Tameka McCoy.
thank you hi could you state your name could you state your name please and spell for the
court stenographer sure tamika mccoy t-a-m-i-k-a last name is m-c-capital-k-o-y right do you swear
a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes could you could you
please identify your client the relationship to the two properties sure uh booker investment group
is represented by eloise jones and we also have the project engineer devon looney who is
participating in this session all right our vice chair has just a few questions for you
good afternoon counsel do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy
yes have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed and required to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing.
Thank you.
Please proceed and share your screen.
Thank you.
As Chairman Bergman indicated, I am presenting regarding two
properties. They are located at 6101 Callahill and 6103 Callahill. They are a joint with one
another. The property is a large three-story building. We received a refusal on June 29th
as stipulated. There are no modifications to that refusal. We submitted a proposal to the RCO who is
We submitted a proposal to the RCO, who is the HMC Squared, on September 18th of 2023.
HMC Squared
There was a meeting where we were provided with approvals with Provisio on October 12th of 2023.
We have a packet that contains within it the L&I project information, the deed, the tax certificate clearance form.
We also provided notices to, I believe, 136, 163 residents in the surrounding area that would be affected by the proposal.
and that went out September 18, 2023, also informing them of the RCO meeting that was
scheduled for October 12th. With regard to this property, it was acquired in a non-conforming
state. It was previously used as a tavern, though it was zoned RCA 5. The proposed use
is to reduce the request from a seven unit to a six unit multi-purpose family
occupation for residential purposes. It's currently zoned for residential purposes.
So the request essentially is that it continue to be used for residential purposes, but just allow
for multifamily. There is a scenario where the actual footprint of the building would not be
modified or changed in any way. However, the modification from a tavern, which it was currently
used, it's actually uninhabitable at the present state. It's a large dilapidated building, but was
previously used as a tavern in order to have that function as it's currently zoned would
present a hardship to the owner. I do have Devin Looney, the project engineer, and I'd like to have
him attend and participate if he could raise his hand virtually so that he could be admitted. We
can present that portion of the presentation okay chair devon looney has been allowed to speak
sir could you state your name and spell please for the court stenographer yes mr chair my name
is devon looney d-e-v-o-n-l-o-n-e-y do you swear or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do please proceed counsel thank you good afternoon mr looney can you please
provide your training and background for the benefit of the board? Yes. I am a professional
engineer licensed in the state of PA amongst other states, and we perform the building design
and co-compliant layout for the proposed use. I have a photograph on my screen, and it depicts
both 6103 and 6101 Callowhill Street. Do you see it? Yes, I do. Okay. And this is the
building for which you prepared plans to modify it to a multi-unit apartment. Is that correct?
Yes, that's correct. And the vantage point is basically front-facing
that we're seeing the photographs of, correct? Correct, from Callowhill Street.
Okay, thank you. And I'm showing a photograph that shows a direction facing down Callahill Street, facing the left of the building. Can you see that?
Yes, correct.
And that is a fair and accurate depiction of the existing structure at that location, correct?
Yes, it is.
And this would be facing the other direction, facing the right side of Callahill Street, is that correct?
That's correct. I'm going to go to the plans that you've prepared. Can you please describe the plans that you've prepared?
Yes. Is it they're rotated on the screen? Is it possible to rotate them?
Okay. Let me work on it clockwise, 90 degrees. There we go. Thank you.
Okay, so what we're looking at here is 6101 Collar Hill. This is the building that is on the corner of 61st Street and Collar Hill. As Ms. McCoy mentioned.
Um, as Ms. McCoy, uh, mentioned the existing use of the property or the pre the last known use was as a tavern.
Um, so the entire first floor as of now is dilapidated.
It is completely wide open.
Um, it requires structural repair amongst, um, also being fit out for, for any type of use.
So what we've proposed, based on what Ms. Jones requested, is a multifamily structure with six dwelling units.
We have two units on each floor.
The total is a three-story building, which gives us our six units.
There are no units proposed for the basement, but the basement will be used as a common space for tenants of the building.
Each unit does meet the minimum requirements per the 2018 IBC for space, for dimensional requirements, also for ADA access on the first floor.
As you can see from the first floor plan, both of those units are ADA accessible, and those will be assessed directly from Collar Hill Street via an accessible ramp.
each unit will of course have bathroom and kitchen facilities as well as a washer and dryer
and an open sleeping space for a total of six efficiency units although the footprint of the
building is not changing we are extending the third floor to match the limits of the existing
first and second floor. That is what generated that second
refusal for the proposed area.
This, of course, was done to get as many
units as possible into the building without overcrowding it or
without exceeding the requirements of the building code.
Excuse me, Mr. Loney, this is Hillary Emerson
board counsel. So the refusals that I saw for this
project were for a change of use only to seven dwelling units now six are being requested
um there was no mention of any construction um and i didn't see any refusals for area no plans
were reviewed from what i could tell this was change in use only so if there's any additions
proposed that would need a separate zoning application you cannot add that to a change
use application I don't know if there was another refusal that I'm not aware of but at least the
refusal that I saw for for this application were for change of use only no additions for both
properties okay I will um have to speak with the owner concerning that initially we were
planning on doing a uh an addition on that third floor but if that's not within what's in the
current application, then I would have to agree for six-family use. We need to modify the plans
you see on the screen. However, the layouts of the interior of the building aren't part of the
refusal is mainly just for the proposed number of dwelling units. All right. And perhaps Ms. McCoy
could speak to this if if there were multiple applications it's possible that maybe the one
the wrong one was appealed because this is the this is the application that was appealed
so sometimes there is confusion if there is multiple applications
so you may just want to to check on check on that we'll do
we'll proceed um the hillary can we go on
yes mr chair we can consider the change of use um but i just wanted to be to be clear that there
is no construction as part of the what what's before the board today okay thank you for either
property okay so what i'm showing is the um plan that shows the footprint for the building so the
intended use as a multi-family residential use would not change the footprint. I believe that's
what your testimony was? That's correct. And I do believe there may be an issue with multiple
applications here, Tamika, so I'm not sure if you'd like to continue this. Yeah, we're going to
continue um for purposes of the use and the information that you provided essentially was
that um the current footprint would not change um there may be another application regarding
the construction so we're not going to talk about that um with regard to the intended use
With regard to the intended use, would there be a detrimental impact to the community with the changes that are contemplated in the plans that you designed?
would there be a detrimental
instrumental in
No, we don't believe so. As you mentioned before, the existing building is going to remain. And as far as the number of units, just for the sheer size of the building, we believe that having six single occupied units would be about the same occupancy as you would as a single family home of this size.
just because it'll likely be a five or six bedroom home anyway. So we don't see that this
project really impacts the density in the area or anything of that nature. Okay. And recognizing
that the two properties are attached to one another 6301 and 6303, would there be a negative
impact to light or air with the proposed modifications? There were not. The existing
views that you see from Collar Hill and 61st will remain the same. Okay. And is the structure fully
capable of handling the intended use? The shell, the backbone of the structure, the shell, the
masonry walls, things of that nature are capable. There is structural work required within the
building, but that, of course, will be on the building permit application.
Okay, thank you very much for your contribution to the presentation.
Yep, problem.
Was that the same? Is his the same presentation for the other project, too?
Or just yes, yes, it is.
And I would also like to present Miss Eloise Jones.
Ms. Jones, if you're in the virtual audience, please raise your hand.
Eloise Jones has been unmuted and allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell it for the court stenographer?
Good afternoon, Eloise J. Jones, E-L-O-I-S-E-J-A-Y-J-O-N-E-S.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Good afternoon, Ms. Jones. Did you hear the information that was provided to the board by myself and the project engineer, Mr. Looney?
I did.
And would you adopt the statements as true and accurate?
Yes, I will.
And there's one additional caveat I'd like to add.
It's my understanding that you grew up in the current area where you acquired 6101 and 6103
Callahill. Is that correct? Yes. And it's my understanding that your mom had once
worked or was an employee of the tavern that had previously operated at the current location. Is
that correct? Yes, in 1969. So in 1969, she worked there? Yeah, we lived next door at the other
building. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Your presentation? With that, I would submit regarding
the presentation. I would like to add, though, that there is no detrimental impact to converting
a dilapidated building to multi-unit housing. The current zoning is for residential. The
intended use is for residential. We're just asking for the variance to allow for multi-families to
occupy the actual premises. It's my understanding that the area is one where the community is in
need of affordable housing, and this would satisfy that need. And it would pose a tremendous
hardship to the owner to convert it to a single family residence. It would be financially
difficult for them to be able to do that and continue to operate. And so that's why
The request is for the multi-unit residents to be approved.
And so that's the request.
And I would submit on that.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
One brief comment, Mr. Chair.
If you decide to approve these applications, we would want to add a proviso stating a maximum
um stating a maximum of six dwelling units since seven is what is listed on the refusals thank you
of six dwelling units since seven is what is listed on.
right um questions or comments from the virtual audience
i see no hands chair planning commission thank you chairman and good afternoon david
duckto with the city planning commission and chairman i'll give testimony for both the
properties at the same time the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential
single-family zoning at this location there is no hardship that would require seven dwelling or i
should say six dwelling units since that's been amended there are two row houses on a primarily
single-family block we could see two dwelling units in each building one in the former commercial
space and one in the two floors above so the city planning commission recommends the board grant
the proposed use variants for multi-family dwellings but with a maximum of two dwelling
units in each building for a total of four dwelling units across the two buildings
Counsel, do you want to respond at all?
Well, I would like to reserve the opportunity to address the other construction application that may be floating around separately.
However, if we are able to have the approval for the multifamily, ideally it would be requested that we do it with the six and with the provisio that we maybe adjoin this with the construction application.
Hillary, let's talk about the construction application.
Do we just handle this today and then have to come back with construction?
Yeah, you have to file a new and separate application for the construction, a zoning application.
If that generates a refusal, you'll have to come back separately before the board.
You cannot add construction to a change of use application.
You can, you could, if they were applied for together, that would be a different story.
But this is only change of use.
We cannot add construction.
you understand council yes okay all right so i'm going to vote these both together
so mi 2023 003 752 6103 calla hill street
and mi 2023 003 751 6101 calla hill street together i vote yes
Maximum of six units
Thomas Holloman
My vote is yes
To both with a maximum
With proviso
James Snell
My vote is yes to both
With proviso
My vote is yes with proviso
For both
Thank you
Thank you counsel
Thank you
Number six we're going to go to
MI 2023-003-760-524-26, South 52nd Street. Meredith Ferliger is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from Cobb Creek's Neighbors Association.
Councilmember Gauthier also strongly supports the special exception requested at 524 to 26 South 56th Street.
This proposal does not lead to any increased occupancy or density in the building, as the total sleeping unit count will remain the same.
Therefore, the proposal has no undue burden on the surrounding community and should be approved.
counsel could you just state your name for the record please because you've already been sworn