.

Shift it back to the line with the brick.

Shift it back to the line with the brick facades

or the main facades of the adjacent buildings.

Right.

Yeah, we could do that.

Yes.

Other questions?

Yeah, so I have a few.

So one, it does look like this is still attached

on one side to the building adjacent.

And I think my first question

or my first comment is really about

how this building does not look like it belongs in this neighborhood almost at all um i could see

that there was an attempt to be done to try to match materials but like it's bigger it doesn't

have the same porch typology and will now be attached to a twin and like not match the twin

in a space where you left eight feet for a side yard um and it could have been fully detached so

like that already is a little weird i think too the main entrance feels very undersized and

understated for a building of this size it kind of reads like a side door um and it's a it's a

tight entryway so i think my my question is like where are things like packages the mail

bike storage like i'm assuming like so the basement on the basement yeah so the basement

has a storage area so there's no living in a basement so the basement can be used as a storage

area um sure but that's one big room and you've got eight units like typically when a building

does this there's separated storage units that are like attached to each unit which get laid

out a specific way i just feel like this whole building is laid out as though it was trying to

maximize units and not really be about livability i think also having a fourth story walk up really

a fifth story if you consider the

roof deck with no elevator

also in a neighborhood

where you were putting in eight

units offered an opportunity

to have some fully

accessible units and

doesn't it just feels like this is

a lot of density to put on a

site that would have had

not as many units

with