for the third floor it does incorporate a mansard roof accordingly the planning commission has no
opposition to the board granting the variance thank you MI 2021-002845
Thank you. MI 2021-002845 1921 Montrose Street and MI 2021-002844 1923 Montrose Street. My vote
is yes to both. Excuse me, Chair. How many pages? Yes. One page. Is that correct? Yes,
just one page for each one thank you my vote is yes to both with the proviso uh revised plan one
page to both carol tennari my vote is yes with proviso professor plaza yes with proviso to both
james snell yes with proviso to both thomas holliman yes with proviso to both thank you we
We go to case number 7, MI 2021-002-834, 300 Rouse Boulevard.
Stephanie Boggs, I believe, is the attorney of record.
There is a letter of non-opposition from Veterans Stadium Neighbors Association asking if we approve, that we approve with four pages of revised plans.
yes good afternoon hi stephanie please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
stephanie magania actually there's been a change um m-a-g-a-g-n-a 1835
that a recent change i just finally got around to it oh okay okay thank you do you swear a firm
to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do thank you mr vice chair has some
questions for you. 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,
refusal referral, photos under 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, I do. Okay, great. You may proceed.
So this application is for a new signage proposed at 300 Rouse Boulevard. We are proposing one new
roof sign at the property as LNI is classifying it along the Normandy Place frontage of the building
and another monument sign along the Constitution Ave frontage of the building. We did have a meeting
with the Veteran Stadium Neighbors Association, and their letter of non-opposition is included
within our packet. Stephanie, excuse the interruption. Do you have any exhibits you can
share with us? Yes, I'm sorry. I thought I was sharing them. Now you can see it. I'm sorry about
that. Yep, this is our refusal. We'll stipulate to its accuracy. And as I said, we do have a
letter of non-opposition from the RCO in our packet. We did meet with them and present the
signage. The signage that's being proposed here is second additional versions of what's already
existing at the building. This is within the Navy Yard. This is 300 Rouse Boulevard.
The sign, we're proposing one additional kind of building ID sign, which LNI is classifying as a
roof sign along the Normandy Place frontage, so it's viewable from the central green, and as
passengers are traveling down Rouse Boulevard, and one additional monument sign that's proposed
along Constitution Avenue in the rear to mirror what's already existing, both the building ID
sign and the monument sign along Rouse Boulevard. The Navy Yard is quite expansive, and the
buildings within the yard have kind of developed a cohesive signage package,
including ID signs that are located at the top of the building and monument signs that direct
passengers and vehicles who are traveling down so that they can see it. The space of the building
and kind of the scope of that has required that additional signage in the area. And what we are
proposing is not only consistent with the scheme that's there for other buildings, Navy Yard, but
also what's there currently. You can see here there's an existing building ID or roof sign,
as LNI is classifying it, at the top of our building along the Rouse Boulevard frontage.
What we are proposing is the exact same copy along the Normandy Place frontage. There's an
existing monument sign here as well that will be replicated along Constitution Avenue.
These pictures just show you different views. Here you can see where the sign
at the roof will be placed, so it's viewable from the central green.
And what the existing monument sign will look like, which will be the same as what we're
proposing along Constitution Avenue. This is the location of the new monument sign at the rear by
the parking lot, identifying the parking lot in the entrance to the building.
We do have revised plans that were submitted, very minor changes to simply show the location
location of the existing signage in relationship to what's being proposed so those are included
of the existing signage in relationship to what's being proposed.
So those are...
within the packet but here you can see the plans that were submitted here showing the new building
id sign along normandy place the copy of the signage which again i said is the same as what
was previously proved here on the property and is existing along rouse boulevard definitely i think
no interruption but i think you could summarize it would be helpful absolutely so these signs are
consistent with what's already at the Navy Yard. It's consistent with the size and scope of what's
located on the building. We do believe that it's necessary to properly identify the building
to passengers in vehicles and pedestrians who are walking through and don't anticipate any
negative impacts to the general welfare or adverse impacts to the character of the Navy Yard. And as
I said, it's consistent. I do have Stan Newman from Iovance, who's the tenant at the building here.
If Stan, you can raise your hand. I'd like to have him adopt my testimony.
and he's available good afternoon sir please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
yes um i'm sorry stanley newman s-t-a-n-l-e-y last name newman n-e-w-m-a-n i'm director of
facilities engineering for iovance biotherapeutics have you heard my testimony here today i have
do you swear excuse me do you swear in front of me to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
about the truth i do thank you stephanie please proceed yeah um stand just again to confirm have
you heard my testimony this afternoon do you believe it to be true and accurate yes it is
thank you would you adopt it as your own i would thank you um we do have jared walk here from city
sign if there are any questions about the signs uh questions from the board no mr no no anyone
else to testify in this case please raise your hand no hands chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for commercial mixed use in the comprehensive plan
we feel the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient hardship and do not feel that the
existing roof screening should be used to expand an existing non-conforming use accordingly the
planning commission recommends the board deny the variance thank you uh stephanie their revised plans
four pages yes they were submitted in a separate email okay i just want to make sure i have it
correct mi 2021-002834300 rouse boulevard my vote is yes with the proviso revised plan four pages
approved today harold tenere my vote is yes with proviso confessor plaza yes with proviso
james now yes with proviso thomas holliman yes proviso we go to case number nine mi 2021-002
831-417-Manton Street.
Mr. Sovran, Brandon Sovran is the attorney of record.
There is a letter of support from Dickinson Square West Civic Association.
Mr. Brandon, please identify yourself, spell your name.
You're still under oath.
Brandon Sovran, Pritzker Law Group.
It's B-R-A-N-D-O-N.
Last name is Sovran.
S as in Sam, A, V as in Victor, R, A, N, 1635 Market Street, Suite 1600.
The Vice Chair has some questions for you.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax, compliance, refusal, referral, photos, plans, five days in advance of this hearing?
And have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, to all of the above, Madam Vice Chair.
Okay, great. You may proceed.
Okay. I'll just alert the board that we have submitted revised plans, one page, and a proviso change form.
So I would ask you to incorporate that into your potential decision.
I will share my screen.
so um my clients are uh doug and brenda howell um they purchased 419 and 417 manton street
um i believe they closed on their purchase in march of this year uh these are two vacant lots
that are standard size more or less for manton street um and the um refusal is that they would
like uh to consolidate the two properties and build a duplex so they're gonna get two
the two properties and build a duplex. So they're going to get two units out of that.
They could get two units by right, just by building two separate single-family homes.
They instead chose this plan of attack, I think, for the ability to customize the home
architecturally. And also, they felt like it would be easier to comply with the code's open
area requirement of 25 percent with this scheme than by um building two separate units so as such
they have complied with the open area requirement that's not the refusal the refusal is merely
the uh use of two units in one structure on that consolidated lot um we did meet with the dickinson
west uh dickinson square west civic association um have a letter of support um see what else i
can tell you. I have a zoning sheet here. I also have the design professional who made it. If you
want to hear from him, he can talk through it a bit. But here in the bottom left is an image of
the home from the Manton Street Elevation. That's really it in a nutshell. I'm happy to have Curtis
come on and talk through the plans if you'd like, and also happy to take any questions.
um mr uh sovereign um unless i missed it i got distracted are there any i think there are other
homes on that block that have garages on am i correct in saying that i'm happy to um let's go
on google so it's the northern side of the street which does not have parking on that side of the
street uh let me see if there's other i don't know if i see i'm probably confusing with the
empty lots there. Okay. Yeah. So Mr. Chair, we did discuss this at length at the community meeting
and the community was not opposed to the garage. They wrote in their letter, and they may not be
wrong here, that a refusal should have been issued for the curb cut, but if it had been,
they would have been in support for us seeking a variance. That being said, I'm not an L&I
examiner and I, I, maybe I'm wrong and maybe they're wrong collectively that the refusal
is accurate. So I'm not here to, you know, really pick a fight over that. The bottom line is they
support the garage. Okay. Understood. Do you have a client to adopt your testimony? Yeah. So, uh,
it may be, uh, Doug Howell or it may be Brenda Howell. Are either out there?
yes chair we have a douglas howell
good afternoon mr howell please spell your full name and i'll swear you in
douglas howell d-r-u-g-l-a-s h-o-w-e-l-l do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do i swear thank you mr sovereign hey doug um were you able to hear the
entirety of my testimony today? Yes. And do you find that it was true and accurate? Yes. And would
you therefore adopt it as your own? Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Questions from
the board? No, Mr. Chair. No. Anyone else to testify in this case? If so, please raise your hand.
no hands here thank you planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
this property is indicated for single-family residential in the comprehensive plan
the proposed front-loading parking garage creates a hazard for two bicycles and pedestrians
accordingly the planning commission recommends the board denied the variance
thank you uh mi 2021-002831 417 manton street um my vote is yes
carol tenery my vote is yes confessor plaza my vote is yes james now my vote is yes
excuse me um board members it was with revised plans one page i believe
Thanks, Ms. Salata.
I apologize.
I didn't see that in my notes.
I'll go back over it.
MI 2021-002831-417, Manton Street.
My vote is yes with proviso.
Revised plan, one page, approved today.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes with Proviso.
Harold Tenere, my vote is yes with proviso.
Confessor Plaza, yes with Proviso.
Confessor Plaza, yes with proviso.
James Isnell, yes with Proviso.
Thomas Holloman, yes with Proviso.
Sorry about that.
I'm going to go out of order and hear case number 11.
My sense tells me number 10 might be a little bit lengthy.
So we're going to go to page number 11, excuse me, item number 11, MI 2021-002.
837-5805 North Front Street.
Mr. Nockmson is the attorney of record.
Councilwoman Parker's office submitted actually a letter.
I'm not sure if Hillary is out there.
And the councilwoman supports this legislation of the existing duplex,
but not a third dwelling, meaning a maximum of three units.
so uh sharon do you have maximum of two units maximum two units uh
sharon oh clementa is available okay miss amazon please identify yourself spell your name and i'll
swear you in of course clementa amazon c-l-e-m-e-n-t-a last name is a-m-a-z-a-n
123 South Broad Street
Suite 1600
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? Yes, I do.
Thank you.
The Vice Chair has some questions for you.
Do you read away 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 plans, five days in
advance to this hearing and have you met with the RCO and do you have a letter?
Yes, we actually met with the Councilwoman's office because there is no RCO for this area
and we have a letter from the Councilwoman's office. Okay, great. You may proceed. Thank you.
I'll just share my screen. So again, I will be presenting 5805 North Front Street. As the
chairman mentioned, this is just the legalization of a duplex. We were originally requesting three
units, but we have since determined it would be more appropriate to have two units. I will go
through the notice of refusal, the correspondence that we have from Councilman Cheryl Parker's
office, maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and drawings, the application
for appeal, the notice we sent out for that meeting, as well as the deed and certificate
to get a tax clearance. So the refusal is for the triplex use that we were initially seeking,
although we now are requesting just the legalization of the duplex, which is how the
property is currently configured. The area is zoned as RSA 5. However, there are other multifamily
homes on the block that have been there for some time now. And as you can see, we do have a letter
from the Councilwoman's office stating that their position is that of non-opposition for a duplex
and that the community would not be taking a position.
So here we have a view of the maps of the area,
the view of the side of the property here.