again, and I have attached this exhibits, the letters from the real estate consultants
supporting the lack of viability of commercial activity in the North Square
market. I have a copy of the first page of the deed indicating ownership as well as tax balances
paid. And what was originally submitted in the package was this letter dated November 29th,
which was the notice of our first meeting. We have subsequently added the May 2nd notice of
the second neighborhood meeting. Again, the RCO was very cordial in giving us the opportunity to
present, albeit the vote came in their opinion, seven opposed, five in support with three in
support with proviso. However, and I don't have that letter attached here, but again, if you were
to look at the votes in support, even those with proviso were in support of residential.
It just happened to be a density, I'm sorry, an affordability question. So we did send notices
and mailings to all of the residents as are shown on the left side of the screen through all the
various proofs of mailing. The matter was posted on both frontages of the property. And we believe
that that it's these unique conditions of the neighborhood and the vacant land that creates
gaps between the residential areas and that there's no real possibility of commercial viable
use in this corner at this time and that the residential density would not alter the
characteristics of this neighborhood as it exists and at this time i have my uh i can have my client
raise his hand to adopt my testimony and mr garner if you are available
adam garner has been allowed to speak good morning sir could you please state your name
and spell for the sonographer yeah my name is adam garner a-d-a-m-g-a-r-n-e-r you swear or
firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel thank
you mr garner have you had an opportunity to hear my statements and testimony to the board today
yes i have uh do you believe that my statements and testimony were true and correct to the best
of your knowledge yes and would you adopt my testimony as if it was your own yes i do mr
garner i just have a question if there's anything you wish to add to my testimony you are welcome
to do so at this time uh very well i have nothing to add thank you questions from the board
yes i have a question um what is the height of your building in relation to the height of the
other like pockets of building that are along susquin and avenue um i will have to look at the
project here so the overall height of the building is 32 feet nine inches but with the
pilot house, it extends upwards of 41 feet, I guess, nine inches, none of which is in violation
of dimensional height standards. But again, it's hard to approach that question when you say
adjacent properties or nearby properties, when there really aren't, there would still be a gap
here. And there are several vacant lots throughout. So height wise, I have difficulty comparing them
to any of them because there's no houses really right nearby, but it is within the height
restrictions of the code.
I have a question. What are the, what are those lots behind the property there, which seem to have numbers or something attached to them? Are they just more vacant lots?
I have a question.
What are the...
that's correct yes these are so what you're seeing and if if this uh if either of these
pictures i think you're referring to these lots that my cursor's highlighted they are vacant
residential properties as you can see here these are all rm1s so these are all residential
multi-family vacant lots that are next to uh and behind this property and as these pictures show
it runs all the way down north third street and this is from the first structure
all the way towards and the corner is way up here at the stop signs this is all vacant land
and again that's part of the density issue that we don't really have a patronage base
to to put certain stores and that's led to the led to the issue that we're facing
And could we go back to the picture with the colors for the zoning for the area?
So all of this orange is RM1, and then your property is the one that's the CMX?
Correct. Yes. Our property in question is this corner property here at West Susquehanna and North 30th.
And the one on the other is the same thing. It's I can't see the other corner is also CMX, too.
And there are a few CMX properties that are designated. But if you look and compare that with the zoning, there's nothing on this corner that CMX, too.
And there's nothing on these two corners that is CMX, too. There's nothing built.
So it's ultimately, again, it comes down to a lack of density in the neighborhood to create a viable commercial business to to rent.
And that leasing is difficult when there is not enough residential density.
That's what our consultants have notified us.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I have a question.
Justin, so you've mentioned having two first floor apartments.
My question is, where is the mailbox going to be?
So the mailbox would be on West Susquehanna because that is the that is the it would be on the first floor front of the bill of the building.
And I should also point out that we did put trash storage for trash storage units enclosures at the rear to to address any trash concerns of the neighbors.
But this is the first floor frontage of the building, and the mailboxes for these properties would be, in my opinion, centrally located on this facade because of the actual address of the property being 300 West Susquehanna.
I agree with you legally, but I guess my question is, since you now have two main entrances to those apartments on the other door, I mean, if I was a tenant and I'm getting deliveries from Amazon, that is where I would expect my packages to be on my porch.
And I guess my question is, have you guys considered what you would have to do for an address?
well if this was granted and I do see that point and that's a valid point if this was granted
some of these could be readdressed for delivery and for uh purposes but the OPA would still
consider it all one address but that would make practical sense um you know they will be listed
in a designation of either one two three four ABCD which may help some sort of identifier on each of
these places. But for mail purposes, again, without going and without doing that address
work with the city, for now, the mailbox would have to be or the address would still stick
on West Susquehanna. Again, if granted, I think that is a very practical concern to have,
and we can work with the city to make sure that those units are appropriately designated for
delivery. I guess my question was, is that already a plan that's in place? Because in addition
to needing it for mail you also need it for utility meters yes because they have primary
entrances again if this is granted we can we can go into those when this this property has not been
constructed yet so it's a little bit far off from that level to get those individual meters and
accounts but that would be necessary can you explain the hardship of having four units instead
of three or a less lesser amount so instead of two on the first one especially that's not sure sure
so as and i guess that that with that question i i will not delve into the lack of commercial
hardship but the density hardship simply just refers to the to the fact that we're looking for
Simply just refers to the to the fact that we're looking for quality residential density in this area and that by providing this extra unit, it does add some to the area.
quality residential density
The applicant felt that because of its corner location, it was just more plausible to give the units, you know, and since you have separate entrances, they wouldn't all be clogged within a first floor unit.
So the density of three units was simply just less desirable and truthfully as a dimensional variance that is somewhat economic to add to the property.
The question is from the board.
Yeah. Can you zoom into the unit plans a little bit more? It's hard to see.
Two units, two units entries on the first floor are three, right? No, two.
So the first floor has two units. First unit front, unit one, has its own stairwell down to its basement area and again to egress wells for, you know, as needed.
Second floor, a second unit in the rear has the basement as well. And then the second and third floors each have their own.
Yeah, and I think I'm kind of heading towards Tanetta's point, looking at those two units on the first floor, you know, you come into that unit and it's really not a living room, right?
I mean, let's be real. It's not great living space. So maybe I think, you know, reducing the unit number probably is appropriate.
I think the saving grace is that there is a den on the basement, maybe.
But, you know, if you look at those units, that's not a living room, that's a kitchen.
Correct. It's an open floor plan, but I understand that sentiment.
I have a concern, and I don't want to take time, is that when you don't show furniture,
it's hard for folks that don't read drawings all the time to see whether or not this is really livable.
So if you look at unit two, you come in the door, the door is three feet wide.
You got about three foot to the counter. Then you're going, you got to go through the kitchen and go down to the basement. That's really not a living room. There's nowhere to put another chair. You understand what I'm saying? So, but you do have a den. So, I think maybe a three unit building would probably be more livable and still be practical and still provide density.
Well, and I do I do think that there is a potential for the den and the bedroom potentially to swap in that sense. But I would ask my client if he's still on if that would be something he's agreeable to. But again, if the board would, you know, would feel that as a necessity or grant the three unit, but no commercial, we leave that to your discretion.
thank you yeah so the reason that we have the den in the basement is because of the ada requirements
we have to have a bedroom on the first floor i guess in case someone's handicapped um in terms
of design i would have preferred to have had it on the first would have preferred to have the den
on the first floor rather than the basement but we have to you know follow those ada requirements
how is this ada there's there's there's not wheelchair accessible what are you saying
um maybe not the code says that we have to have a bedroom on the first floor
maybe not ada but that's what's required according to my architect
that that i don't i don't know what you're talking about because on your first floor you don't you
know why would you there's not it's not accessible are you adding ramps or something so i don't know
just go ahead i apologize ada might be the incorrect term um but i do recall when we
were designing this we had to put a bedroom on the first floor all right any other questions
from the board no thank you questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
mr kirk did you say you did receive a letter from the rco
Yes, we received a letter dated June 18th from the RCO.
Okay, if you could please forward that over for our records, that would be great because we did not receive that.
Thank you.
Very good.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair, I have a hand up by the name of Sloan Folks.
They have been allowed to speak.
Good morning, Mr. Folks.
Good morning, Chairman Bergman.
My name is Sloan Fulks. I'm from the Office of Councilmember Ketzy Lozada, room 484.
Spelling up, my name is S-L-O-A-N-E-F-S, fire, O-L-K-S.
You swear or firm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth, Mr. Fulks.
I do, sir. Thank you much.
Please proceed.
Yes, unfortunately, we did send a letter. It was late, and it was under the new formatting.
Unfortunately, we did send a letter. It was late, and it wasn't under the new formatting for our letters to be sent to the ZBA, but it was a letter in opposition, and it did state the vote tally.
I just want to expand on that letter. The letter basically said that based on the outcome of the meeting, we are, you know, the RCO found opposed the project and we support the community and the RCO in the opposition of that.
But furthermore, what I'd like to say is that, you know, looking at the vote tally with the seven posed, five in support, and three support provision, the applicant talked about support the provision of making the, possibly making the vote count eight to seven, but there was no attachment of the proviso and or discussion of proviso.
So we basically support that original vote count as it was forwarded to our office.
Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Folks.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Chair.
I have a hand up by the name of Rodolfo Santos.
They have been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Hi, my name is Rodolfo Santos, R-O-D-O-L-F-O-S-A-N-T-O-S.
right i am i'm sorry go ahead do you swear a firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the
truth yes sir are you a neighbor i am the community engagement manager for the north
square committee alliance uh rco sure please proceed i just want to say that uh rco we voted
against this based on affordability um and also because we are experiencing and suffering through
a lack of commercial in our neighborhoods um we also see that there is a lot of development
upcoming and coming on and we rather have commercial there now before all this development
comes up um as far as the provisional votes go they go uh you know they're conditional based on
that these units become affordable and as of now they are not so our rco stands firm in our
position with both letters in opposition to this project thank you for taking the time to call us
we appreciate it other any other comments in the virtual audience i say no hands at this time chair
planning planning commission
john levicar planning commission the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the commercial mixed
use zoning at this location uh the appellant requests one additional unit more than is allowed
and relief from the commercial ground floor requirement in cmx2 uh the city the city planning
commission uh noting the opposition from the council member and the rco uh recommends against
granting this variance thank you mr bergman i may just respond um i do recognize that that the idea
that three of those votes uh for residential had conditions upon the um the uh the affordability
aspect, but again, we did feel that the sentiment of residential versus commercial was important
to recognize and that the applicant is prepared or willing to do a temporary granting of this
to allow the neighborhood to grow and to see where it lands in the next few years, whether
or not it is more dense in residential capacity to handle the patronage that a small business
might need.
Thank you. MI 2023, 004824, 300 West Susquehanna Avenue. I vote yes, with proviso. Maximum three units, no commercial.
Mishmur Shaheed, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Michael Johns, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Panetta Graham, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Iowan, my vote is yes, with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with provisos.
Thank you very much.
All right, thank you, counsel.
Number nine, MI 2023, 005-589-127 West Allegheny Avenue.
Joseph Consul is the attorney.
There's a letter of support from HACE RCO
noting that the three dwelling units are now proposed.
Joseph Consul is coming in as a panelist.
Good morning, Mr. Consul. Could you please state your name and spell for the sonographer?
Good morning, Chair. It's Joseph Consul. That's J-O-S-E-P-H, last name C-O-N-S-O-L-E.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client in a relationship to the property?
Yes, my client is, well, Peter and Konstantinos Sarianos.
Yes, my client is, well,
I believe Peter Sarianos will be the one adopting my testimony today, but they're the owners of the property.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate towards accuracy?
Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to proceed with this case?
Five days in advance of this hearing.
yes thank you council please proceed and share your screen did my screen share
no should be the refusal no no it's it's a let me try it again uh
how about that yes that's it jim all right great uh joseph consul here on 127 west allegheny avenue
for the Serianoses, they are brothers, that took ownership of this property in 2017.
At that time, the property was set up as a restaurant on the first floor and four units
above that restaurant. They came to me a couple of years ago to legalize several of their properties
that they realized didn't have the correct number of rental licenses. This was one of them.
This one, they, let me see if I can find the pictures real quick. They lease out on the first floor. I believe at one point they operated it themselves, a diner, Greek restaurant on the first floor, and then it had four units above.
We met with the RCO twice, both times that we met with the RCO.
Originally, they said, well, four units seems tight given the square footage.
But please, at the time we discussed how one entire floor was empty and my client would be willing to reduce the count,