the 40 pages of review unless there's any clarification.
The second category of refusal here pertains to the building signage, which, again, would all have been permitted under the prior CMX2 zoning.
It is not common for property owners to get approval for signage before their building is even complete.
First, freestanding signs are prohibited in CMX1.
Second, the amount of signage slightly exceeds the maximums allowed by less than 10 square feet on
the front neck side and roughly 60 square feet on the Cotman side. At Exhibit 8, I've included
the proposed signage plans. These signs are entirely consistent with the size and location
contemplated in the original zoning set. The Cotman side, which is shown up on the screen,
proposes 90 square feet of signage, where only 30 square feet would be permitted in CMX1.
Visually, that would be as though only a sign slightly larger than this proposed subway sign
would be permitted on the entire Cotman frontage of roughly 135 feet, and would certainly be
insufficient to properly identify two separate tenants. The building frontage itself is set back
from the first lane of vehicle travel by nearly 75 feet.
The signage on the Frontenac side is only slightly larger than even the CMX1 allowance
and predominantly identifies the multiple tenants that are on the second and third floor
and is placed above the entrance to those spaces.
It does also serve to identify the subway, which occupies that corner tenant space.
If the CMX2 zoning were still in place, the building could have 234 square feet of wall
signage where only 142 square feet is proposed.
Finally, as was contemplated at the time of the initial approval, a corner monument sign
is proposed to identify all of the building tenants.
This is a standard monument sign that you would expect to find on a strictly commercial
property and is critical to ensure that the various tenants can be quickly and
safely identified from the main roadways. The sign itself complies to the
The sign itself complies to the dimensional allowances that would have been in place under CMX2 zoning, which is the most appropriate dimensional comparison since freestanding signs are not permitted at all in CMX1.
dimensional allowances that will
Naturally, all of this was entirely outside of the applicant's control as they permitted their
project in accordance with the zoning standards that were in place at the time, as well as in
accordance with L&I's typical procedures and standards, which unfortunately do not always
contemplate intervening rezoning measures that render a building like this one in perpetual
purgatory without grant of relief. We submit the proposal will not increase congestion,
harm neighbors properties or impair light and air full analysis is provided in the memo of law
submitted to the board at tab 12 and like i said i'm happy to go into any additional detail uh on
any aspect of this should you need it uh at this time if the administrator could look for manish
patel manish if you could raise your hand so they could identify you property owner manish
Mr. Chair, this is Jason Handel. I'll be taking over for this session as co-host.
Manish Patel will be coming back in as a panelist.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Hello.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Sure. My name is Manish Patel. P-A-T-E-L.
Why don't you spell your first name, too, please?
Manish, M-A-N-I-S-H.
Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Counsel?
Thank you. Mr. Patel, you've been present for today's session and have heard all of the testimony and evidence that I offered in front of the board today?
Yes, I did.
do you agree that that testimony is true and accurate and would you adopt it as if you had
provided it to the board yourself yes i do we're happy to answer any questions questions from the
board questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson not at this time mr chair
question or comments from the virtual audience or the current audience hi why don't you sit down
good afternoon chairman members of the board alice yudovich on behalf of councilman brian
and you also what's the first time moral leaders i've ever seen you here um do you
swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do okay please proceed
the chairman has i mean the councilman has no objection to the granting of the variance
at this location i am aware that he changed all of the cmx2 properties in his district to cmx1
and created a hardship in this case all right thank you very much for coming down alex we're
glad to meet you in person uh anyone else in the audience play any commission thanks mr chair
thank you chairman and good afternoon david fecto with the city planning commission
chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from
from cmx1 to cmx2 commercial mixed use the city rezoned this neighborhood in 2022 and a council
requested map change the city planning commission recommended against this map change proposed
takeout restaurant would be allowed with a special exception in cmx2 and the freestanding
accessory sign would be allowed by right the short side sign non-conformance is de minimis
and the dimensions of the long side sign will while in excess of the code's allowance
is proportional and consistent with the scale of signs for similar businesses elsewhere in
the neighborhood. The City Planning Commission recommends the board grant a proposed use and
dimensional variances. Thank you. MI 2025-005-602-1729 Cotman Avenue. I vote yes.
michael johns michael johns my vote is yes
daryl gaston my vote is yes
sineta graham my vote is yes
ryan mcadams my vote is yes
i win my vote is yes
thank you
thank you
number three
mi2025-005-129
912-14 south front street
rachel pritzker is the attorney
back in as a panelist now chair sure
so there's a letter of support from queen village neighbors
and a letter of non-opposition of a council member squilla
good afternoon council could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer sure rachel
Counsel, could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?
Sure. Rachel, R-A-C-H-A-E-L, Pritzker, P-R-I-T-Z-K-E-R.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Counsel, could you identify your client, a relationship to the property?
Yes. So my client is Justin Beese on behalf of the owner of the property.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Good afternoon.
um have you uh submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing
yes and did you waive the reading of the refusals and stipulate to their accuracy
yes okay thank you you can share your screen and proceed with your case
okay thank you i'm sorry i got a new camera and it's making me look really really far away and i
do not know how to fix it so i apologize i thought you were backing up from us or something here no
Oh, my camera broke. So, sorry, you're seeing my whole office. Luckily, I cleaned it. So, okay.
Can you see my screen? We can. Okay.
Okay. So here's a copy of the refusal. As mentioned, this is 412 to 14 South Front Street.
This site is owned RSA 5, and we're proposing a lot line relocation to create one lot from three
lots to demo the existing structure, which I'll talk about in a minute, and to erect three single
family homes with a shared driveway and parking spaces two per property on this site the prior
approval for this project which i think was 2024 by this board allowed for six units in this
existing structure but the plan that we've proposed is more in context with the surrounding
block and neighborhood which is single family homes and so you know we're reducing what's
allowed there by taking three units off and having three single-family homes. A lot of the refusals
that were generated, the three here on the screen, are because the lot is on RSA 5. We're not
proposing multifamily, which is what was already approved, but putting three homes with a shared
driveway on the same lot triggers multifamily. So that's a lot of these refusals. It's also worth
mentioning that while we originally submitted for 44 feet in height for the properties from the
permitted 38. We've reduced that to 42. And as we'll show in the plans, we're asked to provide
a lot of off-street parking for these homes and remove the front-loaded parking. So we have now
ground floor parking, which required no living space on the ground floor. So a little bit of
that extra height is so that we can have more livable space and accommodate the off-street
parking. This is the application. I just want to get down to the photos. This is the deed for the
property. So as I mentioned, it's RSA 5. It's comprised of these three lots. It's these two
here and then this sort of odd-shaped rear one. And it's bounded by single-family homes in the
front and in the rear and then it it is directly adjacent to a baseball field so there's nothing on
the right side and you'll see we oriented the three homes so that it's not attached to there's
like a fence between the property and the ballpark so we oriented in this way just so that we don't
have the side of a house next to a baseball an active baseball field again just showing
sort of the weird makeup of this you'll see when I show you the aerial that despite this being
three lots the existing structure takes up almost 100% of this these three lots together even though
they were not you know properly consolidated so part of the work here is to consolidate those
and then getting these two properties here and then this sort of squared shape one in the rear
the same thing and as mentioned this is the pretty large baseball field and rec center
directly adjacent so this is a visual like i said of this property um just click on this
just so you can see this is the existing structure that's there it has front loaded
parking right now via a curb cut and then goes stretches you know all the way back to the rear
of the property this will this was approved for six units we're demolishing this and just putting
three single family homes with parking removing the front loaded and doing a dry vial so that you
don't have this backing up into south front street situation that goes now and again as you can see
um this baseball field here is kind of a unique adjacent probably you know situations are trying
Trying to orient the home so that the side of them is not against a baseball field was part of the design here.
to orient the home so that the side of them is not against a baseball field was part of
Again, just more of an aerial for the existing property.
This is just the zoning posters.
Again, as you can see, the current property next to this fence, which houses the baseball field.
This is the current structure from the front.
So kind of like unique, out of character.
And again, it was six units approved in this structure. So a little bit odd
for what's already, you know, next to that block. Again, the sort of front parking conditions,
a lot of the concern with the neighbors was just like not having, you know, the parking be front
facing because nobody else's is like that. Even though this is a lot wider and bigger of a lot,
it's a little over 5,000 square feet. And obviously, you know, eliminating, putting a
home here and having a more clear drive aisle will also help with safety and traffic and allow again
not as big of a difference between what's there and what's being proposed just another front
view of this i'm sure someone thinks this is lovely but i think what you'll see we're providing
a little bit more in context with what's there and again just an angle so you can see the baseball
field that was one of the main things we were looking at how do you you know put single family
homes here without having your sidewall be attached to a baseball, you know, baseball
field here with that fencing. This was the prior refusal for the eight units. It was originally
proposed as eight units, but it was the board granted six units via proviso, maximum six
units. Again, we're reducing it by three. So it's just three single family homes, which
obviously the community was more supportive of. Again, putting three single family homes on one
lot causes the refusal for multiple principal uses we will do pud documents if we are granted
a variance through the building permit process also we'll do the pud documents plan unit development
so they will be three separately deeded properties but we can't subdivide them through this process
in the way that we want to orient them so again they make sense for the site this is just where
in the code we don't meet as mentioned we met with the community we had a lot of back and forth with
them through multiple revisions, but we originally met with the Queen Village Neighbors Association
on November 12th, and they asked for a number of revisions, which we made. One of them was not
having any front-loaded parking, so when we show the plans, you'll see that all the parking is
located interior to the site. None of it is front-loaded. They wanted us to align as much
as possible with the Queen Village overlay, so we put a window in the front so that it matched up as
best we could on the front um property we reduced the height um by two feet while also keeping
again enough clearance for the driveway and enough livable space for hopefully families
um and i think the only other thing um we did was driveway lights and height those three those
three items um we met with them a number of times both like this and through their you know back
and forth with the committee. We met with them December 20th, 11th, December 12th and 11th also
to show them those changes. And then ultimately as a result of sort of that back and forth in
collaboration, they submitted a letter of support for our application. The meeting wasn't crazily
attended by a lot of people, but they were very involved with the process and all the adjacent
near neighbors, at least two or three from the block, you know, expressed mostly concerns around
construction you know how is this going to affect them are we going to dig up the driveways and so
we've you know given contact information and and assured them with some of that stuff as
much as humanly possible we also have a letter of non-opposition from councilman mark squilla
and we did submit the proviso plan form um and the plans to you know address the um
the revisions we made i'm just going to pull up the plans or if we can promote zamir
garcia our architect to go through the plans
mr garcia
Okay, they will be joining as a panel shortly.
Thank you.
Thank you.
i'm mr garcia
hello good afternoon hi good afternoon could you please state your name is spelled for the
stenographer yes um zamir garcia z-a-m-i-r g-a-r-c-i-a do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do counsel please proceed thanks um zamir i want to
just um i have the plans up on my screen so if you could just uh walk through it that would be
helpful. Definitely. This plan shows the existing conditions where Rachel was mentioning the
existing home occupies most of the lot. And there's a shed at the rear as well and a pergola
in the backyard and the drive up at the front. It is, as we talked earlier, it is a large lot.
there's 37 feet wide frontage on Front Street. So that's how we were able to accommodate for
these entry drive-out. The next slide shows the overall view context of the site. To the north,
there's a cluster of single-family homes that are three stories brick at varying heights.
And styles. And then to the rear, there is a cluster of a gated community there off of Christian Street, 112 Christian Street.