property okay all right makes sense thank you you okay please um
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Iowyn, my vote is yes, with Proviso.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you so much.
Yeah, thanks so much.
Mr. Perry, please.
Ian also has the exhibits if you need them.
For Roger, for Roger.
I'm here, can you hear me?
okay it says that you uh stopped my video so i'm waiting for you to
well we're going to do that in one minute and i think i already swore you in am i correct
thank you thank you okay here i am
yeah mr perry did our uh word secretary have any questions for you yet
yeah all right let's start let's start ian
okay mr perry i'm going to display your exhibits for you is that okay
okay fine all right thanks let's bring them right up
on my screen i have them but you know that's up to you
okay there we are thank you
okay so uh if i may start i've been sworn in this is a request for 1243 south 8th street i'm here
today with mr lee the owner of the property uh you'll see uh on my list of exhibits and i have
other exhibits we'll try to share. RCL letter from the square saying that they were not
opposed. If we can scroll down to the just below just above the photos and the zoning
map. This is you can scroll down and say this is a 1995 building. This is fine here. This
This indicates the property, 1243 South 8th Street, historically a CMX1 property.
This indicates the property is 1243 South 8th Street.
What happened is that Mr. Lee had this constructed legally with permits and plans that are attached to the exhibits as a three-unit apartment building.
It was legal from 1995, and it's still three units, but it's vacant now.
the licenses expired and he did not renew them in a timely manner so they
considered the three units abandoned and under the code it reverts to RS 85 as
the immediately adjacent more restrictive zone if we can scroll down
to the photos there we go okay that's that's the property in question 1243
3 South 8th Street. It's 8th and Wharton Street. You can see it's a three-story building. There's
one apartment on each floor, duly posted, as noted here. If we scroll through the photos,
we'll show you the, this is the, one of the entrances to the first floor. Zoning post,
you can sort of scroll through and I'll describe it as they go through. Duly posted, this is the
side of the building in back here are the entrances for the upper apartments
secondary entrance for the first floor they have separate entrances you'll see
in the continuing photographs the interior of the apartment property is
vacant currently listed for sale this is the side rear these are the entrances
first floor second and third floor has a separate hallway and access stairs to
the upper floors. It's across the street, another multifamily property. The corners
are all CMX1s and were traditionally multifamily. This indicates three gas meters historically
installed, three electric meters from 1995. Everything from 1995 has been set forth and
you can sort of scroll through these, but this is the first floor. It's all fitted
out bathroom kitchen two bedrooms each each floor has two bedroom uh apartments and i marked them
as first second and third floor this is the front entrance to the uh first floor this is the second
floor this is the uh eating and living area and this is the kitchen in the background again this
is a two-bedroom apartment, kitchen area, bathroom, bedroom, another bedroom. This is
the third floor bedroom another bedroom a living area kitchen area on the third
floor bathroom another shot of the bathroom laundry area in this
particular apartment tax clearance certificate just indicating that taxes
for this property have been paid through 2026 you can keep scrolling and we'll
see where we end up here. That's the end of the exhibit package, Mr. Perry. Okay. There should
be plans in here. Let me see if I can. There you go. Okay. Thank you. These were the plans that
were approved by the board, by the city. This particular document is the rear stamped. If you
scroll through the plans, you'll see that each floor, it was laid out in 1995 and constructed
it as such. It was approved in 1995 by the city for three apartments at this location.
This is the approval from the city, the back one with the blue lettering was the approval.
This is probably the second floor plan that's accessible by its own separate entrance and
so forth. Third floor plan, again, accessible from the outside hallway. And they're all
laid out. They're over 900 square feet. I know that. And so they're all extant and the
city approved this in 95. The issue is that we're now requesting approval of the three
units because the refusal came in by the loss of licenses considering the property to be
abandoned. It's still a CMX1 site but the refusal as it was in the exhibits as offered was because
it's immediately adjacent to an RS5 district but there are other multi-family units in the CMX1
district. It is a corner property. It would not be adverse to the use in the neighborhood
to the use in the neighborhood primarily because for, you know, some 30 years it's been used as
primarily because for, you know, some 30 years, it's
a three-family apartment. It already has separate meters and so forth, but it's currently vacant
because of the lack of licenses for the property. So what we're doing today is seeking the board's
approval of a three-unit apartment building and so forth as it was originally constructed in 1995
and licensed by the city. And we don't think it would be adverse to the public's health safety
or welfare. If it was refused, it would require demolition of the existing structure, which we
feel would be wasteful. So we're asking for the board's approval, and we certainly can
answer any questions. Mr. Lee is here. If he raises his hands, he can adopt my testimony as well.
How do you get your testimony adopted first, okay?
Okay. I'm sorry?
We'll get your testimony adopted first, okay?
Yes. Mr. Lee, could you raise your hand and be sworn in?
Council, is that An Lee?
Okay, thank you. An Lee, please raise your virtual hand.
down at the bottom on you'll see uh
raise hand patient we see anything yeah i saw them they had their hand raised but
okay for some reason
for them to be promoted if not I'll allow them to speak okay thank you welcome
um Mr. Perry I think you I'm not saying one way or the other with the case but I think you've laid
it out that we understand what this is about so as an officer the court will accept your testimony
questions for Mr. Perry yes I have a question and also can you pull up the
first floor plan again because I know there's three entrances into the
building and I just want to be clear each unit has its own entrance yes the
first floor has two entrances on the first floor plan you'll see that the
diagonal entrance at 8th and Wharton was a traditional entrance to a commercial
space 40 years ago the plans yes no i so there you go okay over here was a traditional uh entrance
from the corner there is a second entrance directly into the kitchen on the first floor
and the second and third floor have another door separate entrance and they go up through a stairways
that accesses the second floor and then the third floor as a separate entrance.
And this is the existing, so this is what's in there currently?
Yes, this is.
Also what was proposed in the 1990s?
This was actually what was built and permitted in 1995.
These are the plans that were submitted and approved by the city,
and that's what's there now.
So that is the current existing.
so i mean i think just in general like these plans while were approved in 1990s are not
uh i think the best layout for 2026 and so i guess um my question is so why your client is
interested in simply um approving them as is and is there any plan to do any work to these
uh the answer the last question no there's no plan this property is currently uh marketed for
sale as a three-unit plan and he has not desired to make any changes because this was actually
legal for 30 years in other words this whole process went through lni and construction yeah
i understand that i understand that the permits were approved and then it lapsed but because it
has lapsed we are here and now we can have this conversation um but it sounds like your client
is interested in selling it with the zoning in place yes that is that accurate and he needs
the new zoning because of the lapse of the licenses yeah um so i think my general comment
is going to be that i think this is not the best layout for a three-unit building in its current
condition um i think the placement of the stove and this weird corner behind the stairwell i think
the fact that the basements only access is through the bill code doors in the front um and and i
mean it's already going almost lot line to lot line so there's no rear yard i have lots of questions
just about um how we're going how this is going to be property properly managed and how we're
managed and how we're going to deal with trash um in this in this so
going to deal with trash in this in
well i can answer all those questions the location of the appliances is not really a
zoning issue the the new owner can move anything else they want around and if it requires a permit
they'll be but they won't have to and so i think like the thing that requires somebody to have to
do any work is the fact that currently it's not zoned right once we give it zoning the new owner
could go to lni and redo it but they're they're not required to so i think i don't know what is
going to be redone i mean i don't think they i can't put a rear yard in because the property
you know occupies 100 of the lot historically and the layout was good for 30 years you know
as a two-bedroom apartment living room kitchen and bathroom i you know it's i just don't know
you know that it's a zoning issue that you know somebody want to may want to you know change out
the bathtub or move the stove or whatever that's i understand i understand but the zoning issue is
the density so i'm just saying i i don't understand the question about reconfiguring the units better
because i i don't i don't know why that would have to occur okay okay all right um any other
questions um our attorney no questions at this time what should the comments from the virtual
audience mr chair do not see any hands raised i do have a question for linda um just because our
notes have the wrong council person listed so i just want to confirm that the correct council
person did support this yeah it's yes i saw that council president i think it's his area i think
It could be Squilla too, probably Squilla.
Squilla writes letters all the time.
So do we have the letter?
No, we have the letter just from the RCO.
I think Squilla stops at the, I mean, Johnson stops at Court Street up there.
i just pulled it up this property's in the first council district board members
it is squilla yeah do you need anything more board member win do you need anything more
it is squilla it just no do we have a question was do we have a letter yes okay
All right, questions are comments from the virtual audience.
Planning Commission.
Go ahead, Mr. Chair.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing CMX1 commercial mix use zoning at this location.
The property has a history of the three family as permitted in 1995 by variance under application number 951024.
the planning commission recommends that the board grant the requested variance for three family
mi 2026 002 381 1243 south a street i vote yes
with proviso certificate of occupancy to be obtained for entire building
cheryl gaston my vote is yes with proviso ryan mcadams my vote is yes with proviso
tyo and my vote is yes with proviso thank you council okay thank you very much board members
is there anyone in the audience who who's whose case has not been called
to try do not see any hands raised
mr chair no hands raised