Developer gets variances

Mazza, doing business as 301 Mulberry LLC, has expressed interest in purchasing the property from its current owners to construct multi-family apartment buildings.

According to plans presented by Mazza’s legal representatives, Donald Plank and Rebecca Mott of Plank Law Firm, the project would place a combination of flat-style apartments, garden apartments and town homes on the property.

At the beginning of the meeting, it was stated that the proposed project would include between 60 and 94 rental units. By the end of the meeting, Plank said that with the modifications the zoning board had allowed, the maximum possible number of units would likely be 84.

The board voted unanimously to approve Mazza’s request for a conditional use permit for the property, which is zoned neighborhood commercial.

“If you look in the code, residential use is an acceptable conditional use for a neighborhood commercial property, but it requires the board of zoning appeals’ approval to allow residential to go forward,” explained board president Michael Percy.

The first variance request was to allow Mazza to construct buildings not exceeding 50 feet tall, as opposed to the 30 feet maximum permitted by the zoning code. Board member Susie Simpson moved to grant the variance only for the three- to four-story garden apartments, which would be located on the west side of the property. The motion passed 4-1, with board member Don Carr casting the sole opposition vote.

Board member Phil Herald noted that the effect of unusually high height would be minimized by the natural slope of the property, which is lower on the west side, and the large trees bordering the west side of the property along Sandusky Street.

The next requested variance was to allow developers to exceed the maximum square footage allowed for each building. City code dictates that buildings in the zone shall have a maximum square footage of 8,000 square feet.

After Carr’s motion to deny the variance request failed to garner a second, the board passed two motions allowing variances at different parts of the property. Herald moved to allow two of the proposed buildings to be constructed at a size not exceeding 36,000 square feet. These two structures include one on the north side of the property, along West Burgess Street, and one on the south side of the property, along West Hamtramck Street. The motion passed 5-0.

In regard to the garden apartments on the west side, Mazza requested a variance that would allow him to build a structure somewhere between 42,000 and 60,000 square feet. Simpson moved to grant a variance allowing Mazza to construct a multi-unit building not exceeding the maximum requested square footage. Her motion did not earn a second, so Herald proposed a variance allowing Mazza to construct a building not exceeding the minimum requested square footage. Plank countered, stating that he’d feel more comfortable with an allowed maximum of 44,000 feet, based on a project he recently completed in Columbus.

“If the right project comes in and then you can see what we’re putting in there, we may be back before this board asking for more,” Plank said. “But at this time, I understand how difficult it is to make decisions without an actual project in front of you.”

After hearing from Plank, Herald amended his motion to permit a structure not exceeding 44,000 square feet in size. The motion passed 4-1, with Carr casting his second ‘no’ vote of the evening.

The third and final request was to allow the developer to provide 1.5 parking spaces per unit, rather than the code-mandated two spaces. Due to the variance on the allowed dimensions of the garden apartments, the request was modified from 1.5 parking spaces to 1.7 parking spaces, which the board ultimately accepted, Carr voting no.

Plank noted that there was a possibility that the plans could be modified to allow overflow parking, but said he didn’t want code requirements dictating the project.

Worries about a potential shortage of parking spaces came up frequently during the public comment portion of the meeting.

Mary Schlairet, who said she came as a representative of the Mulberry Street United Methodist Church, voiced concern about the impact of the development on parking and traffic. Schlairet said she had only recently become aware of the project and didn’t know if she supported it or not, but that something needed to be done.

“We have dealt with this eyesore for so many years. We’re sick of it,” she said. “We drive by it everyday. It’s awful for the people who live around it. I am in favor of getting it demolished and getting something done that’s going to be attractive and good for the neighborhood.”

Mount Vernon City Council Member Mike Hillier opposed the variance allowing fewer than two parking spaces per unit and questioned whether exceptions could even be granted to an entity other than the property owner.

“I’m not definitely opposing as of yet but I have several questions,” said Hillier. “Does (301 Mulberry) LLC own this building? Have they purchased it? And if the LLC hasn’t purchased this yet, is it legal to grant a conditional use to somebody who doesn’t own a building?”

City Law Director Rob Broeren confirmed that it is legal.

Lacie Blankenhorn, the city’s development services manager, read a letter of support from Joel Daniels, safety services director.

After the meeting, Mazza said he was pleased with the compromises reached with the board.

“I think it’s fair on both sides,” he said. “We both gave up a little bit and I think the project’s going to be fantastic for the downtown central business district.”

Mazza said that the variances were a step in the right direction for purchasing the property.

“This should move us along. We’re very close,” he said.