separation in this block. You may be able to see this small alley that separates the three-story
from the predominantly two-story structures. This is important because the district plan for this
area did recommend a rezoning, but that district plan identified that rezoning as being necessary
to preserve the existing single family, which again largely only exists on the eastern half
of this block on the east side of this alley division.
Across the street, you'll see a few structures that face in a northern direction on Mantua
Avenue.
And again, if you look towards North 42nd Street, you'll glean that half of this block really largely remains vacant, while the north side of the street has become more recently developed.
And again, you can see the zoning posters that were timely posted also in the exhibit packet here.
And you'll notice that there is a fairly steep incline as you lead up to this lot.
Looking at the zoning map at Exhibit 5, you'll see that this property is now zoned RSA 5.
As I alluded to earlier, and as I did include in the packet at Exhibit 9,
this property and the block were subject of a rezoning that occurred in 2023.
that re-zoned this block from RM1 to RSA5 while leaving the corners at North 41st Street and
North 42nd Street, zone CMX2. Directly behind the property is zoned I2, which largely accommodates
the rail lines and that use. And then across the street, really on 42nd Street, but on a portion
of this block you'll see where some of the rm1 was preserved the rezoning was supported by the
The rezoning was supported by the district plan which identified a rezoning here as being
district plan which identified a rezoning
necessary to preserve the existing single family. However, as the board has seen and will continue
to see during this presentation, the long-standing single family warranting of preservation
is largely on the eastern half of this block heading up towards North 41st Street.
The proposal for 4153 Mantua Avenue is shown on the zoning plans at Exhibit 6 and includes one
new three-story structure to blend with the existing three-story structures on either side.
Like its neighbors, this structure would be made of brick with a front porch and stone along the
base. And again, the goal here was to really try and match the aesthetics to what is on either
side of this property in terms of existing aesthetics. The building will contain four
dwelling units. In the rear, the building narrows to accommodate rear steps leading towards the
lower level, which is predominantly above grade, which you can see on these elevations here.
From the rear, you'll also notice that the narrowed structure design allows for maximum window coverage and light and air into all of the units.
A roof deck will be provided, which will be separated into two separate private roof deck spaces for the two upper level units.
Floor plans are also now shown at Exhibit 7.
I'll zoom out so you can get a better sense overall, and I'll zoom in if you have any specific questions.
Each of these units, each of the four units are large bi-level units with two units spanning the first floor and lower level and two units comprising the second and third floor.
The lower level units are both 709 and 761 square feet with one bedroom, two bathrooms and ample living space.
As with the other units, you'll notice that there are designated interior ventilated trash storage areas within each of these units.
On the third and fourth floor, there are two more units, again, very large units of 799 and 931 square feet, each with two bedrooms and two bathrooms.
So a really nice mix of unit types.
These two units, as I mentioned earlier, would both have their own private roof decks.
In consideration of the rail lines in the rear, my client has already planned for higher quality windows that have superior sound proofing.
We did include a cross-section photograph of the windows that he plans to use in these exhibits, and my client, Serge, can answer any questions that you have about these particular windows.
but they are designed to be of a higher quality to ensure that the sound is adequately buffered
from the rail lines. Now, regarding the refusal, the proposal only received one refusal for the
proposed multifamily use. No dimensional variances are requested, and the structure is proposed to
be shorter than the code would allow, further to this developer's goal of remaining consistent
with the adjacent structures in terms of both height and aesthetics. The applicant submits
to a multifaceted hardship given the history of the property, the remarkably unfortunate timing
of my client's purchase, as well as the character of the western half of this block on which this
property sits. Starting first with the history, and I'll bring up exhibit 11. Historically speaking,
the lot at 4153 Mantua Avenue was used as a multifamily dwelling with three units dating
all the way back to the 1930s. It appears from the history that the former multifamily dwelling
was likely demolished sometime around the early 2000s. And again, you can see this historical
multifamily use captured throughout the history of this property. And I did try and highlight that
just to direct your eye. Furthermore, as I've shown throughout the presentation, this block is
largely split in terms of use. At exhibit 10, zoom back in, you'll see a visual representation of this
split showing the nearly exclusively multifamily use of the existing or newly constructed structures
leading up towards north 42nd street. All of these newly constructed structures are four units
with the corner being seven units plus a commercial space. Even across
with the corner being seven units plus a commercial space.
Even across the street from this property is an existing three-family dwelling,
which backs up to a recently approved 16-family dwelling.
A few structures down to the east is also one outlier four-unit dwelling,
which sits among the remaining single-family, predominantly two-story homes.
And again, you can see the real natural division here.
you can see that alley that I referenced in this overhead aerial view.
The historical use of this lot and the block is consistent with this proposal.
Aside from the historical multifamily use, erecting a new single-family home on this lot
would represent a deviation from the predominantly multifamily dwellings that currently exist and
have been recently constructed on this block and in the immediately surrounding neighborhood.
The proposed four units will represent a natural blend of the predominantly multifamily residential uses on the western half of the block and is further consistent with the historical multifamily use that existed here.
In addition to the historical use and the context of the surrounding structures, the unfortunate timing here also warrants this board granting relief.
As I mentioned earlier, Serge entered the sheriff's sale process by conducting due diligence in the months leading up to the September sale.
At that time, the city map still reflected this lot as being zoned RM1, which would have allowed for a four-unit development by right.
By the time the sheriff's office delivered his deed in January of 2024, which would have been the first time he even had authority to do anything with this property,
The maps were then finally updated, and Serge learned the unfortunate circumstances.
At that point, his investment had been turned upside down, given not only the fact that it was RM1, but especially in light of all of the other evidence that you've heard today that renders a new single-family structure on this block not viable, particularly given the proximity to the rail lines in the rear.
We submit that the proposed number of units is also the least minimum, as this density is consistent with the density of surrounding structures.
Additionally, four units are most appropriate for the interior layout of this structure and is not overbuilt from a dimensional perspective to accommodate this proposed density.
Furthermore, these units are varied in size and type to accommodate a wider range of rental price points and tenant preferences.
In terms of the community, this project was first assigned to a local RCO who was unresponsive to our attempts at contacting them over the course of many months.
The council office tried their hand as well, but was unsuccessful.
Eventually, as you now know, the councilwoman's office offered to arrange and hold the meeting, which did occur on October 7th.
However, despite sending out notices nearly a month in advance, no local residents attended.
We did include our notices and we also did include the certificates of mailing
in our exhibit packet just so you can get a sense of the volume of mailings that were sent out and
you can see the date here. It was sent just under a month prior to the meeting. In an effort to try
connect with some local neighbors. Serge visited neighboring properties over the last month and was
fortunately able to secure five signatures in support of the proposal from neighbors directly
on Mantua Avenue. We do submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors properties,
or impair light and air. The structure was designed to align with the existing character of the three
story brick structures on the block, and a more detailed analysis is provided in the memo of law
submitted to the board at Exhibit 12. And as always, I'm very happy to touch on any particular
point in more detail. At this point, I'd like to bring up my client, Serge Masalanikov,
if the administrator could look for him in the audience.
They've been allowed to speak.
hi sir could you could you could you state your name and spell for the stenographer
my name is sergey maslenica s-e-r-g-e-y and the last name is m-a-s-l-e-n-n-i-k-o-e
we're a firm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do please proceed counsel thank you um serge have you heard all of the testimony and evidence
that I offered in front of the board today.
Yes, I did.
Would you agree that testimony was true and accurate
and would you adopt it as if it were your own?
Yes. Was there anything else that you wanted to add?
Was there anything else that you wanted to add?
I mean, a few things you brought up. It's about the windows I'm planning to use on this building.
I mean...
I've been having success with this tilt and turn design windows, which present in great construction, high quality PVC, multi-chamber window with a steel frame.
These windows, as per manufacturer, provide very high sound installation, up to 45 decibel, which is very quiet.
And also the R value, the installation value of these windows is extremely good, which is going to create a good environment inside the building and low bills for the potential tenants.
and also in terms of the design as you mentioned i plan to use uh mostly brick like not mostly
like 100 break on the facade to match the existing uh existing buildings uh to the right to the left
we have a vacant lot and this way to to to blend in and also i wanted to put the position the
windows and the facade, same style
as a neighboring
building. That's pretty much
it. Thank you. Happy
to answer any questions. Questions
from the board.
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Amberson?
No, I'm back,
Mr. Chair. Oh, she's back.
But no, I do not have any
questions at this time. Thank you.
these are comments from the virtual audience um i do not see any further hands mr chair
planning commission thank you chairman and good morning david effecta with the city planning
commission chairman and board members the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the
rsa5 residential single family zoning at this location the city changed the zoning maps in
belmont in 2023 and a community requested map change there is no unique physical condition
or circumstances of this property that were prevented from being used in conformance with
the zoning code city planning commission recommends that the board deny the proposed
use variance for four dwelling units thank you mi2024 003 533 4153 manchua avenue i vote yes
my vote is yes oh gaston my vote is yes senator graham my vote is yes
my vote is no ishmael shaheed my vote is yes thank you counsel thank you
Number 16, MI 2024-003-742-5499, Quinton Street.
Vern Anastasio is the attorney.
There's a letter of opposition from Wissahickon Interested Citizens Association.
22 opposed.
It'll be rejoining as a panelist.
Sorry, sir.
good morning morning miss anastogio you have already been sworn um could you identify your
client the relationship to this property yes my client is mr fadid to files he is the owner of
the property question our vice chair has a few questions good morning council do you agree to
the reading of the refusal or stipulate to its accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required
documents and exhibits that's needed to proceed in this case five days in advance of this hearing
yes sir thank you counsel please proceed you already shared your screen
okay i have a uh 69 page exhibit packet here
first i wanted to share
everything seems to be blank
i'm going to close this out and try again mr chair my apologies
Thank you.
Just one second, please.
Here we go.
okay so we have signatures uh from about 35 neighbors all from the block and from the
immediate area all within the the immediate impacted uh community the vote uh at the rco
meeting does not reflect any of the the uh preferences of any of the immediate neighbors
so i did want to make sure that that was um shown first
also that the property is uniquely situated it is uh on the corner property it's very large it's two
and almost three times the size of any other residential property on the block
as you can see even across the street the lot is as deep as this other larger corner lot it's
even larger than that and almost the complete second lot of RTA-1. So is there a unique
feature to the property? Most certainly.
The application is for a three-family dwelling in an existing structure.
This is the property management team that will be managing the property professionally.
You submit that also to the RCO.
Here's an exterior shot, the property itself.
Right now, it is zoned for a two-family dwelling.
There's also three accessory off-street parking spots on this property.
So to have the third unit, which would be in the lower level, but completely above grade,
as far as some of the garage space,
it still would not adversely impact the community
with regard to any kind of traffic or congestion
because there are three spots already
approved by L&I.
As you can see, this is the existing house.
We have approved parking already here.
And let's take a look at the layouts of the properties.
This is the existing third floor unit.
As you can see, it's a two-bedroom unit with a dining area, a kitchen, and a living room.
This is the existing second floor unit.
It is identical to the third floor, and this is the proposed first floor rear unit.
As you can see, it is a one-bedroom unit.
so the other portion of the of the rear will have a common area with washer and dryer
and of course the utility space there's also on the side of the property a trash corral
each unit will have its own private trash bin so that they can get to it of course it being a
three-family dwelling there will be commercial trash pickup there will be full sprinkler system
put in as a result of triggering the new use if the board grants this variance
property again is zone rta1 it's already been approved for the
uh two family dwelling uh and they're asking for the three family
it's also the off-street parking space is two open one structured has also been previously approved
Brian, do you have photos of the rear?
Okay, we're going to go through a lot of photos.
So this is the rear of the property, as you can see.
Here's some interior.
everything is 100 above grade
Everything is 100%.
here's some of the existing
was this the garage