an identical building was approved
because
we had a lot of
support from the community, and this is what they want.
For six units?
Yep. 712 North 34.
Yeah, and identical.
Virtually an identical building.
Remember that. You might be right. I'm not saying you're wrong.
I just don't remember that. Okay.
Any more questions on the board?
And Mr. Chair, if I may just have my client adopt the testimony.
Okay, you can unmute yourself.
I muted you.
Oh, hello.
Yeah, Eugene, you heard all the testimony I offered to the board today?
And you would adopt it as though you were giving it yourself?
And you would adopt it as though you were giving it yourself.
Thank you.
And I also have two people with me right now that support the project as well.
And I believe a couple more were supposed to log in, but they were having technical difficulties.
Anyone else would like to testify in this matter?
Please raise your hand.
uh mr chair my client um mentioned that he had some neighbors with him uh at his location that
would uh want to testify please have them identify themselves their names and addresses
i'm gonna swear them in yes uh can you hear me yes this is william smith again at 7 30 north
to Cobb Street, and I'm here to testify in his favor.
You spoke on the last case as well, correct?
Yes, sir, we did.
So you're still under oath.
Thank you.
Anyone else?
Yep, thank you.
Here I have Andrew Goodman from the Council.
Mr. Goodman, you're still under oath.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Andrew Goodman, G-O-O-D-M-A-N, Office of Third District, Councilmember Jamie Gaudier.
please proceed all right so similar to the similar to the last address we're here to affirm what we
submitted in written testimony which is standing with the coordinating rco in opposition to the
application again this is obviously a kind of a note that we've hit in many previous cases that
have come before the board in terms of when it comes to applications that go against community
led remapping processes with no demonstrable hardship or community benefit um certainly have
no um no qualms with new development um in the area but when it comes to um variations that go
this far against the against the zoning um these decisions should not be made on a property by
property basis so we oppose the application here today thank you anyone else i believe that uh
Mr. Nadevich had one other neighbor that wanted to testify in favor please have him please have
him or her identify themselves for the record go ahead and your address uh 4037 brown street
you testified on the last case yes you're still under oath you're in support of this application
yes very much so all right thank you uh i want to go back a second you said last week this board
approved the six unit and what was that address it's seven one two north 34th
and was there a letter of opposition or support from that from the rco and was it is would you
happen to know if it's the same rco it is the same rco manchua civic association and there was a
letter of support uh for the project i don't recall exactly what the vote was but it was
pretty roundly in support i can resend it if if if you're interested uh yeah i'd like to see that
because i'd like to i'm going to suggest that this board that this record be closed in the
board to render the decision that the next executive session Wednesday the 29th I believe
it is. Chair we do have another person who wishes to speak. Oh sorry about that whoever it is please
identify yourself for the record. I'm Joseph Pickford. You can unmute yourself and wait to
be sworn in. Please identify yourself spell your first and last name. Joseph Pickford J-O-S-E-P-H
P-I-G-F-O-R-D
Your address?
717 North DeKalb Street
And do you swear and affirm to tell the truth
the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed.
I'm in favor of you, Dean.
Thank you for your time.
Planning Commission.
I'm sorry, Tanya, anyone else?
Andrew Goodman is
um raising his hands again mr goodman yes i i pulled up the different um the rco letters if
that's helpful for the record uh yes so to by point of comparison um these are both seen by
the same coordinating rco mantra civic association the letter for 712 north 34th which is the
a comparable project that was referenced by the applicant.
That vote was 21 in support and four in opposition.
That vote was 21 in support and four in opposition.
And then by means of comparison, the RCO meeting summary from that same RCO for this particular site was 14 in support, 36 in opposition, one abstention.
Okay, I'll try to figure that one out.
All right, thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Goodman.
Planning Commission?
Paula, you're muted.
I'm having a dog problem at the moment, so please hold on for one second.
No problem with dogs.
i'm sorry about that my dog decided to talk because he wanted to give an opinion
please identify yourself for the record paula burns with the city planning commission and i
first want to note that the wait one minute paul and let them swear you in oh okay the whole truth
and nothing but the truth i swear thank you please proceed i want to first start out with our
comment that just because there is a case at 34th street that was approved for six units
that doesn't mean that that's a justification for a variance that means there happened to be
six units seven blocks away it doesn't it's not necessarily comparable on lot size on house style
on history of the property so we would ask the board to not consider that as a justification
for a variance now our recommendation this property is indicated for residential use on
city plan and is primarily a single-family use block. The applicant has not demonstrated-
Oh, I just lost you.
Really?
No, we have her.
Can you hear me now?
I can. Can you hear me?
Okay, it sounds like you might be having issues with the service.
Frank, if you can log out, log back in again.
I'll be here.
Sorry about that. I keep-
That's okay. We've had two computer crashes in our agency today.
This is like nonstop today. I heard what you said, something about just because we, whatever, about 34th Street and then I lost you.
Okay. We were starting out that because somebody says six or seven blocks away, there was another case that you granted to six units. That's not a justification for a hardship. That doesn't mean they were comparable. They just happened to be in the same neighborhood.
there could have been a lot of different circumstances.
So we would recommend that the zoning board
not use that as a justification for a variance
on what happens that way.
Each case should be done on its own merit.
So our recommendation though is the property is indicated
for residential use on the city plan
and it's primarily a single family use block.
The applicant has not demonstrated unnecessary hardship
regarding the requirements of the code.
Additionally, the applicant mentioned
that they would be providing affordable housing
as a benefit but they have not entered into a deed restriction with the city nor the community
and there is no guarantee to the community that they will be put in or remain once approved.
There's nothing that's going to say they have to stay affordable.
This is a problem when people say this at the Zoning Board, oh we're putting in affordable,
it's an empty promise to the community in many cases.
The application represents an inappropriate overuse, not consistent with our adopted district
plan and we recommend that both the requested variances not be granted. Thank you and I do
concur. I've said many times in the past we take each case on its own merits. I just was curious
about it with being six units and I wanted to see where it was in proximity to this so I was going
to ask that we hold this the board holds this until Wednesday the 28th at its executive session.
And I would note that that distance of four blocks is farther than an RCO notification requirement, but it's also farther than the state's 500-foot impacted neighbors.
So in both of those cases, it's a bit too far for an option kind of to consider.
I agree, but for my own purposes, I'd just like to see that.
Mr. Slepner, you heard-
I was letting the applicant know that more.
You heard Ms. Brombello talk about the affordable.
I did.
You want some more time to talk to your client about how you can realize some of these issues?
That would be helpful, maybe?
That's fine.
I will definitely convene with my client about that.
I can say that it's likely that he wouldn't be opposed to signing it.
I don't want to commit him here, but I know what my impression is, but I will convene with him.
I did also want to add, again, for the record in this matter, and I discussed it previously in the last matter, but I'll bring it up again so that I'm on record.
and i discussed it previously in the last matter but i'll bring it up again so that i'm on record
mr goodman of the council member's office uh previously we had appeared before the board um
my client myself and mr goodman have been here with regard to another project on this block
and you had ordered that we um meet with mr goodman and meet with the rco and we had contacted
mr goodman on that project uh and he was very helpful in facilitating a couple of meetings
Again, with the RCO leadership and with the near neighbors on the block, I did contact Mr. Goodman yesterday, at the very least, asking if he was able to facilitate something or even if it would have been after this hearing to facilitate something.
um you know i understand mantua is busy and and very busy these days and um you know they seem
to be the next hot neighborhood and i think the mantra was civic we couldn't make our calendars
work so quickly but you know we're certainly open to talking with them again um i in fact
had emailed him at the suggestion of my client so um i just want to go on record as that and
mr goodman has been very helpful he's been great with helping like facilitate these things
so um just well then i mean if you if we if it works then we can continue this case
well um i i you know we had
that's i mean listen that's your call i know it's my call but if you think that there's an
opportunity to have further conversation you know i wouldn't amend this i wouldn't be opposed to it
i don't think my client would be opposed to it um if it if it can help us reach a consensus great i
know what the result had been in the other matter um and you know you're you'll hear a testimony on
that next next tuesday um with regard to all that uh i don't want to you know i don't want to get
too far afield here but they are you know they're the same same developer same blocks and me you
know so that's why i'm bringing it up and mr goodman i i i okay i hear what you're saying
i'm sorry chair i just got confused when we said that we'll hear testimony next tuesday
no i would say i was going to do executive session but then i kind of switched gears and thought
based on the conversation would it make more sense for the developer his attorney
and the community to have any further discussion i don't know if they'll ever come to any agreement
or any changes in the number of units.
But I'm just putting it out there
as a potential further discussion.
And again, as you know,
we don't know what the outcome of that will be.
My client is open to that.
So if that's how you wanted to proceed,
we'll talk to Mr. Goodman
and we'll talk to the RCO chairs.
And understanding that it's a corner property and is directly next door to a quadruplex, I understand that as well. And that's why I think that it might be beneficial to have another go around in terms of having a meeting with the RCO.
So if that's an agreement, I'd say that this hearing for, hold on please, MI-2020-0000893801 Brown Street, this hearing will be resumed.
Do you have a date for us, Tanya?
I would like to give it two weeks.
Whatever works for you, you tell us.
I would say November the 3rd and 9.30 for this one.
all right okay so uh this this hearing will be uh resumed on november the 3rd at 9 30 a.m at
which time we will consider any feedback related to the rco's position and the councilwoman's
position. Okay? Thank you.
Thank you.
I think
Howard Street is next, confessor.
Okay, next one up.
You said
Howard Street
on 17.