floor. The second and third floor are by right, and really the variance that we're only seeking
here is for the ground floor. The presentation that we made to the board back in April,
we highlighted that we felt like removing that double-wide garage puts two parking spots back
on the street. Removing the traffic, that daily customer traffic that comes with the auto body
shop is a positive. We believe all those things are still in existence and they're in fact heightened
by the fact that we're reducing the density from eight units to six units and we could have four
by right. So we're talking about a two-unit variance on the ground floor where the commercial
space is. Now, considering all this, we were optimistic that going back into the community
group that they would see the, you know, we took a serious look at their concerns regarding
density and tried to address that in a way that was a good compromise. We, after the
after the hearing on April 21st, our meeting, our resumption hearing was originally scheduled for
June 2nd. And at that time, when we were trying to get the revised floor plans put together,
and in my constant communication with the RCO, Ms. Suzanne Trevani, we realized that their
June meeting date wasn't until June 8th, and therefore we couldn't meet on June 2nd. So
this board graciously agreed to let us move it back a week so we can attend that meeting
that was last night. To our surprise, once we went back to the meeting and I was presenting
our changes, the very first question that I received from the board was, well, why didn't
you use the affordable housing bonus to get the density. Now, as you would imagine, this
surprised me because at the last meeting, you know, we thought a reduction of density
was, you know, the most important thing. But last night, you know, I was constantly being
asked, why aren't you trying to achieve this density a different way instead of achieving
it through the variance? Now, there's some clear answers to that. One, we would still
need a variance even if we donated to the affordable housing fund to get additional
density because we were proposing the removal of the commercial space. That doesn't get
solved by submitting, by paying into the affordable housing trust fund for the city. In addition
to that, donating to that fund doesn't directly impact this neighborhood where we feel as
the changes that we made from our original proposal to this new proposal does in a positive
way. I followed up those questions with a question of my own, which was, well, if we
were achieving this density with the affordable housing bonus, would you support this project?
And I received one of two answers, one of which was, I'm not saying, we're not saying that.
And the other one was, you know, just frankly, and I appreciate the frank answer, was no from some attendees.
And so, you know, I believe that's sort of a red herring.
At this point, I do believe we took a serious look and seriously considered their density concerns and addressed it.
We took a look at their trash concerns and agreed to a proviso of maintaining interior trash storage.
Last night, there was a comment regarding having bike storage, and we agreed last night that we would even agree to it as a proviso.
that we would even agree to it as a proviso. I don't know if the board would agree that they
I don't know if the board would agree that they can...
can enforce that, but if the board does, we would agree to it for maintaining interior bike storage
as well. And because of that, we believe that we've addressed, we tried to address the density,
the variance is de minimis in nature, and we are frankly removing a commercial space that's just
just not within the context of the neighborhood. If the board remembers, let me go back to
most of the commercial spaces are on the corner and most of the CMX2 or CMX1 designations
are on the corner. And here, we just believe ground floor residential just makes more sense.
There was some talk at the last meeting, if you remember, Mr. Chair, about possibly doing parking on the first floor instead of residential.
We did look into that. We did talk to L&I about that.
And that's not something that we can do without having to start the process over because that would create a new variant, excuse me, a new refusal.
And so therefore, that was an option.
we would essentially have to start from scratch to even look at that option.
So we believe that, and we thought this was a good compromise, the reduction of the units
and addressing the trash, but, you know, that didn't seem to be something that was really a
consideration. The two, the bulk of the meeting was essentially why we didn't use affordable
housing to attain this bonus and disputing whether we could actually get four units by right.
I informed them that I talked to LNI before we came to that meeting that I wouldn't just make
that statement, you know, just on my own accord. I talked to LNI after the bill was passed and
asked them to assess whether this would be four units by right and they confirmed. So it's not
my interpretation. It's the department's interpretation that this does provide us
with four units by right. But, you know, that wasn't something that attendees was willing to
accept. That aside, even if we were still stuck with the three units by right, I do believe
that the six units that we're proposing, adding an additional 200 square feet to each of the
individual units, I'm sorry, we're adding an additional 200 square feet to each of the units
with an average of about 600 square feet per unit,
where prior to there were about 400 square feet,
addresses some concerns about the size,
addresses concerns about the density,
and addresses concerns about the traffic and the trash.
So as such, because the rest of the comments
that we received either weren't zoning issues
or it was something that was just a confusion,
For example, the existing site, the existing property run covers 100 square feet of the property.
There was questions regarding the rear, actually this will show it better, regarding the addition
and whether that would also cover 100% of the lot area and the way that affects the neighboring yards,
whether that is in fact not the case.
we're actually set back 12 feet from the rear property line and set back six feet from the
adjacent property line of the single family homes. And so therefore we're meeting the open area
requirement and we're meeting the setback requirements to the rear of the property,
even though this is an addition on top of the business structure. And as such,
we certainly believe that this plan that we're proposing now with the changes that address the
the concerns that were prevalent at our initial meeting um and prevalent at the board um and from
the planning commission we we respectfully ask for this board to um approve the variance with
the provisos that will keep it um at six units um that we will maintain interior trash and bike
storage mr bertel could you would show i can't see it on the on your diagram here the drawings
rather where's the trash to be stored i'm sorry let me zoom in
so this rear space is about can you can you see this i'm not can you see the
this rear space here which was originally um mechanic just designated for mechanical or wasn't
all the way there in the first place um we this space here is for uh trash storage
that outside is that covered the trash no that's that's inside the building
Is that outside? Or is that covered, the trash?
No, that's inside the building.
Okay. How does, where do people, how does everyone access that?
How would everyone?
This is the hallway. This is the first floor here.
Actually, just to clarify, only the first floor goes all the way back to 100% of the lot area.
This is the roof. This is the first floor roof. And this is the first floor roof.
So everything you see here is inside, inside on the first floor.
And so this is the ramp from the front of the building, so this is the main entrance, and it would just be accessed by the hallway.
So the upper floors would have access to that trash area?
That's the main entrance where you're showing now, and those stairs that you're showing, they would take you up to the upper units?
That's correct.
This is the stairwell that goes up to the second and third floor.
How big is that trash area?
What's the size?
So the entire, so this is set back about 12 feet.
And from, let me see.
This is about 30 feet from, oh, here it is, 27 feet and nine inches and full length.
So we're talking about 18 feet width when you go in and about a six foot depth.
So 18 feet by 6 feet?
Or 18 and a half feet by 6 feet?
And one other thing, unless I missed that, I was confused.
When we first had this hearing, by right was originally 8 units, you said?
No, no.
If it, by right was 3 units originally.
Then we went, you went to 8, and that was unacceptable, right?
we were we were originally seeking eight for the variance because by so by right was three units
above when we maintained the uh the garage on the first level we could put three units above it by
right um we were seeking eight units um to remove the garage put two units on the first floor and
then three units on the second and three units on the third we revised that um instead of seeking
eight we're seeking six and we're taking off a unit on each floor but but i thought i heard you
maybe i misunderstood i thought i heard you identify those six units as and then four units
as by right so four units so since the law changed in april we no longer only get three
units by right we get four units by right per the calculation under cmx it's so total for the
building correct no four units on top of the garage top and then the other two units that
brings you to six will be on the ground floor where the garage currently is that's correct
so the buy right scheme would be the garage on the ground floor two units on the second floor
two units on the third floor okay or however they decide to configure it they can get four units
on the top so it's a buy right of four units uh and the first floor would be the bonus of two
units if if the board were to approve okay that's correct all right just wanted to make sure i heard
that correctly all right um do you need to have your rep client adopt your testimony uh yes with
me i have um representatives from the vicarial family fred and steve fred or steve if one of
can raise your hands and adopt my testimony um that would be great and what i like to reserve
time you know to answer any questions that the board may have or we're sure i'm sure
fred could you raise your hand
mr bakari you've been unmuted and you can speak now
Good afternoon, sir. Please identify yourself. Spell your first and last name. I'll swear you in.
Fred Vicario, F-R-E-D, V like Victor, I-C-A-R-I-O.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Absolutely.
Thank you.
Mr. Bertil.
Fred, did you hear the testimony that I just provided to the board this afternoon?
would you affirm the truth of the testimony and um adopt it as your own absolutely
thank you very much questions from the board no no i do have a question for mr vicaro how many
vehicles are you able to uh store in that garage currently um what you know when i was operating
Um, what, you know, when I was operating body shop, we probably had one, two, three, maybe six, something like that.
body shop.
And was the configuration of the parking, did you have to jockey the cars or was it, could you pull in four cars as an example and not have to pull, take any cars out to, to.
Yeah, well, you always had to do some jockeying.
With six cars.
yeah because depending on where they were and what's around there's you know yeah well yeah
you you had you had mechanical equipment and right right okay so you always had a jockey
all right all right uh anyone else would like to testify in this case 900 greenwich if so please
raise your hand only those who want to testify in this case all others please put your hand down
until the appropriate time. Here we have Suzanne Tavani. Ms. Tavani you can unmute yourself and speak.
Thank you Yvette. Hi again Ms. Tavani good afternoon. Please spell your full name and I'll
swear you in. Thank you Suzanne S-U-Z-A-N-N-E Tavani T-A-V-A-N-I. Do you swear for him to tell
the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you please proceed. Thank you Mr. Chairman
Thank you, Board. The Passion Square Civic Association remains in opposition to this project
for obviously all the reasons we previously stated having to do with density and massing of the
property. Some of these comments were shared last night by other neighbors, including the Board of
the Zoning Committee, the Civic Association. And I'd like to address Mr. Vertil's, I guess,
uh, query as to why some members of the zoning committee were inquiring about why not just
take advantage of the, um, the bonus to get, to get the number of units that they want.
That would provide a benefit to the area in the form of affordable housing, which is greatly
lacking and I feel that those members of the zoning committee last night were almost like
it was almost like a gimme like okay here are the answers to the test you could pass it but
no one was was really hearing that having said that this is a building that we don't believe
is appropriate for that very residential block in an increasingly residential neighborhood
and adjacent to a property that also already has multiple units. Thank you.
Mr. Chair, if I could just clarify one thing. The donation into the affordable housing fund
would not benefit this neighborhood specifically. That's not how the donations into the
um affordable housing trust fund works um it goes into a pot that's earmarked for the entire city
and then the you know planning department in conjunction with their various partners um decides
how to allocate it it could it could be it could be utilized anywhere um and so there that would
not increase affordable housing in this neighborhood that's that's just not how it works
thank you anyone else to testify in this case if so please raise your hand
there are no other hands at this time chair thank you planning commission
good afternoon david fecto city planning commission mr chairman members of the board
you previously sent a recommendation of opposed uh to for this project and we're going to recommend
based on the density that you oppose the proposal. Again, and I will note for the record with the
mixed income housing bonus, an applicant does have the ability to provide those units on site. They
don't have to pay into the trust fund and have that money migrate to other areas. Thank you.
Thank you for that clarity. MI 2021-000592900 Greenwich Street. My vote is yes with a proviso.
My vote is no. My vote is yes with proviso.
My vote is yes with proviso.
do we now go on to the regular list um chair excuse me before you move on to the next case
um chair excuse me before you move on to the next case um what was the second proviso it was maximum
um what was the second provider
six units inside and i texted you the mi number and address for the third add-on yep i'm going
to call that up now. MI2021-00114748 West Upsall Street. And I'm looking at my notes. It was
scheduled last week. So we're calling that up now, correct? Yes, I just promoted Connor to panelists.
so that's not listed on our list right it was a uh it was an error and it wasn't put on the
add-on it isn't it's it's an add-on okay been all over anyone here for 48 west upsell
Connor are you there
let's see
there's a Timothy Nipper with his hand raised
there's Connor McInerney who I think is there and Timothy Nipper
okay so who is the um owner of the property good afternoon everyone my name is tim nipper
i'll spell that out t-i-n last name k-n-i-p-p-e-r i'm the owner of 48 west upsell street
you swear and affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth