noted, we did receive a letter of support from Beach Community Services. We attended that RCO
public meeting on August 20th. We've submitted our documents, which include the deeds, certificates
of tax clearance. We did take photos of the posted zoning notices and photographs
of the site and surrounding area. This is the current condition of the site. It's
a vacant lot. Just for the board's knowledge, Habitat has been working with
the community long before we even got to this point with regard to this
development to get insight and input on the design also this property was the subject of a
remapping so in 2025 city council approved the remapping of the parcel the habitat parcels which
are within this boundary of wilt street grads montgomery and north 19th which was rsa 5 it was
It was remapped to the RM1, which is technically before you today, and the CMX2.
remapped to the RM1 which is technically
So this is the Habitat parcel.
The affordable duplexes will be on the RM1 site, and Habitat offices and affordable units
will also be on the commercial residential CMX2 site.
So that's how it was rezoned.
obviously the habitat worked with the city and planning commission in order to
arrive at this remapping back in 2025 as a result habitat submitted and received approval in
september 2025 of the subdivision and you can see it here this is the existing that was the
existing conditions here are the proposed lots these are lots a through h and these will
accommodate the residential duplexes so there are two on each lot for a total of
16 affordable housing units this is the CMX 2 for the offices and additional
affordable apartments we did submit the application with the zoning plans to L&I
showing the development and the lots for the residential duplexes and the
commercial space we do note that Ellen I had a comment with regard to the lot
sizes so the required lot sizes as noted in the refusal have to be one thousand
four hundred and forty square feet applicant is proposing one thousand
190 square feet but we must note that table 14-701-2 has a note for minimum required lot area
note number one which specifically addresses rm1 districts and in note number one in the zoning
code it says in the i'm sorry so in the rm1 district a lot containing at least 1920 square
feet of land may be divided into lots with a minimum lot size of 960 square feet, provided
that A, at least 75% of lots adjacent to the lot to be divided are 1,000 square feet or
less, and each of the lots created meets the minimum lot width requirement of the zoning
district.
As I noted, our residential development meets use and dimensional regulations with the
exception of the minimum lot area so in every other way it complies with the code when we
received a comment from l and i with regard to the minimum lot area and the adjacent lots they said
that it we did not comply in response to that we had um cbp architects prepare the zoning calculation
based on our interpretation of that code section but specifically interpretation of adjacent so
under the zoning code adjacent is defined as to touch or share a contiguous boundary or border
or to be separated only by an alley shared driveway or street accordingly our calculation
was based on. Here's our RM1 lot. The boundary is, the block is bounded by West Wilt, North Gratz,
West Montgomery Avenue, and North 19th Street. So all of these lots are included as well as the
lots across the street, which we have noted as UVWX. Based on our calculation, we have 24 total
lots, 18 of which are less than a thousand square feet. So based on our calculation, we meet that
75% of lots under a thousand square feet. And under our calculation, we would comply with
the zoning code. We had numerous back and forth with L&I presenting our interpretation, but in
the end, they did not agree with our interpretation and they issued the notice of refusal.
uh with that being said eileen hold on a minute yeah is she saying this is a complaint against
ellen i or are you agreeing i'm just curious i was waiting to see where she was going okay
eileen so are you complaining about ellen i well so what i did in the application for appeal was
i said look we're looking we're requesting a variance right from minimum lot area
But in the alternative, just to preserve our argument, we could also present the board the opportunity to say, yes, we agree with applicants interpretation of adjacent and we agree it should be.
Yes, we agree with applicants' interpretation of adjacent, and we agree it should be by right, and it meets the code.
But if the zoning board doesn't choose to go that way, as far as determining if L&I erred, we need to request a vary.
I see our attorney sitting here. I think we would probably want to hear the case and not agree to anything.
And I think you do have the right to go to L&I and complain, if you will.
she would have to have done that already yeah we already did that so that's what i'm saying
we had the art we had the meetings with them and we got the final the final decision from
betsy and we understand that but it was just really to be able to present why we actually
thought in the beginning when we were when habitat was why don't we approach this like
you normally would and we'll hear the case okay okay yeah i mean that's basically it
It's really for minimum lot size.
Yep, I got it.
I got it.
All right.
Do you want to bring the 20 and 1?
Obviously, denial of the application would result in unnecessary hardship for Habitat,
because if we had to reconfigure the RM1's lot, we'd have to go through the entire legislative
and zoning process again, which would cause a major delay with the project, as well as
a financial detrimental impact caused by such delay, not to mention frustration of Habitat's
mission to provide affordable housing. Why don't
we bring your client on and we'll approach this, okay?
So I would just ask Ed
first to Ed McCauley.
Don't tell him, Mr. Chair. They're coming back in as a panelist right now.
Hi there. Hi. Could you please state and spell your name for the
stenographer. Yes, Edward McCauley, Edward, E-D-W-A-R-D, McCauley, M-C-C-O-L-L-Y.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes. Eileen? So, Mr. McCauley, you heard my presentation, correct? Yes. And would you
state that the presentation was accurate with regard to the beginning of this project and
where we ended up today yes and if you were to testify would you adopt my presentation as your
testimony yes and is there anything else you would like to add with regard to the
minimum lot area variance we're we're seeking right now uh no
okay and and you're we also have uh beaches in favor of this am i correct and council member
And I do have the architect from CBP that prepared this.
Okay, well, if we have any questions, we'll bring him on.
Okay, yeah, essentially the document speaks for itself.
All right, questions for the board.
Since this is about a subdivision,
and I know you're asking for slightly smaller than the typical lots
in this district, in the zoning category,
what are the sizes of the backyards,
And do you have other properties that have undersized lots? And could you speak to the use and success of them or non-success of them in the past?
so the uh the rear yard on these is 10 foot which is over the nine foot minimum required for rm1
um in terms of whether we have undersized lots uh i believe we did have to come to uh zba in
recent history a few years ago for a project over in uh strawberry mansion on the corner of oxford
132nd Street for lot line relocation. It was a consolidation and subdivision of lots over on that intersection and similar issue where it was a subdivision of a lot, which was under 1440 square feet.
And we were granted our appeal and successfully constructed five homeownership units on those parcels.
And then for the five units that you're building on top of the commercial space, are you planning for these to be in the similar model that you have where it's affordable homeownership?
Yeah, they'll all be affordable homeownership.
i have no further questions and all of all the units except those are single family dwellings
are they duplexes um so the eight units that are the subject of the rm1 site will be or the eight
buildings uh those eight parcels will be duplexes each will be a uh three bedroom two bath duplex
on um so 16 there and then we actually will be uh seeking an amendment subsequent to
uh seeking an amendment subsequent to this should everything go the way we want to um
this? Should everything go the way it was?
uh alter the design of the mixed-use building to be uh commercial on the first floor and three
units there but those units will all also be three bedroom two baths so a total of 19 units
all three bedrooms all two baths and all on for sale all for sale yeah okay
questions from our attorney no questions at this time questions or comments from the virtual
audience so chair i do not see any hands raised planning commission amy boy with the planning
commission the comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location from the
existing r1 to residential r1 residential multifamily to rsa 5 residential single
family the proposal by habitat for humanity is for affordable housing which citywide vision
recommendation 1.2 calls to support the proposed lot sizes are generally comparable with the
surrounding parcels the planning commission recommends that the board grant the requested
variances for lot size mi 2026 002 844 1801 new 03 north 19th street i vote yes michael johns my
vote is yes. Cheryl
Gaston, my vote is yes.
Tanetta Graham, my vote is yes.
Ryan McAdams, my vote is yes.
Yo Nguyen, my vote is yes.
Layla Beebe, my vote
is yes. Thank you, Eileen.
Thank you. That concludes my business. May I
please be excused? Sure. Thank you very
much. Have a wonderful evening. Okay.
Is there anyone in the audience whose case has not
been called from the 330 list?
Mr. J, I do
not see any hands raised.
Thanks, everybody. We got a lot done that I
a lot of cases, and we beat Ian's
time. Ian had us starting
the last case at 6.15.
If anybody's interested. Yes.
Thank you all.
Welcome, Mr. Trey. Have a good night, all.
Thank you.