Given the prevalence of multifamily residential development in the immediate vicinity, we recommend the request for fairness for granted.
Mr. Clinton, I think what I'm going to do is I'm going to take this back to the board
in an executive session and just talk about it a little bit.
Understood, Mr. Chairman.
That's what we'll do with this. Why don't we move right to the next one?
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
We'll see where we stand.
Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
Pardon me?
Excuse me. This is Tom Holloman.
Did the council say, did he have a letter from the RCO or he does not have a letter from the RCO?
He had.
So what happened was there was a second RCO involved.
The second RCO gave him a letter of support.
The first RCO from last, never sent anything in, Tom.
He does have one.
But I think this whole thing we should just sit and talk to.
And I think the next one will bring the same issue.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We'll, I guess, let's take two weeks, Hillary, okay?
And we'll bring this to us.
We'll need to bring it back January 11th, Chair.
Okay, that's fine.
We won't have hearing for the next two weeks.
All right.
Henry, why don't you proceed with MI 2022, 004-390-201220 North 41st Street.
We know who your owner is.
We're fine. So why don't you start with that one?
Mr. Chairman, does he have to be read the exhibits?
Do I have to give him the...
We could, but I think it's the same thing as the last one.
But go ahead, Tom.
Do? Okay. Good afternoon, counsel.
Do you agree to waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to his accuracy?
Did you email all of the exhibits and documents as required, such as proof of ownership, tax
clearance, copy of refusal, pictures or drawings of the property five days in advance to this
hearing?
Did you move to your RCO, and do you have a letter?
Yes, all of the above.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Holman.
is that visible mr chairman yeah well i'm fine yep what's good uh good evening again henry
clinton for the applicant keith she the same owner as the prior project um and a lot of my
comments will be redundant uh concerning my comments with 1220 which is the property next
door this is my exhibit package containing exhibits aa through a11 which i ask be admitted
into the record. The refusal is basically similar to the one on the corner. This is a much larger
lot. This lot is over 100 feet deep, and the refusals are basically the same. First was a
front setback refusal, which we've cured after we met with the community because there was such an
outcry against changing the look of the block. The second refusal has to do with use. This is a
request for a six-unit building on 1222. Again, we have a letter from East Parkside Residents
Association in support of the project, and we did ask initially that the property would be used
for condominiums, that's the mindset of the owners. I mean, I don't know why someone mentioned
that we were going to do apartments. It was always going to be condominiums. My clients believe that
if they do condominiums, it'll make it affordable for people to live and own and build equity in a
property, as Mr. Ali said earlier in the other testimony, in the other case. So again, we have
a long vacant lot very deep on a block that is all multifamily. There's one multifamily on the
same side of the street. It's a four-unit property. These homes are 18 feet wide. To have a single
family home would be a very, very large home. That's why you see most of the houses on this
block are multifamily. Photograph again showing you the vacant lots on the block, the two larger
Photograph again showing you the vacant lots on the block.
The two larger properties on the block both face Gerrard Avenue.
This is another perspective showing you this is the interior lot at 1220.
This is the house across the street that I referenced in the prior presentation.
This is a multifamily, which was just constructed.
Our zoning notices are here.
The plans.
We do have a proviso if the board looks kindly upon this application, because again, not to overdo it, but we did move the front of the house back 13 feet, and this was able to increase the open space minimally by almost 2%.
This is just showing outline of where 1222 would be.
This is the elevation. The property to the left is 1220. 1222 is on the corner.
floor plans are similar to the other floor plan where we have six units we have a unit in the
basement uh one on the second floor front and back third floor front back which equals uh six units
i don't want to belabor the point mr chairman but basically uh the zoning map which i showed
you already has cmx1 on the corner excuse me mr clinton uh this is hillary i think you have the
packet for 1222 pulled up instead of 1220 let's see on that i did notice the one said 1222
Me too.
All right, let me go back to that then.
There it is.
Sorry about that.
So the photographs and the refusals are the same.
Multifamily use, six units is prohibited.
it. Front setback, as I mentioned, we did push the house back 13 feet. This is the same letter
from 1222 as it is for 1220. Photographs are the same as the other project. I won't go through
them, Mr. Chairman, being that this is the last meeting of the year. All right. Thanks,
Thanks, Ms. Emerson, for pointing that out.
So basically, this is a cross-section of the property.
In between the property is going to be a courtyard.
There's rear space for yard, and there's front space for front porch area.
The idea is there's one unit is in the basement of first floor.
Second unit is the second floor, and there's a unit on the third floor, one bedroom.
And then in the rear of the property, it's connected via a walkway.
Fourth unit is the basement of first floor.
Fifth unit is on the second floor. Sixth unit is on the third floor. The top units have access to a rooftop deck. Unit one and unit four have access to outdoor space in the courtyard. This is an aerial top-down view just to show this stone area is the open space. This is the open courtyard between the front and the back connected with a stair tower.
So, Unit 3 and Unit 6 on the third floor, one bedroom in the front, two in the back.
On the second floor, one bedroom in the front, two in the back, and then Unit 1 has two bedrooms.
Since this is a separate presentation, I will go through briefly.
the other properties on the street and their uses.
So again, we have multifamily uses at eight units,
which is two more than they're proposed here at 1220,
four units at 1211, six units at 1213 units at 1211.
four units at $1,211, six units at $1,216, and two units at $1,237.
I don't know that you want me to go through each of the backup materials, Mr. Chairman.
I think we have that information.
So basically, in summary, we have long vacant lots on the block.
This is a very large lot, over 100 feet, 18 feet wide, very large for a single-family home.
And that's probably one of the reasons why there aren't any single-family homes on the block.
It's multifamily, and we're trying to keep in character with the block.
It's adjacent to public transit on both Girard Avenue and Parkside Avenue.
We're not affecting any lighter air with any adjacent property.
We don't have any issues with open space, rear yards, or height.
And we're in harmony with what the neighborhood wants, which is home ownership.
And that's my client's goal.
With that, you're...
I want to bring your client on, adopt your testimony, and then we'll...
Mr. Sheed, can you unmute yourself, please?
Hello?
Hi, Mr. Sheed, you've already been sworn.
Just state your name for the record.
Keith Sheed, K-E-I.
Proceed, counsel.
Mr. Sheed, were you on the call when I presented your project to the board?
Yes, sir.
If you had the opportunity to testify, would you adopt my testimony as your own and as true and correct?
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Sheed.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
I have this Sandy Carter on the line again with her hand raised.
hello again thank you for taking hi miss carter i you know i when you testified before i said
would you have the same testimony and is your same comments somewhere for this property no
all right go ahead as a matter of fact Mr. Chairman I have a very important question I would
like to ask you me okay yes if you don't mind well I'll try I don't know if I can answer but
go ahead okay the question is if you have an RCO meeting and there was a vote given and it was
opposed to does a different RCO that was not the one who presented the original meeting had the
right to come in and write a letter on their own? Listen to me. I think the only thing that we can
say is we have to work with what we have. The only letter that we have is the RCO that's in favor of
it we don't have a letter from the past rco the cdc when they did theirs so at this point the only
thing we have is where we are okay but we've taken your testimony and we've taken several other
people's testimony and we're listening to what you said okay right because the whole thing was
misrepresentation stated they said it was supposed to be apartments and then come to
found out it was condos that's misrepresentation okay all right okay but i i hear you and and
again thank you for calling in again okay thank you for taking my call oh absolutely is there
anyone else in the virtual audience mr jihad lee is there i i have a lot of things sir mr ali
Yes, thank you. I just want to, the only different thing I wanted to say was that, Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, the coordinating RCO, which was the centennial, had the responsibility to send in the tally.
We were participating, another RCO, participating RCO, and the records are clear. So we sent in our recommendation based on what we felt.
I do want to also say it wasn't just anecdotal that these guys are condo developers, that we went out and looked.
In fact, that's all they do is do condominiums.
So it was just a miscommunication that when they first started, Mr. Shadi Keith, he has stated apartments.
But he actually, through whatever way, got tongue-tied.
It really was condominiums was what they were talking about.
So that's how it all happened.
And thank you for coming back on.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
it's roberta connor why oh wait well i thought the hands were raised but okay proceed
Well, I thought the hands were raised.
Proceed.
State your name, please.
Hello.
My name is Arlesta Carter again.
Ms. Carter, you've already been sworn.
What would you want to add, Ms. Carter?
My testimony, it is the same.
But I wanted to also note that we don't have, this community is not a community that has condos in it.
I just wanted to.
Okay, that's fine.
Thank you.
Thank you for your input.
We appreciate it.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Jesus Christ.
Ms. Roberta Connor.
Hello.
Hi, Ms. Connor.
You're already, wait a minute, Ms. Connor.
You're already sworn.
What do you want to add to your testimony?
I just want to be clear that when because I keep hearing the term multifamily and condos now or is it condos or multifamily because just my opinion there's a difference when you say multifamilies you're talking about someone that owns the building that is going to rent out the apartments.
But when you say condos, you're talking about home ownership of an apartment, which they two coincide.
So I want to be clear.
Ms. Conner, we're talking condos.
And I don't want to get into definitions.
Mr. Chair, do you want me to, I can answer this very quickly.
Go ahead.
Yes. So under the zoning code, if there are multiple dwelling units at a property, it's considered multifamily.
It doesn't matter whether they're rental units or condo units.
The zoning code does not make a distinction when it comes to ownership.
It just has to do with whether there are multiple dwelling units at a particular property.
Thank you, Hillary.
Thank you so much.