de la propiedad donde hicieron el trabajo.
Ok, pero que ellos
la tienen en todas las fotos. Se le mandó.
all the photos should have been sent as well.
Tienen todas esas fotos.
But he has to have it on his computer
to make a presentation.
Pero usted la tiene que tener en su computadora para hacer la
presentación.
And we did not receive any interior photos,
only photos of the outside of the property.
Y nosotros no recibimos
fotos del interior de la propiedad, solamente
The interpreter will repeat. He's asking again what time the next hearing will be.
Can I just repeat? He'll be notified by the staff.
And where will we receive the notification?
Via email.
Email.
A través de correo electrónico lo van a notificar.
Thank you.
Thank you.
And interpreter, thank you very much.
We appreciate your help.
Thank you for using the service interpreter disconnecting.
Thank you.
Number eight, MI 2024-005-741, 301-03 North Front Street.
Myrta Ferlicker is the attorney.
Let's see here.
counsel the councilman has uh deferred his comments on this has not received a letter yet
from the rco good afternoon hi counsel could you just state your name please uh you've already
been sworn? Sure. Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Sure. Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
You'll identify your client in relationship to this property.
Sure. My client is Open Door Investments, LLC, which is the equitable owner of the property under agreement of sale.
To the reading of the refusal and agree with its accuracy.
Yes, to both.
Okay. Could you please start your presentation? And did you get anything from the RCO?
Sure. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we actually did get an email from them just this morning. I will show that in my presentation. They do express support with two concerns that we'll address in the presentation.
Thank you. And make sure Hillary gets a copy of that?
Sure thing. I did actually submit it through the official system, so she should see it now.
Yes, we have received it. We just haven't received an updated letter, assuming he will send it from Council Member Squilla, since their position was deferral based on not having seen anything from the RCO yet.
All right, Mr. Chairman, I assume you can see my exhibit list here?
Okay, wonderful. Good afternoon again, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, my name is Meredith Ferliger with Dilworth Paxson.
here this afternoon on behalf of Open Door Investments, the equitable owner of the property
under agreement of sale. That entity is represented by Alex Kennedy as well as Logan Kramer. I believe
we have Alex here this afternoon. Our architect is with Core Design, and they should also have
representatives on today to answer any questions that the board might have. The request before the
board today is for two new luxury condominiums in the city's River's Edge neighborhood, just a few
steps away from the Delaware River. We do have a variety of predominantly dimensional refusals to
walk you through today, which are fairly straightforward in terms of the requested relief
due to the property's history, significant physical constraints, and neighborhood characteristics.
The property before the board is located at 301-03 North Front Street.
As shown on the zoning map at Exhibit 10, the property here at the corner is an irregularly
shaped curved parcel at the end of the block with frontage on Vine Street, which there's a
little section here at the bottom, Front Street, as well as North Water Street.
The board may notice that this narrow sliver of properties here from Vine all the way up to Callow Hill is zoned RM1, but is essentially sandwiched and surrounded by exclusively CMX3 zoned parcels.
At Exhibit 11, we've included a variety of aerials showing better context of this property as well as the surrounding neighborhood.
As I present, the board may take note of the general massing of surrounding buildings.
In these views, the board will see the existing one-story building that occupies 100% of this lot.
From the northwest view that I have up on the screen here, you will see the adjacent buildings
to the left in this image orientation, which are historically protected and may not be demolished.
This is an important factor to consider as it relates to the requested height variance.
From the northeast view, the board can see the North Water Street frontage of this property, which currently has four curb cuts and four garages.
This is also relevant to one of the variance requests.
Directly across North Water Street is a vacant parcel that was fairly recently approved for a new project that I'll describe in a few minutes, as it is also generally relevant.
At Exhibit 18, we have included some additional photographs of this property.
This first photograph here is shown from Front Street, where again you will discern the general massing of the immediately adjacent structures here.
this next view is from vine street where the board can clearly see the irregularity of this
lot with that significant curve along vine street from north water street on the next page here
you can more closely see the four existing garage spaces as well as the adjoining five-story
buildings next door. Moving a little bit further up on North Water Street, the board will see the
fairly new construction across the street roughly diagonal known as the One Water Street Apartments.
And looking in the opposite direction here across North Water Street is the large vacant parcel I
Across North Water Street is the large vacant parcel I pointed to earlier that is a proof for a significant new development, slightly smaller in mass, to one water.
pointed to earlier, that is a
Columbus Boulevard and the river are just east of this site, which you can see here in the image.
We did also include the photos of the zoning posters, which were timely posted on each of the three frontages.
now the existing building itself sits within the old city historic district but is a non-contributing
structure to that district that is permitted to be demolished however following that demolition
any new development on this lot will actually be subject to review and approval by the historical
commission to ensure that the facade is consistent with the district that process is ongoing but as
board knows is a prerequisite to a building permit not a zoning permit
the zoning plants are shown at exhibit five should the board be inclined to grant today's
request we did submit a revised plan of two pages and a revised plan proviso form to reflect very
minor changes that i will highlight and actually i'll bring up the revised plan as i talk but it
is substantially similar to the original plan. On the site plan, you will see that this proposal
contemplates the construction of a new four-story structure to contain two luxury condominium units.
As you can tell, this proposal and building is slated to occupy 100% of the lot, which is
consistent with its historical condition. At grade level, four of the existing curb cuts on
North Water Street will be consolidated into one new 18-foot wide curb cut to access three
private residence parking spaces. And you can see that curb cut indicated here on North Water Street.
At Exhibit 6, we did also include the zoning site plan that was reviewed and approved by the
Streets Department, confirming the acceptability of the proposed access conditions from North Water
Street. Turning to the floor plans at Exhibit 7, I'll zoom into each floor as I speak. Again,
you'll see here the lower level more closely. In addition to the three parking spaces that are
shown, the lower floor provides elevator access to the upper level condominium unit, as well as
stair access. This level is also designed to have an all-pair suite for the lower level unit.
Within the garage, and this directly goes to addressing one of the concerns that the community
group raised, is a designated refuse recycling closet for the storage of two 64-gallon trash bins.
And again, this is two single-family condominium units, so this trash storage will be more than
adequate for these for these two families in this location as i will also highlight momentarily on
the elevations the property has quite a significant slope so although the parking is accessed from
north water street the property itself slopes up towards front street so the parking and this
entire level is partially above and partially below grade and you'll be able to see that more
clearly on the elevations. Each of these two residential units are just under 3,000 square
feet each. So at the first floor level, unit one is 1,193 square feet, which has the kitchen,
dining, and living areas, including an office. Full bathroom is also provided at this first floor.
This unit can be accessed both from the stairs, which are in the garage level, as well as from a direct entrance off of Front Street, which, again, results from the fairly significant grade of this property.
So this is really technically partially on the first floor, partially on the second floor.
A private HVAC closet is also provided at this level, which you can see here.
Now, on the second floor, all right, so this is the second floor of Unit 1, and again, very similar, 1,198 square feet, so in total, just under 3,000 square feet.
And on this level, you will find three bedrooms, quite significant closet space, a laundry room, and three full bathrooms.
Unit 2 is on the 3rd floor and the 4th floor, which can be accessed either via the common stairwell or the residential elevator.
which can be accessed either via the common stairwell or the residential elevator,
which again is private for just this upper two-level unit.
This unit is flipped, so the third floor contains the bedrooms, while the fourth floor has the living space.
On the third floor are three bedrooms plus a den, two bathrooms, closets, laundry, and similar amenities to the first unit.
On the fourth floor is another bathroom, a bedroom, or an office, and kitchen, dining, and living space.
This unit also has access to the private roof deck, which can also be accessed either via the elevator or the stairs.
On this view, you will see the basis for one of the de minimis variance requests that's in front of the board today.
I'll direct your attention to this measurement right here towards the bottom, where you can see that the pilot house is nine feet, two and five eighths inches from the edge of the roof on Front Street.
It would need an additional seven inches and change to be code compliant.
So 10 feet is the minimum. So this is just a couple of inches off from there.
The entire roof deck itself meets the five-foot minimum setback along the entire roof deck frontage.
At Exhibit 8, we have included detailed renderings and elevations.
I'll highlight a couple of things for you.
First, you will notice that each of these units has balconies, with Unit 1 having balconies along North Water Street as well as on Vine Street.
and Unit 2 having balconies on Vine Street. And of course, the Unit 2 also has access to that
private roof deck. The revised plans documented removal of previously designed balconies that
were along North Water Street at the second through the fourth floors. From these renderings,
you will also clearly discern that this proposed structure is designed to align exactly with the
height and massing of the adjoining historic buildings to ensure that this proposal matches
the four-story facade at Front Street and the five-story facade at North Water Street.
On the elevations, let me bring those up. Actually, I'm going to go one more page here.
On these elevations here, you will see the grade change that I referenced earlier in the
presentation. So you can see here in the first image that the grade at North Water Street is
much lower than it is at North Front Street, which adds even further challenge to this site
when combined with its irregular shape. A sight line drawing is also shown for reference at
Exhibit 8. This is also an excellent visual representation of the grade differences this
property faces. The pilot house is positioned precisely to ensure that it is minimally visible
from adjoining streets. The revised plans that were submitted to the board document minor non-zoning
related changes such as removal of balconies at Water Street from the second through fourth floors,
removal of projecting cornices at the roof, revision to the roof deck railing, removal of a
Juliet Railing at the first floor at Vine Street and other adjustments to the pilot house to further
reduce visibility. None of these changes impact any refusals and would be by right even after the
board were hopefully to approve this request today. But we did include the revised plans
just to facilitate an easier zoning permit process. With respect to the refusals, I will
work down the list and I will address each individually. The applicant submits to a hardship
in complying with the code requirements. We submit that each of these requested variances is the least
minimum. If we start from the bottom of the list, which you'll see here on the refusal,
as I highlighted earlier, the pilot house is roughly seven inches closer to the front street
building edge than the code would permit. This is not only de minimis, but it is necessary
given the irregular shape of the lot and the necessity to locate the pilothouse so it is
minimally visible from the more dominant roadways. This pilothouse not only provides access to the
roof but includes an elevator which extends down to the basement level. The designers worked
through site challenges on a lot that is only about 1,500 square feet to ensure the elevator
is included, excuse me, which when combined with the other challenges of this site does
require de minimis relief.
Next, a refusal was issued for occupying 100% of the lot.
Next, a refusal was issued for occupying 100
80% would be required to be left open.
Now, as you saw earlier in the evidence presented, this lot is a small, shallow lot of roughly 1,500 square feet that sits on a sharp curve.
I'll bring back up the zoning plans.
And you can see that sharp curve here.
Given the unusual shape of the lot, it is even more crucial to gain as much interior square footage as possible to ensure that the residences are not burdened by unusual or irregular design.
Contextually speaking, every single property between Vine Street and Callow Hill Street on this stretch appears to occupy 100% of the lots, which likely stems from the narrowness of this block at less than 45 feet deep.
Furthermore, historically speaking, the building at 301 North Front Street has always occupied
100% of the lot.
I have included the zoning history at Exhibit 13.
You'll see here on this permit image that I have up on the screen where that 100% coverage
is specifically called out on an application from 1997 and was even approved by the zoning
Board at that time, recognizing that this lot is subject to a clear hardship. Even before then,
the Zoning Board granted a variance in the early 90s for a residential construction project that
was seemingly never built, but which also contemplated 100% coverage of this lot.
This particular history and that original project that was seemingly never built is also relevant
to the next refusal for the proposed height of this building at 48 feet 9 inches, where only 38
feet would be allowed. Interestingly, the last residential project proposed for this lot in the
early 90s proposed an almost identical height. This makes sense for several reasons that are
even more relevant today than they were back in the early 90s. It does appear from some of these
permits, and this is the one I have up on the screen here as a good example, that this property
was at one point in time zoned C3, which is the former version of CMX3, but was likely changed to
RM1 at some point in time after the inception of the new zoning code. Now, as you saw in the
renderings, I'll bring that back up, the proposed height will ensure that this new structure
perfectly aligns with the existing height of the historic buildings next door. Erecting a new
structure of only 38 feet would not only present a hardship given the steep grade and irregular
shape of the lot, but would also result in a structure that was entirely out of character
with the height of the two immediately adjacent structures. Historically, the building that sat
on this lot was out of character with the rest of the block, and this development will serve to
complete the uniform height of this block. As a reminder, these two adjoining structures are
considered historic and not subject to demolition, so capping the end of the block with a contextually
respectful structure is critical. The 48 foot 9 height noted on the refusal is actually measured
from North Water Street, which is the point of the lowest grade. By way of comparison, at Front
Street, the height is actually just over 41 feet, which is less than the adjacent neighbor at 42
and a half feet. And 41 feet, of course, is only a couple feet more than the code would allow. So
really, part of this refusal stems from the grade change of this property.
Now, in addition to matching the height of adjoining structures, this height is also supremely contextually appropriate to the new construction across the street, which sits within the more dense CMX-3 zoning.
At Exhibit 14, I have included two plans for the two nearest adjacent new construction buildings.