And Tanetta Graham has just a few questions for you.
Good afternoon.
Have you submitted your documents five days in advance of this hearing?
I sure did.
Oh, great, great.
And do you waive the reading of the refusal and stipulate to its accuracy?
I do to both.
Okay, thank you.
You may proceed and share your screen.
Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, members of the board.
Last, as usual, on your two o'clock list this afternoon.
The request before the board today concerns 921 South 20th Street.
and represents a truly and legally qualifying de minimis request for a three-family dwelling.
You have an exhibit packet that contains 16 exhibits. To summarize the basis for today's
request, this application requests the erection of a new three-family dwelling to match the
already approved three-family dwelling immediately next door and also being developed by my client.
Due to a de minimis lot size difference that I will explain, the next door project at 923, which is the corner, was approved by Wright.
This one at 921 was not.
Tax clearance is included in the packet at Exhibit 2, and the agreement of sale with an addendum is shown at Exhibit 3, establishing my client's standing to pursue this request.
let me first orient you to the location of the property as you can see on the zoning map i've
shown here at exhibit six the property sits on south 20th street just off the corner of carpenter
street uh in my introduction i mentioned the next door neighbor property that's also under
development by my client and that is the corner property that you see here
you will also note that the property itself is zoned rm1 similar to the rest of the block
aerial photographs are also included at exhibit 11
at Exhibit 11. From the north view that you can see up on the screen right now,
from the north view that you can see up on the
you'll see that the property is a part of two separate lots that currently make up a parking
lot serving the pizza shop at 919 South 20th Street. You can see this condition a little
bit better in this eastern-facing view. From the west, you'll note that this block itself
is a mix of residential multifamily uses and commercial uses.
Something else for the board to take note of in this particular image
is that many, if not most, of the adjoining structures here on South 20th Street
extend close to or just before the rear lot lines.
And you can really see that in this rear image here.
the existing conditions of this property are better shown here at exhibit 12
again this view here from south 20th street shows the voluminous existing curb cuts that interrupt
a significant amount of the sidewalk wrapping all the way onto carpenter street and eliminating a
fair amount of available on-street parking. From the corner, the board may note how the
parking use of the site served as an interruption to the otherwise residential and commercial
character of this area. And again, this is the two lots, 923 is the corner, which is not before
the board, 921 is the interior portion. From Carpenter Street, you'll again see here that
the curb cut extended nearly the entire length of 923, which is the adjacent lot.
From the southern-looking direction, you'll also see some of the new construction in the area just
across the street on the corner. Several of the developments that are visible in this image
were approved for four dwelling units apiece, just in terms of some context.
And then looking across the property on South 20th Street, you'll see the predominant multifamily and commercial mixed use of this area, although it is zoned RM1, as you saw.
And we did also include photographs of our timely posting of the lot.
Two images of that.
Just for context, I did at Exhibit 13 include a copy of the zoning plans that have already
been approved by L&I for 923 South 20th Street, which is that corner parcel of the parking
lot fronting on Carpenter Street.
As you will see when I move to the plans for 921, both projects are intended to be absolutely
identical.
9-23 South 20th was approved by Wright for three dwelling units.
And as you can see here is the Eclipse screen.
It is pending payment.
And again, you'll see the site plan here that you should be able to very quickly get a sense of the intent here for two identical developments.
The zoning plans for 9-21 are now shown up on the screen at Exhibit 7.
This proposal contemplates a three-story structure of only roughly 35 feet high to better blend with the three-story character of the existing block.
From the section, you'll note that the lower level is over 5 feet out of grade and only 4 foot 11 below grade.
I'll call your attention to two measurements before I move on.
First, in the zoning table, you'll see that this lot is 1,056 square feet.
You'll also notice that the proposed open area is 20% instead of the required 25%, which applies to an interior lot.
The difference between those two percentages in terms of actual lot coverage area is 50 square feet.
Practically speaking, and I'll bring the zoning plan back up, but practically speaking, the backyard of 921 more than meets minimum rear yard requirements at 17 feet long versus a required 9 feet.
and, as I will continue to harp on, is identical to the project slated to be built next door.
Regarding the lot size itself, in the table, you'll note that this lot is 16 feet wide,
and therein lies the problem. The adjoining lot at 923 South 20th Street is 17 feet wide.
The adjoining lot at 923 South 20th Street is 17 feet wide.
So at 16 by 66 versus 17 by 66, the code calculations deprive this lot of one dwelling unit by just 24 square feet that would have been needed to garner that third unit by right.
Floor plans are also shown at Exhibit 8, and again these are identical to the ones that
were submitted for 9-23. I will call the board's attention to a few things.
First, this project was designed similar to its immediate neighbor to ensure that each unit has
its own independent outdoor space. Unit 1, which is on the first floor and lower level,
has access to the full rear yard. This is a large one-bedroom unit of roughly 1,500 square feet
with ample living and flex space. Unit two on the second floor has an exterior deck off the back
that you can see here and is a two-bedroom unit. Unit three is also a two-bedroom unit and will
have exclusive use of the roof deck, so really independent outdoor space for each of these units.
Units two and three are roughly 750 square feet each.
Each of the units has in-unit washer and dryer and a ventilated trash storage closet, which is marked on the plans that you can see in each of these units, a large ventilated trash storage area.
While L&I does not require plans that are any more detailed than we've presented to the board today, my client did also just recently develop a similar project just around the corner.
So we've included a photograph of that development at Exhibit 9 to give you a sense of the design intent of this project in terms of aesthetics.
Similar to the character of the block, the front exterior will be predominantly brick, with large windows to allow ample light and air.
And again, this would be for two identical developments side by side.
Now, regarding the refusal, as you've likely gathered by now, this application was refused because the lot is deficient a mere 24 square feet to entitle it to that third unit by right.
Furthermore, it was refused for proposing a coverage of 80% versus the required 75%.
As you have figured out by now, that corner lot is entitled to 80% coverage being a corner lot.
First, this board has significant discretion to grant a variance when the request is de minimis in nature and not counter to public policy concerns.
Said differently, you are not obligated to find a hardship in order to grant the request today.
That said, we do submit that the board can find several hardships that further entitle the applicant to relief, aside from its de minimis nature.
At Exhibit 10, I've included some historical permits of this lot, which contained a structure
with three independent units, albeit one that was a commercial space and two dwelling units.
Today, that commercial use would not be permitted in the RM1 zoning district.
Furthermore, as I described, my client is under contract to purchase both of the lots
that comprise this corner, and responsible and reasonable development principles would dictate
that two identical buildings be constructed to ensure that the facades, the elevations,
and the rears are entirely uniform without any unnatural and unnecessary deviations.
Ensuring that these units in adjoining buildings are identical will further contribute to effective
marketing, leasing, and equitable design of the spaces. Additionally, as I noted earlier,
this is a predominantly multifamily neighborhood with developments of similar density in the
immediate vicinity. In terms of the open area itself, the visual implications of complying
with the code are actually fairly instructive here. And I'll bring up the zoning plan to try
I make this point. If you look at this site plan, in order to comply with the code and eliminate
5% coverage, 5% of the back of this building would have to be removed. So that would essentially be
about four feet. Imagine then what it would be like to be in the backyard of 921. To the right,
you would have the pizza shop wall, which I indicated earlier extends nearly to the back
which I indicated earlier, extends nearly to the back of the property line.
of the property line.
To the right, you would have about four feet of the extension of the wall of 923,
which is, of course, going to be built as it's permitted.
And then to the rear, you would have the sidewall of a newer construction home on Carpenter Street.
So complying with the code in this case would artificially close in the back of 921 with no logical justification for it.
Granting relief today will ensure that the rear yards remain open and allow ample light and air.
That's not in building extensions.
As a de minimis request, this is inherently the least minimum request to ensure that the two developments can be built in an identical fashion,
but for a difference of one foot in lot width difference of these two lots.
We submit the proposal will not increase congestion, harm neighbors' properties, or impair light and air.
And in fact, we submit that the development will eliminate a very large swath of curb cuts
and potentially put parking back where it was previously eliminated.
One extra unit in this case will have no discernible impact to the surrounding community.
particularly one that's comprised heavily of multifamily. As always, more detailed analysis
is included in the Memo of Law at Exhibit 14. A brief note about the RCO position.
As the board saw, Sazna did send a letter of opposition in this case, which I'll bring up
on the screen. First, we would make a couple of points on this to request that the ZBA
disregard the letter in this particular case. First, SOSNA objected to the apparent lack of
information provided. Board, we provided them with the same documentation that was presented here
today. SOSNA was seeking detailed elevations that are neither required by L&I but are also
unnecessary and unrelated in any way to the requested variances. Secondly, most of the letter
surrounds concerns over the pizza shop and its parking. Respectfully, Board, that's not my
client's prerogative to address. He's under contract to purchase these lots and has no
relationship whatsoever to the pizza shop, nor can he possibly address the fact that they are
going to lose parking when these lots are developed, no matter what. Third, as you'll see
from the vote sheet, many of the actual community members that were in attendance actually voted in
support of the project, with the final vote here coming in at a near even 14 to 14, except for the
addition of the SASNA board members. So you can see that this garnered quite a bit of alternating
views. My client, as Mr. Chairman mentioned, elicited further input directly from near neighbors,
And we did include both a petition of support as well as independent letters of support, which totals an additional 13 near neighbors who did express support for this project.
So we would respectfully ask the board to give the RCO position its appropriate weight under these circumstances and grant the requested de minimis relief.
At this time, I would ask the administrator to look for Nathan Cohen to have him unmuted.
Nathan Cohen is coming back in as a panelist now.
Thank you.
Mr. Cohen?
Hello.
so i'm mr cohen how are you could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer
yes nathan cohen n-a-t-h-a-n-c-o-h-e-n do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth
and nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel thank you uh nathan have you been present and
heard all of the testimony and evidence that i offered in front of the board today yes i have
do you agree that that testimony is true and accurate and would you adopt it as if you had
given it yourself yes i do happy to answer any questions questions from the board
yes i have a question i understand your uh perspective on the sosna letter but can we
address why the other rco also sent a letter of opposition in and any feedback that you might have
And any feedback that you might have gotten about the coordinating RCO?
gotten about the coordinating RCO.
So the coordinating RCO in this case was Sazna.
We do understand that the other RCO sent a letter.
They were present during that same meeting.
They did not necessarily, at least not to me, approach me in terms of any additional opposition that was different in any respect to what was discussed during the meeting.
So I do understand that they also sent a letter of opposition, but that was not based on a separate meeting.
That was based on the exact same meeting.
And so while you and your client were in the meeting, apart from obviously the dealing with the parking and the exhaust from the pizza shop, were there no other conditions or concerns that the community members brought up?
Not specific to the variances.
I mean, a lot of the concern was over the pizza shop.
Were there any other concerns that the neighbors brought up?
I didn't ask if it was related to the variance.
I just want to get a sense for what has driven their concerns or opposition.
A board member, it was predominantly relative to the pizza shop.
There were a handful of community members who simply didn't want to see these lots developed
at all.
There were a few that would have preferred single family, which is, of course, not even
dictated by this zoning district.
but it was, at least from my perspective, and Nathan certainly can comment if he believes that
I'm misrepresenting, it was really predominantly about the loss of the parking lot and the fact
that any development here is going to impact that. And considering both lots are being purchased by
the owners of the pizza shop, did the owners of the pizza shop address this with the other residents
at all not not to my knowledge board member i mean again my my client is is under contract to
purchase them i mean they were marketed he went under contract to purchase them so i certainly
can't speak to what that owner may or may not have done any direct conversation with a neighbor at
915 south 20th street i didn't see them in the um in the signature sheet and their house they're
the first residential property that would be you know impacted by this uh this construction 915 is
on the other side of the pizza shop understood but nathan were you able to speak with that
particular resident in your efforts no i don't i was not other questions no just just a comment
i appreciate your attention to the depth of the basement below grade i think you've done
the appropriate analysis
in terms of
usability and livability
with regard to that.
And I appreciate the fact that you
have furniture in your plans because that's very
helpful for board members to understand.
Mr. Johns, I harp on that
with all my clients.
I just want to brag about that, Michael.
My other question, though, is
so I noticed on the plan that you have it listed
as living space, but there's a full
bathroom down there and two separate rooms.
so just wondering for the other property you've already developed how have you handled the use