You do walk up the steps, but they are ADA accessible units, and that was done specifically after meeting with the community.
And then on the third and fourth floors, you have, again, similar units, but they are not ADA accessible.
They're just typical residential units.
So 25% of the units, or three units, proposed were wheelchair accessible.
Another 25% or another three units are ADA accessible.
And this was done specifically at the request of the community.
So, I want to turn now to the renderings and just show how this works in coordination with
the surrounding properties and how it would look.
He has a red brick facade proposed with a front porch.
The houses, two house, two structures to the west both have front porches and that would
tie in with them.
Again, this is looking at the property from 39th Street, from 39th Street again showing
this is where the ramp is and you go down into the lower level units where you have
steps and those are wheelchair accessible units and another look showing the ramp 39th street
when you look in in the community where and there will be private trash pickup
and there will be trash storage in the rear of the property this will be a zoning compliant fence
and the trash storage will be in the rear
there are also two properties next to it both of which are multi-family uh 3904 and 3906
aspen street and then after that there are 12 vacant properties on um aspen street so after
after the corner and then two structures and there's a whole bunch of vacant properties as well
the site photos show we have a vacant lot and that it's a double wide lot it's a large lot
much larger than most of the other lots in the area here is a triplex right next door to us a
duplex next to that when you look through the community there are at least 10 other properties
right in this general area that are multi-family that's 3904 3906 3913 and 3875 aspen street
and also 737, 735, 727, 725, 723, and 719 North 39th Street, which are all also multifamily.
And significantly, the properties on North 39th Street all had variances granted permitting multifamily uses within the last three years.
So the only construction in this community is multifamily construction done with variances.
None of those properties, however, have the wheelchair or ADA accessible units as requested
by the community here.
The variances will permit the development of this property in a manner that was specifically
requested by the community, and this is shown by their unanimous support letter from the
And it will permit development to fill in this corner prominent corner lot.
and also that the conditions around it are either vacant parcels or multifamily structures the only
construction in the area recently is multifamily none of it though is done specifically to meet
the needs and requests of the community the community also said that they're they prefer
to have multifamily residential units here because there are older residents in the community who
who wish to remain in the community, who own their homes,
but no longer wish to have the responsibility
of home ownership.
So this is why they requested the ADA accessibility,
the wheelchair accessibility,
and it doesn't have the burden of home ownership.
Variances who again permit the development
of this property, the community will benefit
by having this large property built upon.
It will add eyes and ears to the street
and it will reduce the likelihood of illegal dumping.
The variances really are necessary to develop what the community said they want to see and
it's in conformity with anything that's been built in the community recently.
There are again numerous polyfamily structures here.
They will benefit by having a modern building with the life safety features that modern buildings have.
They will benefit by having a modern building with the life safety features that modern
They will not adversely impact light and air.
They will not add overburdened public facilities.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call on Robert Sherman.
Mr. Sherman, please unmute yourself and wait for the chair.
I'm here.
Sir, could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter, please?
Robert Sherman, R-O-V-E-R-T-S-H-E-R-M-A-N.
Do you swear a firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
Thank you.
Robert, did you hear my statement?
I did.
And are they true and correct?
Yes, they are.
and was this proposal developed with the input and at the request of the community
yes it was and do you adopt my statements at your testimony yes i do i have no further
questions for mr sherman mr chairman or questions from the board
and mr chair no mr jim mr mattione is there anything this large close by
Anything that's large?
No, this is a larger lot than any of the other properties.
When you look on 39th Street, they're all about 1,000-square-foot lots.
This is a 2,000-square-foot lot.
It's larger than any of the other lots that are in the area.
The properties just to the west are smaller, much smaller.
Thank you.
Questions from the virtual audience?
I see no hands here.
Questions from the – statements from the planning commission, please.
Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Board. This is Greg Waldman, Planning Commission staff.
In 2017, the zoning map was amended from CMX2, Commercial Mixed Use, to RSA5, Single-Family Residential at this location with the support of the community.
There is nothing unique about this 1,982 square foot rectangular vacant lot that would require a variance to enable viable economic use of this property.
And even if there were, 12 units far exceeds what can be considered minimum relief, and the property has many more units than nearby non-conforming multifamily properties, as demonstrated by the applicant.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Zoning Board deny the variance.
Mr. Matty, we're going to take this to our executive session and have a conversation about this, and we'll vote this next week.
Thank you. Okay. Thank you. You can. You can. Go ahead.
Mr. Mattione? I'm trying to get him back here. Okay.
Mr. Mattione? He's coming back in as a panelist now.
all right i believe i'm back sorry we lost you there that's all right i just wanted to add um
yes this is more units than any of the other properties it's also larger and it also specifically
is being built with ada and wheelchair accessible units which take up more space and which are more
difficult to build and that was specifically at the request of the community and as of the rcl
and we're meeting their goal and to do that we need the the additional units um again all of the
the properties have been built on in the last three years are all multi-family they all had
to get variances they're all in smaller lots and none of them have the the features that we have
that were specifically requested by the community mr chairman thank you for updating us thank you
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Number five, MI 2022-003-269-747-North 37th Street.
Sean Whalen is the attorney.
Letter of Opposition from Mantua Civic Association.
Mr. Boylan is coming back in as a panelist.
Good morning, Mr. Whalen.
Could you speak your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Certainly.
Sean Whalen, W-H-A-L-E-N, here from Vintage Law, on behalf of B. Ross Real Estate, LLC.
Do you swear, affirm, and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Sean, do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership tax compliance a copy of the refusal or
referral photos and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing and have you met
photos, and or plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing,
and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all.
Okay, great. You may proceed and begin by sharing your screen.
Thank you very much.
So, board members, I'm here today representing 747 North 37th Street.
Again, that is BROSS, B-R-O-S-S, Real Estate LLC, is the owner and developer of the project.
This is an aerial map, just to give you some context here.
It's an existing two-story building.
You can see a lot of vacant lots all surrounding a developing neighborhood.
And we back up to the very large Miles Mack playground right behind us.
And it is RSA 5, as are essentially all of the lots all around us, either RSA 3 or RSA 5, again, except for that large playground behind the property.
This is an image of the property. This is the existing building, the red right here.
It was previously a single family. You can see it's in a very dilapidated situation.
My client purchased this property on the last day of 2017.
In 2018, he had to clear out the property, which was being misused by some squatters at the time.
It has since been vacant, and he's been working to gear up in order to develop the project.
This is an individual developer with sort of a mission for the neighborhood as opposed to a large, you know, entity, well-heeled entity.
So he was working up the financing to develop the building.
And then COVID hit, as we all know, and everything went sideways for a couple years.
So here we are.
So, again, here's just in context.
you can see the entire block all up and down and actually the blocks to the south of this.
Everything is an existing two-story building except for the vacant lots. This has a first
floor commercial with an upper story apartment. Again, just showing you going north from this
property. This is Mantua Avenue in the distance. We're one block off of Mantua and one block off
of Fairmount, just to give you some context where in the Mantua district we are. And again,
just showing you going south, again, the overwhelming, I think these two properties
right here are the only three-story buildings on the entire blocks. My client's proposal is to
turn the single family into a duplex with one unit on the first floor and one unit on the second
floor. It will get a new roof, be re-skinned, have a new porch built on it. There will be no
addition to height. None is requested today and there is none proposed. There is also no addition
onto the rear or the front of the building, so the building will stay in exactly the same
exterior size and shape that it is today. What you can see here, this is the unit A is the first
floor unit. You come in, there's the large, will be the large porch, and then you have what is a
very large, approximately 700 square foot single family or apartment unit, and you'll have the
same type of unit on the second floor. Each unit, again, is about 700 square feet, so a large one
bedroom. You can see both of them have, this is the second floor unit, so the living room and
the kitchen are flipped, but you have very large open floor plan between the living room and the
kitchen. Both of them have a washer dryer, a large approximately 10 by 11 bedroom, and a full bath
with a tub. And there will also be additionally central air.
so we have one refusal the only refusal is a use refusal that two-family dwelling is prohibited
this is an RSA 5 underlying district so only one single family is allowed we went before the
Mantua Civic Association they actually do I think quite a novel idea which works very well
they actually meet right in front of the property so we met with most of the neighbors on the block
and met right in front of the property to propose our project.
They did oppose, and they actually provided a...
They did oppose, and they actually provided a – this is a letter.
Fortunately, Chairman, they still have the old Chairman's name, so this might not have gotten to you, but an explanation letter of their position.
They raised four items of concern.
The first was concerns about the care and condition of the property since 2017.
I did already address that, but I will have my Brent Ross, my witness, testify in furtherance of that.
He's looking to, you know, now he has the financing securities looking to move forward, develop the property and really keep it in the condition that it should be kept going forward.
There was no damage to the other properties or any kind of unsafe condition or violation or anything of that sort.
It was just left vacant since he had to get rid of the squatters a couple years ago.
I'm going to skip number two and come back to it because that's a lengthier discussion.
Another point that the neighbors raised was communication with the neighbors.
Mr. Ross at the meeting handed out his personal cell phone information and personal contact information, hoping to, he's hoping to become a staple of this neighborhood and build additional units throughout in some of the existing properties.
properties. You can see that there were from the map, and I can go back to it later, a lot of
vacant lots in the area. And he's looking to utilize the existing buildings to create and
allow him to tell you the story behind it, but created affordable units here for younger
professionals. The main item I would argue that came up in front of the community was affordability
and size of the units. Essentially, the community was not interested in reviewing the plans. We had
brought full-size plans to the meeting, and there was an assumption that we were asking for
additional height at the meeting because there was no way we could fit one unit on the first
floor and one unit on the second floor. However, that is the case. According to the floor plans,
that I just showed you, and as my client will testify, we can actually put in the existing
space with no increase whatsoever to the exterior dimensions in order to keep everything in line
with the block. We will be having two approximately 700 square foot units in the building, one on the
first floor, one on the second floor. As far as affordability, again, my client will testify to
this, but he shoots for a slightly below market rate, again, because he's trying to help a
particular target market of young professionals who don't want to live downtown in large apartment
buildings paying huge rents, but would rather live in a family-focused neighborhood.
So then the last issue that was raised by the community is the alignment with single-family
culture on the block. And we certainly did hear this. It was absolutely a family-oriented
meeting. However, in light of their comments, we went back and we did an analysis of all of
the zoning records and public zoning records through the City Atlas website. And again, this
is, I would suggest, just the publicly available records. There are certainly other properties up
and down, as I'm sure the board members are aware, that did not go through the proper
channels in order to have multiple unit buildings. There is evidence of those up and down the blocks
of, you know, multiple mailboxes, multiple doorbells, things of that nature.