R-A-H-M-A-N
Right, do you swear or affirm
to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do. Please proceed.
Yeah, the
A side yard, in this case, a little over a foot, will be concreted.
And so that will be like the question raised by a member of the board.
It will not be a maintenance issue.
Is that going to be fenced off?
I just think like a foot and a half is not enough space for a human being to easily get down there.
But trash could blow down there.
I think animals can get through there.
so what's going to be the plan to keep that area clear if another building comes up on the party
line i believe that um that building i guess very close to the sidewalk so i do not think there will
be a building i'm going to put in place in that one foot space but we'll pave that area because
there's not going to be a fence because it's not going to be able to maintain it and in the front
to the back of the unit is going to be paved for that one little over a foot.
And in the back, we'll start the fencing on the side of the person.
I mean, I would suggest putting a barrier at the street level
just to keep debris on the street from blowing that way, but I understand.
We can look into that.
That's for the J.K.R.P. to the architect to figure out.
You can't talk. You've got to talk into the mic whenever you talk, okay?
So the architect will look into that, and that's something that we can accommodate.
We should be able to do that.
What's next?
The next...
Excuse me.
The next presentation concerns MI 2025-004148-2315-17, North 10th Street.
12th, right?
Yep, 12th.
Go ahead.
okay the zoning map at exhibit six shows the location of the property on the southeast corner
of 10th street and dakota street as you can see the zoning map reflects both rm1 and cmx2 zoning
but pursuant to the zoning code the planning commission had jurisdiction to determine which
base zoning governs this application and the planning commission chose the rm1 rules
um exhibit seven shows that the entirety of the property is currently vacant the zoning plan is
at exhibit eight and shows that pha is proposing to build two single family homes that are slightly
different from an architectural standpoint from one another as i'll highlight in a moment
the home on the corner is the a2 type home that we just discussed during the last presentation
The home away from the corner is an A3-type home, and I'll show you what that means momentarily.
But from the outside, in terms of mass at the ground level, each home is the same footprint, just over 16 feet wide and 35 feet deep.
This leaves room for storage sheds, a 6-foot-deep rear patio for each resident family, and a 21-foot-deep rear yard.
58.5% of the lot area is occupied by the proposed buildings.
58.5% of the lot area is occupied by the proposal.
Exhibit 9 contains a composite elevation and a separate detail elevation for each of the proposed buildings.
Exhibit 10 contains a separate floor plan for each of the proposed buildings since they have slightly different floor plans.
The corner A2 type home has three bedrooms and two and a half baths.
The other home, the A3-type home, has a deeper third floor, contains four bedrooms and two and a half baths, so an extra bedroom.
Exhibit 11 contains photographs of the existing conditions of the property and the zoning hearing posters.
The application for this property received one-dimensional refusal shown at Exhibit 1 for insufficient side yard width.
The hardship can be summarized in that the zoning code provides that where a shared alley separates a property from a vacant lot next door, attaching your building up to the alley does not qualify it as an attached building.
So in the RM1 district, a five-foot wide side yard must be provided between the nearest exterior wall and such an alley.
This is a hardship because conformity would require PHA to eliminate one of the two planned
homes.
If the lot on the other side of the alley happened to not be vacant, no refusal would
have been issued.
So we consider this to be a highly technical, de minimis refusal.
It's our position that the board would be able to grant a variance even if a hardship
does not exist, although it is our position that a hardship does exist because compliance
would cost a home.
this concludes our presentation for 2315-17 north 10th street unless the board has any further
questions questions move on okay the next presentation concerns mi 2025 004234 which
is 2314 north 10th street 13 whoops exhibit six shows the location of the property
which is near but not on the corner of North 10th Street and West Dakota Street, the property is
zoned CMX2. As the aerials at Exhibit 7 show, compared to most of the other blocks in the
Phase 3 area, this block is largely filled by existing structures, and a structure of some
sort is being built on the adjacent corner by a private party, which I'll show you in a moment
in photographs. So this one's a bit different. It's an infill project in which PHA is just going
to construct one single family home. The zoning plan is shown at Exhibit 8. This home again is
the A2 type home that I've now shown you a few times. Footprint of just over 16 feet wide by
35 foot deep. It contains three bedrooms and two and a half baths. We'll have the same private
storage shed and six foot deep rear patio and a very large rear private yard in this case.
Only 40% of the lot area will be occupied by the home.
Exhibit 9 contains elevations and Exhibit 10 contains the floor plans, which again are
the same as compared to the other A2 type homes we've looked at.
The application for this home received no dimensional refusals, but did receive one
use refusal as shown at Exhibit 1 because of the CMX2 zoning.
The refusal is issued for failure to provide a ground floor non-residential space.
The hardship as presented in the memo of law can be summarized in that this area is devoid
of any non-residential uses other than a few churches, and a non-residential use would
not be viable with this particular phase of an affordable housing tax credit project,
particularly because LIHTC funding does not cover non-residential uses.
this phase is designed around single family home construction so a commercial use would impair
the project this concludes our presentation on 2314 north 10th street unless the board has any
questions questions can you pull up the facade again sure i think just a comment i think my
first concern is that the next three adjacent properties are all two-story homes that have a
similar cornice line and design and this house does not fit in the context of anything else
that's on that block of all of the blocks this is the one that has the most other existing houses
to pull references from and while i understand that it matches the rest of the infill development
it does not look like it fits within the context of of this block and additionally the property
of this block and additionally the property next door has a significant setback so my first question
next door has a significant setback so
is did you all specifically talk to the owners at 2312 north 10th street and get their approval
because this is going to sit right up against their property which has what looks like to be
about a 15 foot setback i'm not aware of uh discussions with the neighbor um not to avoid
to the question i am curious what's being built on the other side of the our lot um
correct no directly adjacent someone is conducting construction as we speak and i'm
trying to pull up the zoning plan if i can do so yep yeah presumably and brandon will confirm
presumably whatever is being constructed on that corner would be would be either higher or would
be consistent with the three stories so it'll it'll help in blending it a little bit better
Zia, I don't know if you can address, in terms of design, when the project was being designed, what kind of interaction, if any, PHA had with any of the immediate neighbors for the few lots where there are neighbors?
i'm not aware of reaching out to each individual homeowners or other residents who are adjacent to
pha properties for this project so i'm not going to be able to answer that question that we
reached out but we have had i know for this is for a fact that we have had several community
and resident meetings over the course of past,
I would say at least three years or even longer,
time after time,
showing the presentation to the residents
and the tenants in that area.
Part of my concern is that, one,
it looks like that current resident has been using the thought
that this project's been proposed on to park their vehicle,
but also they have most of the windows on their property
are facing that adjoining lot which appears to have been vacant for many decades according to
city records so it's going to significantly impact the viability of that property again
their windows might not be legal so understood board member i mean um just a couple things so
first of all uh brandon was able to confirm that what's being built on the corner is is i think 38
feet high it's it looks like they kind of crammed in four stories in the 38 feet um so i'll use the
the uh expression you probably hear a lot here which is our project serves as a natural transition
between that project and the remainder of the block um the um if i if i pull up exhibit 11 which
is our photos um our site has been fenced off i believe the most recent photos are the ones with
the posters which were taken about three weeks ago i went right by it hold on
no it's because i'm looking at the wrong packet
okay there it is um so see the little plaque that says national on that fence that's our property
behind that so we've gotten to the point where we've been able to fence that off and i'm not
aware of any hostility or objection to that fencing by the neighbor the car is no longer there
that's going okay so far and we did of course mail out notification they would have received
our notice uh for this property and all of the others and we i i did not receive any phone call
from that neighbor i only received a couple of calls and they were they were really just
curiosity calls not anything to object or raise any concern okay but i think i think the point
obviously um and and dale representatives from dale are in the room uh duly noted on the concern
related to the windows and i think that that's important for them to keep in mind as they go to
work towards uh design drawings uh to make sure that they are coordinating and keeping keeping
apprised of any any unique circumstances like that one yeah it also wasn't the other property wasn't
shown accurately drawn on the site plan either so yeah that's um okay the next uh presentation
concerns mi 2025 003931 which is 2335-37 north 10th street
the zoning map at exhibit six shows the location of the property
so this location is at the northeast corner of arizona street and 10th street and the property
is zoned cmx2 um as the aerials show at exhibit seven um this
As the aerials show at Exhibit 7, this project will occupy the vacant corner, which was two parcels adjacent to some other recent development.
The zoning plan is at Exhibit 8.
Each home is the A2 type home that we've now gone through a couple of times, the three-bedroom, two-and-a-half bath, single-family home model.
Again, it's got a footprint of 16 feet wide and about 35 feet of depth per home, leaving room for small storage sheds for each resident family, a six-foot-deep rear patio, and a 23.5-foot-deep rear yard.
About 56.3% of the combined lot area is occupied by the homes.
Exhibit 9 shows a composite elevation.
elevation, the two homes will be mirrored horizontally as compared to one another.
And then we have one detailed elevation.
So for the other, you would just flip it.
And then exhibit 10 is one detailed floor plan.
Exhibit 11 has photos of that recent looks like four story building adjacent to our site
and the current condition of our property.
this application received no dimensional refusals but one use refusal this is the same use refusal
that we just spoke about for the 2314 site which is that in the cmx2 district you're required to
provide a non-residential use across the full length of the primary frontage that would be the
10th street frontage um and again um there are no commercial uses um anywhere around us on 10th
street i think if you go far enough up and down you just hit a couple of churches um the um nature
of non-residential use simply doesn't fit with um the project for this site or the phase three as a
whole it also cannot be constructed with uh light tech funding um that concludes our presentation
um for 2335-37 north 10th street um unless the board has any further questions regarding the
hardship or anything else it's a quick question so those have uh common yards as well the two
off has come here that's right next that's it musical chairs
all right mr chairman next uh we're going to tackle 23 20 north 10th street mi 2025 004381
good sorry all right so the zoning map at exhibit six shows the site at 23 20-30 north
north 10th street occupies the entire block from west arizona street to the north to west
Dakota Street to the south, and is zoned entirely CMX2. We have included aerials at Exhibit 7,
where again you can see there's no existing improvements on this block other than
some portions of existing fencing and a playground area.
We've also included photographs at Exhibit 11, where again you can see this is an entirely
vacant section of this particular block here. And this is just across the street that is a part of
some other phases here as well. On the key plan here, you can see that sites four and five that
were previously permitted is directly across the street from this particular phase. On the zoning
map here at Exhibit 8, you can see the nature of this particular proposal, which is for 10
single-family dwellings on the one lot, with two facing West Dakota Street, one facing West
Arizona Street, and eight that are facing North 10th Street. As Brandon mentioned with his
presentations, each of these homes has an independent shed for storage and significant
shared open space in the back with only 63 percent of this lot proposed to be occupied by structure
similarly the composite elevations for each of these block faces is shown at exhibit 9
and again similar to the cases that you've already heard today include
And again, similar to the cases that you've already heard today, include a mix of building
types A2 and A3.
And we've included floor plans for this particular phase as well at Exhibit 10.
You'll see again those home type A2 and A3.
The A2 are the three-bedroom, two-and-a-half bath dwellings, and the four-bedroom, two-and-a-half bath for the A3.
At Exhibit 1, there are a couple of refusals that were issued for this particular phase, which mimic refusals that you have already been presented today, so I will be brief.
The first refusal is similar to the last two cases you heard.
again, for the failure to provide a ground floor non-residential use, otherwise commercial use.
And again, as Brandon presented previously and is summarized in the memo of law, there is no
commercial in this particular area. And due to the funding constraints and the goals of this project,
the commercial use would not be viable here. In terms, again, this also received a refusal for
insufficient parking. And again, that's driven by the North Central overlay. But as you'll see
momentarily on some of the other proposals that I'm going to present, there is parking proposed
for this phase, just not on this particular lot. And again, as Brandon mentioned, this is really
only triggered because of the code's treatment of this development as multifamily, even though
So, in spirit, these are single-family homes that just happen to be sitting on one particular lot.
This concludes our presentation for 2320 North 10th, unless the board has any further questions on this phase.
I have a quick question. Is there a plan to relocate the play equipment?