Mr. Chair, I don't know that there's anything that I need to add with Ms. Hilsen, but we're seeking this variance.
Obviously, the hardship is that this church is at this location.
The base zoning is RSA 5. So the hardship is we, you know, you can't have a single family home on the site of an existing church. So we ask for the variance to be granted. Thank you.
Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see the handshake planning commission
thank you meg cavanaugh planning commission staff the comprehensive plan recommends no change to
the existing rsa2 residential single family zoning at this location the proposed use is
consistent with documented and permitted prior use of the property dating to the 1980s
the city planning commission recommends the board grant the use variants for group child care
number five mi 2024-004-453-6465 germantown avenue i vote yes
johns my vote is yes
cheryl gaston my vote is yes sonetta graham my vote is yes iowan my vote is yes
ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you uh council okay thank you mr chair thank you members
Number six, MI 2024-004-456-5300-18 Winfield Avenue.
There is a letter of unanimous non-opposition from the Winfield Residents Association.
Counsel is Tamika McCoy.
Good morning, everyone.
If you want to counsel, could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. My name is Tamika McCoy, T-A-M-I-K-A. Last name is M-C, capital K-O-Y, on behalf of the Jenkins, who own Spacelift Renovations, LLC, at 5300 Winfield Avenue.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Our vice chair has just a few questions.
good morning counsel do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
yes have emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing yes thank you counsel please proceed you've already shared
your screen okay thank you very much um i'm gonna try to move through this um as succinctly as i can
The property at 5300 Winfield Avenue is currently zoned Residential 3.
It is used for commercial purposes.
There are three businesses that are currently located within the existing structure.
We have here the application that had been submitted in this particular matter.
And what is being sought is to subdivide the lot into two separate parcels, lot B and lot C.
The existing lot we are referring to as A, which basically encompasses the entire area.
The existing lot we are...
I have a copy of the deed that shows ownership to Space Lift Renovations LLC.
The representative who's here is Ms. Jenkins, who will be introduced to the meeting at a later time.
I also have the certificate of tax clearance that indicates there are no outstanding tax
obligations on a property.
There were notices sent for 29 neighbors that have affected property.
The addresses for those properties are included within the packet.
And as the board chair had announced, the RCO meeting, which was held in person November 21st of this year, resulted in their coming back.
And after having an understanding of the full plan for the area, essentially do not oppose the intended application.
And that, I believe, was unanimous.
The property now, and I'm going to show you what the property looks like, this is actually a picture of the property that has the notices affixed in the front.
And if we were to look eastbound on Winfield Avenue, you would see what's depicted in the picture here, and this would be the opposite direction.
on Winfield Avenue.
This is a picture that depicts directly across the street.
And this picture is on the 5300 block,
which is the cross street for Winfield.
This is also 53rd Street looking in the other direction.
And this is a frontal view of what that property looks like.
And as I had indicated, there are three businesses that currently occupy that premise, a real
estate company, Sickle Cell Association of America, and a real estate staging company.
The intention would be to have the parcel that that property sit on subdivided into two lots.
I am showing here the diagram that shows the parcel.
And essentially, I'm going to zoom in on the relevant portions.
and really what it is here, there would be a line drawn between the lot to create parcel B
and parcel C. Once subdivided, parcel B would be essentially 19,800 square feet
and parcel C would be 8,300 square feet.
We do have the parameters in terms of the spacing,
the 25 feet in the front and rear of the building,
15 feet on the one side and 10 feet on the other side.
There would be parking spaces that would be affected,
but those are three parking spaces that currently would exist on parcel B that would be moved to
another location on parcel B. So parcel B would maintain the same number of parking spaces. It
would just be moved to another area on that 19,000 square foot side. So as it stands right now,
there's one parcel and the application is for a variance so that that one parcel can be broken
into two separate parcels. The future plan is essentially that there would be a single family
dwelling eventually constructed on parcel C. That was all explained during the course of the meeting
with the RCO in terms of what the plan were. They specifically indicated that if parcel C is
designated and a single family residence ultimately is constructed in the future, that is
what they would like to see there. And that's why they pose no opposition to this variance request,
essentially seeking the subdivision of the lot into two separate parcels. Part of what would
be contemplated would be, um, two trees that are leaning significantly, um, being removed
that's on parcel C so that in the future, ultimately once that lot.
So that in the future, ultimately, once that lot is approved for the intended vision in the way that the RCL contemplates that a single family home would be constructed on this lot, those two trees would ultimately have to be removed as part of it.
It's just full disclosure in terms of, you know, what's happening on this lot so that there's a full understanding.
As I said, that was explained during the course of the RCL.
And the intentions are that the subdivision would lead to ultimately the construction of a single family residence on the 8,000 plus square foot that would be remaining on parcel C.
And with that, I would like to introduce Ms. Jenkins to the meeting so that we could address any questions that the board may have.
Ms. McCoy, what's your client's name?
Shaquire Jenkins or Malika Jenkins.
Malika or Shaquire Jenkins, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
i see no hands at this time chair
so uh you know so the court we will accept your testimony questions from the board
yeah the question the uh proposed subdivided lot the smaller lot
um does that meet the um zoning requirements of the uh rsd is it rsd3 yes it does okay um i believe
there was one area where there was the request for a variance and that is that uh and i'm going
to go to the refusal just so that I can refer back to it. The rear yard has to be 25 feet.
The plan at the time had showed 10 feet. That had been corrected and updated. It now shows
25 feet. The minimum width of the lot would be 50 feet, whereas at the time the proposal
was 49.868 it was just shy of the 50 feet requirement and then the two trees that had
been discussed uh were part of it as well as the parking with the um existing plan as it is
it did contemplate um all of those things and so the rear setback and front setback are both 25
feet, the side yards. One is 10 feet, the other is 15. And as I indicated, the two trees that
I had depicted is within this area here near the fence line that is leaning actually toward
the neighboring house. Ultimately, that would have to be removed, but all of those concerns
had been addressed and the two parking spaces that would have been cut off had been moved to
another area on Parcel B, which would basically enlarge the paved driveway to allow for two
additional spaces. Gotcha. All right. Thank you. Any other questions?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Anderson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair. Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands at this time, Chair.
Commission?
Thank you, Meg Cavanaugh, Planning Commission. For this one, staff noted
a completeness issue given there's no landscape plan provided, so
we'd like to withhold testimony until that's provided and reviewed.
Or withhold our recommendation.
So, Hillary, this will be
a resumptive hearing with just a landscape plan and the only thing that would be would be that
the planning would then take a position everything else is closed um if the plan generated refusals
there would need to be a corrected refusal as well it's possible that it was missed i'd have
to talk to L and I about that.
So why don't we just, we'll hold this for a resolution hearing.
I will check on the amended refusal and if, or corrected refusal, and planning would need
to review landscaping before that corrected refusal could be issued.
So I'll get that process started.
Ms. McCoy, you understand?
Everything good?
Okay, thank you.
All right, so.
So, okay, thank you.
Okay, thank you.
Have a good day, everyone.
All right, thank you, counsel.
Number nine, MI 2024-004-493-735 South 10th Street.
Clementa, Amazon, and Dawn Tangrady are listed as counsels.
There's a letter of non-opposition from Bella Vista Neighbors.
this is a legalization of an existing
condition, outdoor dining
counsel
Amazon's coming back and it's a
panelist chair
good morning chairman and members of the board
good morning counsel could you please
state your name and spell for the court stenographer
absolutely
We comment on Amazon, that's spelled C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A.
Last name is spelled A-M-A-Z-A-N.
Where are firm that tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Can you identify your client and their relationship to the property?
Absolutely.
My clients are Carol and Vincent Mickey.
They are husband and wife.
Carol should be in attendance in the virtual audience.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
good morning council do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
good morning yes i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed
and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
yes i have thank you council please proceed and share your screen thank you
can everyone see my screen we can perfect again my name is clemente amazon today i'll be presenting
735 south 10th street during my presentation i will go through the refusal we do have a
rco letter of non-opposition and i will go through the details of the vote momentarily
Exterior photos of the property, the posting photos of the property, interior photos, the
notice that we sent to the community regarding the community meeting, the certificates of
mailing, application for appeal, project information for deed, and the certificate of tax clearance.
So as the chair mentioned previously, this is for the legalization of a rear existing
structure.
We are also looking to create a unity of use between the three parcels, the three parcels
at issue here specifically are 735 south 10th street 737 south 10th street and 935th water
street i will go through a map showing that they are adjacent parcels we are simply looking to have
the rear structure which is along those parcels legalized it has been there for quite some time
the properties are zoned cms2 it has been used as a restaurant for well over 20 years now my client
Carol Mickey inherited it from her daughter and she has been running it in day-to-day operations.
There is an outdoor seating area which the rear structure encloses. We are looking to make it a
bit more permanent and so we are moving forward with the zoning process because of that.
We did meet with the community on September 3rd. They did provide us a letter of non-opposition.
As you will see here in the neighborhood, there were three nearby neighbors who did attend within
250 foot radius of the property and they did express support of the project none of them
opposed 15 neighbors also supported the project there was no vote of non-opposition excuse me no
votes of opposition for this project and seven of the zoning committee members voted in non-opposition
so again three nearby neighbors voted in support 15 neighbors voted in support as
well and the zoning committee voted in non-opposition to this project
and here we just have the breakdown of the vote as i mentioned three affected in support 15 of
all attendees in support and the zoning committee itself voted in non-opposition all members and
here we have a map of the area as i mentioned there are three parcels that we are discussing
here each zoned as cmx 2 735 south 10th street 737 south 10th street and 930 fifth water street
As you will see in the presentation, it does occupy most of the area, which generated the
refusal here because we have a refusal for the rear yard as well as a refusal for the occupied
area. Here's a photo of the front of the property, Sam's Morning Glory, and this is a view just along
South 10th Street here. You can see a little bit of that rear structure along Del High Street.
We do have additional photos so that you will be able to see it more in detail.
we do have additional photos so that you will be able to see it more in detail.
Thank you.
Here we have a photo of the posting that was posted to the property in advance of the hearing.
A photo of the interior. It is a restaurant as you can see. Hours of operation are from 8 a.m.
to 2 p.m. during the week and 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. over the course of the weekend.
another photo of the interior and here we have the rear structure that we are looking to legalize
here so it's typically used for outdoor dining as you can see the refusal that we have generated
here is because of the occupied area and the fact of no step back being here so it's enclosed we're
just looking to make it a bit more permanent and legalize the use this structure has been pre-existing
for quite some time now for whatever reason there was some confusion within lni my clients did