Street, which is on the screen south. The investment in this area of Mantua has so far
focused predominantly on North 40th Street, as you can see a lot of the new construction that
has begun to pop up. From this east view, you'll see that the corner of North 40th Street and
Parish Street has a brand new multifamily six-unit building that extends all the way back
to this lot on Parrish Street. Across the street but a little bit further down towards Union
are a row of residential homes. Directly across the street from the property let me switch the
view here so you can see it a little better. Directly across the street from the property
the board will note the fairly intensive commercial use that has begun to somewhat
spill into Parrish Street due to the lingering vacancy of this particular block of Parrish Street.
And again, you'll notice the new construction six-family dwelling right next door.
If I turn to some of the photographs at Exhibit 15, you'll see the existing vacant lot that is
the subject of today's request at 3962 Parrish Street. These photos show a closer look at
the varied character of this particular block, which is slowly seeing some additional investment.
And again, you'll notice the new six-unit building here and the automotive garage across the street
here. The long-standing vacancy of this side of Parrish Street has so far been an impediment to
new development, and today's request will hopefully spark some additional attention into this largely
vacant area. And again, this is a view from North 40th Street, where this will give a little bit
of a better perspective of the property in relation to both the new multifamily building
here at the corner, as well as the automotive garage storage facility. I'm not entirely sure
how it's exactly used, which is directly across the street. And again, this is just a view looking
towards Union Street, looking towards North 40th. So this is from Union Street.
towards north 40th. So this is from Union Street. And we did also include photos of the zoning
poster at Exhibit 15 as well. If we refer back to the zoning map at Exhibit 5, you'll see that
this property is now zoned RSA 5, having been one of the many blocks that was rezoned during the
2017 Mantua rezoning initiative. Prior to that, this property and this block were all zoned RM1.
You will notice that the RM1 line here stopped just short of this property, with the auto garage across the street retaining a CMX1 zoning that would effectively, in this condition, permit RM1 multifamily density if it were to be developed into a residential multifamily proposal.
Because of the location of this lot, it's not only adjacent to RM1 zoning and density, but the lot directly across the street is capable of significant multifamily development based on its zoning classification.
To the northeast, you'll notice the start of the industrial zoning that encompasses Pico's substation, which is just on the next block east of this.
Just north of this property on Ogden Street, which is just out of view here on this map, the board will this summer see a proposal for a large 87-unit development in this area as well.
The proposal for 69-3692 Parrish Street is shown on the zoning plans that I have up at Exhibit 6.
I'll zoom in a little bit.
This includes one new three-story structure, which is designed to be three stories to blend
with the mixed height structures on this particular block. The building will, as referenced, contain
six dwelling units. We did also include an image just for reference of the facade intent for this
proposal. This project has been uniquely designed to accommodate considerable private outdoor space
for many of the tenants, including a private roof deck, private second floor deck, private rear
yard, and a slight L design, which you can see here, which is open to the side of the property
for additional light and air. And again, you can see some of these referenced on the floor plans
here, unit two yard. There is also an interior ventilated trash storage area. You'll notice
an outdoor deck and then a roof deck. The units in the building range from 473 square feet all
the way to 1,100 square feet and includes two bi-level units. Now, regarding the refusal,
the proposal only received one refusal for the proposed multifamily use.
No dimensional variances are requested and the structures proposed to be quite a bit shorter
than the code would allow, further to the developer's goal of remaining consistent with
the surrounding new structures. And again, you can see here that this is proposed to be
just over 33 feet high, where the code would actually allow for up to 38 feet.
The applicant submits to a hardship given both the history of the property as well as the
transformed character of this neighborhood and block, which is highly relevant to the
applicant's entitlement to a variance. Historically speaking, the lot at 3962 Parrish
Street was used as a multifamily dating all the way back to the 1950s. Furthermore, although the
block now sits vacant, the available zoning history shows that this block was an exclusively
multifamily block until the structures were demolished at some point over the last several
decades. The historical use of this lot and this block is consistent with the instant proposal.
Aside from the historical multifamily use, erecting a single-family home on this lot would
also represent a deviation from the predominant multifamily dwellings that currently exist and
have been recently constructed on this block and in the immediately surrounding neighborhood,
including many that this board has seen and granted via variance.
As you can see at Exhibit 10, which I've summarized on the exhibit list,
permits are included in the exhibit packet showing a swath of new developments
with densities ranging from two family dwellings all the way to six units,
consistent with today's proposal.
5 and 6 unit proposals were approved for 3946 Paris Street, 3801, 3860, 3933 Brown Street, 844 and 846 Union Street, and 833 North 40th Street, which are all in the immediate vicinity of this property.
Importantly, and most relevant, 833 North 40th Street, which contains six units, is the property that I pointed to, which immediately abuts this one just at the corner.
Importantly, and most relevant, 833 North 40th Street, which contains
The Board has granted countless variances permitting multifamily use in this neighborhood due to the established limited viability of constructing new single-family homes in an area that has become characteristically multifamily.
This is especially true due to the unique situation of this lot being immediately adjacent to RM1 zoning and across the street from still remaining automotive use.
The proposed six units will represent a natural blend of the predominantly multifamily residential uses on this block and is further consistent with the historical multifamily use that existed both on this lot and on this block at large.
If or when developed, the lot immediately across the street would be permitted for up to 18 units, further illustrating the trending density on this particular block and in this particular area.
Additional density and investment here to remove longstanding block, longstanding block, long vacancy is precisely why this proposal was met with such support from the community in a meeting that included representatives from three separate RCO groups.
And I will note that that meeting, they particularly were happy to see that this very, very longstanding vacant block was finally going to see a little bit of life.
We submit that the number of proposed units is also the least minimum in this case, as the density proposed is consistent with the density of surrounding structures, particularly the most immediately adjacent structure.
Additionally, six units are most appropriate here for the interior layout of the proposed structure and is not overbuilt from a dimensional perspective to accommodate the proposed density.
The units are varied in size to accommodate a wider range of rental price points and tenant
preferences. The structure itself is smaller than the code would allow, and the proposed units are
all well-appointed with individualized outdoor space, which is really something rare to see.
We submit this proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties,
or impair light and air. The structure was designed to align with the varied character
of other structures on this block. A more detailed analysis is provided in the memo of law submitted
to the board at Exhibit 11, and I'd be happy to touch on any particular point in more detail.
At this point, I'll ask if the administrator could look for Serge Maslenikov.
They have been allowed to speak. Good morning. Good morning. Could you please state your name
it's spelled for the court stenographer hi my name is serge mastenikov s-e-r-g-e and the last
name is m-a-s-l-e-m-n-i-k-o-v do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do please proceed counsel thank you uh serge um you are the owner of this property
and you're the sole member of mascoff llc yes and have you all heard all of the testimony and
evidence that was offered in front of the board today yes i did do you agree that testimony was
true and accurate and would you adopt it as if it were your own yes thank you um council yes two
is that two separate buildings next to this no it is not no it's one building here let me give
you a better it's one building it has kind of a cutout design so it's a little deceiving but
So the side of this building will be next to the rear of the property.
That is exactly correct.
It is the most immediately adjacent.
Let me bring up the zoning map.
So you can see this corner property here is that building.
So it's immediately above this.
All right.
Thank you.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
There are no hands, Chair.
Questions or comments from the Planning Commission?
Hi, Chair.
Amy Boyd with the City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing single-family zoning at this location.
The requested variance for a six-family multifamily living is not the least minimum
available. However, there is documented use of multifamily nearby. The City Planning Commission
therefore recommends that the Board grant the variance for multifamily living with a
with a provisor of four units which would be allowed under rm1 zoning thank you
of four units, which would be allowed under RM1 zoning.
mi 2023 007 021 3962 paris street i vote yes
thomas holloman my vote is yes james smell my vote is yes
my vote is yes thank you council thank you mr chairman members of the board
So number six, MI-2023-007-202-5369-275 Wenga-Hawken Street.
Sean Whalen is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition from fake CDC.
There's also a letter submitted on behalf of Wenga-Hawken residents.
Mr. Whalen.
he's in as a panelist chair good morning mr whalen could you please state your name and spell
for the court sonographer certainly good morning sean whalen w-h-a-l-e-n you swear or affirm to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes i do could you identify your client
relationship to this property yes i'm representing the owner developer of the project k-i-t-o-v
our vice chair has a few questions sir sir good morning counsel do you agree to waive the
refusal or stipulate towards accuracy uh unfortunately i do not i agree to two-thirds
of the refusal uh but i do believe there's an erroneous refusal on there uh the parking
refusal is incorrect i'm happy to go into that now or later i will go into the presentation
Have you emailed in all of the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you.
Please proceed.
I have to step away for one second and I'll come right back, but I'll stay on the phone.
Please proceed, Sean.
Thank you, Chairman.
Again, Sean Whalen here on behalf of the owner and applicant.
So you can see my screen.
I'll get to the refusal in just a second.
So this is just to a clarifying point, Ford, you stated it was Wingo Hawking Street.
I just want to be clear.
I'm sorry, Wingo Hawking Heights.
I'm sorry.
The only reason I bring it up, Chairman, is not to make an issue of it.
simply that we have a wingo hawking terrace right behind us okay that's a separate street so i just
wanted to be clear that we're talking wingo hawking heights um so this is up uh bellfield avenue which
many of us know church lane and then uh wingo hawking heights comes in here i'm not sure why
google puts the pin there uh it is this property right here this very large uh oklahoma shaped
property. You can kind of see it here better. There is an existing garage there and a very
large existing house. The issue for today's hearing is this very large open area right there.
I think we can see it actually better right here. So again, this is the existing Wingo Hocking
heights 5369 home the property goes all the way down here there's a very skinny again it's sort
of like the state of oklahoma flipped on its uh on its head comes down here and then goes up
um and this project uh this sorry the entire parcel is over 15 000 square feet so just to
give you some idea of of really just how large a parcel we're talking about
So there is no dispute.
It is a zoned RSA 3, and so is everything around it.
So again, not an issue.
Here is kind of to start giving you some of the context.
This whole parcel is 5963 Wingo Hawking.
We have previously applied for and submitted and had approved a PUD for the project.
So the existing house is on this very large, what's listed here is parcel D.
It's actually unit D.
That is still well over 7,000 square feet.
So it's a very large parcel.
The existing garage here on parcel A is on almost 2,300 square feet.
here on Parcel A is on almost 2,300 square feet, so still a very large parcel.
And then the issue for today is Parcel B and Parcel C, you can see here right side by side
in the middle of the page, they are both approximately 3,000 square feet and we are
proposing to build one single family home on Parcel B and one single family home on Parcel C.
And as you can see, this is just included to show that the planned community PUD has
already been approved and we already have the new OPA numbers and everything.
So again, here's an overall site plan, and I'll zoom in on this in a minute, but this
is the unit A, which has the existing garage that's to remain.
This is that very large house we were talking about on unit D.
So, in order to get there, we received three refusals. One for multiple principal buildings on a given site, because again, this is a single family zoning district, and multi-family use on a single parcel.
As the board knows, when you're talking about a PUD, for zoning purposes, the entire parcel is considered as one large parcel, and then once you start building, the individual units they're on have their own OPA numbers, their own separate tax ID numbers, they get everything separated.
We received a third refusal for stating that a minimum of one accessory off-street parking space is required per dwelling.
This is the refusal that we disagree with.
For reasons I won't go into, it took a long time to get to a refusal in this project, so we didn't want to go back and try to have that removed.
But you can see here, we are including a parking space for the existing house.
There actually was none there. So we are adding that parking space for the existing home in order to be code compliant. And then we are proposing in garages for both of our new homes here, both which will have parking.
So we are offering and meeting the one car per, one accessory off-street parking space per dwelling unit.
What you can see here, I will zoom in for you.
This is essentially a vision of what we're proposing.
um this side is x'd out because uh l and i asked us to submit one sheet for each each side so the
next exhibit uh which i don't need to go into has has the other side x'd out again these will be
twins they will be attached on one side fully detached on the other side now notably uh we did
not receive refusals for setback, open area, or anything of the like. And what I would stress here
is that in the ordinary course, we would have just been able to subdivide this very large parcel
and have four separate subdivided lots. However, for the hardship here that we have
is that Wingo Hawking Heights, for reasons unknown, was never physically opened on the
city plan. It is a publicly accessible city street. It is, however, a private street in
maintenance. It has public water, public gas, public sewer, public electricity. They receive
public trash pickup. There are, if it snows, the street is plowed. However, again, for reasons