could raise their hands i can name down my testimony and we can answer any questions the
board may have okay they have been allowed to speak mr seltzer yes hi could you state your
name, please, and spell for the court stenographer.
Mark Seltzer,
M-A-R-K-S-E-L-T-Z-E-R.
Right. Do you swear
or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth? Yes.
And the engineer, please,
your name? Elizabeth Norton,
E-L-I-Z-A-B-E-T-H,
N-O-R-T-O-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Mr. Seltzer, you are
the managing director at Ensemble.
MR. Correct.
MR. And you are an authorized representative of the record owner of the property?
MR. Yes.
MR. And did you hear my testimony today?
MR. Yes.
MR. And was it correct, to the best of your knowledge?
MR. Yes.
MR. And would you adopt and affirm that testimony as if it were your own?
MR. Yes.
MR. Thank you. Ms. Norton?
MR. Yes.
MR. You are the Associate Vice President of Land Development Division Manager at Pannoni?
MR. Correct.
MR. And you are the record engineer for this project?
MR. Yes.
And did you hear my testimony today?
I did.
Was it correct to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt it as if for your own?
Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further questions for the witnesses.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Chair.
No, Chair.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
No, Haines, Chair.
planning commission
good afternoon chair peter bernard for the planning commission
the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing cmx3 commercial mixed use at this
location we feel the application has demonstrated a hardship accordingly the planning commission
recommends the board grant the variance thank you just just a clarification this is a special
exception for me i'm sorry it's just a special exception just want to clarify that for the record
mi2023-003-725-1 crescent drive i vote yes thomas holliman my vote is yes
jane snell my vote is yes yes my vote is yes thank you counsel thank you for your time all
All right, we're going to go to number 16, MI 2023, 004191, 1807 Pine Street.
Sean Whalen is the attorney, and we also have another attorney who's representing a neighbor.
So could they both come back on, please?
Yes, I will promote now, Chair.
Proud.
they have both been promoted
mr whalen could you state your name and please and spell for the word sonographer
mr whalen could you state your name and please and spell for the words and
certainly sean whalen w-h-a-l-e-n from vintage law here on behalf of the applicant and owner
of 1807 pine street and i um you've already been sworn earlier
and the counsel for the neighbor please identify yourself
I'm Krista Stafkiewicz from Eckert-Siemann, sharing him a lot.
Okay, and you've already been sworn.
I would note there's a letter of support from the Center City Residents Association.
And Mr. Whale, why don't you start?
Thank you very much, Chair.
The Vice Chair has a few questions. I'm sorry.
Of course.
good afternoon council do you agree to wait the reading of the refusal and stipulate towards
accuracy yes i do have emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that are
needed and required to proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing
yes i have thank you please proceed share your screen thank you very much
so just quickly um i can't tell what you're viewing can you see a uh an aerial map a map
that has um yeah perfect okay all right so as i stated i'm here on behalf of the owner and the
applicant of 1807 pine street that's where this uh big red blob is fronts on pine street and all
these properties on Pine Street go all the way back to this very narrow alley-like street called
Panama Street. This building right here is the existing frontage. We would note there's no change
to the frontage or to the overall height. We did get a height refusal, but that's only for this
existing height at the frontage of over 50 feet. There is nothing else proposed that is coming
close to the 50-foot height. This is in the rear. This is a better photo. You can see this is along
Panama Street down here. There is a single car garage entrance with a curb cut and a pedestrian
walkway entrance, both with, you know, a one-story addition here. There's another three-story addition
here. This is all
100% lot coverage, and this is proposed to be
demolished in the rear and rebuilt. Essentially, the condition you will
see is the same condition as is right next
to us. This is 1805 Pine Street.
That condition was granted a variance for
the 100% lot coverage and fully built out at the third floor.
This, again, you can see, and I assume it will come up.
The property to the right of this screen is 1809 Pine Street.
That is who is represented by council today.
They are set back.
They have a third three-story building there as well.
Both properties are set back and have windows on the side.
Our property would be, as I said, continuing this iteration from 1805, and we would have a large window well cutout extending much of the distance and leaving light and air for 1809.
So again, you can just see this is the 1805 property that is fully built out. The only
difference is we will have a narrower garage and continue to have a single door for pedestrian
entrance. This is that Panama Street that I was describing. On the left is the rear of the homes
that front on Delancey. On the right is the rear of the homes that front onto Pine Street. So again,
it's sort of an alleyway condition in the rear but as you can see both here go look this is looking
east and then here looking west there is almost an entirely garage-like atmosphere in the rear
with virtually every property being a hundred percent built out and those that are not a hundred
percent built out similar to the next door neighbor are built out almost a hundred percent with two-car
parking in the rear. You can see this condition a few times. So we did go before CCRA twice in fact.
We went for the first time in September and they voted to oppose the project. Their opposition
and they voted to oppose the project. Their opposition was related to basically protecting
the light and air of the current residents at 1809, the next door neighbor, and therefore they
asked us. We had proposed a four-story rear addition, and they requested that we reduce
that to a three-story rear addition, and therefore they agreed to host us again for a second meeting
last night, and they voted not to oppose. So they changed their position upon our submission of
revised plans. We submitted revised plans, one page, and a proviso plan form indicating that
reduction of the rear addition, and those are in the package. So again, just to give you an idea,
This is an aerial view. Here's 1807 Pine. This full existing building and frontage, this is the 50-foot frontage. That's going to remain untouched. That's what's facing on Pine Street.
It's this rear portion that will be demolished, and we are seeking to put eight units in. There
are four units currently. We're seeking to put eight units in, add elevator, and full ADA
accessibility. It's our understanding that this would be the first ADA accessible building
on the entire block. And I should note here that the number of units is wholly contextual.
So there are actually seven units at 1808, 1809, 1814, 1815, 1817, 1819, 1820, and 1826.
and there are nine units at 1801 and 1810.
So there's a similar condition of multi-
Mr. Well, one point.
Go ahead.
I don't show currently three dwelling units.
You said four.
Sorry, I believe I misspoke.
Oh, that's fine.
That's fine.
Just check.
I will double check that with my client right now,
but I believe it, I thought it was four,
but if it's three, then it is three.
Thank you.
So, again here, this is our property in the rear. As you can see, existing three-story addition. This will all be demolished and will become a three-story replacement addition.
we also received so we received a very a refusal for height that height again is the existing
condition of the front of this of our property that's unchanged and we're not going up to that
height with the proposed addition then we received a refusal for 100 lot coverage and
that is an existing condition at the property currently and we are actually reducing that
because we will have 135 square foot light well that will be adjacent to 1809 here,
the individual who's represented by council today.
So we will be maintaining, you can see kind of there's an alleyway-esque atmosphere
in between the two properties.
Obviously, any property can build out to the property line,
but when these two were built, these two rear portions were built,
they were set back in order to afford the opportunity for windows.
So again, this is just more evidence you can see were set back.
This rearmost portion would be built out to our property line, which is the cinder blocks.
The whole portion where you see from about 16, 17 feet from this full height of the front building
all the way out down along here will be the open atmosphere airway.
And then here, I apologize, this aerial view came out a little squiggly,
but this was just to show this is what CCRA wanted.
So we had proposed that this rear addition would be four stories,
which we felt was contextual.
Again, you can see from looking up and down the block,
there are a lot of four-story buildings there.
However, CCRA at its first meeting felt that in order to, you know, kind of look out for this building at 1809 and its interests, even though they were not represented at the September meeting, they asked us to reduce the height proposed for our rear addition, and we did so.
So again, this is the one page of revised plans that you have in front of you.
revised plans that you have in front of you. And I will just call your attention to, so we're
And...
maintaining the curb cut and this will be where that pedestrian entryway is.
We have a new elevator going in. Again, we believe will be the first fully accessible ADA
property on the block. And this is that large lightwell. It's actually 20 feet long.
And this is, I should be clear, this is 1809 to the left. So we flipped orientation. So this is
where the alleyway is right now that has sort of setback on both sides. Obviously, we don't have
to set back on our side. Everyone's allowed to, again, build to the property line. But we thought
that it was a better design to set it back there. Again, just so that the board is clear,
we submitted a proviso plan form with a single change to reduce the proposed rear addition from
four stories to three stories. Again, these are the, whatchamacallit, here are the refusals that
I've already walked through. We could use a permitted five units. We are proposing eight
units, and I will use it this time. So five units are permitted by right with no bonuses.
Seven units are permitted by right with bonuses. We are seeking eight units, which we believe is
least minimum variance because we are already proposing very large, roughly 1,000 square foot
plus two-bedroom units. And in order to, you know, if we were to reduce the unit count,
we would be increasing those unit sizes really to difficult rental numbers as is.
I mean, we are proposing, likely to propose a three-unit building unit on the very first floor
fronting on Delancey. That will be, you know, sorry, three-bedroom unit fronting on Delancey,
which will be very large. And I should note that the zoning district is RM1.
So this is multifamily and that's what we're seeking to continue.
Now, I know that there, you know, an issue has already been raised with regard to notice.
So I will unfortunately take the time to walk through this. September 5th, the mailing was
sent out with regard to the CCRA meeting at the end of the month. That meeting was, that letter
was sent out to 130 addresses. This is their certificate of mailing. You can see at line 108
here, it was sent to 1809 Pine Street, the next door neighbor who's represented today.
At all times, this is a screenshot from 1807 Pine in the Atlas site.
At all times, this has represented the variance request and refusals.
And the property has been fully posted in the front.
This is the front of the property and the rear of the property.
this is our property over here. So again, just to go back, CCRA held us, you know, agreed to have a
second meeting if we could meet their conditions. We did so. We believe that we have a hardship here
because while we can, because, and I do recall where I conflated the three and four units,
I apologize, board chair. It is three units. Even if we were to buy right, build out this property, and we could do so fully out to the property line, we would have to make an ADA accessible unit because we'd be going, even at buy right, at four stories, we'd have to have a fully accessible buy right unit.