Winfield purchased the two properties at Sheriff's Sale.
I'm going to boil it down really simple, then we can get into the details.
Back in 2013, back in September of 2013, prior zoning board issued variances or granted variances for the development of 1840 as six townhomes running from kind of sideways from South Kamak to South Eisminger with the property, with the unit at South Eisminger having a garage, one car garage.
And for variances for the abutting property on Eisminger Street, 1839 South Eisminger, for a single family dwelling with a garage.
The owner of the property then proceeded to secure zoning permits in October 2013, demo permits in May of 2014, and building permits in July of 2014, commenced construction of the project.
I'm going to show you some, I can show you some historical images, but at some point
around 15 or 16, I believe, they ran out of money, is from what I understand.
And the project has been sitting for seven years or so in a state of partial completion.
And I'll show you some photographs.
Because of the time that elapsed since the zoning permits and building permits were secured
and how long it sat, all those permits expired.
My client purchased the property in 22. And in order to complete the property and complete the project, complete the construction of the seven single family homes, they need to go back through the permitting process all over again.
So they submitted actually an expediter submitted the I can show you the same plans that were originally submitted and approved with the original zoning permits and went.
and approved with the original zoning permits and went back to the community after the notice of
refusals were issued and the appeals were filed by a different attorney and we're here today to
essentially have the zoning board reapprove the variances that were granted before
because the conditions that warranted the granting of those variances before still exist and in fact
there's even a greater hardship now because you have these buildings that are partially constructed
and there's a financial hardship to have to tear them down and to go build something else.
What is interesting in regards to the notices of refusals, both the ones that were issued in
February and the corrected ones that were issued just in December, is I believe that examiner
simply took the old refusals that were issued back in August of 2013 and just kind of spit them back
out in actuality with changes to the zoning code or possibly based upon a new examination of the
plans or more thorough examination of the plans. We actually have one fewer refusal today than
than there was back in 2013 for both 1840 and 1839.
So just real quickly, I'm going to show you some historical images.
1840, you'll see in an aerial, runs from, again, from South Kamak to South Eiseminger.
It used to be a catering hall.
It was a catering hall since around 1963.
And you can see here the different iterations of the catering hall.
There aren't any street view images from South Eiseminger. You'll see in the aerials, it's a very small street. And then what happens is you can see here in 2016, the project, you know, the building that was there was demolished and that covered 100% of the lot of the 1840 South Camac Street lot.
you'll see in the historical aerials and the project was commenced this is unit a uh extends
unit a through f on i had to check uh to eisminger and then um and then unit g because the even
though they're on separate properties they're going to function as one planned unit development
so that's how they extend but this is unit a at south camac street and you can see here and then
up to 22, no real change, as you can see here from there to there. It's essentially sat.
Here you can see in 22, again, in keeping with the street view image from Camac Street,
you can see the project in its current state. It's all enclosed. It's roofed. Windows are in.
It has been open to the elements, I think, over a number of years prior to when my client
acquired the property. There have been squatters in the buildings. But this is how it stood.
You can see going back to 2019, looks like it's kind of in this still kind of quasi state of
being finished. Going back to 17, 16, you can see here, it looks like they're framing.
15, 14. And then 14, here are the original buildings. So again, here's right here is 1840.
That extends through to South Eiseminger on the left, Kamax on the right. And up here,
the smaller lot is 1839 South Eiseminger Street. So some of the time between 14 and 15, again,
in keeping with the issuance of the building permits and the demo permits in spring and summer
of 2014, they take down the existing structures, and then they start to build the seven single
family homes, and then get to the point where they run out of money, and then it just sits.
You can see here, let's see.
Here, existing aerial images of the project as it stands today. The properties are all zoned RSA 5.
You can see here Mifflin Street, East Pass Yonk, it's just, Heismanger is just a small
street that runs, loops around from Mifflin to South Camac.
Again, exterior photographs showing both, this is Unit A from Camac, the views down
Camac Street, all around.
this is an alley that exists between the south side of the units that are on uh camac 1840
south camac and properties that are on uh the north side of mifflin street this is a common
walkway that extends between camac street and eismaker street and the current state showing
everything being boarded up and blocked up by my client.
by my client. Here's the abutting properties to the north, and you can see at the bottom,
Here's the abutting properties to the north
and you can see at the...
this is 1838. And then next to it with the yellow siding is 1836 South Camac Street.
And then here's the view of the buildings on Eisemingler. Down here at the left, I mean,
up at the top, that's 1839. In the center of the picture to the right is Unit F of 1840 South
and you can see unit f down here at the bottom to the right of the picture at the bottom both
of those having garages here's the alley again and then views on eisminger street as you can see
no parking in the street a very narrow street that has an elbow in it and goes around to camac
street uh regarding the state of the different units we got into you know unit a to unit f on
camac street showed the range of development unit a uh which is the one at camac was near nearer to
completion you can see the cellar still not being completed um there is water to some water damage
throughout the building my client again is essentially going to take these buildings
and finish them um some of the siding uh the stucco that's you'll see in the renderings
that exist they're going to take that off and put on a more durable material hardy board
plank siding there. But you can see here, unit A is pretty far along.
And then here, all the way at the other end, at Eisman Street, you see unit F.
So this is the range of development and how it's been sitting for the last six or seven years.
I'm just going to close this up here.
So what we have here is here's a color site plan, again, showing the seven units
running on 1840, the one unit on 1839. One thing that changed, we have revised plans, is
community was concerned about, as originally proposed, this common walkway that extends
between South Camac and South Eisminger that services the front doors or by which the front
doors of all the units, including the 1839 South Eisminger unit, are accessed. They were concerned
about security, particularly the rear yards of the properties to the north, 1838, 1836.
So after the original application, the original notice of refusals for this matter, we've
added fencing and gates at both South Eiseminger and South Kamak, and then also have an awning
over the entrance at South Kamak Street, you can see here, just to provide some protection
and some light there at that site, because that'll be the primary entrance because South
Eisminger isn't as developed narrower sidewalks. South Camac Street has the wider sidewalks.
We did enter into a community benefit agreement with East Pass Young Crossing, which is the
coordinating RCO designated by the Planning Commission. One of those things was that we
have trash enclosures. We're going to add those trash enclosures. You will see right here
they'll be added in the walkway in front of these are the egress wells but they will be added in
the walkways in front of each of the units something along these lines trash will not
be stored on the sidewalk we do have a letter of support from east pass young crossing you can see
that it's dated february 3rd 2025 uh did speak to the meeting that we had pardon me hillary do we
have that? I don't believe we had received a copy of that directly. David, can you make sure we get
a copy of that? Sure. Yeah, I'm going to send, I'll send you an updated exhibit package that
includes this one for each of the cases. Does there, you know, it was a well-attended meeting
as noted in the letter. A lot of the comments or most of the comments we received had to do with
the budding property owners who had admittedly suffered a long time with this project, both when
it was initially being developed and then when it was abandoned, when the developer ran out of money
and it sat unattended for so many years. But again, our position is that the refusals that
have been issued, and again, they're one fewer for each of them, those conditions and the criteria
that warrant the meeting of the criteria
that warranted the granting
of the zoning board's original approval
of the project still exists today,
if not even more so
because of the financial hardship.
And you can see here,
here's the notice of refusal for us.
And then here's the notice of refusal
for 1840, you know, back at that time.
And you can see here for 1839,
the refusal and then the corrected refusal now.
I do include in my exhibit package tax compliance certificates for both 18
I do include in my exhibit package tax compliance certificates for both 1840, all the units, because the prior developer did record a plan unit development, declaration of plan unit development.
So there are the units A through F, as I mentioned, on 1840, and we have tax clearances for each of those.
You can see here.
And then also for 1839, which is unit E of G of the PUD.
We posted the notices at each of the frontages, both for 1840 and for 1839.
We did actually post a South Eisenhower Street frontage of 1840 as well.
You can see that right here.
There was a meeting, a community group meeting with EPX that was held last spring when my client was represented by different council.
I was back in May. There was a notice that was sent out for that. That's at my tab 13 of our
exhibit book. You can see here the notice that went out and then the certificate of the mailing.
And then we had our meeting on December 9th where we went back and here's a copy of that notice,
the list of addresses and the certificates of service. Just real quickly, just to go back
Here are color elevations, and I do have Eric Quick on the line or on the Zoom call with us today from Harman Deutsch-Oller, who prepared the drawings and the presentation materials that we are presenting to the zoning board today, including the revised plan showing the fence and gates and the awning at either ends of the walkway that we would ask the board to stamp.
But you can see here the brick is remaining as brick and the replacement of the stucco with a better material, a siding material.
And you can see renderings here from Camac Street, from Eisminger Street, including the gates that we're proposing.
I did have some exchanges with Hillary just yesterday regarding the fences and the gates and an L&I's review of that.
I think in particularly the awning, whether or not it impacts the open area calculations that in L&I's mind, just so we know, the open area that was indicated, the occupied area that was indicated in the original notice of refusal indicated that the occupied area was 80 percent.
And even with the awning, we recalculated it, Harman Deutsch-Oller recalculated it, and we were below that 80%, even with the awning.
Without the awning, we're further below that.
But I did include in my presentation materials my attempts to secure a response from the L&I examiner, no offense, dating back to October about the issue of the awning and the fences.
And there were a number of emails, October, November, two emails in November 11th and 19th.
And then again, that's the 19th, December 3rd, January 9th, and then an email that we went.
So, again, it's our position that the summation that the criteria that were satisfied back in 2013 to warrant the granting of the refusals in that case and allowed that project to commence still exists today.
We have an additional hardship, financial hardship, of not otherwise being required to tear down the buildings, and we're simply looking to just complete the project, sell them to homeowners, and for everybody to be over with, to be done with the issues that have existed there for so long.
All right. Council, why don't you bring your client on and have your testimony adopted?
Sure. Manoj Ramprakesh is here from Winfield Consulting.
Can you raise your hand?
Thank you.
I'm sorry.
hi your honor hi everyone hi good morning could you please state your name
and spell it for the stenographer sure my name is minoj ramprakash the first name is
m a n o j and my last name is go ahead at ramprakash r a m p r a k a s h do you swear
or firm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do please proceed counsel uh
minoj um what is your your position with the owner of the property
Manoj, what is your position with the owner of the property, Winfield Consulting Corporation?
We are the owners of this property.
Thank you.
And did you hear the statements that I made to the board today?
Correct.
Yes, I have.
And are they true and correct to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt them as your own?
Thank you.
And then I have Eric Quick from Harman Deutsch & Oler to adopt the architectural statements
that I made.
Eric Quick will be allowed to speak.
Good morning, sir.
Good afternoon, everyone.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, I can.
Please state your name and spell for the stenographer.
Yes, my name is Eric Quick, E-R-I-C-Q-U-I-C-K.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Please proceed, counsel.
Eric, you're with Harmon Deutsch & Oler, correct?
Correct. Yes.
And did you and you and H-D-O prepare the plans, the revised plans that are being presented to the board, the zoning drawings?
and they're being presented to the board
along with the rendering that I have up
and the floor plans and the color
and the other color elevations
that we showed to the board today?
Yes, that is correct.
Did you hear the statements
that I made to the board today?
I did.
And are they true and correct
to the best of your knowledge?
And would you adopt them as your own?
Thank you.
Questions from the board.
Yes, I have a question
about the proposed 44 foot building height.
is this to the top of the roof slab or is this to the top of the parapet or pilot house it's it's
the top of that since they're sloped roofs it's the high point of the slope roof and it's the same
height as was previously permitted and for which variances were granted we're not we're not modifying
the buildings structurally or in turn well in their massing in their height or area in any respect with
this so it's the same so what you're saying is what is currently proposed is what was previously