I understand.
Questions or comments from the board?
Are there any commercial spaces in this?
it says that there are but no um uh board member gasson so the original proposal did include a
very small commercial space but throughout the civic design review process ultimately it was
determined that that was not going to be their correct use so we did go back to l and i and
amend the application so that commercial space was taken out so that is no longer a part of the
application. Thank you. I have a question. So are you claiming hardship on the fact that it's I-2
and RSA-5 and it's hard to kind of get that or not for the number of units? That is absolutely
correct, Board Member Graham. The number of units is not actually at issue. It's a matter of
the multifamily use. So when you look at the interaction between industrial and single family,
you basically land with no permitted uses. Once you land at multifamily, it's not a matter of how
many units. That's not ultimately a basis for the refusal. It's just for the multifamily,
which would be the case if it were two units or two million units.
So why land on 87?
So German, if you want to touch on that. So again, this started at 140 and has been reduced. But if
you want to touch on uh the design and how 87 was ultimately reached sure so um 87 two-bedroom
units um we landed that number because it made the most economic sense um without having to
it was the cost to construct as well as the revenue that it would generate based on the
number of units um we cut out the parking even though that was a source of revenue
um so 87 is pretty much the least amount that we could do while still providing affordability
at the property next door and at this property here as well and just to kind of just to kind of
give it the scale the property next door um on 40th street is 42 units and i think that lot is
roughly 7 000 square feet so this lot is around 21 000 square feet so it's three times the size
but the building is only twice as big or rather the number of units is only twice as big right
and you can see on these floor plans here how the units really lay out well in this space here
and i'm just curious uh since this is a phase two of this project is there are there still some
vacant land around these two buildings do you guys is there a phase three four and five like
no somebody else owns no somebody else owns those other properties all right thank you
i have a question about the affordability so i know you're saying that the that part of the
overbuild is due to trying to keep this in the former property affordable and could you talk
a little more specifically about the levels of affordability that you're going to achieve in
this building and then confirm right now when you say affordable what you're doing is accepting
section eight you do not have actual project-based voucher contract or HAP contract correct we don't
have HAP contracts or project-based contracts we're accepting we're accepting housing choice
voucher in these and they're either coming from the VA and in some cases it's the bridge program
which is not a PHA program. There's also some TURN residents, which is also a city subsidy.
So we work with some homeless agencies, as well as a myriad of agencies to source
tenants that are looking for safe, brand new, affordable housing, which they seem to be
having a hard time finding. As far as levels of affordability, this project specifically,
we are fine with having a deed restriction for 10% of the units, which would be about nine units
at 60% AMI, because that's the least amount that the lender would allow us to take. But we
to to take but we we anticipate on taking section eight vouchers and other um uh programs in in a
anticipate on taking Section 8 vouchers and other...
bigger part of the building as well it's just that as far as deed restrictions go those are the ones
that our lender will allow us to commit to so so it's 10 deed restricted and anything else is sort
of section eight at your discretion correct okay and then do you have a social services administrator
on site? We have an office on, we have two offices actually, one on the corner of 39th
and Haverford, which is about, you know, like a 10 minute walk and another one on 42nd and
Parrish. That is also probably a 15 minute walk that we support our tenants and we liaise between
our staff as well as the support services for a lot of the tenants who tend to come from
different programs, whether it's the VA, Horizon House, or other entities that tend to support
the tenants in different areas of their life. And then who is your on-site property manager?
We're our own property manager. So everybody that we have works for us. So we hold ourselves
accountable and we're not beholden to a property management company. And German, how many units do
you have in mantua just to give board member win a sense of the volume of units that you have
in terms of your ability to actually manage them effectively yourself
sure we have roughly 400 units in between mantua and belmont so between 41st street and 39th street
between lancaster avenue and gerald avenue roughly
any other questions from the board questions or comments from our attorney hillary amerson
not at this time mr chair what is your comments from the virtual audience
yes chair we have justin and they have been allowed to speak
i could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
sure uh my name is justin foster um as j-u-s-t-i-n f-o-s-t-e-r do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth the whole truth is nothing but the truth i do are you a neighbor i am a neighbor
yes i live at 863 north north 40th street sure please proceed yeah so i just have a quick question
um this is a consolidation and so the hardships that are mentioned here um by miss meredith as
well as the owner they are created hardships because the lots as they stood individually
were RSA-5 and individually were I-2. I-2 on its own, if you didn't consolidate them,
you would have to deal with the restrictions of each individually. And so they created the
hardship that they're trying to use to say, oh, well, there's nothing that could conform.
There's actually nothing of that size that could conform, but really you could make conforming
properties there. Secondarily, as a current resident who experiences what their 42 unit
building brings in, there is going to be a parking issue around here. If you put 87 more units into
a space and if only 10% are affordable and they are one and two bedroom or two family or two
bedroom units, you're guaranteed to at least get one car a unit over time. If that is the case,
where will they park? Surely Union Street does not allow enough parking for that.
And already if you parked on Union, you almost have to park on the curb because of the
slenderness of that block. And so I don't know where I was in regard to the invite to Mantua's
civic design meeting, but surely this building is deficient in the fact of seeing to the needs
of parking at the very least. And if there is a hardship, the hardship was actually created
because the consolidation creates the restriction. That's just my thought there.
No, thank you. Anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no hands.
Mr. Chair, may I address his comments? Sure. Thank you. We do not agree in any sense of the word that this is a self-created hardship. As our presentation showed, each of these lots independently is subject to a hardship.
It is accentuated by the fact that this property has been used in conjunction with each other throughout history.
And the hardship, as my presentation established, the hardship would apply to each of these lots independently.
the hardship would apply to each of these lots independently and is and is not is not increased
by the fact that it is being consolidated these these arguments would apply independently to
each of the lots as they are zoned currently for all the reasons that were stated during
the presentation today so we we absolutely do not agree in any sense that this would be
represent a self-created hardship thank you planning commission
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
This proposal completed its Civic Design Review in March 2024.
The Civic Design Review Committee's advisory recommendations are not an expression of the
City Planning Commission's recommendation or an opinion regarding exerting variants
of special exemptions or other discretionary approvals associated with this proposal.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change to the I-2 General Industrial and RSI-5 residential
single-family zoning at this location. If the site were zoned entirely RSA 5, the appellant
would be allowed 21 dwelling units. If the site were zoned RM1, residential multifamily, the
closest adjacent zoning, the appellant would be allowed 44 dwelling units. So 87 units are not
the minimum required to afford the appellant relief, even considering plans for affordable
housing as our board member noted it would be only program based or voucher based the city
planning commission recommends that the board deny the proposed use variances for 87 units
the proposed variance for auto spaces and the dimensional variance for additional height
thank you um we've heard a lot today i'm going to take this to the executive session next wednesday
we will vote on at 2 p.m. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. All right, last case here.
Okay. MI 2024 001458 1521 Ogden Street, Clemente, Amazon is the attorney.
there's a letter of opposition
from Francisville
did provide
seven letters
of support from neighbors
and a vote in a letter 12 in support
17 in opposition
Clemente
good afternoon
Well, you've already been scored, I should remember.
State your name for the record, please.
Thank you.
Clementa Amazon, that's spelled C-L-E-M-E-N-T-A.
Last name is A-M-A-Z-A-N.
You identify your client and relationship to this property.
Absolutely.
My client is the owner of the property, 88740 LLC,
and I have Caroline Curran, who will be the representative.
okay our vice chair has a few questions for you
council do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
yes i do have emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this period yes i have thank you council
please proceed and share your screen thank you
can everyone see my screen we can great so again i will be presenting 1521 ogden street
this is a photo of the front of the property during my presentation i will go through the
refusal. We did receive an RCO letter. It was a split vote, and I'll go through the details of
the letter, just identifying the numbers of the vote. We also have several letters of support,
all from individuals within a block radius of the property and arguably those who will be most
impacted by the use of the property, a map of the area, surrounding area photos, posting photos,
as well as interior and exterior photos of the property, the notice that we sent to the community
for the community meeting, our certificates of mailing showing that we did, in fact, send the
required notice, the application for appeal, project information form, deed, and certificate
of tax clearance. So the property is owned RM1, and the use that we have here is for visitor
accommodation. My client has been doing short-term listings for about two years now. She was unaware
She was unaware of the change in zoning and the fact that she would have to go through the process of obtaining zoning to continue the use.
of the change in zoning and the fact that she would have to go through the process of
Thank you.
She became aware of this and hired our firm to represent her through the process.
She did not have any open violations or any issues that led her to looking for the proper zoning.
She did this fully of her own volition.
She is a member of the community.
She actually lived in this property prior to leasing it herself.
And so she's a well-established entity within the neighborhood.
and she's simply looking to continue using the property for short-term rental.
Though the property is zoned RM1, she is using the entire structure as visitor accommodation,
so she's not splitting this in any way.
The entire structure would be available for that purpose only.
And we did meet with the community on May 28th, and we had a bit of a tight vote.
I understand that the letter has different numbers.
However, I think there was a bit of a typo there.
There was seven in support, nine in opposition, and four votes of non-opposition.
The tone of the meeting was that of a split.
They did acknowledge and realize that nearby neighbors, and we did present their letters of support during the community meeting,
were in favor of the project.
They were in favor of the use.
They were aware of the use of the property, had no complaints.
It had been ongoing, and they had no issues with the property being continued in that use.
The opposition that we received to the project was for short-term rentals overall, and you'll see that in the letter here.
The concerns that they expressed were for the increase of visitor accommodations because of affordable housing issues as well as accessibility of housing and trash.
So, the first issue we believe isn't necessarily appropriate for the proposed use that we have here. Even if this property was not being used in a visitor accommodation capacity, it would not be listed for affordable housing.
Secondarily, the trash, my client, and she can speak to this during her testimony as well,
self-manages this property.
She's done it for several years now.
There have been no issues with trash, noise complaints.
She does a very diligent job of making sure that those who are going to be occupying the
property are respectful and are aware of the house rules, specifically quiet hours from
11 p.m. to 7 a.m.
No parties, no smoking.
There's a five-guest maximum.
There is the property is three bedrooms, two baths.
Again, we're not splitting this for multiple uses for the visitor accommodation.
It's the entire structure.
There's a five-guest maximum.
There are security cameras, and there's a two- to three-night minimum.
So my client did reach out to individuals within the neighborhood to get a sense of how they would feel about the continued use of a copy for visit accommodations.
We have our first letter from one of the neighbors located at 1526 Ogden Street, which is directly across the street from the property.
And this neighbor said that Caroline has been in the community for well over 15 years.
She's a responsible host.
She screens her guests and takes care of the property and urged the board to approve the application.
In the second letter, also from someone on the 1500 block, they highlighted that there were no issues with noise, unruly guests, or unkept property.
issues. Furthermore, Caroline's responsible and professional and demonstrated that her presence
and oversight are benefits to the neighborhood. Our third letter, and I did redact some of the
personal information here. However, the materials that were submitted to the board did include that
information for the individuals that signed. And this is for 1521 Parrish Street neighbors and
their property runs through to 1526 Ogden. They said that they have only experienced positive
interactions with both Caroline and guests of the property. They believe that having an Airbnb is
an asset to the community and further enhances the pedestrian safety on the street. And highlighted
that Caroline frequently visits the site. Again, this is self-managed by Caroline. She's there
very regularly to make sure that the property is cleaned up and between guests, handling any trash
issues, as well as being a point of contact. Again, we have another letter from someone along
the 1500 block of Ogden Street, highlighting that there have been no issues with the use at all.
Similar letter from a neighbor along the 1500 block, stating again, no issues with the property