approved correct yeah there's there's literally and if you take a look here i'll show you um the
here are the approved plans that were submitted that were approved back in 2013 and then the
original app the plans with the original application are literally the same plans
I mean, they literally took them and dropped them out. So nothing is nothing is any different, which I think is one of the reasons why the examiner just issued the same refusals that were issued back in 2013, not realizing that some things had changed regarding the code.
Like, for instance, South Eiseminger being less than 45 feet deep.
There's no open air, as you know, with the dimensional criteria requirements of the zoning code.
When you're under 45 feet, you have the seven foot rear yard, but don't have any open area.
They originally cited not having enough open area.
So that refusal was eliminated.
But we're not changing, again, any of the buildings in terms of their height or their area.
The 1839 South Eiseminger here, I'm going to go to our drawings, actually.
So 1840, this unit, Unit F, is a four-story building, which is why it's taller.
So the L&I, again, even though these are all individual townhomes, they view this, and they're all going to be separate building permits.
They were issued separate building permits before, back in 14.
They're going to be issued separate building permits now.
They view this as a multifamily dwelling, and it's clearly not. It's confusing and misleading for people. These are all A, B, C, D, E, or lower in three stories, and I'll show you again on the elevation.
So the height refusal for both properties come at the Eiseminger side because they have the garage, and to get the same amount of living space, these two units are 44 feet to the top, and you can see here the difference.
so you have the here you have on the right you have a b c d and e three stories with cellar and
then again here's f that's has the additional floor because it has the parking at the ground
floor which eats up a lot of ground most of the ground floor particularly because it's so
irregularly shaped and then with the eisminger you can see here that it eats up a lot of
you know the parking because it's so shallow eats up almost all of the ground floor and that's the
only reason why they're they're taller other questions questions from our attorney i i did mr
questions from our attorney i i did mr chairman uh okay um david did you said that the
reasons for the variants are the same as from before do you know why the variance was variances
were granted before or are you just i i wasn't able to get a copy i wasn't able to get a copy of
the archives and it's so long ago I can't get a copy of the transcript I was really interested to
know you know what the you know whether there were any details regarding that you ask a good
question because I thought the same thing but unfortunately I wasn't able to um to get more
details other than that they were they were granted um without without getting a copy of
the transcript I wouldn't know what was said at that time there wasn't an appeal taken and as you
know unless there's an appeal we don't get any findings of fact and conclusions of law
to get the board's reasoning okay and basically this is the same as what was submitted before
and what was approved before it's it's exactly except for the except for the i think the walk
away may be different or whatever but except for the fence and gates at either end in the
awning yes other than that i mean they literally the shells are not being changed we're changing
the taking the stucco off and putting better siding material on and then everything's going
to be inside finishing up the insides cleaning up like a where there was water damage and and
then finishing up the all the other units on the interior so nothing's going to change in terms of
the mat the height area the massing of the existing structures from what has been there for 10 years
Okay. And then just one last question. Was there any change in the zoning classification here because the original approvals were after the new zoning code was adopted, but maybe not?
No, because that was August of 2012 was the current code, and these were issued. The refusal was issued in August of 2013. So it was RSA-5 back then as well.
All right. And there wasn't any remapping. It's still the same RSA-5.
Yeah, that's that is that is correct. And I think, you know, when it was the when it was the when it was the catering facility, and I'm not sure what it was at that time.
I'd have to take a look. It was it was C2. So 1840, when it was a hundred, the catering hall that occupied 100 percent of the lot.
So there's more open area now than there was with this development than there was at that building previously because of the walkway.
And but you can see it was C2 previously, which makes sense.
It's right off of, you know, right off of Pass Young there.
All right. Thank you.
Any other questions?
Questions for our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
No questions. Just a comment.
I think the revised plans are fine as they are, have been presented, David.
Thank you.
Questions or comments from the audience?
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, Asia. Asia with the last name beginning in H will be promoted.
Okay. Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Asia, she's allowed to speak, though.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
Asia can you please unmute
yeah she's muted
Asia could you please unmute
are there any other
hands in the audience
she's unmuted now
could you please state your name
and spell for the stenographer
Asia you're allowed to speak
okay we're going to we're going to move on
okay anybody else in the virtual audience there are no other hands chair planning commission
Mr. Valenti, please state your name and spell for the stenographer.
Sure. My name is Michael Valenti, M-I-C-H-A-E-L-V as in Victor, A-L-E-N-T-I.
V as in Victor, A-L-E-N-T-I.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Do you swear or affirm that?
Are you a neighbor?
I am. I am at 1838 South Camac Street.
My wife, Cynthia, and I have lived there for over 12 years.
All right. Please proceed, sir.
I am requesting at this point in time just a delay on the ruling of this board.
Currently, my wife and I are in negotiations with David and Manoj for an easement that would allow us access to that common walkway.
We're also, and myself, my wife, our neighbors, are in the process of finalizing a neighborhood development agreement with David and Manoj.
We'd simply like those finalized before the board and committee rules on this particular matter.
We've had a lot of issues with the aforementioned construction, demolition, et cetera.
In particular, my wife and I have had sustained substantial damage to our home.
We had no opportunity to engage the prior owners and contractors in that.
And it's something that's of paramount importance for us as individuals and adjacent homeowners, but also in a larger sense with the squatters maintaining the property.
The neighbors have really gone a long way over the past decade to keep that property in the position that it's currently in.
Thank you.
Mr. Arfinetes, you want to respond to that?
Could you do that in a short?
Yeah. So the community benefit agreement has been fully executed with East Passion Crossing. Deals with things like letting the neighbors know, giving them a weekly update, what's going to be happening in the next week, one dumpster on the street at a time, sweeping up the sidewalk, you know, kind of good construction type of things.
And that has been fully executed to the satisfaction of East Passy on Crossing.
The issues that Mr. Valenti mentions were all issues that predate my client's ownership when they took hold of it.
There had been squatters in there.
There have not been squatters in there since.
Everything's been secured.
In fact, I couldn't even get into 1839.
It was secured so well to take interior photos.
You'll see, you notice that my photos were only A and at the other end F.
We have been discussing an easement agreement with Mr. Valenti, also an easement agreement with the owner of 1836 for different reasons.
And we are going to continue to work on those.
However, those have, I think, the things that Mr. Valenti has raised, the community benefit agreement, taken care of.
The issues are from the prior owner and don't relate to the zoning. The easements don't relate to the zoning. It's for them to, you know, for my client to agree as a good neighbor to provide them with an easement to get out of their backyard to a public street that they don't otherwise have now. And it isn't related and it's to the zoning matters that are before this board and it's not really.
Thank you. Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
Planning Commission.
thank you chair bergman and good morning david vector with the city planning commission
chairman will testify for both properties the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
rsa 5 residential single-family zoning at this location this is part of an existing
planned unit development a previous owner had permits for this work and abandoned the project
during construction the zoning permits have expired requested variances will allow the
appellant to complete the previously approved work the city planning commission recommends
that the zoning board grant requested variances at 1839 south isominier street for parking space
accessed from their front height and rear yard depth and requested variances at 1840 south
camac street for multi-family household living height maximum occupied area and route setback
thank you um i'm going to vote on both of them together number two mi 2024
zero zero one five six nine eighteen forty south camac street
and number three mi 2024 001 570 1839 south eisminger street i vote yes with provisos
her refusal dated 12 30 24 revised plans one page stamped by zba on february
Revised Plans, one-page, stamped by GBA on February 5th, 2025.
Johns, my vote is yes with provisos.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with provisos.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes with provisos.
Tywin, my vote is yes with provisos.
Ishmael Shahid, my vote is yes with provisos.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you. May be excused.
You can.
Thank you.
Number four, MI 2024-005-661, 122 Diamond Street.
Rachel Pritzker is the attorney.
There's a letter of unanimous support from Norris Square Community Action Network
and a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Lozada.
Also, there's ADA signatures from the block.
Rachel Pritzker is coming in as a panelist.
good morning good morning counsel um could you please state your name and spell for this
stenographer yes rachel r-a-c-h-a-e-l pritzker p-r-i-t-z-k-e-r you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes could you identify your client a relationship
to this property uh yeah my client is antonio gonzalez who is the owner of the property
and our vice chair has a few questions good morning counsel do you agree to wait to read
another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy yes have you emailed in all the required documents
and exhibits that's needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
yes thank you counsel please proceed and share your screen thank you
can you see my screen we can okay
just go to the refusal
okay so as mentioned this is 122 west diamond street i represent antonio gonzalez who is the
owner. We have David Schmalk here as well, who's our architect. This property is zoned RM1 and it
is a proposal for a takeout restaurant with a walk-up window at the ground floor of an existing
structure and for the existing multifamily household living to be reduced to four dwelling
units. This application generated just one refusal for use for the takeout restaurant with the walk-up
window as it's not permitted in arm one. Just going to go down to. So the tax clearance, the deed
to the zoning maps. So this property is the one with the red arrows. It's next to directly adjacent
120 West Diamond Street, which is also owned by the same owner and is currently a restaurant.
This proposal seeks to eventually we're working on to consolidate those properties. But
But for now, we're adding the takeout restaurant to the adjacent property, which is 122 West
Diamond Street.
And given the RM1, it's not allowed by right.
However, it participates with the directly adjacent property, which is CMX2, which is
a restaurant.
The property is 2,400 square feet.
And we're just, again, using this adjacent property for the expansion for the takeout
restaurant.
We had a meeting.
This is an aerial photo.
You can see zoning posters.
And as you can see, this is, again, the directly adjacent property, which is 120 and then 122 West Diamond Street, longstanding restaurant.
Rear of the property.
This is where in the code we don't comply.
Eating and drinking establishment for takeout is not permitted in RM1.
As mentioned, we met with the community NASCAN on December 2nd and received unanimous support, both with their letter, which states that we have RCO support, the vote that went on, so unanimous support for the vote.
And then we also received a significant amount of petitions from near neighbors and folks who attended the meeting also supporting this project.
We also have a letter from Councilwoman Lozada's office voicing her non-opposition to this application as well.
Here's just the floor plans.
It's an existing structure. We're going to be reducing from five units to four units and having the rear bottom unit turned in for takeout restaurant.
If we can promote Dave Schmock to the panelists just to go through the plans briefly, and
Um, and then I can bring my client on after that.
then I can bring my client on after that.
David.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Do we see his hand?
Okay, we're good.
Dave, are you able to?
I'm sorry.
Can you hear me?
We can.
My apologies.
I feel like I unmuted three times.
there uh david schmauk s-c-h-m-a-u-k right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel okay uh can i please see the uh
the entire plan i'm just looking at a portion of it here on my screen yeah sorry no no problems
is that is that better yeah if you can scroll down a little bit because we're really concerned
about the plan on the bottom there yeah okay so obviously we have uh as rachel described we have
two buildings, which will at one point be consolidated. But right now we are turning
what was an apartment in the lower level of 122, which is the building on the top of this plan.
We're converting the rear of that building into a commercial kitchen with a walk-up window on the