Their main concern is the majority of that block, minus the three addresses Mr.
Knuckleson gave you, are single-family residents.
And yes, they're close to Frankfurt Avenue, but there is multitude of properties in the area that are available for rent, either whole houses or apartments in the area.
To the specific address as mentioned, 1300 Marlboro was actually granted to family in 2010.
The recent one in 2024 was, for some reason, they had to come back again and get it.
1309 across the street was granted in 2000 i don't know if it was granted or not it's been
there since 2005 and then there's another one at 1246 marborough about 200 feet down the street
that attempted to take a single family home to a triplex in 2022 and it was denied they would
prefer a new house be built if that's what the you know the owner wants to do and join the
neighborhood, but they want to try and keep that block as single family residences, which is
basically what it is. All right, Mr. Everett, thank you so much for taking the time. Do you
have any questions, Mr. Everett, Mr. Nockmson? No, I would just state, and I don't believe this
was stated now, but it was stated in the previous hearing. This is intended to be an owner-occupied
property. My client would, you know, in order to be able to afford to build from the ground up,
which is unlike the property that Mr. Effort stated on the 1200 block of
Frankfurt, which was conversion of a single family home.
It's really expensive to build from the ground up, you know,
with the mortgage rates and the cost of construction, it's almost impossible.
And, you know,
my client in order to be able to live in Fishtown is looking to put a duplex
there where the upper unit would be her residence and the lower unit would be,
you know, the residence below on the first floor.
Now, I understand that obviously there's no way to enforce that, but that is my client's true intention.
And this is the way it could be afforded.
Otherwise, you know, she'll have to sell it.
And, you know, I don't think she could afford to build the property.
That's other comments from the virtual audience.
Yes, chair. We have Jeffrey Mitchell with their hand raised.
They'll be allowed to speak shortly.
good morning mr mitchell hello i don't know how to turn on my video on this i'm not the best at
zoom i apologize could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer uh jeffrey mitchell
j-e-f-f-r-e-y space mitchell m-i-t-c-h-e-l-l swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes mr mitchell your neighbor yes we live at 1314-1316 mall arbor
so we are in adjacent property all right please please proceed sir
mr mitchell yes are you in favor of this project or against i am in favor of the owner occupy
duplex we would not be in favor of the parking so as long as it's been amended so the parking
has been removed i think it has been we are in favor of the duplex okay mr knockoff do you have
any questions no i do not it just shows the the outreach by you know my client to her nearby
property owners who are in favor thank you thank you very much is there anyone else in the virtual
audience. Chair
Robert Everett's hand was raised
again. He'll be allowed to
speak shortly.
Okay. Mr. Everett, you've already testified.
Am I back?
Yeah. Do you want to testify
again, Mr. Everett?
Just to the
Mr. Naugwitz's
comment about the building, we understand
it's expensive to build. One
of the concerns that did come up at that community
meeting was the owner is
has the property deeded as an llc so there was concern that are they going to come in and live
there or not to show you know that they're serious about living in the property right and the basement
on the plan is completely empty and it looked like they could convert that to a larger size apartment
for living in all right mr everton do you have any questions that up mr knockamson
Again, for planning purposes, my client put it as an LLC. Again, it's not unordinary to have
And just, you know, again, it's not unordinary to have, you know, properties owned as an LLC, but it is the, you know, she does intend to live there.
And that's why she purchased the property.
And in terms of the basement living, you know, there's, you know, egress wells on, you know, allowing for the use of that property appropriately.
But again, if the board feels so inclined to limit the use of the first floor unit and lower level, you know, combined units, you know, we defer to the board in that respect.
I will say that there's a breezeway from front to back for trash, you know, you know, from trash being stored in the rear and then removed to the front.
So, again, we hope the board will grant these variances.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
No hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
I believe we've already testified and we have no updates.
Same position.
Thank you.
MI 2024, 006, 308, 1310 Marlboro Street.
I vote no per amended refusal dated 1-5-25.
My vote is no.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is no.
I win. My vote is no. Members, could you indicate with proviso? Yes, the proviso that the chair had stated with the amount of refusal. Thank you.
Michael Johns, my vote is no with proviso.
Cheryl Gaston, my vote is no with proviso.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is no with proviso.
I win. My vote is no with proviso.
Mr. Knockerson, we're going to hear your other case last, okay?
Okay, next.
Oh, last.
Yeah, okay.
So number eight, MI 2024-006-488-5419 Chester.
Renee Felder, this is a resumptive hearing.
It's a pro se.
Ms. Felder, have you been around to speak?
yes i'm muted could you hear me yes miss felder could you please state your name and spell for
the stenographer renee felder r as in ronald e n e e last name is felder f as in frank
e l d as in donut e r all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth yes could you turn your video on
this is the recording
Ms. Felder
Ms. Felder can you get your video on
I'll keep selecting it. It won't let me start the video.
All right. Okay. Right. All right.
Ms. Felder, this is a resumptive hearing from the previous hearing, right?
Correct.
You're going to prevent additional photos and give us an update.
The board will have questions. We'll take public testimony and then we'll see where planning stands.
So why don't you start your presentation with photos and anything else you could tell us about this case.
All right. So this is in regards to the parcel at 5419 Chester Avenue.
I purchased this property back in 2009 as a multifamily unit.
So I'm going to just show you a few pictures starting from the first unit to the second unit.
I'm trying to see where you share your screen.
He's, he's, okay.
in other words you want to you want to share your screen right correct is it a bit more
it would be the green button at the bottom of your screen the green button i see it
all right you've muted yourself
no we're okay go ahead please proceed okay can you hear me i can hear you're fine right could you
no we're okay go ahead please proceed okay can you hear me
here you go you're coming up now okay please proceed with your conversation about the photos
okay so this is the parcel right here um 5419 chester avenue
multi-family unit two separate entries and this is the first unit
this would be the living area with the kitchen right next to it
then this is the hallway proceeding from the kitchen and the first bedroom which is this room
right here. Next, there's the bathroom, shower, toilet, vanity. This is the back room. And
two different shots. Now, going forward to the second unit, you come in through that
entry up the door. And as soon as you come in, there's the restroom. And just to show you various
pictures, almost the same layout. This is the shower. This is the kitchen. I do apologize that
is not in color. And this is the living area. And this would be the kitchen going backwards
to the bedrooms. This is this one right here is the middle first room and this is the back
room okay okay and there's no living space in the basement just the heaters the utilities down here
so i had this resubmit my post-its again um you also asked for a copy of the deed
as you can see i purchased it in 2000 we have that we have it okay and you have all the mill
inserts yep uh and my um the refusal letter and if i remember correctly the 51st ward was in favor
of your project am i correct correct correct um going forward my argument was basically i wanted
the variance to be grandfathered back um based off the history of the property i was not aware
that it was like an illegal duplex because I purchased it there was no demolition or anything
just upgrades and as you can as you can see in Illinois statement and saw new sheetrock throughout
the two-family dwelling so I never was aware of that it was not coded as a as a two-family dwelling
so when I did the history I seen that it was once a duplex coded as a duplex and now that
The neighborhood is coming up, and there's nothing but multifamily units.
This is on the 5300 block of Chester Avenue, like 900 square feet from me.
Along with that, I'm just showing you the different multifamily units, as you see 5300 in this area.
Again, another one.
And these are just the vacant pictures that I took, that I was unable and unsuccessfully was able to mail those mail inserts to it, to those properties, basically.
So that's my case.
Thank you, Mrs. Felder.
Questions from the board?
Questions or comments from our attorney, Hillary Emerson?
Not at this time, Mr. Chair.
Questions or comments from the audience or the virtual audience?
No hands at this time, Chair.
Planning Commission.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
Comprehensive plan recommends no change to the RSA 5 residential single-family zoning at this location.
The property has a history of commercial use and multifamily,
and the appellant has demonstrated that there are unique physical conditions or circumstances
that would prevent the property from being used in conformance with the zoning code.
the planning commission recommends a board grant that proposed use variance for two dwelling units
thank you mi 2024 006 488 5419 chester avenue i vote yes michael johns my vote is yes
girl gaston my vote is yes tenetta graham my vote is yes hi owen my vote is yes
Thank you.
Number five, MI 2024-005-574-1510 North 25th Street.
Zen Jin is the attorney.
Zen Jin is the attorney.
This is a resumptive hearing.
This is a resumptive hearing.
Good morning.
Zen has been promoted to panelist.
You're allowed to speak.
Good morning.
I was coming in as a panelist.
Good morning, counsel.
Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
My name is Zen Jin, Z-H-E-N.
last name j-i-n here on behalf of the afghan you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing but the truth i do and are we gonna do we make him a panelist uh yes i i believe i am now
i was uh given the notification thank you all right good as soon as it will see when you come
up oh i i can see everybody and i'm surprised he's there i don't oh okay you guys see him
okay um my camera is on so okay good great thank you um this is resumptive hearing
you're going to provide updated information about revised plans board and council will
have questions public testimony and updated recommendation from planning please proceed
thank you uh this is a resumptive hearing uh based on um board member michael john's request
to know the amount of below grade for the seller.
I'm going to go ahead and share with the board
the updated exhibits.
Can everyone see my exhibit on the screen?
It's coming up now.
Yes, sir.
Great.
So the refusal, as the board's aware
from the prior presentation,
is for a multifamily use in a RSA 5 district.
We have received no opposition position
from the community, and we have presented last time regarding the actual plans of the property.
One of the issues that came up where the plan and the change on the plan for today's purposes
was to mark clearly the amount that the new construction seller would be below grade.
I'm going to zoom in on the plan because it'll be easier to see the actual information.
I also want to let the board know that we should have the architect available if needed to answer questions as well.
The below grade portion of the cellar is marked here on the plan.
The total height of the cellar from the base up to the first floor is nine feet six and an eighth.
The portion that's below grade is five foot eleven and three eighths.
So that's the portion that is below grade.