No, I appreciate that. So we're very well. We know Mr. Shabazz and Jazz Tech and Overwork
Environmental very well. He's been working on this project for some time. Probably the reason why we
Probably the reason why we have three, have a unanimous decision only the third time in our history.
have three, have a unanimous
So it's a very well thought out project.
They've been doing environmental education in our community for maybe a generation.
And so that explains the unanimous support of the project.
Mr. Allen, thank you very much, as usual, for your comments.
um planning commission
john labakar planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the cmx 2.5 zoning
at this site the proposed special exception for community center use would not cause adverse
impacts and the variance for setback is in accordance with the proposed use and appropriate
for the neighborhood therefore pc pc recommends granting the variance and special exception
Thank you. MI 2024-002-433-6150 Lancaster Avenue. I vote yes. Proviso. Revised plans, three pages, stamped by ZBA on July 24th, 2024.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with Proviso.
danetta graham my vote is yes with proviso james now my vote is yes with proviso
thank you is there anyone in the three in the uh 2 p.m list whose case has not been called
i see no hands so we're going to take a five minute break we're going to come back and i
think we had three other cases. Thank you, everyone.
All right.
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Bergman, and I will be chairing the 330 ZBA hearings.
With me is our Vice Chair, Ismael Shaheed.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, James Snell.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Cheryl L. Gaston.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Our Board Member, Tenetik Graham.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Board Member, Michael Johns.
Michael's here, and also our board member, Taya Nguyen.
Present, Mr. Chairman.
Also present is our attorney, Hillary Emerson, and also Kathleen Grady, our deputy director.
Here's our virtual format.
The proceedings are being recorded.
With your participation, you agree to be recorded.
A video will be available by contacting kathleen.grady at phil.gov.
For our court stenographer, we ask attorneys and witnesses to identify themselves before testifying.
If you're participating by phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and star 6 to unmute.
To enter the appearance statement, call 267-270-5548.
Leave your email address and the address of the property in question.
And finally, the question answer box is not for comments or testimony. All comments should be directed to our deputy director, Kathleen Grady.
Here's our schedule.
So, get over here, number two, MI 2024-001-452-7130 Boyer Street, cases continued.
Number five, MI 2024-001-459-5357 Lancaster Avenue. Cases continued. Number six, MI 2024-001-594-922 New Market Street. Cases continued.
And number seven, MI 2024-001-595-52 East Washington Lane, that case is continued.
Are there any other requests for continuances?
I see no hands.
We're going to start with number three, which is a pro se case.
MI 2024-001-453-2308 South 16th Street.
001-453-2308 South 16th Street.
John Fink and Audrey Ellis are the owner applicants.
There's a letter of unanimous support from Broad Street West RCO.
John Fink will be coming in as a panelist.
Thank you.
good afternoon mr fink hi everyone good afternoon all right could you state your name please
and spell for the court's sonographer yes it's john fink j-o-h-n-f-i-n-k right do you swear or
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do uh mr fink this
application is for the demolition of the rear portion and the erection of a rear addition
to an existing attached structure for use as a single-family household living.
Their minimum required rear yard depth is nine feet, whereas five feet, ten and a quarter inches are proposed,
and the minimum required open area is 25%, whereas 17% is proposed.
Our vice chair has just a few questions for you, sir.
Good afternoon, sir.
have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to and required to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? Yes, I have. Thank you, sir. Please
proceed and share your screen. All right. Thank you, everyone.
So these are the materials prepared. And I will go to the picture of the house here on page 17.
All right, let's see, this is actually on page 21.
All right, so here's our house on 2308 South 16th Street.
My wife and I are where the owners, and this is, you know, existing two-story row home,
And at some point in time, a small one-story laundry room addition was constructed in the rear of the first floor.
And so here's the pictures of the rear of the property.
And this is under the second floor projection bay.
So this addition, it has structural issues, and it's settled significantly over the years.
And because of this, we'd like to demolish this edition and rebuild it.
And we'd also like to expand our kitchen into the space in order to make it more functional.
Let me bring you up to the drawings on page 17.
So here's the schematic and the drawings.
so the proposed addition will exactly match the footprint and height of the existing structure
we will not be expanding what is currently on the property it's this area here from above and
this area here from the side in the back of the house and the new addition doesn't meet the zoning
codes rear yard setback and open area requirements so that's why we're seeking a variance to replace
this existing structure. Finally, I'll just show the letter from the community organization here,
the meeting that we had in May, and the letter of support from that meeting.
Why don't you show us real quick what you're, do you have the drawings,
Heather, what it's going to look like when you're done inside?
um i don't think believe we have that drawing but i also have my architect here um on the line
uh for any technical all right so what i'll do is we'll have you leave your architect on the line
and if the board has questions we'll bring him on okay sure sure yeah i have these drawings of the
you know the schematics but not like a visual yeah sure questions from the board
no chair
questions or comments
I do what size area is this
width we're talking okay
yeah for this if we want we can bring on the architect to speak specifically to to this
um no just 16 feet wide right the whole lot is 16 foot wide that's right i believe so
that's right i believe so and then this is what how many feet in depth it's like 30 you're talking
and then this is what how many
about the addition 13 so small i can't read these yeah about 13 by seven oh okay all right like an
old kitchen yeah let me pull up the picture of the back of the house so you can get the real
the real view on it yeah okay i see so it's this it's like this part here kind of starts with this
window um and it's like the brick ended and at some point they built this out on you know as an
addition under this overhang so it's it's this and basically we're you know we want to demolish
it and then just rebuild it um properly um in the same footprint okay does it have any kind of
support system do they whatever now that seems like a good question for an architect if we can
all right just probably doesn't have any now i guess he's gonna have well it has settled
significantly over time that's why he's tearing it down once the territory gotcha okay all right
Thank you.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Ambers?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, everybody.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission, A-M-Y-B-O-Y-D.
Swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA-5 residential single-family zoning at this location.
The appellant requests dimensional variances for rear yard depth and for minimum open area.
The appellant seeks to remove the rear addition, then build a new addition with approximately the same footprint.
The proposed addition will not endure the use of adjacent properties.
The Planning Commission recommends that the board grant the proposed dimensional variances.
Thank you.
MI 2024-001-453-2308-South 16th Street, I vote yes.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes.
Kaneta Graham, my vote is yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Ty Owen, my vote is yes.
Jane Snell, my vote is yes.
I want to move to number...
Let's see here. Number one. Number one, MI 2022-007-577-3935 Ogden Street. Merritt Ferliger is the attorney.
we have
we have
we have a recommendation of support from Mantua Civic Association
Councilmember Gauthier is opposing this variance being requested at 3935 optic
She feels the proposal is an overbuilt unfit for such high-density residential living between active industrial uses and was structured to subvert the intent of the overlapping mixed-income neighborhood overlay.
So I'm recusing from this one, I believe.
Yes, sir.
Meredith?
Good evening.
Could you just state your name for the record you've already been sworn?
Sure. Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
Can you identify your client and relationship to the property?
I can. My client is Haverford Square by Metropolitan 7 LLC, represented by Member German Yakubov.
Our Vice Chair has just a few questions.
Good afternoon, Counselor. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to exact proceed?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case
in advance of this hearing? I have. Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
All right, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. The request before the board today is the culmination
of a year and a half of diligent design work to land at a project that is truly transformative
for a historically neglected section of land at the northernmost point of Mantua's boundaries.
To summarize briefly, the project before the board today is for a new five-story building
the project before the board today is for a new five-story building to contain 87 dwelling units.
to contain 87...
To address some administrative items first, the exhibit packet in front of you contains 20
exhibits. Exhibit 2 has three tax clearances for the three separate parcels that comprise
this application, and Exhibit 3 shows the deed. At Exhibit 1, the board has a copy of the original
refusal that was issued December 19, 2022. You can see the number of refusals that were issued
based on the original proposal. Following that, the board granted this applicant leave to amend
its application, which resulted in the amended refusal that is in front of you today and is
dated June 28, 2024. The original project received refusals concerning a then-proposed commercial
use, the multifamily dwellings, height, occupied area, and floor area ratio. The basis for relief
has been significantly reduced to the remaining refusals for multifamily use, insufficient parking
spaces, and height, with the height refusal also reduced from 86 feet to 50 feet. I will just note
as a preliminary matter that this application was not subject to the MIN overlay that's referenced
in the councilwoman's letter. We certainly respect that position, but this application,
given the length of time it took to get this application to the board, this was applied for
prior to the inception of the MIN. So we really do take issue with noting that this application
was intended to subvert them in, that is by no means the case here. This project has been
significantly and significantly reduced, as we will show in the presentation.
Let me start first with some property background. The property before the board today is located at
3935 Ogden Street, which is proposed to be consolidated with 3945 and 47 Ogden Street.
At Exhibit 5, we've included the lot consolidation plan, showing the site layout of the newly proposed 21,000 15.5 square foot lot.
You will see that this irregularly shaped parcel is currently comprised of three lots, a large parcel in the rear that I'm indicating with my cursor that's somewhat of an odd L shape, as well as two square parcels on the Ogden Street frontage.
these would be consolidated into one parcel. Interestingly, the rear lot was historically
used as a part of a horse stable. As shown on the zoning map at Exhibit 7,
this parcel bears a split zoning designation including a portion zoned I2 as well as a
portion in the front zoned RSA5. Surrounding the property to the west is a stretch of parcels with
RM1 and CMX2 classifications stretching along North 40th Street. Directly to the south is
largely zoned RSA 5. Exhibit 8 shows several aerial views of the property and the surrounding
area. This first view is from the northwest, and the subject parcel here is shown as a cleared
vacant lot directly behind the new construction building that fronts on North 40th Street.
That 40th Street building, which I'll touch on later, was considered as phase one of this transformative project, which is known as phase two.
To the rear, the board will see the Amtrak lines, and immediately to the east is a large Pico substation.
Flipping to the northeast, the board will note the proximity and character of North 40th Street.
This image should also begin to give the board a sense of the still quite significant vacancy that exists in this area, particularly surrounding the RSA 5 zone lots that are to the south along Union Street, and Union Street is kind of where the curve starts.
This next southeastern view more clearly shows all of these aforementioned conditions.
We've also included a final view from the west, which again reflects the front of that phase one building.
Again, the considerable vacancy surrounding this property is apparent just even from this view.
If we skim through some street level photographs at Exhibit 20, the first view you'll see is facing the site from Ogden Street,
where again the board will see the scale of the six-story building that was recently constructed