ZBA Hearing - April 30, 2025

eight bike spaces. It may be seven bike spaces is what we're providing in this, which does follow

one space for every three units. As we move up back to the first floor and we kind of continue

into the rear of the building, we have three identical one-bedroom units along the middle

core, and that is pretty standard as you go all the way up. All one-bedroom, one-bath, very tight

designs, efficient designs with eat-up peninsula bars for all the kitchen spaces. And then in the

rear, we have another two-bedroom, two-bath unit here. Again, two-bedroom, two-bath, pretty standard

sized bedrooms and bathrooms for everything. As we move up to the second floor, again, you'll see

that middle grouping of three bedrooms is all the same, which is going to help with all the structural

design in this building. And then in the front and back, our two-bedroom units kind of shape a little

bit differently, but these are consistent from the second to fourth floor levels. Again, they're both

two-bedroom, two-baths, and these units are all provided with the exterior balconies.

And then we didn't utilize balconies on those side one-bedroom units so that we

stayed compliant to the minimum side yard requirements for an RSA 5 lot,

which is a minimum of five feet. We're providing six.

And instead of full balconies, what have you provided instead on these units?

So we provided Juliet balconies, much larger window openings to help bring the light in, and then you can still open up and get some fresh air into the space.

And in addition to the Juliet balconies, can you just touch on, again, the way that this design has really allowed for ample windows and light and air into all of the units throughout the entire building?

Yeah, so the consolidated lot allows us to get the full use out of the 40-foot lot by, A, providing the side yard and then providing units that are deep enough that will allow us to put windows or bedrooms and living rooms both along that side yard so we're not proposing, you know, studio units or units where bedrooms are set in from the side.

So the consolidated width really allows us to get all of that along the front facade or side to side.

Thank you. And I think just for visual purposes, I think that it's very helpful to look at the colorized elevations where you can really see what Jimmy has testified to here in terms of the window, the window layout.

We do also in the floor plans have enlarged unit plans for these units. So if the board has any particular questions about any of the unit designs, we do have those with additional measurements. So we, of course, can turn to those towards the end if the board has any questions on the units.

Just to go back real quickly. So what is the what is the theory behind the method of trash disposal for this building?

So trash disposal, we have the room on the interior behind the first floor unit.

We have an interior door for residents to be able to swing in and put into either individual garbage cans or up to a five cubic yard container.

I believe we have a six foot door double swinging that swings out to the outside so that that trash

can be pulled through the door correct or directly to the side yard and out to the front so it doesn't

need to be transported through the inside of the building at all. And this building would be

required to have commercial trash pickup is that correct? Correct. So just uh before before we wrap

up, I want to just touch on the roof plan very briefly. You mentioned that the roof here is

only intended to be used for mechanicals. Why can't you put those mechanicals inside the basement?

Why does it make more sense to put them on the roof? So the mechanicals that are going to end

up on the roof are the air handler units, the exterior portion of those. So they have to be

outside. Typically, you either see them on the roof or the rear yard. The rear yard is a little

bit tighter here. Plus, having the yard trees there, putting them up to the roof just makes

the most sense and most efficiency. It gets them out of the way and out of the view of everything.

We can also inset them. Since the building is wide enough, we can inset them far enough so

Since the building is wide enough, we can inset them far enough so they're not really seen from any of the surrounding properties.

they're not really seen from.

And in terms of the overall building design here, obviously, despite the fact that L&I has treated the existing building on these lots as one building, feasibly somebody could develop two different structures on two different lots.

So can you explain the basis for one combined building and why, in this particular case, that provides a real tangible benefit in terms of the living spaces?

So I think really it comes down to the efficiency of spaces.

So ultimately, you know, we would probably require to do two stairs if we did two buildings each.

So you're decreasing the amount of stairs and you're decreasing the amount of circulation, which automatically increases the amount of square footage that we can then devote back into the units to make sure that the unit living rooms and bedrooms and bathrooms are all of an adequate size that somebody actually wants to live in.

And then also it pushes us into the threshold of the elevator, which, you know, becomes a cost question across many times when the project is right on the fringe here, including that really gives us it makes it worth the while producing a number of units and then also allows us to build in some level of accessibility so that we can make sure that these units are accessible to the widest variety of potential tenants.

Thank you, Jimmy. Stick around.

Obviously, towards the end, if the board has any questions, we can bring Jimmy back up, but I'll just conclude with some argument and some additional context to consider.

So as you've heard regarding the refusal, the proposal received two refusals.

One which stems from an oddity in the zoning code that this board has heard countless times before.

I personally have made this argument in front of this board before.

Aside from the pilot house, no other dimensional variances are requested, and the proposed structure does comply in full with the provisions of the code.

In fact, as Jimmy described, the structure is smaller than the code would permit for a lot of this particular size.

Now, again, starting with the pilot house, this stems from a feature of the zoning code

and that the pilot house height would have been exempted had this been an occupied roof deck.

Because the roof deck is only for mechanical access, the pilot house height is counted

towards the overall building height, even though the building itself is compliant.

it. As I alluded to earlier and to put it bluntly, this refusal could be eliminated if the applicant

made this roof deck available for tenant use, which is not something that is generally desirable

in this particular area or for this particular building. That would create far more impact to

the surrounding area than is desirable, but you also heard that placing mechanicals on the roof

is the most economical and efficient location to avoid obviously having more impact to surrounding

properties. Given the proposed location of the pilot house, which again, for context here,

I'll bring up the colorized zoning plan. Given the location of this pilot house, which is over

100 feet from the front property line and about 35 feet from the rear property line,

the pilot house height will be virtually invisible, and the building will retain its

code compliant 38 feet from the front. Now, in terms of the refusal for the multifamily use,

the applicant submits to a hardship given both the history of the property as well as the character

of this neighborhood and block, which are all highly relevant to the applicant's entitlement

to a variance. As the court has found in notable cases, such as Hertzberg, hardship can be

determined by multiple relevant factors, including prohibitive cost of developing a property for

permitted use, surrounding uses, state of disrepair, length of vacancy, and the economic

feasibility or inability to use the property. This property meets all of those factors.

Historically speaking, and based on licensing records available through Atlas, the lots at 714 through 716 North 43rd Street were last seemingly used in conjunction with some kind of a dining service or a hospitality group.

License number 4315566 was issued in 2007 to Eaton Park Hospitality Group.

was issued in 2007 to Eaton Park Hospitality Group for food prep and serving for 30 seats.

That license remained valid until about 2012, which again is consistent with the time frame

around when the structures were seemingly rendered vacant. There is no corresponding permit history

to the license so it is not entirely clear exactly what the nature of this particular use was.

Now aside from the historical use, erecting a new single-family home on this lot or a subset

of this lot would also represent a deviation from the predominantly multi-family dwellings

that currently exist and have been recently constructed on this block and in the neighborhood.

As you can see here at Exhibit 11, I'll zoom out a little bit, I've marked up a map of the surrounding structures showing that this block specifically contains a variety of multifamily dwellings of density in most of the structures on the block, ranging from two units all the way up to six units for most of the newer construction.

In addition to the considerable vacancy that still plagues this side of the block, multifamily use is a dominant use of this 700 block of North 43rd Street.

As I mentioned earlier, the structure immediately next door was not only historically used as a shelter, it received a variance decades ago on the basis that, even then, providing a single-family use was not viable.

A few lots away, with a purple star at 708 North 43rd Street, a building permit was recently

issued for the construction of a new six-family dwelling. The board heard and granted that

particular variance in 2023. Unlike this application, that applicant also sought

variances for dimensional relief as well as for the multifamily use. I'll touch on this again in

a moment, but just for comparison's sake, that application was for a lot of 2,250 square feet.

So the density there represented 375 square feet of lot area per unit granted. Comparatively,

the density proposed for the application before the board today is 360 square feet of lot area

per unit, so materially the same, and done so without dimensional variances for insufficient

rear yard and open area, as were all the case with 708 North 43rd Street. Similarly,

with an orange star at the corner at 700 North 43rd Street, a building permit was recently

issued for the construction of a five-family dwelling with two vacant commercial spaces.

Based on the total number of units proposed there, both residential and commercial, that also represents a roughly 350 square foot of lot area per unit breakdown.

In comparison, the lower density multifamily uses you see on the map are all existing structures, not new developments.

The recent new construction, as you can see with the purple and the orange, have all been five or six units, which is entirely consistent on a lot per square foot basis to that which is proposed today.

The mixed character of this block results from the historical zoning classification of this area, which was predominantly RM1 until the rezoning in 2023.

While the rezoning aligned some blocks in West Belmont that do contain a predominant single-family use, this block is one of the many that are now left with a single-family zoning classification that diverges from the character that has been created over many decades on this block, particularly in light of much of the new construction that was approved either just prior or has been approved by variants since that rezoning occurred.

This was a very similar circumstance and character, just one block away on Brooklyn Street, which is just out of the view here, where the board just heard and granted another case of mine several weeks ago.

The multifamily character-

So, counsel, let me, I know you're giving us a good picture of the area. I think you need to say, how did you get to 20?

Sure.

I mean, you've talked a lot about fours and fives.

So how did you get to 20?

So there's two things, Mr. Chairman.

So as I mentioned, when you look at, and this was not how it was designed.

This is put forth as part of the justification for the number.

This is put forth as part of the justification for the number of units.

But when you look at the lot square footage compared to the density for these new developments, and you do that calculation, it is about 350 square feet of lot area per unit.

So you've seen many applications for an RM1 lot where the calculation is based on the lot area per unit.

So in terms of a justification for it, the 20 units here, because of the size of the lot, is consistent with that density breakdown.

Now, in terms of that, that obviously is just the justification itself.

Now, in addition to that, if you actually do this calculation based on the RM1 zoning, it would have been eligible for about 16 units without any bonuses.

So once you added those bonuses, you could have put about 30 units here.

Now, again, I don't say that to suggest that that RM1 calculation alone is dispositive here.

But when you look at the floor plans of this building, and the most compelling point here is that the layout here establishes that the 20 units is the least minimum density that is appropriate for this building.

So, for example, there's no living basis.

So, we've really taken a lot of time with this.

How much more time do you think you need?

Two minutes, Mr. Chairman.

All right, thank you.

Two minutes.

So, the units themselves, and I'll bring the floor plans back up here, as you can see here, these units are very large, ranging from 600 square feet to over 1,000 square feet.

The units themselves are laid out efficiently and designed well to allow ample living space.

And importantly, since the building has an elevator, this building is going to bring new ADA accessible living to West Belmont, where virtually none currently exists.

And as the board knows, the cost of installing an elevator requires a more substantial development to support it.

So that is simply not realistic.

once you start to get into lower density so you know the fact that these units will be

ada adaptable units is really something that is extraordinarily uncommon in this type of area

so based on all of this and again um you know we're happy to bring the architect back up to

talk a little bit more about how how this was designed i don't we don't think we need the

architect. Thank you. And again, as always, we have a memo of law in the exhibit packet

at Exhibit 12, and I'm happy to touch on any particular point. So at this point,

I will bring up my client, Simon, to adopt my testimony. Okay.

Back in as a panel shortly. Okay, thank you. Good morning.

did we see him he's here i see him okay simon can you hear us yes hi sir could you please

state your name and spell for the stenographer simon shane s-h-i-m-o-n s-h-a-i-n you swear

or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes please proceed counsel

thank you um simon have you heard all of my testimony uh and evidence that was offered in

front of the board today yes do you agree that testimony was true and accurate and would you

adopt it as if you had given it yourself yes thank you uh we're happy to answer any questions about

property management or anything like that as well i have three questions one just because it's not

clearly labeled on the plans are there in unit washer and dryers because there doesn't appear to

be um public laundry facilities in the building yes there are so they're in the mechanical closet

so um if you so that's the uh water heater mechanic the washer dryer is in front right

next to the adjacent uh to the unit entry there and then in the two bedrooms they're in the side

by size got it okay that's what i assume that might be it but it wasn't labeled my second

question you guys mentioned the ability of these with the elevator to accommodate um people that

people that might have mobility access, yet none of the bathrooms seem to be sized for ADA

might have mobility access yet none of the bathrooms seem to be uh

conversion. And so one, just wondering, could you touch on that? And then have you checked to make

sure that all the corridors and the kitchens and the bathrooms allow for that five foot turning

radius? Yes. So the corridor dimensions are five foot, you know, as we get into actual

documentation if this is approved you know we may look at increasing that closer to five six to make

sure there's some tolerance built into the hallway because you never know what's going to happen once

you actually get out on site and then all the bedrooms uh so these are all at minimum type b

compliance um i'm not sure we're hitting a threshold currently to do a full type a accessible

unit um but something we'd be happy to look into to just kind of increase the variety within the

building. And then my third question is for the owner. Are there any of these units currently

targeted to be affordable or subsidized? Simon, are you with us? Yes. Sorry. I was just looking

for the unmute button. I apologize. We have other units in the area and we're very

very comfortable with Section 8 tenants. We have a lot of Section 8 tenants. So the answer is yes.

Okay. I just feel like for the density here and for it to be more than what is allowable in the RSA 5,

it does feel like this is a perfect opportunity to get diversity of unit types in a multi-story building.

Other questions from the board?

uh the uh rco uh community um support correct

all right thank you okay any other questions

questions or comments from our attorney not at this time mr chair comments from the virtual audience

yes sir i have a handout from a jihad ali i will promote them to panelists and they will be back

in shortly good morning mr ali

Mr. Ali

Hello Mr. Chairman and members of the board

Good morning, could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer

My name is Jihad Ali, J-I-H-A-T-A-L-I

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yeah, I affirm.

Please proceed, Mr. Holley.

I attended that board meeting with the community group that night.

I guess I didn't recognize their murder being the attorney because I would have reached out to her.

But I do remember there was a lot of dialogue from the community about the amount of units.

they did support the development but not I don't believe that it was the 20 units that people wanted

people thought that was too many so I just wanted to put that on the record because I don't see

that it specifically says it was the 20 units that everybody voted on because there was a lot of

dialogue about that being okay counsel do you have any questions thanks

Mr. Ali, you've testified in some of my other cases and have represented that you live on Parkside Avenue. Is that correct?

Yeah, that's correct. That hasn't changed. And in fact, in this day, I told, you know, there's a the council office is aware that I represent.

I work with a lot of other people and I was over that way as a member of the neighborhood.

I frequently attend a meeting. So it's not about where I live. It's that I'm a participant and I did attend that meeting.

Okay. Understood. Mr. Chairman, I don't recall specifically this meeting that there was much dialogue in concern about the number of units.

and and i think that the support letter that the rco issued uh speaks for itself on that particular

point thank you um thank you mr ali anyone else in the audience

there are no further hands mr chair planning commission

monathan goins uh planning commission staff the comprehensive plan recommended a change to the

residential single family attached RS3 and zoning at this location to RSA5. And in 2023,

And in 2023, this property was remapped to RSA 5 to align with the recommendations in the district plan.

this property was remapped to RSA5 to align with

There is no unique physical condition or circumstance of this property that would prevent it from being used in conformance with the zoning code.

City Planning Commission recommends the board deny the requested variance for multifamily residential use and the maximum allowable structure.

All right. Thank you.