several hundred thousand dollar single family home. We also, this is my email to the RCO basically
asking shortly after the meeting on the 12th if we could meet with them again prior to our hearing
on 9-29, saying that we were making some revisions to the plans and we would like to meet with our
group. There was no response to the original emails that were sent. And then finally,
my paralegal reached out and essentially Diane wrote in her email today that, you know, she will
give the information to the community. We sent her the plans and then basically saying we're
willing to change the plans based on the community would be in favor of we gave two options keep the
three units but do rentals instead of condos and set back the third story five feet from the front
with a mansard roof or reduce the building to two units and have them be home ownership units
um so she this is some clarification on her end to what we were asking for um and then she
essentially wrote um they have voted to not have a second meeting so we were not given the
opportunity to meet with uh the community again to actually propose the revisions um i i assume
that uh miss settles who i believe is on the call as well um we'll probably reiterate that but we
did we are trying to work through revisions and just we're not given um the opportunity um
so at this point we've provided both options to the board um we i'll have our architect jeff
and go through them. I know we have a letter of opposition from an affected RCO. But again,
we didn't really have the opportunity at large to speak with the community to be able to make
any kind of revisions or talk through potential revisions. And I will say when we left the first
meeting, we did say, you know, would you guys be willing to speak again? And they had said yes,
which is sort of why we went into the exercise of providing revisions. So it was a little
surprised when we weren't able to to meet again um i guess at this point um would like for jeff
owen to come on just to go through the plans for the record um and then if um board has any
questions we're basically open to either option we'd obviously love an opportunity to meet with
the community but given they said no we're kind of between a rock and a hard place at this point
hey mr owen please spell your full name i'll swear you in yes uh jeffrey owen j-e-f-f-r-e-y
owen o-w-e-n where or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
i do please proceed i'm sorry um jason could you promote mr owens please
Joanne will be rejoining as a panelist.
Joanne, you need to unmute yourself.
Good afternoon.
Okay, you've been sworn in.
Ms. Pritzker?
um jeff are you able to pull up the plans and go through them for the board yes absolutely
thank you rachel should i start with the three three unit option yeah i would just go yeah i
would just go through what we originally proposed and then the revisions okay very good
okay you should be able to see the uh the renderings now
um as rachel mentioned um so we we proposed two different options um the first option is to keep
the three units uh three unit building um the building is three stories high with a uh with a
uh a basement um the first this first option was to set the third floor back five feet from the
second floor. As you can see, most of the houses or all the houses in this particular street view
have an enclosed front porch and are two stories high. Our proposed structure is three stories high
enclosed front porch, one story high front porch, and then also with this third floor setback.
I will also go quickly through the plan as well.
Just to mention really quickly, the setback on the third floor is not because of a refusal at all. It just was a consideration that we added in order to keep up with the concerns.
was a consideration that we added um in order to keep up with the concerns of the community
that is that is correct even though the uh this block primarily is two-story highs uh the adjacent
lots uh is vacant um allowing us um the opportunity for a three-story high building
um meeting the uh height requirements that is not that does not have a 34 setback
Here are some renderings, views of the front elevation, rear elevation with a small walkout
porch and then also a third floor roof deck with a pilot house structure, enclosed stair
pilot house structure to access the third floor, the main roof deck.
Let me quickly go to the actual floor plans.
There we go.
I do apologize for this being a little bit small.
The plan on the left is the basement plan.
So the basement plan, first floor plan, second floor plan, third floor, and roof deck.
As I mentioned before, a three-unit building, primary entry for all three units is off of
the main street front facade where you come to a foyer for access to the first floor units.
You would continue up the stairs to access the second unit which is on the second floor
and also the third unit which is on the third floor. The first floor unit also has living
a dwelling space in the basement. This particular unit is a two-bedroom, one-and-a-half bathrooms.
The second floor unit is a one-bedroom, one-bath unit, and the third floor unit is a one-bedroom,
one bath unit as well. On the third floor, you would proceed again up the stair to the pilot
house structure to access a roof deck on the main roof level of the building. As Rachel mentioned
before, the difference between this proposal and our original zoning proposal was a five-foot
setback on the third floor, which basically just reduced this bedroom on the third floor.
And just indulge me for a second, I will go to our two-unit option.
Again, I'll start with the rendering here. Again, building is essentially the same
three stories with a finished basement. Instead of a five-foot setback on the third floor,
we have a slight mansard setback with a protruding window, bay window on the third floor.
with, you know, with our intent to help soften this third floor elevation to keep more of
a Cornish line along on the second floor, second floor roof line of the of the streets.
And let me quickly go to the, to the floor plans for this particular option.
again the basement floor plan is on the left and then continue the first second third and
roof plan essentially this particular option as we mentioned before now reduces the unit
count from three dwelling units down to two dwelling units um we would uh maintain or
continue to look at these as homeownership dwelling units you walk the main entrance to the building
again is off of the main front elevation you walk into a small foyer where you have entry door to
the lower dwelling units to the right here and or a door that leads you to the main stairs the
building that leads you up to to the upper units the lower dwelling unit again is first floor and
the basement unit. This unit size again is two bedrooms, one and a half bathrooms,
and then we have combined the second floor unit and the third floor together to create one
drawing unit, which is two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and we would maintain access through the roof
stair to a roof deck on the main roof.
thanks Jeff you're welcome um chairman happy to take anything mr owen in your first rendition
Thanks, Jeff.
You're welcome.
of with the three units how many bedrooms were on the second floor
it was one bedroom and it's one bedroom on the third floor correct yes in your second rendition
where you combine the second and third floor and i asked you because the print is very small how
many bedrooms are in that uh it's two bedrooms um and two bathrooms so we so we go from the
original rendition has three units has a two-bedroom unit and two one-bedroom units
and we would go to an option where we have two dwelling units both with two bedrooms
And in the first, again, in the first and second rendition, you're showing bedrooms in the basement, correct?
Correct, yes.
Ms. Pritzker, do you have your client to adopt your testimony?
Yes, Gertie Tepta is on the line.
and chairman uh as you pointed out uh we would be happy to uh not have bedrooms in the basement if
we were uh if that was more favorable to the board we just weren't able to kind of work through those
plans with the community um you see a gertie mr chairman yeah tom let's get the her client on and
we'll come back to you all right thank you thank you to speak mr teffa please
ma'am please spell your first and last name
already you have to unmute yourself
there you go dirty teffa g-e-r-t-i-t-e-f-a you swear if i'm to tell the truth the whole truth
nothing about the truth i do thank you miss pritzker uh gertie have you heard my testimony
today in front of the board yes i did um do you believe it to be accurate to the best of your
knowledge and do you adopt it as your own yes i do thank you yeah tom i'm sorry i had to go that
way i'll go back to mr holloman thank you mr chairman is there any way to redesign
to put the uh bedrooms on the first floor and the living room diamond kitchen in the basement
um i'm sure there is uh are you able to speak to that yes i am okay yeah i think that would be
the answer is yes uh mr holliman thank you welcome any other questions from the board
no no who else would like to testify in this case please raise your hand
Mr. Chair we have a Diane Settles with her hand raised I will allow her to speak at this time
Good afternoon Ms. Settles please spell your full name and I'll swear you in
My name is Diane D-I-A-N-E last name is Settles S as in Sam E-T-T-L-E-S
You swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth
Yes I do
Thank you please proceed
First, I would like to say they had, I believe Rachel said that we had received the packet
that she had given to the ZBA.
No, Ms. Diane, I had said that I had sent the revisions for the revised plans to you all.
Oh, okay.
I thought you said you had sent the packet as well when he was saying about the letters
that were required.
Okay, so that's what he was, that's what you said that you sent?
I thought that the chairman had ran off a list of things that you agreed to.
No, yeah, Ms. Diane, the vice chair asked me in the beginning of the meeting if there was a number of documents that I did submit, which I did.
But I said it admitted to the board.
I didn't say that I submitted to you all.
So I apologize for that confusion.
Ms. Settle, so you understand the vice chair, that's a normal procedure.
we ask every applicant to provide us with information regarding their outreach to the RCO.
Okay. All right. I do understand that, but I thought, I'm sorry, I misunderstood.
No worries.
First, I would like to say, in one of Rachel's renderings of the poster, first of all,
that poster was copy paper it was like 20 inches on a post it is not still out
it was like 20 inches on a post. It is not still out there. It had rained as our understanding
that they're supposed to maintain that for the 21 days and that has not been maintained whatsoever.
Second, I would like to say that the group did not say at the end of the RCO meeting,
which was on the 21st, that they wanted to meet again. I had reiterated that to Allison who was
there I guess she's their paralegal on the 20 on the um 21st telling her um letting her know that
at her request I will reach out to the affected um community that attended the meeting on the 12th
but I reminded her that at the end of the meeting their vote was not to have another meeting so
when Rachel did when Allison continued to reach out to me I did reach out to the community
and let them know of what the developer was proposing.
They offered several dates,
but none of those dates were acceptable
and they were not interested in meeting at all.
No one has, I just wanted everyone to know regarding,
you have our letter of opposition
and just to reiterate,
if anyone knows or does not know
that there is street cleaning in that area.
There are street cleanings in that area four days out of the week.
And we already are having a problem with parking as it is.
On Mondays, that very same block for the 1,200 and the 1,300 block, they have cleaning from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Then on Tuesday, on the surrounding block, on the 1300 or 1400 block of South 51st Street, there is cleaning from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
Then there's cleaning on Thursday on King Sesson Avenue from 49th to 63rd in King Sesson from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m.
On Friday, there's street cleaning from 54th and Woodland to 49th and Woodland from 7 a.m. to 8.30 a.m.
There's permanent parking on the very street that Rachel showed you beside where this development will be, which is Upland Street.
They have a two-hour parking.
There is also a school in the same area encompassing where this development is proposing to be, B.B. Comergy's Elementary School, which has boundaries on 50th and Upland that has the two-hour parking, 50th and Greenway to 51st and Greenway.
Then it's from the 1300 block, I'm sorry, then from 50th and Greenway to 51st and Greenway, and then from 51st and Greenway to Upland Street, where there is no parking daily from 7 a.m. to 4.30 p.m.
So all of this street cleaning, no parking, already presents a problem with the existing neighbors that are on this block and all the surrounding areas.
So every area that I have given to you surrounds this development.
So to put in three condos, which is potentially maybe six cars, is causing a hardship in this tight-knit block.
There are only two lots on this block. One of them is a community garden. So for the neighbors to ask for their tight knit family block not to be disrupted by a three story condo building is we feel is only right.
You have, we have a letter of support from one of the other RCOs. The community has also sent in petitions that are date stamped to let you know how horrendous this would be for them.
I don't believe that I'm the only person on here that is speaking on this property 1226, but as the RCO, I'm relaying to you what we have seen to be a true fact and a hardship, which will be on this block and the surrounding community, because this is a tight community where the blocks, we have multiple blocks where everyone already has a car.
And as she said, okay, this is leading directly from Recreation Center.
This block flows right into a Recreation Center, a heavily used Recreation Center, which, as a matter of fact, is under the rebuild, where it's being revitalized in so many ways.
Also, the library, that is right on the corner of 51st and King Cessna Avenue.
So as representing the RCO, representing the community, that is some of the reasons.
representing the RCO, representing the community, that is some of the reasons why we are opposing
this development. Thank you ma'am. I just want to point out it's Ms. Pritzker referenced there
might be a possibility of revising the plan down to two units as opposed to three. Is that something
you think your community group would want to have a conversation about um at our last
we're between myself and allison they're paralegal i asked them to confirm what do they mean by two
units is because it does the two units mean two floors it doesn't mean three floors and they
confirmed that it was three floors so i made sure i made sure that the community knew that it was
three floors and they were against that they do not want condos you do understand ma'am that
by right he can build the 38 foot height yes sir i do i do what they are totally against
is the three condos that is why he has been refused is that not correct i'm asking the
question is there an opportunity to have further conversation if the developer is willing to reduce
the number of units from three to two are the units condos or apartments well that's a discussion
that you would have with the uh miss pritzker and her client yeah i think miss diane we would be
open to having the conversation which is just what we were looking to do otherwise we're kind
of operating in a vacuum a bit. By right, he can build a three-story. Yes, ma'am. Right. But by right,
he can't have a condo. He can have a condo. He just, the code doesn't distinguish between
rentals or condos, but he couldn't have multifamily, which I think is what you're
trying to say. Yeah, well, multifamily would be either a condo or an apartment. Correct.
so unless is it something that you think you you and your board would
be willing to have a further conversation about
if not you can tell me no i'm just asking well no well they're contacting me now and i must tell
you what they said they said they only want a one unit single family okay a single family okay
Okay. Fair enough. All right. Anyone else who'd like to testify in this case? If so,
please raise your hand. And if you could limit your comments to something new and different,