ZBA Hearing - October 15, 2025

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Number four, MI-2025-003-153-2620 Frankfurt Avenue.

You know, Catherine Mismer is the attorney.

There's a recommendation of non-opposition from East Kensington Neighborhood Association.

The vote was 13 in support to oppose.

And there's a letter of non-opposition from Council Member Squill.

Council, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?

Sure.

Catherine Mismer.

It's M as in Mary, I-S-S, I-M as in Mary, E-R.

Right.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do.

Do you identify your client in a relationship to this property?

Tiger Real Estate, Inc. is the property owner for 2620 through 26 Frankfort Avenue.

And our board secretary, Shell L. Gaston, has a few questions.

Good afternoon, counsel.

Did you submit your exhibit packet five days in advance of this hearing?

yes five days in advance this series yes ma'am okay and uh do you waive the reading of the

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

refusal and stipulate to its accuracy i do i just want to confirm you have the revised refusal that

was dated in october i think so yes we have perfect yes okay then um you may proceed and

share your screen and make your presentation great thank you as mentioned i'm here today

on behalf of Tiger Real Estate Inc, property owner for the four existing lots at 2620 through 26

Frankfort Avenue. With me today is owner's representative Philippe Zini, as well as our

project architect Brennan Marsh, who's available online. We're here today with an application to

relocate the lot lines of those four lots, creating a single parcel, and the new construction of 24

multi-family dwelling units and two ground floor commercial spaces as you can see on your screen

you do have a letter of non-opposition from both council member mark squilla's office

and east kensington neighbor neighbors association this is an existing vacant property sitting mid

block on frankfurt avenue the site is owned cmx2 it's directly across frankfurt avenue from the

Woods Brothers site that you may be familiar with. That site was recently

approved for 453 multifamily dwelling units at a height of 72 feet. This site

is transit-oriented along several bus routes as well as located a few blocks

from a marked Frankfurt Line station. The RCO has expressed a desire for density

and commercial uses along Frankfurt Avenue rather than further into the

neighborhood. They want to promote pedestrian traffic as well as the

transit-oriented nature of this neighborhood. Some of you may recall that

this project came before you a few years back. This is what it looked like at that

time. It was approved through ZBA. However, that developer was unable to

build the project. It was a similar configuration. It had 20 units at that

time as well as six below-grade parking spaces and a single smaller commercial space and apologies

those parking spaces were first level they were not below grade again that project proved not to

be feasible that developer could not build it and no permits were ever pulled since that time

in 2019 the property has continued to sit vacant the current property owner who has a proven track

record of multi-family development ownership and operation purchased the property and has made some

tweaks to the project this new proposal includes 24 units with two ground floor large commercial

spaces our original proposal also included parking at the ground floor but the rco and the neighborhood

expressed an extreme desire for usable rentable commercial space along frankfort avenue

and not a curb cut that would interrupt pedestrian traffic here

as a result we've redesigned our project to remove the parking and install two large ground

floor commercial spaces which is reflected in that revised refusal that you do have

given the zmx2 designation in this lock configuration we do generate a few refusals

again the number of units here does exceed what would be allowable on these four lots

However, given its proximity to the Woods Brothers site where many units are proposed, as well as several others in the neighborhood, as you can see in the zoning map in front of you, there are various zoning designations here, and this portion of the neighborhood is really where the neighborhood wants to see density and walkability.

walkability. The density allows the developer to provide a diverse unit mix, as well as

address a need for diversity in the housing market here. As you can see, these lots have

remained vacant for several years, and this would bring eyes to the street and commercial

activity. As mentioned earlier, because we are directly across from Woods Brothers, they're

proposing 453 multifamily units. These are a few photos of the site as it exists today.

And this is the Woods Brothers building superimposed on the aerial. That would be directly

across the street from our building that you're seeing in sort of the goldish color.

There are also some other multifamilies that were approved in the neighborhood.

There's 41 units coming to the rear of our site on Coral Street. There are 21 coming to

lehigh avenue and 155 across lehigh avenue we do feel and the neighborhood supports this juncture

the 24 units is appropriate for this site given the changing character of this section of the

frankfurt of the east kensington neighborhood our proposed project also generates some

of the east kensington neighborhood our proposed project also generates some minor dimensional

variances the allowable occupied area here is 75 because again we are mid-block our proposal

represents 85 however the previous approval did also include that 85 figure as the board is aware

under hertzberg the standard for dimensional variances is significantly less than the under

undue hardship standard. When seeking a dimensional variance, the owner is only asking

for a reasonable adjustment of zoning regulations. Again, the prior approval at this site also

included the same occupied area. Similarly, the proposal, I'm sorry, this is the rear of the site,

so this is on Coral Street. You'll see it's an industrial use building, looks like a repair

garage there as well, and these are the other multifamilies in the neighborhood.

We also received a refusal for rear yard. If you'll note on the plan in front of you, only a small portion of our building goes to the rear property line. It's where the bike room would be on the ground floor. There is a large open rear yard. At its narrowest, it's 8'2", and at its widest, it's 19 feet 6 inches. So there is significant outdoor space for the residents. It's just not the entirety of the rear of the property.

and again as you'll note the streets do come in at an angle so the lot line does change to the rear

on the four lots making up this consolidated parcel lastly the proposed height of 63 feet

does exceed the allowable 38 in the cmx2 district but again we've got 72 feet coming to the other

side of frankfort avenue and we do feel that given the neighborhood's desire for density

and walkability in this section of the neighborhood the proposed 63 feet is

sufficient and speaks to the context that is changing here as a result proposed

variances represent the least modification of the code necessary and

we believe they're in conformity with the surrounding neighborhood this

proposal would not be detrimental given the letter of non-opposition from both

the RCO and the councilman's office I'll just quickly walk through some of the

building sections and then these are the layouts there is a trash room on the

ground floor that would be utilized by the residential units the commercial

spaces would store their trash in the in the basement they each have designated

space in the cellar for the trash storage nothing would be stored in the

rear yard these are some renderings of what the building could look like and

again this is the rear you'll see that there is a usable landscaped rear yard

the property next to us is also vacant that's owned by the redevelopment

authority and it has continued to be vacant for many years and then this is

just copy of that revised refusal that was referenced with that I would just

Let's ask Philippe to come forward.

Bring the mic close to you, make sure it's on.

Hi, could you please state your name and spell it for the stenographer?

Make sure to hit that button, the green button.

There you go.

My name is Philippe Sini.

It's spelled P-H-I-L-I-P-P-E, and my last name is spelled C-I-N-I.

right you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth

i do please proceed counsel thank you philippe were you present and did you hear the extent of

my testimony today yes would you agree that it's true and correct yes and would you adopt it as

your own yes so we're available for questions and our architect is also online questions from the

board. What's your trash pickup process for the building? It'll be commercial trash pickup. The

residential trash will come through the lobby. It will be removed from the trash room multiple times

a week and the commercial trash will be stored in the cellar and brought up through the commercial

space and picked up by commercial trash pickup. And there's no parking provided? No parking proposed.

And again, parking in this district would have required a variance.

Right.

But the neighborhood did request that we remove any parking.

Okay.

Other questions?

I guess my question is more so about the density.

It seems like you could have eliminated a lot of these variances and stayed within what was allowable by Wright and wanted to understand the increase in the unit number from the 10 that would have been allowed by Wright.

I think a lot of that has to do with the failed project that preceded us.

They were unable to get the financing to build 20 at this site.

When Philippe purchased the property and he was able to analyze the numbers, he made it work at 24.

He made it work at 24, but given, again, the amount that's going to be required to utilize this property, we're going to need the 24 units to make it viable.

But given, again, the amount that's...

Okay.

Other questions?

Questions from our attorney, Hillary Emerson.

Not at this time, Mr. Chair.

Questions from the present audience or the virtual audience?

chair we have a john theobald they are coming back in as a panelist now okay

mr theobald

i'm sorry can you hear me i can't sir could you please say your name it's spelled for the

sonographer john theobald j-o-h-n-t-h-e-o-b-a-l-d do you swear or affirm to tell the truth

the whole truth nothing but the truth i do mr theobald are you a neighbor i'm the president

of the East Kensington Neighbors Association, RCO, and chair of the zoning committee.

Thank you very much. Please start your presentation.

I just would like to reiterate in this case that the community did request that the ground floor

commercial be added, and we're grateful that that was done, and that our community plan

very intentionally protected our single-family intact historical blocks and sought to put high

density along frankfort avenue which is our primary commercial corridor and the um frankfort

avenue arcs corridor that's been supported um you know by mkcdc east kensington neighbors and the

fishtown bid for the last um 20 years as a major commercial corridor um and that this plan complies

with those goals um and the community supported that the density and the alterations to the ground

floor. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Theobald, for taking the time to call us. We appreciate it.

Is there anyone else in the virtual audience? I see no hands, Chair. Planning Commission.

Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission. The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the

CMX2 commercial mixed-use zoning at this location. The appellant has not shown that there are unique

physical conditions or circumstances. They would prevent the property from being used in conformance

the zoning code the planning commission recommends that the board deny the requested variance for

unit count occupied area rear yard and building height okay i think i think that recommendation

fails to take into account that a project was previously approved at the board and was unable

to be built at the density proposed which does exceed what's allowable in cmx2 it again doesn't

reflect the character of the neighborhood given the large 453 units coming across the street

in order to be in context and be competitive, I think at this rate, the 24 units and the large

rentable usable commercial space makes a big difference. Okay. So MI 2025, 003153, 2620

Frankfurt Avenue, I vote yes. Proviso per amended refusal dated 10-7-25. Michael Johns, my vote is

yes with proviso. Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes with proviso. Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes with

proviso. I win, my vote is yes with proviso. Thank you. Thank you. Number eight, MI 2025-003-224-5416-26

Lena Street. Meredith Ferliger

is the attorney.

Let's see here.

There is a letter of opposition

from the 12th Ward Democratic

Committee

and a letter of non-opposition

from Solo Germantown.

Counsel, could you please state your name

and spell it for the stenographer?

Sure. My name is Meredith Ferliger,

f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the

truth i do could you identify your client the relationship to this property sure my client is

in with the old llc which is the equitable owner of this property under agreement of sale uh and i

have with me from that llc today uh mr john cunningham our board secretary show al gaston

has a few questions. Good afternoon, counsel. Did you submit your exhibit packet five days in

advance of this hearing? Yes, I did. And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate

to its accuracy? I do, as long as that refusal that you're referring to is the amended refusal

that was issued August 6, 2025. Yes. Okay. So you may share your screen and begin your presentation.

So, you may share your screen and begin your presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.

As I mentioned, my client today is in with the old LLC,

which is the equitable owner under an agreement of sale for this property the request before the

board today concerns 54 16 through 26 lena street and as always you do have an exhibit packet in

front of you that contains 17 total exhibits including a petition of support that has been

signed by 20 immediate neighbors to summarize the basis for today's request this application

requests the renovation and reuse of a historically designated building in Germantown.

Although the zoning code recognizes a fairly broad exception to zoning use restrictions to

encourage and support the renovation of historically designated buildings, that exception does not

extend to buildings with an industrial designation, such as this one, which is zoned I-2.

as a result variance relief is needed to permit the multi-family use of the building

tax clearance is included in the packet at exhibit two and the agreement of sale is included

in relevant sections at exhibit three by way of some preliminary background you can see on

the zoning map here at exhibit five that this property sits on lena street right at the corner

of East Earlham Street. This block is just north of Germantown Avenue, about 580 feet just to the

south of this image. This is, as you can see, a highly diverse area in terms of zoning classifications

with a portion of the block zoned I2, including this property, a small section of RM1 squeezed

right in the middle of all of that, CMX 2.5 down towards Germantown Avenue, and the rest is fairly