This is identified as sign S2. This next image is also shown from the parking lot and again you'll
just see the context of the two signs. The next view is just facing in the opposite direction.
And again, as you'll see from these images here, this is a commercial corridor with no
residential uses surrounding the bank property. Again, right from the corner, there's an auto
zone directly across the street. And in the back along East Washington Lane is a Dunkin' Donut.
And in the back, along East Washington Lane, is a Dunkin' Donuts.
We did also include photographs of the zoning posters, which were timely posted on both frontages of this property.
Now, in terms of general project context, I did include at Exhibit 6 some before and after images of all of the signage that is being replaced with the modernization program
and Citizens Rebranding Program.
You may or may not know that Citizens Bank
is actually becoming just citizens.
So that is one of the reasons why this signage
is all being switched out,
not just on this branch location, but nationwide.
All of the signage that you'll see in these images here
was previously approved by Wright,
but I thought it would be helpful for the board
for me to include it for context.
This Washington Lane frontage does not have much signage, but the facade will also be updated with newer color bands.
There's also a couple of smaller signs around the site that will also be updated as well.
At the Stanton Avenue frontage at Exhibit 7, this shows the existing, the sign S1 that is being replaced, which was previously permitted.
So the Staten Avenue freestanding sign is not before the board today.
Now, before I actually move into the sign that's in front of you today, just by way of historical context, I did at Exhibit 9 include permits reflecting two zoning permits, both from 1991 and 2002.
In 1991, you'll see here on the right, two existing freestanding signs were first built for the Mellon PSFS Bank.
Those signs were each 7 by 8 feet and 20 feet high with interior illumination.
In 2002, you'll see here on the left, Citizens Bank took over and two new Citizens branded pylon signs were installed.
These were replaced with two new 55 square foot signs that were 19 feet high each.
Now Citizens First applied to replace all of its signage for the current 2024 monetization back in
August. All of those replacements were approved by Wright, with the exception of the one freestanding
sign. As the board may know, CMX 2 only permits one freestanding sign per property, where in this
case, two have a very long history of existing on this site. I did also include that August zoning
permit just for reference. So turning back again, the proposed freestanding sign on East Washington
Lane that is replacing the existing sign is shown here at Exhibit 8. This does reflect a revised
plan that we did submit to the board and a revised plan proviso form, which I will address.
This proposed sign is 72 feet high, is 72 feet high, 72 square feet and 18 feet high.
This sign was originally proposed to be 15 feet high, but during the community meeting,
community members very wisely pointed out some of the site conditions that would actually
potentially impair some of the visibility of the Stanton Avenue freestanding sign at the then
proposed height. I think I can actually show you that here. If you've seen this image, they pointed
out that this wall might actually impair visibility. So as a result, we are going to
increase the height of the sign by just a couple of feet to avoid that impairment on Stanton Avenue.
So, per CMX2 regulations, a freestanding sign may be 20 feet high, so this change still remains
code compliant. The sign itself will have internal elimination, and we do have representatives from
the sign company should the board have any detail questions. The revised plan submitted to the board
are four pages, which should be consistent with the number of pages that was originally submitted
to L&I. Now regarding the refusal, as I referenced earlier, only one refusal was issued for this
proposed sign since CMX2 would only permit one freestanding sign on this two-street frontage
location. The applicant submits to a hardship primarily as a result of the over 20-year history
of a variety of banks at this location benefiting from two freestanding signs. Although the proposed
sign is entirely consistent in both overall size and height to the currently existing signs.
to the currently existing signs, the zoning code dictates that a nonconformity or previously
The zoning code dictates that a non-conform
permitted condition is lost upon demolition. This would be the third time these signs are
being replaced in their current location on site. Even if the sign itself was not already existing,
the unique site conditions here would still dictate the necessity to have the second sign
at East Washington Lane at the entry point to ensure adequate visibility for customers
on this nearly 20,000-square-foot property. Unless a driver or a pedestrian is directly
at the corner, you cannot see the other freestanding sign from each of their locations.
There's also minimal signage on the East Washington Lane frontage other than this sign,
further warranting the continued presence of the sign itself.
The proposal is the least minimum variance, given that the sign is consistent in height
and overall square footage, to the historical signs that existed in the location.
The dimensions of the sign itself are permitted by the zoning code.
The signage will not create congestion, harm neighbors' properties,
impair light and air, or impair area infrastructure or facilities.
The signs will maintain the status quo condition of the site and ensure the continued visit, continued viability of this neighborhood bank branch.
Full legal analysis, as always, is provided in the memo of law submitted to the board at Exhibit 12.
And I would be very happy to touch on any particular point if you require additional clarification or justification.
As Mr. Chairman mentioned, we did meet with Cliveden Hills Association, and they unanimously, understandably, supported this request, and that is shown in the packet at Exhibit 15.
So at this time, I would ask if Grace Paolo is in the audience to dot my testimony.
She may come up as Grasa.
Can we share her hand?
Yes, Chair. Grace Paolo has been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Grace?
She has been allowed to speak, Chair, and there on mute.
Could you hear me now?
We can.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Absolutely.
The name is Graza Paolo, G-R-A-C-A, last name P-A-U-L-O.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Grace, can you identify your title with Citizens Bank?
Yes, I am a project manager.
And you're authorized to speak on behalf of Citizens Bank concerning the details of this application?
Yes, I am.
And have you heard all the testimony and evidence that was offered in front of the board today?
I have.
And would you agree that testimony was true and accurate, and would you adopt it as if you had given it yourself?
Thank you. Happy to answer any questions.
Questions from the board.
questions or comments from our attorney hillary emberson
um i just wanted to note for for you mr chair um it just approves it is for it is four pages
of revised plans i initially had put that's right okay yeah it's four yep thank you questions or
comments from the virtual audience i see no he's at this time too planning commission
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no changing zoning at this location from the existing commercial residential mixed use CMX2.
The proposed signs are consistent with prior signs if not under the use of adjoining properties.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the requested variance for freestanding signs.
Thank you.
MI 2024-005-779-6300-18-Centon Avenue.
I vote yes.
Proviso, revised plans, four pages, stamped by CBA on December 11th, 2024.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
My vote is yes with proviso.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with proviso.
Thank you, council.
Thank you, everyone.
Thank you.
No, 14 MI 2024-005-840, 1314 Dorrance Street.
So, 14 MI 2024-005-8.
Alok Sokoloff is the attorney.
There's a letter of unanimous support from the Point Breeze Community Development.
Look, it also provided 14 letters of support, four from the block.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Oleg Sokolov, on behalf of the applicant.
Just for the record, Mr. Sokolov, could you please spell your name?
Sure. Oleg Sokolov, S-O-K, pardon me, O-L-E-G, S-O-K-O-L-O-V.
We're referring to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is the property owner, Bull Real Estate Ventures, LLC, and Ms. Dana Dugan is the sole member of that LLC and is on the line with me here today.
Our vice chair has a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, counsel. Do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy?
I generally would, Mr. Shahid. The caveat being I received the communication from Ms. Boyd today regarding some clarity on the refusal.
I'm not sure that it's incorrect, but I believe it is the same issue addressed to both the structure itself and then the roof deck.
So it's ostensibly from what I can understand in the refusal, and perhaps Ms. Boyd or Ms. Emerson can correct me if I'm wrong, but they're both related to the rear yard setback,
one being for the deck which is on the second floor and one being for the structure itself at
the first floor level understood have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as
needed to proceed with this case five days in advance of the hearing i have um however i would
ask for a little liberty from the board given this this issue that was raised by ms boyd i
do have some additional photos that i'd like to share and ask that they'd be entered into evidence
as well. Please proceed. You've already shared your screen. Thank you very much. Good afternoon
again, members of the board. So what we are here seeking to do is legalize an existing condition
that was present on the property when Bull Real Estate Ventures and Ms. Dugan purchased the
property just in February of 2024. We are talking about a dimensional issue on a lot that is less
than 46 inches in 46 feet pardon me in depth therefore requiring a seven foot rear yard in
an rsa5 and we are asking for the boards uh for the board to grant a variance for use as a for a
five foot um rear yard setback this so what we have here and i'll get into it in the pictures is
we have a small deck above the back portion of the house, which is subject to the setback
requirement. And that, I believe, again, is what generates the secondary refusal per Table 14701.
I think it'll be a little more evident once we take a look at pictures of what's going on. So
a little background. Ms. Dugan, on behalf of the entity, purchased the property in February 2024.
As I said, and this property was basically in shell condition with existing framing that the previous owner had installed rotting, requiring replacement.
And in April of this same year of 2024, a violation for this nonconformity, as well as some other present issues at the property that are more pertinent to building permits than zoning permits were existent and a stop work order was issued.
Ms. Dugan and the entity ceased all construction, retained us as counsel, and we immediately put in for the appropriate zoning permit to legalize the nonconformity.
So, as stated, here's the deed to the property showing purchase in February of 2024.
here is the best we could do for evidence of tax clearance once again this is the 2025 balance that
as stated by by numerous presenters here today is not due yet so we consider the entity in the
property to be tax compliant however you know what I take that back I believe she even made
payment for the 2025. So we're fully paid up. This is just a view down the block. This boarded
up property is the property in question. And I apologize, just have to resize a few things here.
And I apologize, just have to resize a few things here.
So this is actually a picture of it even prior to Bull Ventures owning it, but even prior to construction undertaken by the previous owner.
So this is a 2019 picture of the property.
And you can see Doran Street is a property, as I'll show later, that has had a number of these
sorts of variances issued, including the immediately adjacent properties. I'll show
some aerial photos that show that the lot, basically every property on this side of the
street has an almost identical um non-conformity and had a variance issued for the five foot rear
yard setback just the zoning map of the property here doran street for for references is located
between reed and wharton and this is between 18th and 19th so right there if the board could see my
cursor. And then the plans, let me attempt to make them as big as possible here for the board.
Are the members of the board able to see this? Okay, wonderful. So what we are talking about,
and I do apologize that it may not be as evident on the plans as it will be from pictures, but
what we are talking about here is this five-foot setback right here. This is the portion of the
property that was an addition built at some point, and it is non-conforming, as would require a seven
foot rear yard setback. Now, on top of that first floor, which is only five feet from the property
line we do have a small about two or three foot deck and we do have our architect justin myers
here on the line we'll be able to answer any kind of technical questions but what we're looking at
here again is a first floor that goes beyond the the allowance or the requirement of seven feet
that only extends five feet of rear yard and then above that first floor in just a two-story
structure basically off of like the back bedroom if if the board can envision that is a small um
not roof deck but a small just balcony but since it is it's not a free hanging balcony
since it is on top of the first floor it's considered a deck
and i'll obviously be happy to go back to those plans and and allow um mr myers to answer any
technical questions but here's our application for appeal this condition was obviously not created
by the by the applicant and is just seeking to legalize the existing use so as she can continue
with this project, renovate a home that was, for all intents and purposes, abandoned in the middle
of a construction project by previous ownership, and fix it up in order to utilize it for housing
in the neighborhood. We met with the RCO, as stated by Chair Bergman, on October 28th. It was, I will
say, a decently attended meeting where we did receive unanimous support. Here's our letter from
that RCO. And as I want to just point out, some of the comments were that the property will be
renovated and uniform with the characteristics of the neighborhood. So nearby neighbors and people
familiar with the neighborhood certainly know that this is something that is existent in the
neighborhood and especially on that block. Here is a list of properties that have been granted
the same type of variance. And you'll see that they're all on that immediate block. Some of them
are part of a development of three identical houses located from 1308 to 1310, 12 South Dorrance. So
they're three houses that were built at the same time. They're identical properties,
and they also have the same five-foot rear yard.
And as Mr. Bergman stated, our 14 letters of support, including two of four on the immediate
block. What I'd like to point out just for the Board's consideration is that all of the letters
of support are from an immediate one square block radius, either on Reed Street, on Wharton Street,
And then you can see here's the stop work order. As I stated, work was ceased immediately upon receiving the stop work order. Here's our pictures of our zoning posters in the window there at the property. A little better view of those posters.
And then you can see here's the stop work order.