So, this is 844 and 846 Union Street. We're proposing to put two six-family dwelling buildings here, one on 844 and one on 846 Union Street. During our presentation, we'll review both refusals, and then you'll have the correspondence from the Manitoba Civic Association.
As the chairman stated, this was a well attended meeting unanimous support.
This is a part of Mantua that is woefully undeveloped on Union Street.
And actually, one of the refusals actually makes it speaks volumes about, you know, this the lack of development on this block.
And I'll explain that later. We have a limited petition for this project as well.
It was a well-attended meeting.
You had 12 people on the support.
So my client did make some efforts to reach out to the community.
The issue is there's not much development here, so there weren't much nearby neighbors.
Then you'll see an aerial view of that block, and you'll see what I'm talking about.
There's really not much development at all on Union Street or on that square block.
Then maps of the area, photographs of the property, our plans and drawings, our RCO meeting notices,
showing that we met, you know, that, you know, we sent out notice for the community meeting
in front of the Mantua group, our applications for appeal that we filed on behalf of the corporate
owner, our deeds to the property showing that the corporate owner owns the property, and our
certificates of tax clearance. Again, at the conclusion of my presentation, I would ask that
Mr. Williams virtually raise his hand, be sworn in, and I'll have a few questions for him.
So notice there's a refusal.
So both of these properties are RSA 5 properties, but I really do believe they're RSA 5 properties in name only.
They're both 2,400 square feet in size.
The width of these properties are 20 feet wide.
So they're really ginormous properties.
And so we have three refusals for both, which are identical for both of these six-unit apartment buildings.
The first is, you know, the use, you know, given that we're RSA 5, asking for six units is not technically allowed by rights.
But what we're asking for is not out of character.
You know, the second refusal has to do with the setback on Union Street.
There is only one property on our side of Union Street.
One, one building that has a building structure on it is dilapidated.
The community even stated that they've been trying for years to get this building structure demolished, and they're hoping to.
But it's out of character for this part of town, if you look around the city, perhaps in this block, for properties in Mantua to be set back, let alone 10 feet.
So we would ask, given those circumstances, given the fact that this building structure, which is the only building structure on our side on Union Street, will likely be demolished, we're asking, you know, obviously for an exception here for this variance.
And then the third variance request has to do with open area. We're asking for de minimis open area, where 25% is required, while we're asking for 22.4%.
Again, we're trying to have functional floor plans here, and, you know, we need that extra square footage in the rear to allow us, or extra square footage of the building structure, you know, to allow us to have a functional floor plan.
And then these same refusals are for E46 as well.
and then the correspondence from the from the mantra civic association as you can see the
anonymous support 14 individuals voted either in support or a non-opposition to this matter
and then the petition we did a limited petition you know my client started doing the petition
And then the petition, we did a limited petition. My client started doing the petition. And then he honestly stated, Alan, there's not many building structures here. And so I said, that's fine. We met with the community. It was well attended.
But he got a few addresses on Fairmont, which we're not far from. But after, you know, doing a few hours where there wasn't many building structures, he stopped. So just letting you know why it's not as extensive as it usually is.
And then the aerial view. So this is where we are in Union Street. And, you know, we back up to Sloan. But you can see there's, I would say, almost all, you know, this is the building structure in Union that we have to follow. But you can see there's not much development, if any, on Union Street or in this general vicinity. So, again, the community is hoping that this will spur development.
And then maps of the area, again, you know, behind us is RM1. You know, there is a good mixture of zoning classifications here. And again, in order to encourage development, we're hoping to allow for these two six-unit apartment buildings on lots that are 2,400 square feet each.
And you can see we're on the outskirts of the Mantua neighborhood, too, near train tracks, which also makes it very difficult to have single-family homes where you're facing train tracks and hearing the noise of train tracks as well, and trains as well.
And then this is the property.
It's a vacant lot.
It's been vacant.
This is the hearing notice posters showing proof of post ink.
But it's been a vacant lot for some time.
Google Earth goes as far back as 2007.
This is Union Street from both the left and right.
As you can see, there's not much going on here.
It's quasi-industrial over here, which makes it very difficult for that RSA 5 zony classification.
And then our plans and drawings.
Again, try to keep it very simple, flat building facades.
Brick have a nice pronounced coordinates line.
These are on grade.
It's built on grade.
So these are accessible units. We're not having any bedrooms or living in the basement at all. There is no basement. And the garbage will be stored in the rear.
and then again just to confirm there's we're building this on grade so there's no there's no
bedrooms in the basement or any living in the basement and you know again each of the units
are on its own floor so you have unit one and unit two for both 844 and 846 on the first and
second floors. And then you also have units on the third and fourth floors as well. Same thing
for 846. And then the meeting notices we met on February 14th at 5 p.m. We had two separate
notices. The notices were emailed a few weeks in advance to the coordinating RCO and the other
RCOs. 115 addresses were notified with regards to 844 Union Street was the addresses, proof of
mailing to those addresses. For 846 Union Street, again, February 14th at 5 p.m., same thing. The
notices were emailed to the relevant parties. 115 addresses were notified by mail. Addresses,
proof of mailing to those addresses or applications for appeal that we filed along with the project
information form and the notices of refusal and our deeds of property showing that my client
owns the property and then the certificates of tax clearance. So with that being said,
I would then ask Mr. Williams to be sworn in.
Did you say, Mr. Why use me? Jonathan Williams, can you raise your virtual hand, please?
Oh, Williams, I'm sorry.
It's been allowed to speak.
All right, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
sorry about that do you hear me now yes we can could you state your name and spell for the
course stenographer please yes it's jonathan williams j-o-n-a-t-h-a-n-w-i-l-l-i-a-m-s
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing about the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Please proceed, counsel.
Yes, Mr. Williams, you heard everything I had to state today about your zoning matter.
Yes, Mr. Williams, you heard everything I had to state today.
Yes, sir.
And is it true and correct?
And do you adopt as your own task?
Thank you.
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 hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Thank you, Chair Bergman.
And good afternoon.
David Fecto with the City Planning Commission.
Chairman, we'll submit our testimony for both 844 and 846 Union Street.
So for the comprehensive plan recommends no change to the residential single-family zoning of this location.
The appellant seeks relief from the use, front setback, and occupied area requirements of the RSA-5 zoning district.
This is a rectangular 2,433 square foot lot.
There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
The City Planning Commission recommends the board deny the proposed use and dimensional variances.
Mr. Nogman, do you want to respond real quickly?
So, especially for the setback, I would have hoped that the Planning Commission would have acknowledged the fact that the only reason why we have a setback requirement is because of the one dilapidated building that's setback 10 feet on our block, the only building on our block.
As far as the open area requirements, we're asking for de minimis variances in that respect.
And as you can see from that part of Philadelphia, it's really hard.
Given the location of this property, where we are near the train tracks and the industrial nature,
the community is actually seeking some type of multifamily use here, which is close by as well.
And the six units are a reasonable use of the property,
given the large square footage that lies a whole of 2,400 square feet.
For all those reasons, we ask that the boards grant these variances.
So I'll do them both together.
Number six, MI 2023-006-408-846 Union Street.
And number seven, MI 2023-007-203-844 Union Street.
I vote yes to both.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is yes to both.
James Snell, my vote is yes to both.
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes to both.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Number eight, MI 2024-000128-9701, Roosevelt Boulevard.
Darwin Beauvais is the attorney.
Letter of non-opposition from Council Member O'Neill, who also served as the coordinating RCO.
Darwin Beauvais, can you please?
Oh, there he is.
I'm going to promote him now.
Mr. Bovee, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bovee, could
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court's sonographer?
Darwin, D-A-R-W-I-N, Beauvais, B-E-A-U-V-A-I-S.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Could you identify your client, your relationship to the property?
My client is AutoZone, the tenant to the shopping center, and my client is, or representative
for the clients cassandra peeler who is the pre-construction project manager for auto zone
if she can raise her hand and be identified okay so later okay our vice chair has a few questions
for you sir yeah good afternoon counsel do you agree to wait to read another refusal or stipulate
to its accuracy i do have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits that is needed
to proceed with this case
five days in advance of this hearing?
Yes, I have.
Thank you. Please proceed and share your screen.
Clearly, I'm having
technical difficulties here.
technical difficulties here.
Okay, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, before you is an application for an auto zone in a commercial district.
We are looking at our exhibits, which includes exhibits 1 through 12, and we are looking at our referral, because this is a special exception.
we are we have our tax clearance we have a deed but we also submitted a lease earlier today to
Hillary we have our application for special exception along with the project information
form, and we have what I would like to start with, our locator map. This is Whitman Square.
As you can see, it's a longtime shopping center developed by the Goldenberg Group. It was a
former site for Whitman Chocolates, and it is probably one of the most adaptive reuses
since this area decided to focus more on commercial rather than industrial.
If you look at my cursor, you'll see there's a Lowe's here.
But if I go across, and this building here is where Rite Aid used to be.
So it's no longer a Rite Aid.
They gave, as you can hear from national news, they closed down a lot of their Rite A's.
and now what we have are a lot of empty structures throughout the city and whitman
square is one of them because it used to host friday so this is the location of the building
you can see that's our posters as well pull back a little
See more of the site itself, see around the area, see the back of Lowe's and that's it.
So, our referral, a referral was simple.
it's just the proposed use just requires a special exception so with that with that
um we did meet with the community
go to page 36
and as you can see we have a letter from councilman brian o'neill now this letter is somewhat uh
unique in that councilman o'neill did act as the cr rco um if you see the statement in the letter
where he says he acted as the RCO for the zoning case due to the location currently not falling in the catchment area of a neighborhood RCO.
So with that, he did hold a meeting, and I believe there were three participants who attended the meeting,
and they all voted unanimously for the project.
Now, just to talk a little bit about AutoZone, in terms of what AutoZone is, it's a retail auto cart shop, and they seek to take the old pad site of Rite Aid.
They will have approximately 15 to 25 employees, and their hours of operation will be between 7.30 a.m.
employees, and their hours of operation will be between 7.30 a.m. and 9 p.m. Given the fact that
this is a commercial auto area, we don't anticipate any pedestrian vehicle conflicts
in the sense that it's already pre-striped and the location is meant for autos. With that said,
I believe I would like to identify Cassandra Peeler and she can be promoted.
Cassandra Peeler has been allowed to speak.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Cassandra Peeler.
That's C-A-S-S-A-N-D-R-A-P-E-E-L-E-R.
do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
yes i do please proceed counsel yes miss peeler can you state your position i'm a pre-construction
project manager for autozone okay and did you hear everything that i said today yes and would
you adopt that as your testimony yes thank you uh that concludes my presentation mr chair i'll
open myself up to any questions questions from the board no mr chairman no mr chairman question
or comments from our attorney hillary emerson um i just want to confirm that we received a copy of
the lease thank you okay thank you questions or comments from the virtual audience yes alice
udivik has her hand up and i will allow her to speak alice just for the record state your name
and spell it please sure alice udovich a-l-i-c-e-u-d-o-v-i-c-h on behalf of councilman
brian o'neill do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed although you have the letter i just wanted to go on the record and voice our
support for this project uh we're happy to have a tenant in a building that is currently vacant