Do you swear or affirm that tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Please proceed.
Chair, did you want all of the testimony or just for this case?
Just for this case.
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA 5 residential single-family zoning at this location.
The city rezoned the section of Strawberry Mansion in 2014 in accord with recommendations from the comprehensive plan.
At the time, the single-family zoning at this site was left unchanged from prior to 1967.
The proposal is part of a 55-unit low-income tax credit project to be built on scattered sites.
It supports the comprehensive plan, including its Lower North District Plan's recommendation to support affordable housing developments.
The site currently contains a parking lot and playground.
The appellant proposes to split the lot to allow them to build on the parking lot where the playground will remain unchanged.
The proposed Parcel A will have 4,298 square feet, which would allow two dwelling units by right in the RSA-5 in the 5th Councilmanic District if subdivided.
The appellant also proposes no rear and side yard.
There are no homes on the 3100 block of West York Street, which the building will front, to which the character of the proposal can be compared.
The Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the proposed variance for multifamily household living, multiple principal buildings, minimum rear yard depth, and minimum side yard depth.
Thank you. MI 2024-005-135-2401 North 32nd Street, I vote yes.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes.
Iowyn, my vote is yes.
Emily Brasico, my vote is yes.
Thank you very much.
We're going to go to number two.
So number two is MI 2024-007-551-2338 North 31st Street.
um just for the record mr goldberg could you please state your name alex goldberg could you
start your presentation please sure i'm going to start just by going straight to the notice of
refusal here go full screen mode okay um so i referenced this uh specific application during
my initial testimony with miss samsi but this is the relocation of lot lines to create
one lot from two lots and to put two dwellings on it we're getting one refusal which you can
see on your screen for two family household living but these are uh you know in essence
single family homes that are built side by side they both have their own front doors
and from a massing and size uh standpoint they're contextual with lot widths and lot sizes in close
proximity i'll skip ahead to the architectural materials all of the other sort of exhibits in
between are already incorporated into the record posting photo is here let the screen catch up
there we go
here is the site plan proposing to consolidate uh this you know these these two parcels into
one parcel measuring um 1653 square feet and towards the bottom of my screen you can see that
um on that one parcel we are proposing two two-story single-family uh townhouses the floor
plans that you'll see in a moment are the same floor plans that that you just saw from the
previous presentation um this is form over substance two single-family homes could be
built here but um you know due to economies of scale and efficiency for construction's sake to
make this project work um we're proposing to sort of do it as one building um on its face but in you
know in function it is two single family homes here's the site plan from an aerial view
the building is proposed at 26 feet uh feet high the floor plans are coming up on your screen now
of them a little bit of a lag behind but as you can see um same floor plans which miss kisilev
who's still available if you need her um walked through in terms of bedroom sizes and um you know
the first floor is is that open concept kitchen living and dining room two bed one and a half
baths i believe miss kisilev said uh between 900 and 1000 square feet each and then just going to
this the tax clearance for both parcels 2338 and 2340 so um your client testified before um
So, your client testified before, and then she testified for all three, but what I would do is leave her available in case Mr. Masters has another question, okay?
But, Mr. Carey, can we just have her adopt this particular testimony that Mr. Goldberg gave for the record?
We understand that her other statements apply to the other properties as well.
Well, please, would she?
Lindsay, did you hear my testimony today?
And was it true and correct?
And do you adopt it as your own?
Do you have any questions for her?
Sam C., has your company done any environmental or crime studies about this area where you're developing these two buildings?
I'm not sure of the relevance.
Well, so.
You're saying that they can't be developed at all?
if those studies, whether those studies are done or not?
Oh, I mean, I'm asking if there was studies done.
Why don't we, Mr. Goldberg, why don't we do this?
Why don't we let her, if she knows the answer to that,
answer that question?
Yeah, as part of the financing for the project,
there is a lot of due diligence that is done,
including environmental reports and crime studies.
And do those environmental reports and crime studies,
are they written down?
Are they in documents?
Yes. Were they submitted to PHFA? Yes. Were they shared with the community?
They were not. And have they been shared with the zoning board? No.
You're consolidating two parcels, is that correct? Yes. And if you kept the two parcels
unconsolidated would this be by right my understanding is it would be and can you
can you articulate what your hardship is as to why you are not going with a by right for
configuration so in addition to cost effectiveness and constructability issues the existing lots
the width do not allow for the properly sized homes to meet the square footage requirements
that a PHFA requires.
So we were actually able to build
and accommodate larger
and more high quality units
and townhomes by consolidating them
and not having those lot line constrictions.
So if you had chosen another source of funding,
would that still be the case?
Or could you have found a funding source
that allowed you to build it by right?
We utilize the low income housing tax credit program,
which is deed-restricted affordable housing.
Aren't there multiple programs that PHFA has?
No, not for affordable rental deed-restricted housing.
So if you had chosen a home ownership model,
then you could have had a different...
Kenrose generally does not develop home ownership.
So it's a choice that you made to only develop tenants
and not home ownership.
We responded to PHA's RFP,
which is a request for a low-income housing tax credit development.
Right, but you're saying that your company doesn't do homeownership?
Not generally.
So I think we went over this before.
What her company did is respond to what PHA asked.
And I think whether it's homeownership or not, I don't know if that has a point here.
It's relevant to hardship issues.
I think she's tried to answer every question she has.
Do you have anything else for her?
I don't.
All right.
Thank you very much.
Steve, do you want to, at your start, present a case for this one?
One moment.
we we see the site plan again because um it appears that that the the plots
don't appear to be contiguous.
You want any part of it blown up, Steve?
Yeah, can you expand the photos on the bottom?
Oops, sorry.
yeah so
is that fenced an area is that both parcels or just one parcel
my understanding is that that's both parcels
Can you have the architect
Confirm that? Sure, she's here
Architect, just for the record, state your name
Vera Kisilev
Did you hear the question?
This is for both parcels
Steve, do you have any questions for her?
One moment
We are, we're looking up the on Atlas, I noticed, and it's in
it appears to be a different view like we we don't know that that is actually the correct view
council architect please we have a state we have a consolidation plan stamped by the survey
district would you like me to scroll to that slide do you want to see that sure
well the survey would show that
Arizona's on top.
There it is.
Arizona's on top and then the two
parcels are below.
Is that okay, Steve?
One more. Okay, sure.
Thank you.
Okay. All right. Thank you. All right. Yes. Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney? Chairman, I have a question. Go ahead.
um so i have a question with the two with the four units um do all four units have
shared access to the combined backyards once the parcels are combined
yeah yeah regarding the one that was voted uh the one i'm looking at right now which i think oh
no this is about the one we're looking at now it's only two it's only two side by side they're
Side-by-sides. Side-by-side house tie-in.
Got it.
Yeah, it's okay. I just wanted to check.
All right.
Is there anyone in the audience who has not spoken, has anything particular for this case?
No hands raised in the virtual audience, Mr. Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the rsa 5 residential single-family zoning at this
location the city rezoned the section of strawberry mansion in 2014 in accord with recommendations
from the comprehensive time the plan at the at this time the single-family zoning and the site
was left unchanged prior to the rezoning in 1967 this proposal is part 55 low-income housing tax
credit project which will be built on scattered sites the appellant is combining two lots into
the appellant is combining two lots into one the proposed density is in keeping with what would be
one. The proposed density is in keeping with
allowed on the lots had not been combined planning commission recommends that the board grant their
proposed use for two dwelling units so mi2024 007 551 23 38 north 31st street i vote yes
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes
Iowen, my vote is yes
Emily Presico, my vote is yes
Thank you
So we're going to go with our last one
MI 2025 001 305
2500 North 31st Street
Mr. Goldberg is the attorney
Mr. Goldberg, just for the record, state your name
Alex Goldberg
And you still have the same client. Am I correct? I do. All right. Okay. Why don't you proceed? Okay. This application includes the erection of an attached structure on a 6,325 square foot, very large lot. We're proposing 11 dwelling units here.
um importantly and as you'll see on the elevation every unit has its own front door
um so we're trying to preserve um as much of a a single family um dwelling unit you know sort
of function as possible um we are massing matching the massing and height on the block
and most importantly um what is being proposed here and which um you know i would ask my client
why don't you show it sure it would make it easier one sure sure sure sure there's the posting photo
from both corners um what i was mentioning was that this uh this development is helping us meet
our 10 affordability requirement that's getting this project off the ground um also very importantly
um this project includes a three-bedroom type a flat unit which i think is probably a very unique
type of unit in this neighborhood that gives the opportunity for a family to live in a completely
type A ADA compliant unit. You can see the elevation on your screen there. There are 10
front doors facing 31st Street, and there's an additional front door right around the corner.
We are receiving a refusal for those 11 dwelling units. The other refusal that we're receiving
is relating to utility meter screening.