No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions from the virtual audience?
i see no hands chair question from the planning commission
or comments good afternoon uh chair peter bernard for the planning commission my video has been
stopped by the host that's okay my name for the record my name is spelled p-e-t-e-r
B as in boy, A as in apple, R as in Roger, N as in Nancy, A as in apple, R as in Roger, D as in dog.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, Chair.
You see?
The comprehensive plan recommends no change to the existing CMX2 commercial mixed-use zoning at this location.
The proposed use will have no more impact than that which might be reasonably expected from this use.
accordingly the planning commission recommends the board grant the special exemption thank you
m i 2021 004907 1317 to 23 frankfort avenue i vote yes thomas toloman my vote is yes
james snell my vote is yes yes my vote is yes thank you council thank you mr chairman members
of the board. Next case will be number 2, 3, and 4. MI 2021 002546 2303 North 10th. MI 2021 002656 2307
North 10th. MI 2021, 002655, 2315 North 10th Street. APM is the RCO. No support after a vote
of 6-6, a tie. Sean Ward. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Sean Ward, S-H-A-W-N-W-A-R-D,
attorney for the applicant. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth is nothing but the truth i most certainly do thomas hallman has a few questions
for you good afternoon counselor do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to
his accuracy i will waive a reading of it um uh i'll address the refusals they you know
the there's three refusals for these three properties all written by different examiners
and they all vary somewhat but we do acknowledge that 1275 square feet is required whereas it does
not exist so I'll leave it at that okay according to our records you have submitted all of the
required documents is that correct that is correct please proceed thank you very much
Mr. Chairman I've submitted my typical exhibit packet for the three properties as
as consolidated for hearing purposes. These are applications to permit the erection of attached
structures for use as three-family dwellings with accessory roof decks. Again, the refusals all
indicate that the required lot size is not sufficient for the three dwellings. However,
they're all worded different, but in essence, we acknowledge that 1,275 square feet is required,
whereas we cannot provide that. In addition, there was one other refusal issued on the 2315
application regarding maximum occupied area, 75% versus 83% proposed. Accordingly,
we seek dimensional variances today. A2 is the ZBA application of appeal. A3 is the project
information form. A4 is proof of ownership. A5, proof of tax clearance for all three properties.
A6 are parcel maps. A7 are site plans and elevation plans. A8 are the floor plans for
the three proposed structures. A9 are photographs. A10 is the RCO packet. It includes the RCO letter,
a community letter, and our petition of support, which we personally circulated.
I would ask that if Councilman Clark had submitted a letter that that be marked as A11 for the record.
A-12 is the relevant zoning history.
23-03 was historically used as a single-family dwelling.
All three are currently vacant lots, by the way.
23-07 was zoned as a three-family dwelling, and 23-15 has been zoned in the past as a two-family dwelling.
A-13 would be the zoning maps, A-14 aerial photograph.
and at 815 are two cases recently approved by the board about a month and a half ago on January 19th
which I presented 2317 North 10th Street and 2328 North 10th Street.
2317 north 10th street and 2328 north 10th street substantially similar if not identical projects so
real quickly we have the notice of refusal again 1275 is required 1144 is existing on 2303
2307 again 425 square feet per dwelling unit which equals 1275
so two units are allowed three are proposed and then the third refusal um this one's inaccurate
i believe he cited the wrong uh code section he should have used the overlay uh in any event we
acknowledge that um you know we we are shy of the required uh square footage and then he also added
the uh maximum maximum occupied area of refusal on on that one so um we have our petitions of appeal
which were filed with the board for all three properties our project information form 2303
2307 and 2315 my transmittal letter submitting all three properties for appeal
here's a copy of the deed you'll see the three multiple properties are on this
deed but the three subject properties are included again they point out the addresses for those
parcels moving on uh tax clearance uh 2303 you can see we're paid through 2021 2022 not due yet
till the end of the month 2307 same thing paid through 2021 2022 is not quite due yet and then
2315 paid through 2021. The parcel maps 2303 is the second property in from the end of the block
2307 and then 2315. The typical floor plans and elevations
as you can see it's a a combination brick and I guess a metal or siding facade they do comply
with the height requirements and the parapets I mean the penthouse for the roof deck all comply
the roof decks are set back in accordance so no refusals were generated there with regard to the
floor plans the typical floor plans are pretty much identical for each property
At the first floor, unit one, you have a living dining room at the front, central kitchen,
a bedroom at the rear. At the basement level, there's an entertainment or gym area for the
resident. And then the living space is provided with an emergency egress well, so the living
space in the basement complies with the building code. And then again on the second floor,
you have two bedrooms one at the front one at the rear with a central living area and kitchen
trash storage and the same on the third floor okay with regard to the photographs
this would be 2303 that would be 2307 2315 which is directly next door to 2317 which the board
approved on uh january 19th copies of the posters again google photos of subject properties
there's an aerial view the red dots indicate the subject properties 2303 07 and then 15.
with regard to uh the apm letter um uh there were two meetings held at the first meeting
to vote was six to one in favor of the application. They held a second meeting where additional
people were invited. We were not invited to that meeting, so they ended up voting
additional votes. It came out to six to six. At that meeting, they discussed various issues,
specifically possibility of single-family development. I point out that the property
is owned RM1, so it's not realistic to entertain the possibility of single-family development in
an RM1 district where other properties will or are developed as multi-families. So with a tie
vote, their final position was no support. It doesn't say they're opposed, but it doesn't say
they support either. Again, there was a letter submitted by a block captain, but she resides
on Arizona Street, not on 10th Street. And again, she was asking for single-family
dwellings on the block. We then, after obtaining that letter, circulated a petition of support
obtaining that letter circulated a petition of support where we have 11 neighbors in the immediate
where we have 11.
area who signed. I believe we have one resident from the area in the virtual audience who would
like to address the board in support of the application. I would ask that that person raise
his hand his or her hand at the time when they were permitted to speak. We also included the
the zoning permits for various properties on the block, and I will summarize those in a moment.
We also have a copy of the zoning maps. As you can see, this block is zoned RM1 directly across
the street from CMX2, again, which does not lend itself to the development of single-family homes
across from CMX2, and again, the other two zoning maps. We do have an aerial photograph.
i did include in my packet the approvals for 2317 north 10th street as you can see substantially
similar structures floor plans are basically the same again that was approved by the board
on january 19th for 2317. i presented these applications myself um similar refusals uh
with regard to uh some of those one of those was on cmx2 so uh we got a variance from providing
commercial use on the first floor it was a residence instead so uh three dwelling units again
1,275 square feet um moving on to the the other one 2328 north 10th street again january 19th
granted by the board again and that is for a three-family dwelling so we would submit that
the the same issues exist for these three properties as did for 2328 and 2317
north 10th street so based upon that we would we would ask that the board grant the variances
these these lots are just shy of the required 1275 square feet it's consistent with the
development that is occurring on the block and with regard to my summary comments again
Again, multifamily is specifically permitted in the RM1 District.
We could build two three-bedroom units by right with a total of six bedrooms.
We propose one one-bedroom unit to two-bedroom units for a total of five bedrooms.
We try to explain to those residents in opposition that we're providing a less bedroom count
five per building as opposed to six, resulting in lesser density.
They talked about rental affordability.
we submit respectfully that one and two-bedroom apartments are more affordable than three-bedroom
apartments and that three-bedroom apartments are more likely in a single-family home, not an
apartment. Additionally, there's 10 vacant lots on the 2300 block of North 10th Street. It's ripe
for redevelopment. The other side of the block is on CMX2. And then with regard to the existing
other existing properties, 2305 has starkly been used as a three-family. 2309 is a three-family.
2313 as an imminently dangerous violation on it one of them may have been one of these vacant
properties are unsafe or imminently dangerous may have been demolished at this point I'm not sure
2300-02 is a church and a two-family 2308 and 10 are both vacant properties 2312 and 16 are
unsafe structure violation properties and again 2317 and 2328 were recently approved by the board
for three family dwellings and again are substantially similar if not identical to the
projects at hand. So I would ask that my client raise his hand so he can verify and adopt my
testimony. Mayor Badoush or Roy Shemesh. There he is. Hello. Hi. Hi. Could you state your name and
spelled for the court reporter please yes uh my name is mayor badush uh spelling spelling is m-e-i-r
last name is badush b as in boy a d as in david u-s-h you swear or firm to tell the truth the
whole truth nothing but the truth i affirm thank you mayor you've heard my representations to the
board today yes sir are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge information and belief
yes they are and would you adopt them as your own testimony yes i will thank you very much
yes mr chairman counselor yes sir what is the hardship of these three lots that requires
three units each well again we we submit that the the properties are unequal in size compared
to the others on the block, some of which would be permitted to have three units based upon the square.
uh some of which would be permitted to have uh three units based upon the square footage of those
lots but the way the lots are configured along this block it creates a hardship to the property
whereas the next door neighbor might be able to do a three family uh but because we have a a less
less depth on our lot due to um alleyways and and whatnot it creates a hardship on the property
i'm not understanding what in particular these three lots does not allow you to put
less than three units well again we could put less than three units but we could we would have
more bedrooms and in order to reduce the density we're looking to do smaller apartments with less
bedrooms and in order to do so we we need a variance to build the third unit otherwise we
would build a duplex or a two-apartment unit with six bedrooms. And the three-bedroom units
are more expensive and harder to rent. So in this particular area, we believe that the smaller units
are more appropriate and in the same nature and character of the RM1 zoning that is permitted on
the block well you know six bedrooms will cause you a problem
only three related people uh into one apartment
well if you have three bedrooms in each unit that would be three persons unrelated by blood or
marriage we're not proposing a six bedroom unit we were proposing two units each with three bedrooms
or that we could we could propose but we're not we'd rather have three units with five bed
five bedrooms total thank you you're welcome questions from other members of the board
no mr chair questions from the virtual audience or comments
chair we have micheline erwin please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair
could you state your name and spell it for the court reporter please
Yes. My name is Micheline, M-I-C-H-E-L-E-N-E, last name Erwin, E-R-W-I-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed.
So my first question is, Mr. Ward stated that he circulated another
petition regarding support for the projects on 10th Street, and nobody on Arizona Street
received that notice. So I was wondering why we weren't given the opportunity to vote.
that would be for Mr. Ward or Mr. Ward if you want to answer that you can answer that
well it wasn't a notice it was a petition of support that was circulated by my clients
to uh to other residents you know on the block and and the surrounding area right it wasn't it
wasn't a meeting notice and it wasn't it wasn't a meeting it was a a petition of support which we
routinely have signed by supporters of projects right and i'm sorry i'm sorry this is tanya
sunkett the administrator i just want to be clear that we're not here for you to ask questions
you're giving testimony um just so we're clear thank you i'm i'm just going according to the
prompt that i got and it's right but you're not here to question an attorney just so we're clear
you can give your testimony thank you so very kindly all right so my testimony is that um many
of the residents on the 900 all of the residents of the 900 block of arizona street some of the
residents on north 10th street as well as some on north 9th street um do not support the project
um we're going to object i'm going to object mr chairman she is here to speak she's here to speak
on on her own behalf and not for other people all right mr wood i have it thank you question here's
the question. Do you support the project or not? No. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Is there
anyone else in the virtual audience who wants to testify? Chair, we have Raheem Stewart. Please
unmute yourself and please wait for the chair. Could you state your name and spell for the court
reporter? Brahim Stewart, B-R-Y-H-E as an elephant, M as a mother. Stewart, S-T-E-W-A-R-T.
My testimony for this case here is that...
My testimony for this case here is that- Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. Do you swear
Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
Do you swear to affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I stand to affirm to tell the truth.
Thank you. Proceed.
Yes, so in this case here, I support these projects 100%.
I've been a resident for over 20 years in that neighborhood,
and I like all the ideas of what this project consists of.
I've spoken to many individuals in that community,
and no one contested to this case besides Ms. Micheline, everyone I've spoken to.
Okay, so here's the thing. You support the project is what you're saying.
Thank you. We appreciate it.
You're welcome.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
I see no more hands, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Good afternoon, Chair. Peter Bernard for the Planning Commission.
the comprehensive plan recommends a change to single-family residential at these locations
and have not been remapped yet the existing rm1 multi-family zoning allows for two units by right
the applicant has failed to demonstrate any hardship for either unit count or lot coverage
as there is no hardship for regularly sized vacant land and adjacency adjacency to a larger
property is not a hardship accordingly the planning commission recommends the board
deny the variances. MI 2021-002546-2303 North 10th. MI 2021-002656-2307 North 10th. And MI 2021-002655-2315 North 10th. I vote yes.
Thomas Holloman, my vote is no.