This case has been before you several times, but this is the first time that the community can
speak and share with you why we're so concerned, because I know you are aware that we are very
concerned about what is happening in the 1400 of Grange Avenue. Tina, if you are able to share
your screen? Is that happening? Has she been promoted to panel to share her screen?
She has just now been promoted. She may set up.
Okay. So we put together a presentation package. It starts out whenever it's ready. It starts
out with the letter that you have in hand but what is not and what uh very good okay here we go
okay so um the rco letter that you have in front of you um basically outlines the concerns
starting with the fact that this community has never been notified properly um by the applicant
and we feel as though the case should never have been allowed to move forward
all the way back when it began in its inception. There is a little cat and mouse game that we
understand gets played and we've watched it with the other property as well of emailing an RCO that
has already indicated that they are not going to do Zoom on numerous occasions and then stating
that the RCO will not give the applicant a meeting. In this case, the applicant was allowed
to present and hold. So in spite of our request for continuance, while we put together our ability
to meet with the applicant, support it with a request for continuance by the council office,
this case was heard and held without the community. Tina, if you can just. Excuse me,
you said was heard, was heard and held by the zoning board. Yes, all the way back in, right.
I'm a little bit confused. You're saying the community had no meeting?
The community had no meeting. The applicant had no RCO letter.
And the applicant never notified the community of the appeal.
That's not accurate, Mr. Chair.
That is very accurate.
Ladies, ladies, ladies, ladies, ladies.
We have signed ballots from practically the entire impacted community that was required
to be notified that they were never notified.
And there is a requirement that even if you are suggesting that you did not have a meeting,
you should not come to the zoning board and present without first notifying the community.
The community was never notified.
This confusion was compounded by the fact that Mr. Knockamson had a project on what if you go to the map
is the exact same location, and that's why this is rear.
hello again ladies ladies please please just let me finish back to this testimony because it's
it's not accurate and i'm not given a chance to properly address these concerns so i can't have
her putting on the record things that are are not accurate yeah i'm totally confused about not
having a meeting. Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, please. I am totally confused and maybe my board
members, I don't know if you have the letter in front of you. You keep saying there was no meeting.
I think also Charles Richardson, who's on the line, could get involved to sort of help
navigate this as well that would be i would hope so because what i'm reading sounds to me like
there was a lot of interaction between the community the rco and the applicant so there
was can't be confused yeah so why don't i get mr richardson on if we could maybe you can shed some
Maybe you can shed some light on this.
light on this.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chair.
Hi, Mr. Richardson.
Please identify yourself for the record.
Charles Richardson from the Office of Councilwoman Cindy Bass,
Room 312, City Hall.
Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Richardson, I don't mean to put you on the spot,
but if you can shed some light on some of the accusations
that have just been made regarding not having any meetings, unaware of what was going on,
I find that to be conflicting to the letter because the letter talks about all the things
that they don't like about the project and you can't talk about things you don't like unless
you know what's being proposed. So maybe you can help me with that. Historically, let's go back.
When this was first proposed, ACCA was assigned because they are the RCO, the standing RCO in the
area. At that point in time, Ms. Broadus did express the fact that she would not be able to
do Zoom meetings because I had suggested to do a Zoom meeting and she said that they
would not be able to do so due to technology challenges for the residents in that area.
Understandable.
So they came up with, she came up with a paper-based system where she asked
for the applicant to submit to,
well, they submitted questions to the applicant
with regard to the project.
And then they did some back and forth
with regard to that.
What Ms. Brodus is referencing
is the fact that applicants are required
to send something out to each of the folks
within 250 feet to at least speak about it,
to talk about their project.
And she's saying that that did not occur.
because we didn't hold a meeting so we can't really send out letters saying we're holding
a meeting when we weren't holding a meeting and we were working through your office because you
had originally suggested a couple of times in october and then it kind of got flipped and then
she had mentioned that now we're not doing a zoom so there was a little bit of waiting on our end to
not um sort of overstimulate the area with letters with no real information until um we had heard
back from you on how best to proceed. So then once we had done the back and forth with her
and posted on the property twice, we had assumed that that was acceptable given, you know, we had
been fully prepared to meet in person or on the site or at the vacant lot, et cetera, et cetera.
So that's where the confusion came from. But you also did not do any advisory or anything as to
what it was that you had planned to do with those individuals. We did. We sent out multiple
letters to her, to Sandra. I actually have called her multiple times. I have the emails
to your office. Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm talking about to the folks that live within
250 feet, those that are required to be notified. Well, I'm supposed to send out letters for
a meeting to them saying when the meeting is being held. And because the RCO decided
not to hold a meeting after multiple back and forths to the point where your office got involved
to help coordinate one, I wasn't going to send out a confusing letter with saying we don't have a
meeting, we do have a meeting. So you can understand sort of the confusion on our end,
how best to handle that when, you know, this was a pretty unique way to resolve it with the back
and forth. And she had said that the community was meeting regularly on the weekends in which
she was providing them with these questions um even she sent me questions up until last or two
nights ago at nine o'clock at night um that my i my office got back you know within 24 hours to
even address them early first thing this morning with the architect last night and the client so
i would it'd be hard to believe that nobody nearby especially because in her email she says
they met over the weekend and we were not included in that meeting um it's safe to say that there
has been there have been there has been communication yes there has been discussion
about the project which led to some of the provisors that are in the rco's letter uh that
may not be acceptable to them but there were obviously provisors that were offered correct
yes and there was correct and there was posting on the property twice with the new hearing date
and we continued it at the request of the council office on the last time around so all right no
Okay, let's say here, Mr. Richardson.
Okay, so that's pretty much gives some perspective as to Ms. Broadus' original statements with regard to, you know, that no notification took place.
And that, you know, I'm going by her understanding of that being the case.
uh so you know if we can see to to miss miss uh bro that's to for her to continue with her
testimony okay just to reiterate chair we're here just for the height review
okay just to reiterate chair we're here just for the height refusal so we've reduced everything
else in order to be as per code so really just want to try to keep it a little bit focused on
the the refusal at hand okay let's see how it goes and hopefully uh we can we can get uh past
all the other stuff that has already been addressed in this letter i i just yep
All right, Ms. Brodus.
My mic continually gets unmuted when I'm testifying.
I would like to continue to speak.
If you would scroll down to the picture of the actual property,
I think that will help you.
Page three, Tina.
Okay, so this is the actual property.
If you can see it on the right, it is the rear building.
It's the rear building in the middle.
Well, just show the top picture, first picture, Tina.
That's the building to the right in the back.
Right.
The rest of the buildings are the residential homes, and that is the rear driveway of residential homes.
So if you move into the rear driveway of these properties, there is an old abandoned garage structure that used to be an active parking lot garage.
Tina, if you would just scroll down to the other picture, at the end of the lot where Mr. Knockamson is putting 34 apartment units, you'll see the entrance and exit to that parking garage.
It was a two-story parking garage. It does have code violations on it that says the structure is unsafe that are currently still standing. So I'm not sure what clearance there was to erect apartments on that property.
The community is outraged because they are proposing to put this structure in the back
of residential homes, that driveway that people use to get in and out of their homes.
One of the refusals was the use of the curb cut to come in and out of the roof for a curb cut.
Pardon me?
I think you're referring to 1419.
We don't currently have a refusal for a curb cut on 1407-09.
Okay, the curb cut used to get to access this property is shared by the residents and the entrance to the building, if you could use your pointer, is in the middle of this old garage structure in the middle of the driveway.
So pedestrians, residents coming and going from this property have to walk into this driveway to get to the entrance to the building.
The exit for the 1419 property outdoor parking lot is right at the end of this structure that you can see.
I think you're mixing up the property.
I am not mixing up the properties. And the fact of the matter is, I will share with you the only information that we were given by Ms. Pritzker after asking numerous times for details of the project.
She sent us on a one-sentence statement that repeats the one sentence on the refusal letter,
and that is the extent, aside from the blueprint, that is the extent.
It's not accurate.
I'm going to pull them up so that the board can see the back and forth, because I can't
have you.
The back and forth is, how are you, Sandra?
Ma'am, ma'am, ma'am, here we go again.
Ma'am, we're not going to argue, okay?
if you're going to start arguing with it we're going to shut this hearing down
okay i want to try to get as much information so the board could
listen to what you have to say what the proposals are and what the objections are
you want to argue do it on your time not on our time with all due respect am i able to share the
screen so i can provide the yeah because i'm totally confused i don't know about my board
members but i'm yeah yeah um jason do you have the ability to allow me to share my screen
just want to provide some clarity
the only refusal correct me from wrong rachel is for the height correct this is an existing
so the only refusal correct me from wrong
structure 1419 is the one that is this vacant lot where you see the cars parked
our building is an existing structure it's a two-story um existing so this just to be clear
this is the back and forth and the different colors are the amount of times and iterations
we went back and forth to state that there was a one-word answer that's not how i do business and
that's not how i treat people let's not go over that i think we make you made the point thank you
so just so the board's clear there was a lot of back and forth i figured that just by the letter
i just and just to be really clear on this property this is not what we're discussing
this is 1419 this is a completely separate project that again i said uh alan knockamson
represented the owner a few weeks ago and he was has been more than helpful as has that owner
in working with us on any of these shared drive aisle issues, this is an existing two-story
structure that has been a parking lot. So for anyone to make a claim that use as residential
units, which with a lesser impact than a parking deck, is going to be disrupting these single
family homes that have lived next to a parking deck, I just don't think that that's necessarily
accurate or reasonable. A lot of the concerns around trash or violations or the soundness of
the structure. That's why we're here. We're here to propose something that fits in in character
as a rehabilitation of this structure and is the least. Excuse me. Excuse me,
counselor. Yes. Excuse me. Yes. Can you show me the site plan? Oh, yeah, absolutely.
Thank you, Tom. Absolutely.
All right, George. I got I'm on a case right now.
so this is the you want the site plan because this is the third one z1
do you want me to zoom in where's the site where's this where's the site plan
this is what i have from the architect
it doesn't appear to me to be a site plan it says site plan this is what was
to ellen i can you can you blow it up yeah of course
this is this this is the site so where's the adjacent buildings in the alleyway over here
I assume so
This is Grange
This is 1419 Grange
This is the curb
I assume this is
It doesn't appear to me
That you have the adjacent
Buildings
We don't
You're not showing a complete site plan
This is all that we own
This is the frontage
This is all that we own
That's highlighted here
i see i see what you own but you you are required to show more than just what you own
this is what that i that i got from lni um i jump in with the with the refusal uh so
this is what was approved and submitted with lni raymond i don't know if you have something of
more detail that that we can provide but this is what i have you know this is basically fulfills
requirements for a site plan if you want to see it in context go to z4 and we can just look at
the aerial plan and see how the building fits in with the surrounding buildings it's on z4