house the next home and home next to that home are currently vacant and prior
to a fire that occurred maybe 11 months ago um there's no real activity happening
at the the three houses uh right next door to this property um
and in addition to that we we planned on uh extending the property so even the second and
third floor goes all the way back so the script so there would be no there wouldn't be any yard
space. Vern, is this one of the owners? Yeah, unscripted, but yes. Thank you, Mr. Harris.
Mr. Chair, I need to go on the record to clean up this mess. First, I need to object to
Adrienne's testimony, especially when she's testifying to other people's positions.
All of that is nonsense and hearsay, and none of it can be considered by this board.
Also, she says no one met with us, but then in the same breath says that they all oppose us, which makes absolutely no sense.
The only way they would be able to oppose or support is if they actually knew the plan and this was presented.
Secondly, the addition that she claims everyone is against, that's done.
Been there, done that, by right, no input needed.
So that's the permit in hand.
So, Verne, let's concentrate on, tell me what happened August 13th.
Mr. Chair, we've been through two different mailings on this.
And at the first meeting, we showed up, no one showed up to hear us.
Second time, we showed up and did a presentation.
Adrienne may not have been present, but apparently that hasn't stopped her from coming out in opposition to a plan that she claims she didn't know anything about, but she knows enough in order to be against it.
Was it all in the family there when you made the presentation?
Yes, of course. I think there was a change later on in RCOs. But as far as I know, again, we're happy to meet with anybody else. But to suggest that this be denied or dismissed is silly.
Mr. Chair, this is Hillary. I'm sorry, Mr. Anastasio. Can I just interject? I was just doing a little bit more digging on this case, and I found that all in the family actually sent in a letter back in December on this case. It was based on a meeting that was held in November.
um on this case it was based on a meeting that was held in november um that's what they said
they indicated that they were in opposition however they would support um a duplex
with certain provisos so i just wanted to just wanted to put that on the record and
mr anesthesia i'll forward that to you it looks like it was sent um to to your colleague mr cook
but not to you i see thank you yeah so i will send the letter but it was it was back in in
december i don't know if there was additional meetings since then i don't know if there's
been any change to their position so but we're we're looking at a meeting that was october
august well august was the last one that's right we've had several meetings on this project
i'm sorry do we have the letter and the notices
from this august oh yeah everything is in my 97 we don't we don't have a letter from august
we do not have a letter a letter i mean the letter that the applicants sent out about the
we have an rco notification letter pursuant to the code all the addresses and proof of mailing of
course how many people were in the attendance at the last all in the family session i don't remember
Ms. Graham, I'm sorry. I do about five RCO meetings a week. So I can't, I just can't recall that. I usually rely on them to tell us, you know, what the letter, when they submit their letters.
But nevertheless, again, we also went door to door on that block and in the immediate area and secured 31 signatures. There's a legal rooming house on the block. There are several multifamilies on the block.
and again more than 10 vacant lots on that side of the block so here's a property that's
laying empty and my client would like to do something with it in order to revitalize it
I went on between the RCOs is sort of above my pay grade I can't get involved in that and
However, if Swampoodle wants to meet with us, I'd be happy to do it, and the board can hold their vote until then.
But it seems as though they claim they've never met with us or reviewed our proposal, she claims that everyone opposes it.
So I don't know what to say to that.
So let me go. Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The Comprehensive Plan recommends no change to the RSI-5 residential single-family zoning at this location.
The City changed the zoning maps in this neighborhood in 2014.
The Appellant requests three dwelling units.
Planning staff are aware of 16 houses on this block base with multiple dwelling units with the majority as duplexes.
Three units is not the least minimum.
The City Planning Commission recommends that the Board grant the proposed use grants for multiple units with RISO-2 dwelling units.
I can live with that, Mr. Chair.
So MI 2023, 002, 909, 2651 North 17th Street, I vote yes, maximum two units.
So, go ahead.
Tynetta Graham, my vote is yes with the two units.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is yes
with the proviso, two units
Iowen, my vote is yes
with proviso
Ishmael Shaheed, my vote is yes
with proviso. Thank you
Council, could you please stay on? Yes, sir
And by 2024
001-167
1333 South
9th Street
OCR let no RCO letter summary or notice with proof of mailing letter of
opposition from council member Squilla in reference to a letter that he says
passion governor square civic association wrote the applicant provided a
letter's support from manual chapel nine letters of support from neighbors to
from the block and also um an applicant a petition signed by 29 neighbors
mr anastasio so mr chair let me just add to that because we did in the meantime receive
from the council office a copy of the letter from pass young square mr anastasio i can forward it
to you if you've not received it um it indicates um opposition as um council member squilla
As Councilmember Squilla indicated in his letter, they mentioned that the pre-existing conformity on the first floor clearly provides no justification or hardship for the addition with no rear yard.
indicated in his letter.
And that was the extent of their comments.
Sir Anastasio, just for the record, state your name.
Vern Anastasio, on behalf of Sarita Yip.
And our vice chair has a few questions for you.
Thank you.
Good morning, counsel. Do you agree to weigh the reading of the refusal or stipulate with
accuracy? I do. Have you emailed in all the required documents and exhibits as needed to
proceed with this case five days in advance of this hearing? I have. Thank you, counsel. Please
proceed. And I think you've already shared your screen, please. Yes, at least one of them for now.
Mr. Chair, the RCO meeting was held. No one from the block was present, just the members of the
zoning committee but none of whom live anywhere near this property uh and their position was based
on this addition that we're trying to put back here uh during the meeting they said that it would
the addition would block light and air mostly light to the most immediate neighbors so we
did a shade study that shows here's the existing
shadows at 9 a.m. and here are the
shadows with the proposed addition. As you can see
they're identical as far as the shade at 9 a.m.
is concerned. Now let's look
at the 1 p.m.
Existing condition
with the addition.
Again, negligible.
As you can see, the shade for the church is exactly the same.
We have some minor shade here to the adjacent property.
It's still just a portion of that rear yard.
Negligible.
And then 4 o'clock,
the only difference is that this little tiny corner of the church
that has no windows by the way will have additional shadow at 4 p.m
everything else is identical so the basis for the committee was just the rco committee
zero neighbors. RCO committee, whole basis of not supporting this addition is based on the shadow.
And as you can see, there are no shadow impacts at all. And what's further,
excuse me for a moment while I pull something else up.
In my 90-page exhibit, I'm going to move that shadow study into evidence, and my 90-page
exhibit will also show 30 signatures of immediate neighbors.
Brian, could you show photos of what it looks like now?
But I just wanted to make sure you saw that we also have letters from the church, the very church.
I mentioned that in the beginning.
The very church that the RCO committee was concerned about.
Altogether, we have 37 letters and signatures of support.
and I'll show you there's the refusal and we'll get to the photos
should show you some plans as well
this is existing and this is the addition back here
here's the front and here's the rear
as you can see it would just go straight up
and the only reason why of course we're you know the footprint doesn't change in the building
You know, the footprint doesn't change of the building.
You know, the first floor already has the building.
You know, the first floor already has the build-out.
When the first floor is built-out, you're going to build on top of that?
That's correct.
That's it.
It's a multifamily by right.
So the only reason why we're here, and by the way, it's the only three-story building.
On that side of the block.
So it has absolutely zero negative impact on anyone with regard to light or air.
Did this project start already?
Not that I know of.
No, I don't see any violations or any sort of, nope, maybe some interior work, but that's about it.
No addition has been started.
So the footprint in the rear does not change?
Not at all.
It just goes up.
There's proof of posting.
And again, I think the shade study tells the story that there's really no negative impact to any of the adjacent neighbors, which is why they all support it.
You bring your client on.
Thank you. Ms. Serena, yep, if you could please, yep, if you could please raise your virtual hand.
Serena Chan has been allowed to speak.
Hi, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Yes, my name is Serena Chan, S-E-R-E-N-A, last name is C-H-A-N, and Yip is my married last name, why I'm seasoned Paul.
Sure. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you.
Ms. Jane, did you hear my presentation to the board this morning?
Yes, I did.
Is it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Did you personally secure the letters from all the immediate neighbors, including the Emanuel Church in the rear?
And do you adopt my presentation as your own testimony?
Thank you.
Mr. Chair, I have nothing further questions from the board.
I'm just curious, does the roof deck, is that still included in the plan?
This application does not have a roof deck.
The questions from the board.
actually i'm sorry i want to this application does have a roof deck yeah my apologies i took
this case from another council so i um i did not make the application myself but yes there is a
roof deck on the plan and a roof
deck access structure.
So that's on top of the
on top of the
addition would be the roof deck
and roof access.
I didn't see that in the
in the in the diagrams or
drawings. So yeah, well, I think
it's on most I think the
access structure will be
on the part of the addition
itself
will very likely be
in the existing
because that addition is not very large
okay so you're saying
the roof deck will not extend all the way
back to the addition
no it will be the roof deck
access structure I think
will be laying on
part of the addition
but the actual deck
itself
will be part of the existing
condition
of the
of the property
is there a plan that shows that