Did you hear my testimony today regarding this property?
Yes, I did.
Is there anything you'd like to add, any clarification you'd like to make?
um just you know we've met with the rco before uh that last meeting was pretty much just a group
of complaints i did not get a chance to talk the property over or the project um before i could
even speak they adjourned the meeting um we had a meeting before that that because they didn't
have enough people that i guess they deemed uh proper residents uh they ended that meeting um
Yeah, but pretty much that's about it. We've reached out multiple times, still have not heard anything. We personally, we believe that this would be a benefit for the community.
I know there's a big backlog of low-income housing that's needed, especially around there.
And, yeah, we'd like to provide that for them.
This is all independently funded and owned down to the trash pickup.
This will be on us, not on the community.
We're also providing cameras all around the building, extra security, extra lighting.
We'll make sure the whole area is clean at all times.
We'll make sure the whole area is clean at all times.
Yeah, that's it.
Okay, just to circle back to what you said about the RCO.
So you met with them twice.
Is that correct?
Correct.
And at either of those meetings, did they hold a vote regarding the project?
The second meeting.
What they sent us wasn't a vote, though, as I understand it.
What was the outcome of that meeting?
Everyone just informed me that they're voting no, and the meeting was adjourned.
And then their letter that they followed up with said that they wanted more clarity, I believe is how they worked.
Correct.
If I was able to speak at that meeting before the meeting was adjourned, they would have had more clarity.
But yes.
All right.
I have nothing further.
Mr. Counsel, quick question.
So 12 units, eight are senior citizens, right? And the other four?
Tyler, did you want to speak to what your plans are for the bi-level units?
Sure. So the other four, since they're bi-level, lower level, we did not want to place senior citizens there, you know, just to play safe and make sure there's no issues with egress in case of emergencies.
We do intend for those bi-level units to also be for low income.
That's also one of the reasons why we're working with Councilman Salfus and Reverend McFadden to help us with providing units to people already from the neighborhood that are in need.
Thank you. Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, sir.
Questions from the virtual audience?
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission this is uh ron bednar that's r-o-n
last name bednar b-e-d-n-a-r and with the city planning commission right do you swear a firm to
tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth i do thank you this property is indicated
for residential on the city plan given our review of the code criteria we recommend that the quest
or variance be granted, but do want to state that the affordable units are not under the
mixed-use bonus program, and there is no guarantee that they will be put on.
MI 2021-000551-1618 North 54th Street, I vote yes.
Carl Tsunari, my vote is yes.
James Snell yes Thomas Holloman my vote is yes thank you board thank you very much
MI 2021-003-110-1705-13 North 7th Street RCO letter in support from APM
Councilman Clark letter in opposition to the project
Okay, counsel is Sean Ward.
Mr. Ward is coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Okay, thank you.
Mr. Ward, state your name and spell it for the court reporter.
Hello?
Yvette, is Sean there?
I'm moving him to panelists, Simon.
Yeah, I don't see him.
Mr. Ward?
um chair if you don't mind moving forward oh here we go there he is
mr ward state your name and spell for the court reporter
mr ward can you hear us
okay well let let's move on we'll we'll get that we'll stop
i'm here i'm here i'm here okay sorry mr chairman i've been having computer issues
all day long and believe it or not i was i had to i had to leave my house and come back down
to the office to log in on a desktop and it took me at least a half an hour
Are you going to be able to make this presentation?
are you going to be able to make this presentation I believe so I think I have
I believe so.
I think I have, I just need to open one more file, which is the RCO letter, which you have.
Mr. Ward, this is Tanya.
Although we would love to see you, if you can turn your camera off.
I just want to share on my screen.
I just want to make sure.
So if you turn your video off, you should have no problems going forward.
Okay, that's what I will do.
tanya thank you so so state your name is bell for the court reporter thank you mr chairman uh good
good afternoon good evening uh sean ward on behalf of the applicant finish development and the
property owner uh in the virtual audience is my client representative mayor badush m-e-i-r-b-a-d-u-x-h
Do you swear for him to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Okay. Proceed.
Oh, Carol, our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi, Mr. Ward. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do, Carol. Thank you.
I'm assuming you've submitted everything that's required in the exhibit packet?
Yes, I did.
and there is a letter in opposition from council president clark so you may proceed
i was not aware of that but we do have a letter of support from
apm rco uh in support of the application uh yeah i do see that here now
this is unbelievable
all right let me get back to my exhibit packet
uh mr chairman not to waste the board's time if if you could take the next case
uh while i get these exhibits open uh thank you thank you i don't want to waste the board's time
Thank you very much. MI-2021-003-106-2730 Latona Street, RCO Tasker Neighbors, Letter of Support, Henry Clinton.
Mr. Clinton is coming back in now as a panelist.
good evening mr chairman members of the board henry for the applicant
right mr clinton you've been sworn before uh our vice chair has a few questions for you
thank you i do you agree to wave the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do assuming you've emailed everything that the that is required in the exhibit packet
i have and you have a letter of support from tasker morris neighborhood association i do
you may proceed thank you
is that visible
or make it bigger yeah yeah is that better it's great all right thank you uh good evening mr
Chair and members of the Board, Henry Clinton for the applicant who is on the call with me,
Adan Shlomo, as well as the architect, Michael Cole. This matter involves three properties,
27, 28, 30, and 32. The refusals are basically the same for all three. All three properties are
located in an RM1 zoning district, and the request is for a duplex on each of the lots.
This is the table of contents, exhibits AA through A10, which I ask to be admitted into evidence at the close of this proceeding.
Appearance statement, a refusal.
So all the refusals for all three properties concern dimensional issues.
The reason being, these lots are very much undersized.
They're only 14 wide, and they're 46 feet, 6 inches deep.
A very narrow and not very deep lot.
But despite that, they're still zoned RM1, which as the board knows is residential multifamily.
So it becomes exceedingly tough to build a buy right RM1 duplex on these properties.
to build a by right RM1 duplex on these properties, because if you have a lot that's 46 feet,
six inches deep, and you abide by the dimensional requirements for open space and rear yard
and rear yard depth, you have a yard of 10 feet, and your house would be 36 feet deep.
And then when you compile that or with the width of the house at 14 feet, by the time you put two
by six walls on either side you lose a foot the stairways have to be 36 inches to four 40 inches
you lose another four feet so the width in some parts of the house is is under 11 feet which means
you have to to make the house viable you really have to go back further and when you go back
further that results in all these dimensional variances we don't have any other variances with
regard to height or any other issue, simply the dimensional variances because the uses are proper.
So this is the refusal for 2728. Refusal, again, all-dimensional with regard to 2730.
And refusals, again, with regard to 2732 Latona, all-dimensional aspects. We do have a letter of
support from Tasker Morris. You can see it was 80% in favor of the proposal, which is two family
dwelling in each property. This is an aerial perspective for the board. This home is demolished
or will be demolished. And these are the three lots that we're talking about. And you can see
adjacent, there is a two-story house with a three-story or third-story addition setback.
again another perspective our plans are in keeping with the ones of the community
they like to see a lot of brick on the front of the house so the three-story structures
with protruding bays at the second and third floor the
the depth of the house will be about 41 inches 41 feet six inches and leaves us with a yard a
little bit over five feet. As I said, if we conform to the RM1 requirements, the rear yard
would have to be double the size of what it is here, and the house would have to be cut by at
least five feet, which would really result in an untenable or not viable property. The proposal is
for two bedrooms on the first floor and second floor, excuse me, in the basement of first floor,
and then on the second floor and third floor, two bedrooms with a rooftop deck.
So that the occupant of the first floor unit would have open space in the rear yard
and then the occupant on the second and third floor would have open space at the rooftop deck.
We have a tax certification for all three properties and I wanted to show the board
the zoning map, just to give you a perspective that the entire block is zoned RM1. These are
my applications for appeal. Here's the zoning map I wanted to show you. So the three properties are
located dead center in this RM1 zoning district, and all the lots are just undersized. So again,
the only way you can conform to the zoning use is to infringe on the dimensional aspects of the
property. So I'd like to argue that we have a unique circumstance here where the lots are
undersized. We're in an RM1 zone and it requires us to intrude upon the dimensional requirements
of the code. We're not really altering the essential character of the neighborhood.
We're actually in harmony with the code. We're in harmony with the wishes of the neighborhood group
as evidenced by the overwhelming support of the Task for Mars Coalition. So I will entertain any
questions that the board has, and I also will ask my client to adopt my testimony,
but that's the presentation directly.
Your client, please. Mr. Shlomo, can he be unmuted, please?
Mr. Shlomo, can you please raise your hand?
you know he might have called in and maybe he's not uh mr clinton well your officer of the court
will take your testimony um questions from the board yes mr chairman uh counselor
where percentage of the building this is new construction so what percentage is out of the
ground what percentage is out of the ground
yes right here here's the elevations
i would say this is you know one two three it's probably four to five feet out of the ground
You know, one, two, three, it's probably four to five feet out of the ground.
And I'm just estimating because I don't see a dimension, Mr. Holloman, on this view.
But if you have one, two, three steps, the risers are typically, as you know, 10 to 11 inches.
So I would say you're probably, this is the window.
Again, I'm just going to ballpark it 36 inches, maybe.
that's three feet in and five feet in the ground three feet out of the ground and five feet in the
ground again just guessing sir yes correct
i think he said he's guessing yeah i was sorry mr homer yes i said i think i agree with you
but i'm taking a stab at it okay thank you other questions from the board no
questions from the virtual audience no from me but there are no hands at this time chair
um planning commission this is ron vet in our city planning these properties uh
27-28, 27-30, and 27-32 are indicated for multifamily residential on the city plan.
Given the review of the code criteria and the physical circumstances of each property,
we recommend that the question variance for all three be granted.
MI 2021-003106, 2730 Latona. MI 2021-003105, 2730 Latona, 732. MI 2021-003107, 2728 Latona. I vote yes on all three.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes on all three.
James Stout, yes to all three.
Thomas Holliman, yes to all three.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Clinton.
Have a great night.
Can we go back to number three?
Mr. Ward?
I believe I am ready to go.
Okay, you already sworn.
So you can start.
Okay, I will now share my screen.