MI 2024-006-668-1215-Wood Street.
Meredith Verliger is the attorney.
The Calahill Neighborhood Association supports
the project there's a letter of non-opposition from council member squalor
murder just for the record state your name you've already been sworn
sure meredith ferlinger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r our vice chair has a few questions
counselor do you agree to wave the read another refusal or stipulate towards accuracy
I do, yes.
And you have emailed in all the information that's required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing.
I did, yes.
Thank you. Please proceed.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, members of the board, my client today is Haverford Square by Metropolitan 3 LLC, represented today by German Yakubov.
By way of background, if this address is giving the board a bit of deja vu, it is because the board heard and approved this proposal in full back on April 24, 2024, at MI 2024-000791.
That full record should be deemed incorporated into the hearing today.
Following the Zoning Board's April approval, the applicant moved forward to apply for a building permit.
During the construction design phase, a fairly minor change was made to the interior mezzanine levels, as I will show.
Unfortunately, although that change is entirely interior to the previously approved building,
it does result in an increase in overall GFA that was too large for L&I to handle either via
amendment or administrative review. Ergo, we are back in front of the board today to request that
you re-approve this updated design. In respect of your time today and considering that the board
already thoroughly reviewed this proposal and determined that the applicant was entitled to
relief, I will focus today's presentation on the changes and will, of course, address any questions
that you have. Our exhibit packet does still have all of the standard information required by the
board and as was presented back in April. I'm very happy to represent any aspect the board requires
today. As a reminder, the board previously approved this project, which proposes a new
21-unit loft-style apartment building in the city's Callow Hill neighborhood,
which received unanimous support from the Callow Hill Neighborhood Association.
Callow Hill did review the proposed changes and did reaffirm its support.
To refresh your memory, the property is located at 1215 Wood Street and is zoned IRMX, as shown on the zoning map at Exhibit 9.
The existing building extends all the way back to Carleton Street, as you can see on the aerials up on the screen here.
you might recall from these aerials that the existing building sits on 100 of the lot
and was erected around 1900 and is over a century old additionally you might recall from the interior
photographs that the building historically contained six condominium units with a unique
loft style design that you can see in the images here that retains considerable historical character
from the industrial use that existed in the space in the early 1900s. And you can see some of that
reflected in these images here, including some of the industrial gear work in the ceiling.
At the hearing in April, we illustrated the owner's commitment to preserving the existing building
while erecting a new three-story addition on top of the existing building
that harmonizes with the massing of surrounding new construction.
that harmonizes with the massing of surrounding new construction.
Including the six existing units which will remain, the proposal still includes a total of 21 units.
The plan that the Zoning Board approved back in April is shown here at Exhibit 6.
I will highlight a few things on this plan relevant to today's amendment request.
The proposed GFA at the time of the original approval was 27,477 square feet or 665% FAR.
On the elevation, you might recall the interior mezzanines, which are intended to expand the unique loft design throughout the entirety of the new addition.
You can see those mezzanine levels reflected on these elevations.
Although interior to the building itself, mezzanines are specifically counted towards the building's overall GFA.
I would ask the board to focus your eyes on the elevation as I quickly switch back and forth between the original approved design and the design that is in front of the board today.
As you can see, if I switch back and forth quickly, you'll start to notice where the change in the elevation is made.
This proposal seeks to enlarge the mezzanine loft areas to add additional square footage to each of these units.
Furthermore, as shown on the zoning plan, the design has been updated to add exterior
bays, as I will show on the renderings that we have.
These bays also increase the GFA.
Importantly, although this change increases the GFA to 30,833 square feet, representing
a 746% floor area ratio, this change does not impact the previously approved building massing,
height, or overall envelope. Aside from the bays, this is a purely interior change that will have
significant benefit to the future residents of these units. Overall, this change only represents
an increase by roughly 3,300 square feet, or about 10% more GFA.
The exhibits include new renderings to show the board the value of the proposed changes,
particularly from the exterior. At Exhibit 7, you'll see how the design has progressed.
The first image was the rendering at the time of the original filing.
By the time that we presented the case to the board, the rendering had been slightly updated
to the image that's now shown here on the second rendering. Now, on the third rendering,
you'll see how considerably this design has progressed to now incorporate the bays shown
here along Wood Street. As I mentioned, these bays will also be along Carleton as well.
We have also provided a rendering looking in the opposite direction.
I do have a couple of other views as well that I can scroll through, but again, the board should see here how significantly this design has been updated, at least from the exterior.
And again, this is just looking from Wood Street.
The bays, as I mentioned, will also be on the Carleton frontage to maintain the consistency
and design.
In terms of floor plans, we do have updated floor plans in the packet at Exhibit 8.
Where the originally presented units were 1 and 2 bedroom units of between 658 and 1,043
square feet, the expansion of the mezzanines has allowed the broadening of the unit types to now
include one, two, and three-bedroom units, ranging from 790 to just under 2,000 square feet.
The average unit size will now be about 1,300 square feet.
Although the project was previously approved in April, upon filing this application,
L&I issued the identical refusals that were already approved by the board in April.
The only refusal that has now changed is the refusal for the FAR.
And I can show you that here.
I can show you that here. The industrial use refusal hasn't changed. The height refusal hasn't
These, the industrial use refusals.
changed. The parking refusal has not changed. And you can see here where the FAR has now been
updated to 746%. The zoning code here would limit FAR to 500%. The argument supporting the
applicants' requests for GFA variants have not changed. Two of the mezzanines currently exist in
the building, and the proposed design will respect the historical and unique character
of this formerly industrial building while expanding the loft size for residents.
The mezzanines will have no impact whatsoever on the exterior massing of the building,
which was previously approved. As I noted earlier, I'm very happy to walk through all of the refusals
if the board does require clarification on any point, but unless the board desires otherwise,
I will not repeat the arguments given in April on all of the other refusals which have not changed
and would remain approved under the approval granted in April.
At this time, I would ask for German Yakubov to raise his hand to be unmuted.
German Yakubov has been promoted thank you
hello hi sir could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer sure German Yakubov
G-E-R-M-A-N
Y-A-K-U-B-O-V
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth is nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. German, have you
heard all the testimony and evidence I've
offered in front of the board today?
I have. Would you agree that that
testimony was true and accurate and would
you adopt it as if it were your own?
I do and yes.
Thank you. I'm happy to answer
any questions. Questions from the board.
yeah what's the ceiling height on the mezzanine area
sure so the ceiling heights um vary ever so slightly but as you can see here on the
elevations they are just about nine feet a couple inches below and that has not changed from the
original. The ceiling heights for the mezzanine levels are actually slightly larger than they
were on the original. As you can see, 8.86, 8.11, 8.10. Now they are 8.9, 8.88, 8.9. So just around there.
so the substantive change at this point is mostly the the expansion from on the facade
the bays obviously are going to add square footage and then it's also the lengthening
of these mezzanines to now go almost wall to wall that that is exactly correct yes just to expand
the essentially the lofts that are in the building currently that the design that they'd like to
carry throughout the rest of the building it's to make much more usable loft space
and these the the units are already built we're just no they're they're not so this was a change
that they made uh while going through the building permit process to actually get building permits
for the originally approved design so the building permits uh are essentially on hold pending today's
case. Other questions from the board. So are there other other buildings near there with the
same sort of Balkan mass? Oh, absolutely. Let me bring up the aerials. So as you can see on the
aerials here, there are many, many other buildings in this area that have a similar mass.
um let me yeah this is this is a good view here so this the the building is actually directly
behind this one in the foreground uh so many of the other buildings in this area have similar
mass which we did go through in april and i believe was uh part of the basis for why the
board had granted the the mass of this building in the first place
uh you said there was unanimous support
from the from from callow hill yes
Other questions?
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman.
Oh, sure.
Is there a balcony?
I'm sorry, Meredith.
No, there's no balconies.
Let me just bring these up.
These are.
I'm sorry.
Did I, was there some sort of outdoor space? Like was there a roof deck or something? Did I
miss it on this one or? I do not believe that there is a, I don't believe.
There's no roof deck. It's just for mechanical access only.
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Questions from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
On the virtual audience.
there are no commission
amy boyd with the planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change in
zoning at this location from the existing industrial residential mixed use the process
between two narrow streets wood and carlton streets which are both narrow the absence of
industrial or other non-residential uses on the ground floor is appropriate due to the existing
building adding parking spaces is not feasible however the appellant has not demonstrated that
there are unique physical circumstances or conditions of the property they would prevent
it from being used in conformance with the zoning code for height and maximum floor area ratio
in fact the appellant could have used a mixed income housing bonus to increase the allowable
farm the planning commission recommends that the board grant the proposed variance for no ground
floor commercial and parking but deny the requested variances for maximum height and floor area ratio
Mr. Chairman, if I could just address that as a reminder, the board approved these variances in April.
So this is just requesting to modify one of those refusals ever so slightly.
MI 2024-006-668-1215 Wood Street, I vote yes.
Chair, could you repeat that for some reason? Everything went out for me.
oh sure mi 2024 006 668 1215 wood street i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes
charlie gaston my vote is yes tanetta graham my vote is yes i own my vote is no
dishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you thank you and thank you for for moving out my second
case i appreciate it thank you right number six mi 2024 006 sheriff i'm sorry to interrupt you um
can we take a five-minute break yeah sure sure okay bye
We're going to continue here.
Number six, MI 2024, 006-648-766 South Front Street.
Henry Clinton is the attorney.
Henry Clinton is returning as a panelist.
good afternoon mr chairman members of the board council just uh you've been sworn just state your
name for the record please or henry clinton right and for a point of information there's a letter
of non-opposition from the queen village neighbors and a letter of opposite non-opposition from
council member squilla could you identify your client in relationship to this property
Sure. I have two clients, Lindsay, L-I-N-D-S-E-Y, Scannapico. That's S-C-A-N-N-A, P as in Phyllis, I-E-C-O, and Alexander Machin, capital M-A-C-H-I-N, and Ms. Scannapico is on the call.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case, Bob, these in advance of this hearing?
I have.
Thank you, counsel. Please proceed.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
This is a request to construct a two-story accessory dwelling unit, an ADU, of 680 square feet on the largest lot on South Front Street, the 700 block.
This lot is 5,326 square feet.
The ADU will have a garage on the first floor and two bedrooms on the second floor.
I'll walk through the presentation containing exhibits A1 through A10, which I ask to be admitted.
containing Exhibits A1 through A10, which I asked to be admitted.
Here's a refusal.
So this is an RSA 5 zoning district, which permits ADUs.
We already have one single-family structure on the property,
and the request is to build another structure on the property, an ADU,
accessory dwelling unit.
The refusals are, whereas no more than one principal building is allowed per lot
in the RSA 5 zoning district. But again, this is an ADU. And the second refusal has to do with a
front-loaded garage in an RSA 5 zoning district. And as you'll see from the community's letter,
that this curb cut has been in existence for decades. Henry, could you hold on one minute?