okay can you see my screen now yes
yeah no yes okay uh mr chairman this heard uh this this matter whoops
that's the wrong screen sorry stop share
working on too many things at the same time here um let me try this one
that's it
mr chairman this uh this case was originally heard december 4th of 2019
at which time following the hearing the chair requested that we provide floor plans
so they were submitted on December 11th along with a transmittal letter and a request for a vote
however nothing took place and then obviously COVID hit so upon speaking with Ms. Saleta
we agreed that it would probably be probably serve the board best to bring it back in
and then refresh your recollection as opposed to just asking for a vote.
I submitted a 55-page exhibit packet back then on behalf of Frank Quinn.
The application was for a two-family dwelling.
A two-family dwelling is not permitted in the district,
and therefore we're seeking a use variance.
And this case stems from a fraudulent sheriff's deed.
Well, back up a second.
Ms. Quinn purchased the property through the sheriff's sale in 1984, and the property was known as 1921-23 Kinsey Street.
And then in 1987, a fraudulent deed was issued pursuant to a sheriff's sale in 1987, which transferred 1923 Kinsey Street to an individual by the last name of Weiss, pursuant to a court action.
That sheriff's deal was set aside, and then Fran took another sheriff's deed for 1923 Kinsey Street,
despite the fact that it's one parcel.
And what that did was that created two separate OPA accounts, OPA accounts.
So there's now one for 1921, and there's one for 1923.
As a result of that, an LNI inspection indicated that she did not have the proper zoning.
for 1921 Kinsey Street, despite the fact that it was zoned as a tap room and four apartments
since 1983. As you can see, there's a good bit of eight. And then in 2014,
um and then in 2014 um unfortunately fran filed an application to reduce the first floor apartment
from from two units to one unit and as a result of that let me find that permit for you
as a result of that application a zoning permit was issued for the properties indicating that
the entire first the entire structure was a single family dwelling which was not the case the
the application you know the prior application clearly indicates tavern and four apartments
and then her application
filed in 2014 here's the permit let me blow that up for you um they documented the existing
a single family dwelling in the two-story structure, which was not what she's thought
to do. As you can see, she clearly indicated on the application that the first floor
would be a single apartment as opposed to the prior use of two apartments. So to make
a long story short, you know, this property is, it's one parcel. As you can see here,
this is 1921-23 Kinsey Street again this is 1911 Kinsey Street there is no separate parcel in
between those two uh the photograph shows it's one it's one structure um we have other photographs
show in the the front of the building which despite the fact that it has separate paint colors
It is, in fact, one structure and is currently – there you go.
So this side is 1921.
That's our zoning poster from the prior listing.
And then you'll see on the right side is 1923, which used to have a tap room called the Kinsey Street Cafe.
That tap room is now closed.
The liquor license has been sold off, and that is vacant commercial space at this time.
again you can see the multiple meters for the for the various residential uses the commercial use
and so the board asked for floor plans um to try and help you understand the layout of the building
so i think we were not to interrupt i think we were concerned at the time with how they were
connected or something there was a breach in a wall no it's it's it's one building so there's
no breach in the wall but but you know office of property assessment now has it listed as two
separate parcels all right once once i get the zoning straightened out i'm going to go go to opa
and i want them to consolidate it back into one one parcel one one account
understand thank you so but in any event the you know on this side this is the vacant commercial
space the former kinsey street cafe there's a side entry that takes you into the apartments
steps leading up to the second floor bring you to this landing okay uh you would turn left to
enter this apartment and you would go straight forward to enter the apartment that is now
currently over the commercial uh vacant commercial space so frange is trying to get back to where she
was before uh yeah the erroneous permit you know well number one the erroneous deed and then the
erroneous permit issued by ellen i when she was just seeking to eliminate there was an efficiency
see apartment downstairs in the front so she was trying to eliminate that to make this just one
unit or over here at the first floor so so presently what we have is despite the fact that
OPA indicates that it's two separate parcels you know we we in fact have one legal description
it's one parcel and it currently consists of a vacant commercial space on the 1923 side on the
first floor and then there are three apartments the first floor apartment on the 1921 side
and then the two apartments above uh the entire structure so we're just we're just asking the
board to you know confirm confirm this use so that way she can get tenants you know she can
number one get her building permits for the interior renovations which she's been uh seeking
to do since last december and uh and obviously it would have been a great time to be able to do it
during covid well nobody was in there so um fran you've heard my representations to the board are
they true and correct yes would you adopt them as your own testimony absolutely yes thank you
very much thank you questions from the board no no no thank you planning commission
good afternoon chairman members of the board uh my name is ian litwin i-a-n-l-i-t-w-i-n
planning commission staff we're confirmed to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
We are confirmed to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth.
yes i do
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
So this property is recommended for residential use on the comprehensive plan.
The property is large and will permit five families if it had remained zoned on one as recommended in the district plan.
Accordingly, we have no objection.
Thank you very much.
Calendar number 38109.
1921 Kinsey Street.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
My vote is yes.
That's it.
You only get four today, Sean.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And everybody have a great day.
And how's Carol doing?
She's coming along.
She's coming along.
Thank you.
Very good to hear.
Thank you.
Stay safe.
MI 2020-000331-950 North American Street.
I have Eric Ginsberg. You've been promoted to panelists. You can unmute yourself and
wait to be sworn in. Good afternoon, Mr. Ginsberg. Please identify yourself with a record, name
and address, spell your last name, and I'll swear you in. Good afternoon. Eric Ginsberg,
E-R-I-C-G-I-N-S-B-U-R-G.
I'm the owner and applicant at 950 North American Street.
You're going to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I do, yes.
Confessor?
Mr. Ginsberg, before we begin, is this an LLC?
No, that's erroneous.
I'm private owner of a residential property.
That business was mine.
It's totally unrelated.
too. Okay. Is the deed under LLC under your name? It's under my name. And this is Sharon Saleta. I
did check the deed. It is under his name individually. Thank you. Okay. Have you
emailed an exhibit packet with the required documents, proof of ownership, proof of tax
compliance, copy of the refusal or referral, photos and plans five days prior to this hearing?
Yes, I have. Also, have you met with the RCO and have a letter? Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed.
Mr. Chair, this application was to add an accessory parking space, a second accessory
parking space to a residential property at 950 North American Street. I have a number
of documents I can present. I wasn't sure if you want to see every single item or for
the record. As much as a floor plans and or photographs, that would be helpful.
Sure. Okay. I'll show you the presentation that I made to the Northern Liberties Neighbors Association Zoning Committee.
Just bear with me, my computer is working a little bit overtime.
bear with me one moment i think i have it
okay uh is that sharing appropriately yes okay
This is the front of the property. This is 950 North American Street, the house with the red arrow and the green door. Every property on this block of 950 North American Street backs up to a small service street called Bodine Street. It runs along the east side of Liberty Lands Park.
um so it is it is straight through when this property was originally zoned as you can see
the large concrete pad between the gray fences represents the rear of the property
for demonstration purposes the white larger vehicle is a zoned accessory parking space
there is a zoning permit for that from 2003. what we are asking what our plan is requesting
a second accessory parking space where the black car is located
for demonstration purposes. Relocating the utility
relocating the utility pole about 10 to 11 feet to the right and extending the existing curb cut
pole about 10 to 11 feet to the right.
to 24 feet. That was the plan that was submitted to L&I which was refused. The streets department
did approve the geometry of it. We have a copy of of that that plan as well.
um here is a site plan or at least a snippet of the site plan that was created by my architect
simulation design lab you can see what we are doing here is this is the existing parking stall
you see at the rear of the property and this is the additional parking stall that we are requesting
um the dimensional dimension it met all dimensional standards so there is the refusal
was not based on open area dimensions of the parking stall uh open space requirements side
yard requirements rear yard requirements were all met uh this is the refusal
um and i've highlighted the uh most pertinent section of it um essentially in in the rsa5
district uh accessory parking for any single family use in an attached or semi-detached
building shall be prohibited unless it can be accessed from a shared driveway, alley, or rear
street. And more specifically, a rear street on which no street parking is permitted on the side
of the street directly abutting the lot. So in this case, there are no specific parking regulations
on that section of Bodine Street. I will show photos of the conditions of that street and the
parking conditions of that street to make the case for this variance.
Okay, so that is the only refusal that we were seeing.
Okay, wrote to the streets department traffic engineers asking if there were any specific
parking ordinances that they knew of on the street. They do not maintain parking ordinances
there but they did suggest that they do not know of any formal regulations of that street.
uh here is the city plan which shows that that that section of bodine street for reference this
triangle is liberty lands park uh 950 north american street is i'm sorry this section is
liberty lands park the triangle represents uh the location of my property and it backs up to
Bodine Street. The plan says it is a 20-foot cartway with two 10-foot curbs, so you have a
20-foot street. Typically, in a 20-foot street, you'll see one lane of parking, not two. In this
case, there's no specific postings or regulations about it. Okay, so this is, sorry, Mr. Chair.
All right, I think you can summarize that would be helpful. Thank you.
All right. This is looking south down Bodine Street. You can see there's parking on both sides of the street, but the parking that is on the right side, the west side of the street, is really on what is the remains of an old sidewalk from when the neighborhood was more of an industrial neighborhood.
The park never reconstructed the sidewalk. It seems to be, you know, as the NLNA zoning committee agreed, it's a little bit unclear exactly what the regulations are.
But given that all of all of the buildings that have a primary frontage on the street are residences, no one has their front door on the street.
There are no commercial properties on the street. It really is a service street that the impact of the neighborhood of extending that curb cut and allowing that parking space would be somewhat minimal or non-existent.
I have a letter from the neighborhood RCO supporting the proposal.
Was there a proviso?
There was a proviso. The RCO requested that we extend the fence. And for sake of time, I don't want to open the file. It was submitted. But I'll just go back to the original plan. I'll go back to the picture. That's probably the best way.
What they asked me to do was extend this fence along the lot line so that someone who is in a vehicle on the street doesn't think, well, that whole thing's a driveway. They understand.
parking yeah yeah okay so uh is that just one page the revised plan uh it's yes it's it's the
same plan with that amendment of the fence same drawing so is that considered i mean
sharon that'd be considered a revised plan correct um he actually has to give us a site plan that
shows the fence extension we do have the provisor plans form but i don't think there is a site
Document L or I.2.
okay so is the fence shown on that and marked as something that is new yes let me yeah you know
Okay, so is the fence shown on that
and marked as something that is new?
my computer's a little slow with this file but uh it's it is drawn in on the plan and and marked
oh okay that's fine then thank you okay so sharon do i do i call it as a revised plan
yes and he did submit the proviso plans form too so revised plans one page okay very good thank you
thank you both uh questions from the board no no no anyone would like to testify in this case if so
please raise your hand no hands thank you planning commission good afternoon chairman members of the
board again this is ian litwin with planning commission staff bodine street is lined with
severe size of properties, many with off-street parking. Legalizing this use will have no impact
on the neighborhood. Therefore, we do not have any opposition to granting the variance.
Thank you very much. MI 2020-000331-950 North American Street. My vote is yes with proviso.
Revised plan one page approved today. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso. Yes with proviso.
Next one up, it's MI 2020-001305-530-32, Grease Street.
This is Sharon Saleta. Again, Mr. Henry Clinton is the attorney on this case. We received a letter
of non-opposition from counsel in Squilla. He requested a couple of provisos, which I believe
are reflected in the revised plans that Mr. Clinton will be submitting.
Mr. Clinton, you're under oath, please proceed.
Confessor when he gets on.
Are you there?
he has been promoted to panelists
hi henry you're still under oath please identify yourself with a record proceed