So the hope was that we would be able to make a better decision with a continuance and having the community present to be able to really understand what their concerns were.
Much of that block is still residential single-family properties, and the advertisement of this particular location for the community and its responsibility.
this particular location for the community and the responsibility or civic duty of the RCO is to
make sure that people are being presented with something that is actually safe. So we did not
have any of that available to us to be able to move forward today. And even what you saw today,
when you saw something that was not relative to any support at the time of the meeting,
We do our due diligence and then you get a person that is allowed today to go ahead with support from people who were not on that call or were not even or not even near there.
So that, you know, is what I wanted to say. These places are not to be represented, you know, or misrepresented to people also on these sites.
They should be very clear about where they're coming, and we wanted to be able to address some of the things that are part of the renovation of that property, particularly the rooftop debt.
So thank you.
Mrs. Cummins, thank you, as always.
Anyone else in the virtual audience?
Yes, Mr. Chair.
A hand up from 3552.
Must be Ms. Fernandez.
i'll have them speak adrian
yes this is adrian you've already you've already been sworn you've already been sworn
just state your name and testify okay um adrian fernandez my last name is spelled f-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z
for Swampaddle Neighborhood Parcels Association, RCO.
And I am asking that for 2821 West Lehigh Avenue,
the request for visitor accommodations
in our single family district,
that we be allowed to have a public meeting.
We've not heard from the current lawyer.
No one attended the meeting for different reasons,
scheduled conflicts or whatever,
except for Benita Cummings.
The information that's presented today, we know nothing about it, and some of it doesn't make sense.
For example, I believe I heard the owner say that they wanted to charge $600 a night for rent.
That doesn't even sound feasible for a family.
And also the lawyer, the current lawyer, he presented information that's contradictory to that because he said that the block was substandard housing, abandoned buildings and things like this.
So these types of information, we need to have discussions about with neighbors to understand exactly what they're trying to put there for $600 a night.
Does that mean they're going to have to have 10, 15, 20 people to kind of afford to pay for that?
This is all confusing in our single-family district.
There are – the Dell is closed most of the years.
We're a residential neighborhood that is Strawberry Mansion just south of an abutting Swamp Oodle,
and this project doesn't make sense,
and we do not want to promote visitor accommodations in our single-family areas.
We really need to have a public meeting, and we just ask this be continued so we can have a proper public meeting with proper notice and the refusal sent to the neighbors so they can see the paperwork, come in, hear the presentation, ask questions as normal, and we make sense of how this fits in for $600 per night in our single-family district.
Thank you very much for your comments.
If I may respond briefly, Chair.
Could you wait one minute, please? Is there anyone else in the virtual audience?
No, Mr. Chair, no further hands.
Please respond.
Number one, we properly noticed both Swamp Poodle as well as Strawberry Mansion.
The coordinating RCO assigned to us through the RCO system was Strawberry Mansion and not Swamp Poodle on this.
We sent out notices properly. We, again, as I stated, cannot control who is able to attend the meeting.
And in terms of the price point, while I don't really understand why the neighbors would have any control of a set price point that, one, isn't determined yet, and that, two, if it doesn't work for the applicant, they're welcome to reduce.
That's not a set price point. We're not stating that that is what we're going to charge and never move that. But it also does not impact the neighbors as this is a visitor accommodation request. And the price paid would not impact the neighborhood of the.
And the price paid would not impact the neighborhood or the ability of people in the neighborhood to afford housing.
So I just believe that this is an appropriate use of the property.
It is a type of use that's not, while non-existent, it may be non-existent in the neighborhood, could bring a lot of benefit to this somewhat commercial corridor and this block.
Thank you.
Thank you very much.
Planning Commission.
It's Ron Bednar from City Planning.
First name Ron, R-O-N, last name Bednar, B-E-D-N-A-R.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed.
This property is indicated for residential use on the city plan or adopted city plan recommends no change to the existing single-family zoning at this location.
The applicant's hardship is not supported with evidence of unique physical circumstances or condition of a property that would prevent it from being used in conformity with the use requirements of the code.
Therefore, we recommend that the request for variance for visitor accommodation not be granted.
We're going to hold the vote on this.
We will report back next Wednesday at two o'clock on where we stand with this case.
OK. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're going to move to Mr. Chair. I'm sorry. I just just to clarify, are we resuming next week? You want to vote next week? What what what is it that this is what I'm going to do? We're going to meet next week and decide what to do. We will announce it at 2 p.m.
Got you. Okay, understood. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay, sure. Number three, MI 2024-004-330-437 North 52nd Street. Tameka McCoy is the attorney. There's a letter of support from the 44th Ward RCO, and Council Member Gauthier has taken a position of support.
Good evening, everyone. Thank you.
Morning. Counsel, you thought we forgot you.
I heard you on the phone. You thought we forgot you, didn't you? Okay.
Could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer?
Sure. It's Tamika, T-A-M-I-K-A. Last name is McCoy, M-C-C-A-T-O-Y.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Could you identify your client, their relationship to the property?
Sure. I represent Jim Ragoon-Anon, who owns 437 North 52nd Street and is the subject property for this application for mixed use.
Okay. Our vice chair has a few questions.
Good evening, Counselor. Do you agree to read another refusal or stipulate to his accuracy?
you know then all the required documents that's needed to proceed with this case five days in
advance of this hearing yes thank you counsel please proceed you've already shared your screen
okay thank you um this is the petition that had been submitted relative to the property located
at 437 North 52nd street. I am, um, displaying the settlement documents, uh, in relation to this
property. The property was acquired a few months ago earlier this year, February of 2024. Um,
it's my understanding that the tax clearance had been, uh, submitted. This is the certificate
it showing the tax clearance.
There were 127 neighbors who would be affected that were notified regarding the application.
There was an RCO meeting that was scheduled and attended on September 5th, 2024 at 645
We did get a notification from the RCO that they are in support of the project that was
emailed to the board.
I am showing a depiction of the property.
It has the notices that is affixed.
Here is another with a up-close shot of the actual notices.
There were building permits that had been obtained for this particular property, and
I am showing the building permit.
Inside is contemplated that it's a two-unit.
On the first floor, there would be a child care facility.
and on the second floor would be single family living.
It was essentially, you know, construction essentially was begun to essentially get the main points situated
main points situated and so that this could be presented. A copy of the deed for this particular
and so that this could be presented.
property is also affixed with Jim Ragunan on as the owner. And so that is here. I have drawings
that would show the renderings for what's contemplated. Essentially the first floor,
as I said, it's going to be a child care facility. The young lady who would be operating the child
care facility is Marcella Stetler, who's been in this business for 12 years. It is contemplated
that there would be, this is the front entrance here. There is a entrance into the facility.
There's also going to be a side entrance. I'm going to show the next page here with a ramp
For a secondary entrance, this is for the childcare facility. So the daycare would be on the first floor with a handicap accessible ramp on the side. So there's a front entrance, a side entrance, and a rear entrance for the building.
There's a kitchen in the middle, and then the office area with a restroom is depicted at the back of the first floor of this particular structure.
The second floor would be essentially a two-bedroom living quarters.
Here, it marks a bedroom, but this would essentially function as a living room.
There's a balcony, living room, kitchen, bathroom, and then two bedrooms.
The entrance, one of the concerns for the RCO was that there was a separate entrance for the second floor residence from the daycare.
And that is shown on this particular drawing.
Actually, let me do this.
So there are two doors at the front elevation side by side.
One would be for the early child care center.
The other would be for the second floor unit.
so it's separate entrance for both. The sign that would be affixed for the first floor is going to
be a painted on sign. It's not going to be anything affixed to the building edifice. It's
going to be painted. And essentially, this is the letter from the 44th Ward Democratic RCO,
and they essentially had issues with the trash plan and operation time that was squared away
during the course of the RCO meeting
so that everyone was on the same page.
They had suggested the ramp and separate entrance.
And so that was incorporated within the plan
based on their concerns
and meeting the needs for their concerns.
For that, they submitted their support for the project.
At this time, I would like to bring in Mr. Ragunanon
to adopt the testimony that's been provided
and we'll address any questions that the board has.
oh i should i should uh include that mr ragunanon actually owns one of the neighboring houses
actually the next door um structure to this particular unit as well so he has been part
of the community for a long time you see his hand jim yes hi could you sir could you sir
could you please state your name and spell for the court stenographer jim ragunanan j-i-m-r-a-g-o-o-n-a-n-a-n
we're referring to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel
thank you uh mr ragunanan did you hear the information provided to the uh board yes and
And do you adopt that as if it were your own as truthful and accurate in all respects?
I would submit on that.
Questions from the board.
How many children are going to be in this facility?
That is a question for Ms. Marcellus.
That's her.
I believe if Mr. Ragunanan is able to answer, he can address it.
yes it should be to like 20 of them
and what
so it's up to 20
okay and what ages are we talking about
I know it's preschool so it would be before
kindergarten so before age 5
okay and
And what did we, was there a plan that I see the action?
Was there a plan? Did I see the actual area that we're talking about here? What feet are we talking about for this child care space?
Sure. So this is the front of the structure looking directly across the street. This is 52nd Street, the north section of 52nd Street. If you were to look to the left of the building, there is a mixed use property just a few steps away from where this building is actually situated.
If you were to look at the other direction on the corner, there are other against mixed use properties as well that have commercial spaces on a lower level, residential spaces on a top level.
So it would not be inconsistent with what's already existing within the area.
This is the exterior of the building.
but again what what size space for the uh for the child care portion of this
you so so it would it occupy the entire first floor uh let's see if um
perhaps mr ragunanan can provide the square footage do you have the square footage
because it's kind of small i can't you know okay based on the plan i'm not sure i can't
remember if on 35 you're like close to 400 square feet 350 square feet i guess something like that
yeah okay are you realizing the basement for the daycare also no the basement is just going to be
uh space for the access to the utilities and that sort of thing okay
is there a rare yard yeah where are the kids gonna yes there is a uh rare yard
and is that where the kids are gonna play and what have you do we have yes and they're there
they have a direct access uh from the building to the real yard yeah i'm assuming that i guess i
assume um i guess concerns about the the layout that you have in front of us one it kind of
doesn't match what you described in terms of the two doors in the front because this really you
know um seems a little different well you do have the two doors in the front but you're going to the
kids are going to be walking through a kitchen through an office to go to the backyard which is
which is a little odd and there's no there's no bathroom separate bathroom which is required by
daycare um within the daycare space so it's my understanding i'm not sure how this ramp is going
to be designed if they are going to have maybe steps at the back end or um something that enables
access to the rear yard i'm sure that's something that could be done um there is another rear
entrance here there's a bathroom um you know there's a desk space closet space and a bathroom
the back of the bathroom is in the office area right yes bathroom has to be in where the children
are and the number of children should be listed based on the square footage of the space
so i'm a little i'm a little little concerned about the information not being um real clear
on the plan but i do appreciate the fact that looking to do something other than a some kind
of storefront uh there and it's and the proposals for daycare um i know that site very well it used
to be a flower shop for years and years and years 50 years probably um so see something happening
um but it's just odd that you're coming to zoning and the works started like months ago
on the renovation so that's a little odd uh but so those are those are my concerns the layout
kind of doesn't make sense well sir uh the building was acquired in february it used to
be loretta's flower shop and it was loretta's flower shop for decades um the work just started
I think sometime around August, September, though it's not yet complete. And so concerns that you
would have could be essentially accommodated, particularly the design for the side ramp
and access to the rear yard. But thank you for your edification in terms of the area
and its needs i i go the same concern about the restroom um you need the restroom being
you need the restaurant being in the office area like you have to go all the way through the whole
in the office area like you have to go all the way through the whole building
building just to go to the bathroom so i think they're probably and you know i know the state
would probably let you know there needs to be more restaurant young people you can't go you can't
have kids go through a kitchen to go to a bathroom you just can't i mean so i don't know and i don't