condition of the property that prevented from being used conforming with the parking requirements of
the code front-loaded driveways is inappropriate at this location particularly may block therefore
we recommend request advance not be granted thank you um mr faris i think what i want to do is
sit and talk to the other board members next wednesday we'll vote on this next wednesday at
2 p.m okay uh can i say one thing further you you can sir uh just as a as a note i do own this
property and i have no intentions of ever building a structure on it so um without the parking spot
it would continue to always be an open vacant block okay all right thank you very much sir
thank you and thank you and the record is closed mr chair record is definitely closed
here we're going to go dear two so we're going to go to we'll do number two and number four
at the same time mi 2023 002 653 2750 north broad street zen jin is the attorney and number four
is MI-2023-002-687-2750
North Broad Street.
Zen is also the attorney there.
Both of these requests
have a letter of non-opposition
from Allegheny West.
Good evening.
You've already been sworn,
could you identify your client
and their relationship to this property?
Yes, my client is
West Broad Associates
uh west broad associates llc uh ww broad associates llc uh mr ivan way uh is the
LLC, WW Broad
Associates LLC.
representative from the llc that's going to be with us here today and our our vice chair has just
good afternoon council do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy
i do have you emailed then all the required documents and exhibits that is needed to
received the case five days in advance of this hearing i did thank you please proceed and share
your screen thank you i'm going to share with the board what was submitted previously
there are two refusals both for the same property i want to clarify that one refusal is for four of
the units which we will see on the plans it's unit one through four they're individually asked to be
restaurants under that refusal and the second refusal is for unit five which is actually the
lower level of the building and that is a auto repair business so i'm going to go ahead and
start with unit one through four and then we will go to unit five as a second part of our presentation
so this is an application for use as a restaurant in four different tenant spaces in the building
27 north broad 27 50 north broad street is zoned i1 which it's industrial zoning what this building
is and i'm going to jump to photographs because it's probably clear to look at the photos to
understand what we're talking about here this is a large former industrial structure on the corner
of west somerset and north broad street this entire structure including the back area here
all belongs to the same building.
The building was at one point
some kind of industrial factory.
However, it has been vacant by,
I believe my client's estimate
and neighbor's confirmation
somewhere around 30, 40 years.
It might've been vacant for,
it has not been used in an industrial format
for as long as many people can remember.
At this point,
North Broad Street is becoming
a commercial corridor.
and my client is trying to revitalize this building in phases.
This is the beginning of the revitalization.
He has done some repairs required to first make the building safe
because it was unsafe when he acquired it.
Now he is trying to get commercial spaces put in at the front of the building
facing Broad Street.
These are the five spaces that we're here before the board for.
one two three and four unit one to four that we're looking for small restaurant uses and then
this is the entrance to the lower level where unit five would be for the purpose of auto repair
the plans can better show just how little of the building we're really talking about with unit one
through four i'm going to zoom in a little bit but you can see that this is the portion of the
building this each one of these is one of the units so this is unit one through four they all
have their own separation from the rest of the building which actually runs a substantial amount
deeper into somerset street we're trying to at least start phase one of the revitalization of
this building by starting these units and these units if allowed and completed would be completely
separated by wall and further space from Unit 5, the automotive use, so that they would not
in any way interfere with each other, both from a safety standpoint and also from an environmental
standpoint. The restaurant uses are small restaurants with one tenant already looking to
move into the space that my client has been in negotiation with, and the additional spaces he's
negotiation with other potential tenants so we know that at least one unit immediately would
be occupied and will be started should the board permit the use north broad street at this area
is still in between development it's not quite up and running as a as a lot of commercial uses
nearby are still not really supporting the neighborhoods in the area most of them are
car washes and those kind of auto there are other auto repair shops further down the street but
the restaurants were actually well received as a proposal with the neighborhood and the neighbor
that did show up to the meeting the so these four would be individually numbered as units however
they're all part of the front of the building trash would be stored inside and removed from
Somerset Street as needed. There are no operating hours at this point because some of these are
still currently vacant. However, the corner property would be occupied and would run as a restaurant.
However, the corner property would be occupied and would run as a restaurant.
We have agreed as part of speaking with the community group and also neighbor feedback that additional lighting would be provided.
That essentially the biggest concern in the area has been safety.
uh the these the building being large covering a large part of street additional lighting would
bring an additional activity would bring greater safety to that corner uh that being said i would
like to move on to the second uh refusal which is the automotive repair that is uh in unit 5
so to better understand unit 5 unit 5 is actually going to take majority of what is the
lower level of the building so this part will be the entrance to unit 5 along with a driveway
to understand scale the vehicle two vehicles can actually go side by side inside the driveway
and then the actual work would be done further down in the building in the back where the lifts
are so there's substantial amount of storage space here for vehicles um this this is a decent
representation of how small vehicle would look within the hallway but um when we were at the
actual meeting the operator of the business that that is trying to open indicated he can actually
get three vehicles side by side as needed within that drive aisle towards where he can have the
cars worked on everything will be deep inside the building and the building actually sinks down so
it is a ramp that you drive into that goes down towards the back of the building which is actually
lower than the area here and that is the area where the automotive repair would take place
there's a complete dividing masonry wall and again additional space an actual open hallway
and staircase and space that separates the automotive use from the restaurants so they
would have no interaction or interference with each other when it comes to the uses so the to
give the board a better idea of how that looks here's the um the hallway i'm going to zoom in
little bit so it's easier to see so this is the driveway this is where cars are tend to be stored
the working areas are actually recessed within here and there's a lot of there are actually a
lot of extra space that can be in addition used for vehicle parking if needed again this is a
starting the business trying to move in they try to start and then they realize that the
The zoning wasn't permitted, so right now everything stopped and is shut down and waiting for this case to move forward.
So we've had the inspector has been down there to look at the tire removal and tire storage.
And because of the amount of space available, the tires can be spread out, therefore not causing the kind of fire hazards a pile of tire being shoved into a small space would cause.
And the inspector, the fire inspector has been in working with the tenant on making sure that is not going to be an issue moving forward.
So we have basically been able to work with the fire inspector and also explain this to neighbors.
and they understand that with the space inside there won't be the typical issue of a lot of cars
gathering out on the sidewalks where other auto shops up and down north broad street have
been found to have done where they leave cars outside so because of all these reasons and
because of the size of the building we received again no opposition from the coordinating rco
or the neighbor regarding the application and our request.
I want to point out that we actually did have two meetings.
So the initial meeting, which was mailed and notified to everyone,
including the various RCOs that are involved,
that meeting, no neighbor actually showed up.
And because of that, the coordinating RCO was not comfortable making a decision
So they asked us as applicants to come back for a second meeting, and they also reached out to the council office, and we coordinated a second meeting where both they, the RCO, and Mike.
and we coordinated a second meeting where both they the rco and my client went and flyer the
neighborhood to try to get more notification and reaction from the immediate neighbors and
neighbors within the area on the list and even with all that effort i think only very few
neighbors actually showed up to the actual meeting the surrounding area does have some residential
properties. However, the aerial photo shows that majority
of the residents are actually across Broad Street, and
within reach of the building, a block radius, there are very few
active use households. So
with that, and with the non-opposition of the RCO,
the coordinating RCO, and the intrinsic hardship that this building
really isn't suitable at this point for heavy industrial
use, we would ask for the board's favorable review of this application
and grant the requested variances. I am happy to
answer any questions. Can you have your client here to accept your tone or adopt your testimony?
I believe Mr. Ivan Wei should be in the audience. Ivan, can you raise your hand
on Zoom to be identified? I'm going to stop sharing
so that I can see.
Ivan Wei, can you please unmute?
yes can you hear me hi sir sir could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer
yes uh my name is ivan i-v-a-n uh last name is w-e-i way or also called sound from way x-i-a-n-g-f-e-n-g
last name w-e-i way you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
yeah i do proceed counsel thank you ivan um did you see my presentation and also hear my
testimony before the zoning board yes can you verify what i have represented is true and correct
and adopted as your own testimony yes and in addition can you also further verify what i
stated about the number of meetings and the fact that you had went out to flyer the neighbors that
is all true and correct yes we actually paid the third party to drop all the flyers to door by door
and that's after you already paid for the mailing which we did for the first meeting correct
that was for the second meeting only yep thank you questions from the board
no mr chairman no chair no chair questions or comments from our attorney hillary emerson
uh just a quick question um mr jim um does your client want provisos specifying that the uses are
for particular units i i think the two so the first refusal was for unit one and one to four
actually states for four separate i don't believe we need provisos it is already clear on the uh
refusal itself okay that is fine thank you thank you comments from the virtual audience
yes chair i believe that swan poodle i will allow to speak yeah
hello hello i'm adrian fernandez again swan poodle neighborhood process association rco
please proceed you've already been sworn yes um for both addressed for both zoning permits
and both um meeting ids um we sent a request for continuance um there was no compliant meeting
even when the applicant attorney spoke he never gave dates of meetings at all also um
And there's eight affected RCOs on this address.
For any address, RCO coordinators are assigned per address, and RCO coordinators are equal to all other RCOs.
There is no hierarchy amongst RCOs.
So he's speaking as if he can just talk to Allegheny West Foundation, who never follows the zoning code and the instructions and the RCO notice.
They never follow the instructions.
And he can just ignore the other seven RCOs who know nothing about this project at all.
All we received was three emails from, I believe it was Linda Trong, a staff member of his, and she said she couldn't get in touch with Allegheny West Foundation for a meeting.
Allegheny West Foundation, against the rules and instructions and the zoning code, they never communicated any scheduling or plans with the other RCOs as required so we could plan a meeting.
We have no meeting summary form. We have no floor plans, no site plans. We have nothing.
In a case like this, some of the RCOs would probably have wanted to make a site visit.
The project information forms that are completed have misinformation and incomplete information.
There's no explanation for traffic to these four restaurants at one location.
traffic to these four restaurants at one location and also there's tires there which people in the
neighborhood are not trying to go back to having a lot of tire businesses. We had no opportunity
to even discuss that or to find out what the applicant is presenting because we have no
information about this project. We're asking that this be continued and that the remaining
seven affected RCOs out of the eight affected RCOs, and 143 addresses. Most of them are houses,
some of them are businesses, that our rights be maintained to have public meetings before the
public hearing about development in our neighborhood. There is a conflict also with
Allegheny West Foundation, who served as coordinator, because they are a developer,
and they're doing favors for other developers, hoping that they can get favors when they need
them and they do this consistently adrian listen adrian listen one minute have you talked to
allegheny west about any of this we knew nothing about any of this i'm trying to explain to you
that we had three emails from linda tron who did write us all so she can write all the rcos we can
also receive notices of public meeting by email she wrote us three times i put that in the um
request for continuous because she did write us three times sorry she wrote allegheny west
foundation but she copied everybody else so that ability is there for her to do that when she's
trying to get a meeting date which she should do then allegheny west foundation has a duty
inside of the rco notice and by section 14-303 e1 to consult with all affected but adrian just
just for the point of information this is not the only time you've told us about allegheny west
they do this repeatedly and we have proof of it so we're talking about it today because um you know
i tried to call some of your rcos but we many times have time to talk on the phone none of them
mentioned this address because we didn't even know that meetings were being planned we're supposed
to be involved in the planning part of the meeting per section 14 303 e1 and they want to ignore this
all the time i have numerous writings where i've informed them um excuse me mr chair and excuse me
miss fernandez um i so i i understand that this is a very frustrating situation for you but the
zoning board does not does not oversee the rcos they are overseen by the planning commission so
you really need to direct your right so so the board is right miss fernandez please let me finish
um so the the board's concern here is one that the meeting occurred and two you know whether