in City policy in 2017, requiring asphalt or a hard surface to park on, unless you have a
preexisting gravel surface that you are using, which could be refreshed and allowed as
a legacy use. My finding was there was not pre-existing parking there, which would
have allowed Class 5 gravel as a legacy use. On the screen before you are a few
pictures I'd like to share. The first one is a street view at the corner of Mackubin and
Van Buren. The property is a Van Buren address with a driveway on the side, entering
off Mackubin. Looking at aerial views over the years, in 2024 you can see that there's
fresh class five gravel. Same thing in 2022. There was a larger gravel area in 2020.
Again you can see that in 2018. In 2017, you can see an L-shaped area showing what
looks more like a worn dirt surface. In 2015, there is no surface at all, looking more
like a worn-down lawn. As stated earlier, in 2017 there was the policy change. The
appellants indicate there was a conversation with staff in DSI who told them they can
have this as a parking surface as long as it has Class 5 gravel. They then put that in
and operated with good intentions. The problem is that City code was enforced
incorrectly in 2017 and they were given wrong advice. That doesn't mean that it
continues to be enforced incorrectly, though. It means they made decisions based on
bad advice that are not serving them at this time. What's in front of you is the
correction order under appeal: compliance with zoning code. This is a code
enforcement appeal with a deadline. If there's an appeal about whether this area can
be used as parking and what kind of surface would be allowed, that would go to DSI
zoning staff, potentially the Board of Zoning Appeals, and potentially then back to
Council through that method. We've spent some time talking about what that process
is. The owners have been trying really hard to comply and feel like they have gotten
mixed messaging from Zoning, from code enforcement, and unfortunately, even from
my team. Last Friday, we called to ask if they wished to have this public hearing today
or continue it into the future, but instead we asked in a way that pressured them into
the public hearing today. I apologize for that. I'm giving you this background to save
the owners time. I also ask that you amend the deadline in the resolution to grant until
June 1, 2025, to allow time to work with DSI Zoning staff.
Ranettia Alexander-Nelson: We are here to request fairness, equity, and responsibility
on both sides. We tried to do the right thing. We were initially told gravel was allowed,
which is why you see it added in the differences between the 2015 and 2017 photos.
We complied. We then got another letter saying that we didn't have rocks there. We
did, but they said we were not in compliance because it wasn't the right type, so we got
the money together and put the Class 5 rocks down. We were also told then how many
vehicles were allowed and what needed to be covered, and we complied with that. At
one point the grass overtook the rocks so they didn't show up well on the aerial view,
but they were there.
Council President Noecker: What is your ask of us today?
Alexander-Nelson: We understand you don't believe in allowing this as a legacy use,
but we've done everything you asked. We complied even when what the City told us
was an error. We just want you to at least acknowledge that there was error on your
part, and then let's see if we can come together on this. We'd like our vehicles to stay
there. Us and our kids got rid of vehicles, which I believe they should have had, in
order to comply. Now we're told we have to move our vehicles again. Can you just be
fair? We are compliant.
Thomas Nelson:
That's all we're asking. We always reacted to comply with what the City was asking.
We were never obstinate.
Alexander-Nelson: If we can just keep the vehicles there, we'll keep up with
maintaining the rocks.
