and again this is a property consisting of... Mr. Vaccaro, can you show this what you're
talking about? I mean, we're not having anything here. Oh, can you see this now? Yes. Okay.
Technology. Okay. Now we know what it is. Okay. I'm showing the board a comparison.
I'm showing the board a comparison of another property on the block, which was granted this
variance. The address of that property is 4163 North 7th Street, which I have X'd out the
property in question, Ms. Santana's property with the X and the property 4163 is one, two,
three properties across the street where such a variance was also granted. This is a property
that consists of 1,174 square feet of improvements. One apartment would be on the first floor,
one apartment on the second floor, each apartment having its own kitchen, its own living room,
and its own bedroom. There's also a basement in the building which would be used for storage
and laundry as may be appropriate. If I may close this one out,
I don't know why it keeps stopping the share screen. Let's see if there's any other documents
I want to show. Did you do your mailings? Yes, I did. I did the mailings to the, to the community
in advance of 10, 10 days before our, our meeting on July 20th with Moira Esperanza.
Other than that, we, Mr. Figueroa speaks very little English, so he would adopt if he spoke English, the presentation that I had made.
If there's any other questions from the board.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary.
I just want to clarify, the letter that we had received was the one in Mr. Vicarra's packet, which was from 2019.
We did not receive, as far as I can tell, a letter from the meeting last year, Esperanza.
Thank you for the clarification.
So did you receive a letter from Esperanza?
No, no, Counselor.
I had not.
Then I would recommend that we hold this matter for a letter because it was not previously
indicated that there was another RCO meeting, a newer RCO meeting, and presumably an additional
letter would be forthcoming. Wow. I'm surprised that Esperanza had not submitted another letter.
Excuse me, counsel. Do you have any interior pictures? Certainly. Let me share screen again.
Let me find the photographs of the interior.
Let me, I'm looking for that. One moment, please, Mr. Holloman.
There's only one occupant in the property at this point. It's the first floor tenant.
given, oh, I'm sorry, the second floor tenant, given that there's no zoning for a duplex.
Okay, I think I found the photographs. I'm going to share screen again.
And I'll show you the photos of the interior.
All right, can you see?
Well, you got to move the screen, it's in between.
Oh, the screen will be here, okay.
Either move down or up either one.
Okay, can you see this better now?
That's outside.
That's outside.
Okay, well, we're scrolling down. Here we go. This photograph here is the back of the building. This is the front entrance.
Okay, well, we're scrolling down.
Here we go.
Again, the back of the building and the back of the building. Showing the yard.
The side alley with the meters.
this is the staircase and this is the empty apartment on the first floor
thank you okay so so hillary what i'm going to do is we'll give this
we'll put this to the board the audience and then the planning commission then we'll hold the vote
all right thank you mr chairman i'll reach out to the any any questions from the board
no mr chairman no mr chairman no mr chairman questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands at this time chair planning commission uh if i may just add one thing
before the planning commission when i had participated in the rco meeting of july 20th
I had not seen any opposition. I had not heard any opposition from any of the participants.
And in fact, it was very scant participation other than the persons that were members of the Esperanza board.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, sir. David Fecto, City Planning Commission.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning at this location.
There is no unique physical condition of this 1,087 square foot property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The majority of homes on this block are single family.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board deny the use variance.
Thank you.
So we will continue this and do a vote once we hear from the RCO.
Thank you very much.
Right.
Thank you.
Have a good day.
All right.
MI 2022-000655.
4439 Main Street.
Justin Crick.
Yeah, Mr. Crick is coming back in as a panelist now.
Good afternoon, members of the board.
Mr. Crick, how are you?
Is it already sworn?
Could you identify the owner of this property and the relationship they have with it?
Yes. My client on the phone is Eric Kretschmann. He is the principal member of the owner LLC, as well as the principal member of the tenant LLC of this property.
Thank you. And our vice chair has a few questions.
Hi. Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
Have you emailed the exhibit packet with proof of ownership, tax compliance, a copy of the refusal or referral, photos under plans of the property five days in advance of this hearing, and have you met with the RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes to all. I believe the letter was sent late yesterday afternoon, and I believe Ms. Emerson did receive a copy of that.
Okay, great. You may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Okay. Members of the board, we're here today on an application for the property located at 4439 Main Street in Maniunk. The occupant of the property, again, even though the individual represents both the owner and the tenant, the tenant occupant operates a restaurant and bar at this location and has done so for some time.
We are seeking an application for the erection of a roof deck onto the existing structure, which would require an exterior staircase accessing the roof deck, and then for a sit-down restaurant on that roof deck, as I will show on the plans.
I did submit a plan proviso, and I will show you the differences and comparisons between the two, original proposed plan and proviso plan that was generated after discussion with the neighborhood and consultation with the parties involved.
The current refusal and referral states as follows.
We received a referral for the roof deck itself. For having a roof deck, we are subject to the special exception requirements.
The design, the staircase that leads from the ground to that roof deck generated a refusal, as is prohibited, and then there was a refusal for the non-existent setback.
The proviso plans that have been supplied have done away with the roof deck setback refusal, as we have since implemented that five-foot setback.
uh setback uh refusal as we have since uh implemented that five foot setback as will be shown
uh the property is located on main street uh basically between green lane and carson street
it is known as uh well i'll show it to you and everybody can understand it but
generally speaking from a geographical standpoint we are situated next to the united states post
office and in between two larger structures on either side of us and we are flanked by
this drive aisle that the post office maintains.
And zoning in this area is CMX 2.5.
This is the U.S. hotel bar and grill on the subject property.
As you can see, currently as it's situated, there's outdoor seating along the side and
a small deck and patio we are looking to utilize this what i would consider to be a nook in the in
the roof area of the u.s hotel in order to provide additional seating and an environment for for
patrons the staircase that you'll see in the in the upcoming plans will run alongside this facade
and originally proposed was to run from front to rear of the property but it has since been
again with neighborhood discussion re-oriented to run from the the front down to the rear of
the property such that access to the roof deck will be handled through the side entrance way
of the property and not directly off of the public right-of-way on the street
a few more pictures to give an idea of where we're going to be situated with the project
Here's access, which has been relocated and swapped out with one of the windows a little
further back to allow for the staircase to come down this wall.
And this is the existing roof where the roof deck is to be situated.
You can see that we have the siding of the neighboring building on one side, as well
as the rear facade of the building behind us.
So if anything, this would only expose the roof deck to two sides of the building, and this front facade actually provides some coverage, as well as the five-foot setback keeps everything away from the street in terms of noise and any other issues that the neighborhood had with the project.
These are front-facing and rear-facing views of the interior of the property at this time so that the board can understand what's going on inside.
Our original plans, as I indicated, the original plans of the building had a roof deck proposed for almost the entire size of the roof with mechanical equipment in the back,
no setback and egress coming from the front street frontage right of way up to this this line
we have since after working with the madame development corporation and madame neighborhood
council revised roof plans to one account for a five-yard setback removing a the refusal and
And two, reorienting this staircase to allow for better controlled access to the roof deck
through the restaurant for patrons and not directly off of the street frontage.
Here we have the proposed elevation, the proviso plan elevation.
As you can see in the previous picture, the door was here and a window is here.
These two have been swapped.
No additional refusals generated by this reorientation.
again if anything we have removed one by placing the setback as the uh as indicated by the proviso
plans it was a setback uh five foot eliminated reorienting the staircase and reorienting the
roof deck placement uh here is a copy of the lease between the ownership entity 4439 main
street associates and ush partners as i indicated mr kretschman who's on the line is the principal
of both of those entities.
We also, I included a copy of the deed as well.
And we have tax clearance, zoning posters.
And essentially, the applicant has come to an agreement
with the neighborhood for a four-party agreement
regarding certain operations
that that are not necessarily relevant to the board but to understand that we do not have any
opposition to this project we believe that the the situation with
We believe that the situation with the need for outdoor seating and expanded occupancy, it is best to do a roof deck versus expand on the physical structure of the building with additional stories to both preserve the historic nature and look and character of the property,
while also allowing for, again, better patronage during these times
where outdoor dining is desired.
As we think that in terms of the special exception,
the use of a roof deck in this property,
especially where it's flanked on two sides by buildings,
which does not create any, which alleviates any harm from patrons being at the excess
heights or anything like that, as well as preventing any impacting air and light of
adjacent properties.
We believe that the special exception standard has been met, that there will not be any
additional congestion in the area, that doing so would not overcrowd the land.
Adding these facilities would not burden any other public facilities or injure the use of any adjacent conforming properties, endanger the health or public health of anybody else, especially with not coming off of the public right-of-way, and that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan in allowing the commercial nature of this business to thrive greater.
With that said, we believe that the special exception threshold has been met. The neighborhood has not offered any objection to this, nor sought to meet its burden of proof that there would be general detrimental impacts on the neighborhood.
That leaves us with the refusal for the staircase structure that is prohibited by code. We believe that there is a hardship in the size of the nature of this building as what you've seen from the interior and the historic slash character of the building that in order to get to the roof deck from an interior staircase would cause substantial renovations to have to be made.
and it would be difficult for the property owner to conform the interior of the property in order
to obtain access to the roof. Again, without any opposition, I would like to call Mr. Kretschmann
to raise his hand to adopt my testimony.
Mr. Kretschmann, you can unmute yourself and wait for the chair, please.
thank you i could you could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
uh sure mr chairman it's eric kretschman e-r-i-c last name k-r-e-t-s-c-h-m-a-n
do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do proceed thank you mr kretschman have you had an opportunity to hear my statements made
to the board today i i did uh would you agree that those statements are true and accurate to
the best of your knowledge they are and would you adopt my statements to the board as if they were
your own testimony given today i would thank you i have no questions questions from the board
no mr chair no mr chair questions from the virtual audience
i see the other is at this time chair planning commission good afternoon david fecto city
planning commission mr chairman members of the board the comprehensive plan recommends no change
to the commercial mixed-use zoning at this location the applicant has shown that a roof deck will have
no more of an impact than a roof deck would be expected to have at this location the city planning
commission recommends that the board grant the special exception and the use variance thank you
MI 2022, 000655, 4439 Main Street.
I vote yes, proviso.
Revised plans, two pages, stamped May 4th, 2022.
Carol Tenere, my vote is yes, proviso.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes, proviso.
James Snell, yes, proviso.
Ishmael Shaheed, yes, we're provided though.
Okay, so we have two more cases left.
Thank you.
This afternoon, and then we have several, a handful of cases after 3.30.
Let's take a five-minute break, give our court stenographer a chance to, if she needs extra
supplies or whatever, and we'll be back in five minutes, everybody.
Okay, yes, sir.
Then we're going to go right through it.
Thank you.
Thank you.
As you wish, Chair.
So this is a continuation of the 2 p.m. listing.
Number 10, MI 2021-004-044-6701-41 Callahill Street.
Peter Kelson is the listed attorney.
No exhibits.
Second listing.
Is there anyone here for this case?