Did council say that the RCO, when you went back to the community, that they didn't approve
of the three units either? I mean, the four units either?
Right. So that's what happened. Essentially, we tried to go back to them. We offered to come back to them with our amended plans.
They said, you know, we don't have a date until February and we're willing to host you, but we're probably going to vote the same way.
And I and at that point, I said, then we'll go before the board with what we've got, because we're willing to remove that basement situation.
But if the RCO is going to vote the same way, regardless, then we may as well come to the board.
But so obviously the RCO is not happy with four units.
That would seem to be.
And my last question is, in terms of just receiving the mail or packages, that rear unit, all the mailbox is going to be on the front because that unit in the rear.
How would they get their mail?
the mailbox on the front porch
it'll be the package box there for there are four boxes actually five boxes on the front
porch if everybody can see that photo right there okay all right i think this is a general comment
i think that a few of the units those bedrooms don't really work so i understand that's an
existing condition but i think there's a lot of density here with not a lot of uh like ways
to remedy this easily unfortunately okay all right um questions for our attorney
yeah i just mr slepner i just wanted clarification because you mentioned about
parking i didn't see it referenced on the refusal this is just a change of use application is that
something that's being done through a separate zoning application? No, because it's all on the
site. This is just a rear flat lot. I was talking about it more so because the RCO specifically
mentioned it as an issue at the meeting, certainly, and in their letter to the board.
So I wanted to just address that. That's not going to need to be a separate application
because this is all on-site um would be all on-site parking right but i'm just saying i don't
know if that that's legal on-site parking is what you're what you're proposing and it's not part of
this current application it's a change of use only it's not parking okay correct you're probably
going to need to yeah and i think the examiner unfortunately did not reference the required
parking and the refusal because you should have received a refusal for that so i see yeah for the
record all right um that's you know that's fine understood uh questions or comments from the rcos
i see no hands chair questions or comments from anyone
i see no hands at this time planning commission
i see no hands at this time planning commission can i ask that can i ask one more question just
one quick last question or the attorney when you because you mentioned all these other multi-families
in the neighborhood right did you ask in the community you know you've got a problem with
this but you don't have a problem with these other ones like was that ever asked well we did we we
We we knew that there were. OK, part of five. I brought that up at the RCO meeting.
I said, listen, there are other multi-unit properties in your neighborhood.
Like what did you ever have a problem with them? And they didn't really address it.
So, yeah, thanks. Planning Commission. Thank you, Chairman.
And good afternoon. David Fecto with the City Planning Commission, Chairman and board members.
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA-3 residential single-family zoning at this
location. The city rezoned this neighborhood in 1975 in a council-supported map change.
An owner appears to have converted this property into multiple dwelling units without the benefit
of permits. This is a primarily single-family block face. The City Planning Commission recommends
The board denied the proposed use variance for four dwelling units.
Thank you. MI 2025, 003-649-6325 Palmetto Street, I vote no.
Michael Johns, I'm going to vote yes, I think. Yes.
Sterogaston, my vote is no.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is no.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is no.
Taya Nguyen, my vote is no.
Thank you, counsel.
Thank you.
Number 15, MI 2025-003-833, 623 North 44th Street.
Meredith Verliger is the attorney.
There is a, let's see here.
There's a recommendation of support from West Belmont.
Well, it was 20 in support, five in opposition.
And there's a letter of neutrality from Council Member Gossier.
Upon learning of the applicant's alterations to the proposed plan, the council member now has adopted a neutral stance regarding 623-44th Street as a revised plan to adjust the proposed four unit to three.
Office recognized both sides have merit.
We acknowledge the community's stance on remapping and the applicant's sincere effort to establish a consensus.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.
It is the afternoon I forgot here.
Okay, please state your name.
Am I last again?
Please state your name and spell for the stenographer.
Meredith Ferliger, F-E-R-L-E-G-E-R.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
I certainly do.
Could you identify your client or relationship to the property?
My client is 623 North 44th Street, LLC.
That is the owner of the property represented today by Michael Matlin.
Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good morning, afternoon.
Have you submitted your documents and exhibits five days in advance of this hearing?
I did.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Yes, I do.
Okay, thank you.
You can proceed to share your case.
Meredith, before you start, are we straight with tax on this, Hillary?
we we should be the taxes were paid i do have evidence in the packet it might not have been
reflected on the website uh but it is the the amount that was showing due is i have a receipt
up on the screen okay so yes the website is still unclear it looks like there's still taxes owed in
2023 um it may be that we just we need to hold the vote on this just to get a tax clearance
certificate or to see if the um the the property what tax website shows a zero balance um because
there is a it is still showing like there's a tax is owed and that there's a lien on the property
okay it's very very frustrating that their website does not update in real time when they're when
they're paid um yeah and unfortunately the payment didn't indicate what years it was for
so that's also it's hard for us to tell what what was what was paid and what it was applied for so
um but we i think understood if we just i think if we just hold this for a week we'll probably be
fine okay noted uh all right so with that issue uh handled uh as you know the case in front of
you concern 623 North 44th Street in the city's West Belmont neighborhood. The exhibit packet in
front of you has a total of 16 total exhibits. Just by way of some preliminary background,
Just by way of some preliminary background, this case was in front of the board in late 2024, early 2025.
this case was in front of you.
Both the density and the design raised significant concern among both community members and this board.
As a result, and as shown at Exhibit 9, we withdrew the case and my client took some time to go back to the drawing board.
This application was filed anew later in the year, new and improved, and as you can see and as mentioned earlier on, garnered an overwhelming vote in support from the community with only five members of the community in opposition.
As a reminder, and as one of the fundamental hardships facing this property, my client did purchase this property in 2022 as an RM1 lot that would have permitted the application before you today.
Almost one year after its purchase, the lot was rezoned in a community-led remapping to RSA 5.
In terms of some basics, again, we dealt with the tax clearance issue at Exhibit 2.
And again, you'll see at Exhibit 3 that the owner purchased the property on February 17, 2022.
The zoning map at Exhibit 5 shows that although the property was rezoned to RSA 5,
this property does sit on one of the several blocks that served as a point of division
between the new RSA-5 to the east and the retained RM-1 to the west.
And you can see fairly dense RM-1 and RM-2.
By way of some area context, I have included some aerial exhibits at Exhibit 10.
623 North 44th Street is a corner property right at the corner of 44th Street and Wallace Street.
From this first image, you'll see the context of the particular block, which really only has a couple of structures facing 44th Street.
There's two attached structures, and then there are a couple of other structures further up the block that were developed by the Housing Authority probably about 10 years ago.
to across the street as you can see in the image here is a very dense senior housing complex with
well over 100 units as well as a nursing home directly diagonal to the rear you can see in this
image is a school which is owned and run by the archdiocese so it's a fairly fairly open block
here. From the photographs here at Exhibit 16, you'll see that there are only two other attached
structures on the block. The blue one in this image is a single-family home, but immediately
next door, the property at 625 North 44th Street, its last registered use dating all the way back
to the 40s was as a three-family dwelling, although members of the RCO did seem to indicate that its
current use may be actually a boarding house. So it's a little bit unclear exactly what it is used
for, but the last registered use was as a triplex. One thing to note just in terms of the design,
as you can see here, both adjoining structures have elevated front porches, one with the overhang
awning structure, one without. The vacant lot that is at the corner is the one that is before
the board today and has been entirely vacant since the 1940s so there has been no development on this
lot either under the prior rm1 zoning or under the current single-family zoning and again from this
corner you can again see the single-family homes that were developed by pha a little bit further
down the block. And again, across the street here, you can see the apartment complex. This area
benefits from some fairly dense vegetation, so it's hard to get any really good photos. But you
can see the apartment complex across the street here. And then just in terms of Wallace Street,
although 44th Street is mixed in terms of use and structure character, Wallace Street contains
predominantly two-story single-family homes. And of course, we did include photographs of the
required posting, which was timely posted. The zoning plans are shown up on the screen at Exhibit
6. I do have some before and after comparisons, but just in terms of the density, the original
proposal that was presented to the community last year and this board was for a four-unit dwelling
that was really more predominantly oriented towards Wallace Street, not 44th Street.
that was really more predominantly oriented towards Wallace Street, not 44th Street.
That design would have had two egress wells on Wallace Street, as well as two pilot houses to
access two private roof decks. Admittedly, the original design was contrary to the Planning
Commission's determination that 44th Street should be the primary frontage. Now, the proposal before
the board today is for three units consistent with that last registered use of the immediately
attached structure. A front porch which is consistent with the two adjoining structures
is now also included and I do have renderings but just in terms of the basic elevation you can see
that front porch here. One of the pilot houses has been removed as well as the egress wells on
Wallace Street. You'll see on the zoning plans here that there is a designated trash storage
area in the rear behind a fence that can be efficiently accessed directly from Wallace Street.
The structure has also been designed to align with the front setback of the adjoining structures
and also is intended to align with their adjoining heights at just over 30 feet high and three
stories. The building has now also been elevated out of the ground by four feet and the prior
design that was also not the case. Let me skip through the floor plans just momentarily and
bring up the rendering. Of course corner properties also have the unique benefit of providing ample
windows for residents which you can see reflected in this image. The applicant here also intends
to work with Parks and Rec to add street trees that are lacking from this corner, despite the
newly constructed sidewalk. And it's unclear, I assume it was the streets department that did
this sidewalk to replace the ADA ramps. This would have been done with this development, but
obviously it will be extended in front of the property as well.
Floor plans are included at Exhibit 7, and these have also been modified.
The prior design included some bi-level units, whereas this new design is for one unit per floor.
We do also have the architect in the audience to the extent that there are any questions. Plato
Maranakis is with us today. The first floor unit is over 2,000 square feet and includes two bedrooms
and three bathrooms. The second floor unit, I'll zoom in a little bit for you, is a unit of 881
square feet and is two bedrooms, two bathrooms. And the third unit on the third floor is also
two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and is just under 1,100 square feet. This unit will have access
to a private roof deck. This was one of the changes that was precipitated by this board's
feedback in that the prior units were designed not only as bi-level units, but were designed as
three-bedroom units, which was perceived as being significantly too dense. All of the units will
have in-unit washers and dryers and ventilated trash storage areas. At Exhibit 8, I do have a
before and after comparison to the extent that that is helpful. I won't go through it in detail
unless you have questions, but you can see here just on the floor plans the original bi-level
design. And then just in terms of even the rendering, you can see that it being elevated
out of the ground will now align it much better with the two adjoining structures. So this would
have had a front porch that was lower than the two adjoining structures. And for the RCO's benefit,
I did also mark up a zoning plan with some before and after changes. I did address those to this
board already, so I can bring this back up to the extent you have questions. But again, namely the
front porch, the front steps, removal of the egress wells here on Wallace Street, removal of a pilot
house and addition of the rear stairs since it has now been elevated. With respect to the
community, we did first present it to West Belmont back in November of 2024. They were unhappy with
both the four-unit design and layout and did also express a common preference for single-family
homes. Even before the project was represented to the community with a better design and less units,
my client was also able to secure a petition of support from 23 nearby neighbors expressing support even for the prior four-unit design.
Now, all of this is also supplemented by an official letter.
Now, all of this is also supplemented by an official letter of support from the RCO.
Now, regarding the refusal, as you know, we received one refusal for the proposed multifamily dwelling.
As I referenced, this case presents a hardship on several grounds.
Most importantly, and as I mentioned early on, the applicant did purchase this property with the specific goal of developing a multifamily project.
The applicant's investment in the lot was specifically based on the then-buy-right
three-unit dwellings.
The remapping bill is included in your packet at Exhibit 11.
It was not until the bill actually became effective around February of 2023 that the
applicant was made aware of what had transpired, fundamentally frustrating its investment in
the property without recourse, other than, of course, seeking relief before this board
today.
We would submit that it is of fundamental prejudice and hardship to a property owner to have its expected investment squashed by a rezoning when there's no feasibility of buy-right development, which is evidenced by the lack of any development on this lot for the last 85 years.
Furthermore, despite the rezoning, the area surrounding this property is mixed with single
family, multifamily, and some commercial uses, including a school, which is just a mere 90 feet
from this property. The fact that the rezoning line was drawn basically down this street
accentuates this hardship, with one side of the block being significantly dense and the other
side, remaining as it is. While we were unable to verify the exact use, as I mentioned,
directly adjacent to the property is either a triplex or a boarding house. So either way,
not a single-family home. The only single-family homes developed on the block or in the immediate
neighborhood were done so with subsidy through housing authority development.
Furthermore, the only new developments on this block have been four similar triplexes at 709, 733, 741, 753, 755 North 44th Street.