please raise your hand Ms. Fox and while we're waiting for Kelly to get on I'll just say that
um you know the project um you know will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood
um large mixed-use projects is what is in this specific area will not impair appropriate use
for development or adequate light and air of adjacent property will not increase substantial
congestion substantially increased congestion um and um based on you know it's just unlikely that
you can get an industrial user on this site. And I'll just say that the changes that we made,
and we will ask when this is voted to approve our revised plans, we reconfigured the parking.
We actually added parking spaces. We reduced the number of car shares from four to two,
and we increased from 36 to 44 parking spaces. We reduced our FAR down to 506, as I said,
with some push and pulls in the building. And then we added the deck, and I think we
added a six-floor deck to
accommodate that.
So if Kelly's on, I'll ask her if she
heard my testimony.
I heard.
Yes, I'm here.
Please identify yourself
with a record.
This is Kelly Fox.
K-E-L-L-Y-F-O-X.
You swear or
affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Nothing, Mr. Grigos.
Kelly, you heard my testimony.
do you adopt it as your own? I do. And with that, Rustin Ohler is also here if the board has
questions with regard to any of the plan or the design. Okay, before we get to that, is there
anyone else to testify in this case? Please raise your hand. Chair, we have Lisa who has been
unmuted. Please unmute yourself and please wait for the chair. Good afternoon, ma'am. Please
identify yourself with a record. First and last name. Spell your name, please. I'll swear you win.
Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Maiello, L-I-S-A. Maiello, M as in Mary, A-I-E-L-L-O.
I'm here representing the RCO. Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed.
um i would like mostly to read um the letter of opposition into the record and i can then
i don't know if there are other neighbors here but i'm happy to provide some um context
and some response to her presentation um dear chairman to chico april 28th 2021 the applicant
presented the following variants request for 1640 48 north hancock street to the community
of South Kansas Community Partners via virtual community meeting. I don't know that you need
me to read the here is where the description from the refusal is copied. Summary of position.
Community members and the SKCP planning and zoning committee hereafter the committee met
with the applicant over a series of meetings. Feedback consistently focused on a concern
that the project lacked open area and should not exceed the allowable FAR or maximum building
height. This project is the same development team and owner as the even larger project directly to
the south. There is an opportunity to provide substantial accessible open space for the community
there is an opportunity to provide substantial accessible open space for the community use between
use between
these two projects instead the applicant has provided a functionally semi-private deck space
that will not serve community interests as a result skcp does not support granting the variance
history of the review the applicant met with the planning and zoning committee and the full
community a number of times including once with the community for an information only session and
wants to reach a final resolution on the project at the final community meeting on april 28 2021
the applicant presented the final design of the project at that meeting neighbors expressed
serious concerns about the project the biggest concern was around the size and the density of
the project this part of the neighborhood has had many nearby projects approved with similar
residential density most recently 175 west oxford street which is directly to the south and developed
by the applicant's team this has the potential to create severe disruptions to the immediate
neighbors of these buildings where the cumulative effect of building residential multifamily
buildings to height and FAR standards established for industrial commercial uses will bring many
more new neighbors than buildings designed to residential standards single or multifamily
would under zoning classifications typical to the area. The commercial activity on the ground floor
provision of affordable units at 60 percent AMI and below grade parking are all elements that
neighbors believe belong in projects of this type. In addition, the project widens the sidewalks
surrounding it, includes publicly accessible open space deck. However, as currently designed,
neighbors in the committee do not believe the deck will be successful as a community amenity
and instead be functionally a private terrace for residents. The open space would be far more
successful if it were designed at grade and if it was either at a corner or bordered one of the
more public streets like Hancock, Turner, or Cecil B. Moore. As currently designed, the public space
is not sufficient to offset the detrimental effects of the increased height and residential
density and the loss of open space at the site. This feedback was consistently provided through
each iteration of the site design but was never addressed by the project team. In line with the
comments above, neighbors in the committee feel that the project should not cover nearly 100%
of the lot and exceed the allowable FAR for the site 500%. Again, this relates to the fact that
these lots are zoned for industrial commercial uses where 100% lot coverage is tolerated,
but it's not appropriate for residential uses in the old South Kensington neighborhood.
Nearly all projects that come before SKCP allow some open space on site,
including those that are building on lots zone for commercial industrial use.
This is important for light and air on neighborhood streets and lots.
Neighbors also express concerns about parking pressure added to the neighborhood by large influx of residents,
as well as the increase in commercial activity from the ground floor commercial space.
Overall, neighbors understand projects of this type have become the norm in this area of the neighborhood.
as the result of a legacy of industrial zoning and that a project of this type is likely to
ultimately be built here. However, the project could do much more to meet the needs of the
neighborhood given how much value it will extract by being as tall and as dense as it is. This
should include accurate public green space that satisfies the need for open lot areas and overall
building AFAR that does not exceed 500%. Skip's stance on the variance request was determined
through community resolution. Due to COVID, SKIP is holding virtual meetings and Zoom where community
members determine SKIP's position on each project through a collaborative conversation-based process
and outreach to neighbors by the committee. The community resolved at the final meeting to
oppose the project as presented at the April 28th, 21 meeting. As a result of the community meeting
resolution, SKCP does not support granting the variance. With respect, signed by Marco Burini,
the chair of the planning and zoning committee who is on vacation thank you
mr griegos do you have anything to add or discuss i mean i would i would say that um you know the the
the point of disagreement was whether there should be um public space that we are we giving up enough
of our land for public use and we feel that we gave up a significant amount of of space
by making that second deck public and i think there were members of the committee that felt
that that wasn't good enough and we appreciated that but in our our vision and our programming
and i think it was supported i was scrolling through there's um in the uh cdr comments um
A member of CDR committee noted that the space could be successful with the right programming and design modifications and the inviting stairs.
And I think that was added to the design that was created.
On top of that, and we really do, and I think South Kinsden, I have a relationship.
I've been doing work there for a lot of years.
And we really, you know, on the last project, there was some disagreement over this space here of additional public space.
We gave up additional homes to make that public space and all of this as public to program.
We gave up additional homes to make that public space and all of this as public to program it.
And I think that we've really thought through trying to maximize how these buildings will communicate
and how this space will be available and programmed to be successful.
On top of that, we have committed to the councilwoman that we will continue to meet with the community
and meet with stakeholders to see if there are other ways for my clients to support public open space
in the neighborhood because there are uh existing parks or spaces that have a need
for funding to be supported and we've committed to that and we're hoping to work on that in the
next two weeks um was the councilman's suggestion that we do uh that we do a resumption and we come
back but that she asked us to try to to work on that and we're committed to it and we're committed
to really making the space work and frankly if we could have done it at grade we would have done it
at the at the risk of strong ground floor retail the affordable and the underground parking and
when we look at all of the things that we did we thought this public space um well it may not have
met exactly what the neighbors wanted we think it's responsive and we think with the other benefits
of the project that certainly outweighs the concern in our eyes and that's why we stuck with this
design intent. Thank you. Sounds like you guys are somewhat on the same page about having more time.
Is there anyone else to testify and then I'm going to go back to the board because I don't
know if Tom or anyone wants to see the floor plans. Is there anyone else to testify in this case?
anyone from the councilwoman's office yes chair we have sloan folks mr folks you may unmute yourself
and please wait for the chair good afternoon mr folks i'm not sure if you were on this morning
if you were you're still on their oath if not i'll square you in good afternoon council chairman
did she go make that mistake everyone's no i was i was not on this morning uh my name is sloan folks
S-L-O-A-N-E-F as in fire
O-L-K-S
representing the office of Councilwoman
Maria Quinones Sanchez
You swear if I'm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth
I do swear sir, thank you
Please proceed
Yes, the Councilwoman
the Councilwoman appreciates the developers
and the developer
and the developer teams
addressing parking
and affordability
during this project
as well as passing uh cbr uh the councilman also understands and knows the community concern for
access to uh as long john you're you kind of go drift in and out i don't know if you're moving
away from the mic okay i'm sorry i it's i have my i have my air conditioner on so let me keep going
can you hear me now is that good yes that's okay yep okay and the councilman also appreciates the
community's concern for access to open space and green space um in their community and especially
regarding this project in regards to public access um the councilwoman is not just uh is not just
the council person of the 70 councilman district this is her neighborhood so she has a really good
understanding of what's going on there um to that end um she would like um to see uh the residents
the community, and the developer come back together, as Mr. Gamico said, over the next
couple of weeks and possibly discuss some outside-the-box opportunities to address green space.
We would be involved in these discussions. To that end, we'd like to make a request that
the ZBA hold the decision for two weeks upon our office reporting back to the ZBA regarding
these discussions and the progress that we've made. Thank you. Thank you. Sharon and or Tanya,
I know we were changing some of the ways we're going to be handling these requests.
What is the recommendation as to if we allow for another two or three weeks?
If they're essentially asking for a resumption hearing, this really should have been worked out
before today um if they need additional time this is this isn't just going to be reading the
letter into the record so i thought that's what i thought that was our intent was that it would
just be um i thought that's what i explained well yeah there would just be a letter from
we would send a letter i mean i think with no testimony that's i don't i don't think we need
further testimony i mean i think if if the councilwoman skcp and us want to submit letters i
think i'd be okay with that um yeah i mean my hope is that we can we would have continued this had we
My hope is that we can
We would have continued this had we known
that we're going to be asking for a rehearing
Well, I mean
I'm trying to
We wanted to proceed
and the councilwoman
in her hope to
try to
it seems like to try to
get some consensus on this issue
suggested
that we
continue to meet
and talk about this issue. I mean, I feel that it's a strong project, and I think there's other
neighbors out there that supported the project, and it was really, you know, the placement of
this outdoor space was the sole issue, and I think we can mitigate that, and we can, you know,
resume this with just a letter. The concern is that if you are going to continue working toward
this toward reaching an agreement, isn't that likely to result in changes that will have to be
presented on the record? No, I don't think it's going to be changes to the plan. I think it's
going to be a question of what can we do off-site to support the community and support
to support other outdoor space to mitigate what the community is saying is not enough public
space on our private land and we whether we agree with that or disagree with that would that make
sense we're willing to i mean we're trying to we're trying to respond um and move forward um
and and you know we're committing to having that conversation um whether you voted today or you
hold it for two weeks and allow us to submit letters but my clients are committed to the
neighborhood mr chairman um i just have something to say the community is against this
the councilwoman supports it isn't there another development going around going up around the
corner she didn't necessarily say she supported it right i mean there are conditions no no we
didn't council was not support that councilman did not offer her support the councilman's
question that and and to uh mr letter's um point um we don't we the office does not anticipate
there being a resumption the office institute is being that are submitted to the zba uh regarding
the outcome of of this of these continued meetings and these meetings would be outside of the box
we don't expect there being changes uh to the to the project specifically but we are anticipating
more along the lines of um an agreement that the community can move forward with that that that
that would address some of their issues um with projects that are coming into security that this
developer is doing um that that that can alleviate some of these open space issues can't mention
hey frank could could i say something real quick yeah sure yeah so so counselor um maybe you can