uh mailing notices um we did have uh a meeting an initial pre-meeting with the rco august 29th
with just the leaders um but we did send out notice so here's the proof of mailing of the
first meeting uh this is the letter showing the virtual meeting at the time it was scheduled we
were unaware that it was only a pre-meeting and not the full meeting um and we did subsequently
have a full meeting last night. And this was the email notice that I sent out. This is the
letter from the zoning board, allowing me to make the amendment to ensure that all five lots were
part of the zoning notice and package. This is my email to LNI asking for their correction in line
This is my email to LNI asking for their correction in line with my letter.
with my.
This is the poster that came out with the contact information that we listed and was posted.
When we got the official notice for the full RCO meeting on September 24th, we did do a second mailing of the notice on September 11th.
Here's the proof of mailing.
And this is the updated letter.
And then these are the project information sheets for, let's see, this is for 2101 South 28th, 2109 South 28th, 2111 South 28th, 2726 to 28 Snyder.
Not sure how, but I was able to get a project information sheet for each of the five properties.
I'm assuming they use different databases. And I do have a set of pictures here showing that
the property was posted August 29th with a notice and the amended refusal.
And then this is my witness list. And then the, hold on.
Okay. And then this are, these are photos taken September 17th showing that the posters
and the notice of refusal were still on the property.
Now, getting back to, if I can here,
the share screen thing is right in the way.
If I can move this.
Oh, I got to pull up the RCO letter again.
I'm sorry.
this is the the letter from the rco um i was on vacation so we just conducted it uh last
evening at 6 30. um the there was about 30 attendants um and as i explained further um you
know most of the questions were geared toward the fact that um they believed that we were trying to
put a injection property at the site because of the zoning overlay district but we did explain
that my client has no intention of putting an injection site on the property and that the
zoning overlay designation actually means that the properties cannot have an injection center on it
another individual expressed concerns about what could happen if any of the parcels were
sold after we do the corrections. And we did explain that anybody that buys it could be within
the RM1 zoning. They could do whatever they wanted with it. I'm not sure where the vote
took place in private. And we just found out that they voted to disagree. So we're not sure of any
specific reasons. And down here, they did not provide any specific rationale for why they voted
know and with that i would like to um have my client um brought on to the meeting to speak
as to the specific relief and i have additional photographs that i want to go through with the
client okay what's your client's name uh it should be tanya krawcheck or krakena architects i'm not
sure what name she has on her zoom um they've been allowed to speak i could you please state
your name and spell for the court stenographer tanya crotchett t-a-n-y-a-k-r-a-w-c-h-u-k
you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i swear please proceed counsel um miss crotchett uh for the record can you just please uh identify
that um your relation to the property owner here i am on the parish council as a trustee
and i am also um an architect that's been trying to help the church um clean up their
mess they've made over the years okay and um miss krawcheck were you present during my presentation
to the the board regarding the various exhibits and documents just now yes okay and um if you
were if you were called and asked each one of the questions and all the answers that I provided
would you testify the same as though would you testify to the same
facts and information as if you were testifying yes okay and with that Mr. Krawchuk I just wanted
to go over with you I have the plan up on the screen which hopefully everybody can see
um can you just please explain the existing conditions and then um what the church's
what the church's intent here with the modifications. And then when we're done with
intent here with the modifications and then when
that, we can bounce back to the photos. Okay. So a lot of the older parishioners were discussing
because we have issues with the hall and whether we want to sell it or not, we're not sure. So
I wanted to look into the properties as an architect. I'm like, well, I know a lot of
the older parishioners say the garage was built over a property line. Let me look into it. So
I took it upon myself two years ago and I started looking for the deeds. The church didn't even have
all the deeds. We actually have six deeds for the five properties that we own.
And when I started drawing it up, I was surprised because there was this weird overlap near the residences between 2109 and 2111.
And then again, between 2111 and our neighbor at 2113 through 15.
And I brought this to the council.
I said, well, it appears that they built over our property by two foot six.
Before we hired Mr. Danik, I spoke with a different attorney who said it's been so long.
There's no point in trying to go after that.
He said, just let it go.
So at that point, we hired a surveyor at the second district.
He came in and took existing conditions, drew that plan up, and then I went through with
him and explained what we wanted to do.
And the goal was to, and I went round and round, I took my plans to the council and
showed them, like, if we did it by code, this is what it would look like.
And it just looked so chopped up. And, you know, in order to get parcel D, I'm sorry, parcel E, which is 2111 to code, we would be 32 feet further to the east.
And, you know, at that point, you're hitting the garage again. And then, you know, you create this weird little space behind there.
And again, with 2109 to get that up to code, you know, you're running right up against the garage.
We wanted a nice, clean cut. And, you know, when we did rent those houses, the tenants never kept up on the back properties.
So we want to kind of take it back as part of the church and, you know, be able to possibly use it as, you know, picnic grounds or whatever.
um the issue with 2111 is when we gave away that two foot six that property went from
um i believe it was 17 six wide um we lost that two foot six so now it's down to 15 feet which
you know you need 16 foot wide property so that's our first problem um and then it actually steps
it has this weird step in the back of one foot six so in the back it goes down to 13.5 feet um
so it's all kind of cockeyed but this is as clean as we can make it um now with the church hall
there's only 10 feet between the garage and the hall the main part of the hall um i want mark to
eventually show you a picture because there is a one-story bump out on the side of the hall,
the west side of the hall, which sticks out. And that's where we set our property line.
Now, not sure whether, you know, if you go down a little road, see right there, there's like a
one-story. So we set it right at the edge of that wall. That way they still have access to the
basement that stairs going down to the basement um so that that's where we ended up putting the
property line um moving it from the middle of our garage to there so that's what set that
the other side was was pretty much where it was yeah that's a good picture showing the garage and
um the bump out and clearly you can't fit 12 feet in there unless we bulldoze the garage which we
don't want to do. Um, and then we lose our parking that we do have. So I think that's everything.
And then, uh, and then Ms. Krawcheck, did you get approval from the planning commission? Is
that that stamp here? That's hard to read. I did. I actually went there twice because of the first
time. Um, I didn't realize the surveyor had, so another issue we're dealing with is the change of
our name on our property and the surveyor had our old name and I got that changed.
our old name. And I got that changed and new names on there. And I went back to the planning
commissioning a second time. And I believe that's Sarah Chan, who signed it.
Okay, and let's see. So these are okay. So these are the updated.
So I put my phone number on the picture you were just showing. Once we hung the signs with the
the injection site. A lot of our parishioners that live in the neighborhood were getting
questioned by neighbors, like, what are you guys doing? And I decided to add my phone number onto
the zoning notice so that people can contact me. And nobody did. I know Mr. Danik's phone number
is on there as well. I don't believe he got contacted either. Yeah, I did not. I'd been
dealing with Mr. Reeves of one of the RCOs directly, but I did not get any individual
phone calls from any of the neighbors. Yeah. And last week while Mr. Danik was on, he was away,
we got a message from Mr. Reeves asking for a postponement of the RCO meeting. And I tried to
deal with it because Mr. Danik was away. And I had a little bit of back and forth with Mr. Reeves.
and he said there was a lot of issues and concerns with the neighbors and I said well if you could
please write them down and email them to me I will try to address them as best I could he said
he didn't want to he wanted me to call him I asked him again to please send them in writing
and he said he demanded a postponement of the meeting and at that point I stopped communication
with him because I feel like we weren't getting anywhere and let Mr. Danak deal with it when he
got back. And I did speak to Mr. Reeves yesterday morning before the meeting and it was really he
had a concern about us doing a second mailing which we had already done and he was comfortable
then that all the neighbors had the required notice for the meeting last night. That's why
we went forward with it. And Ms. Krawcheck I just have a couple questions regarding the hardship
that the church faces. Does compliance with the requirement of the zoning code
cause an unnecessary hardship due to the size, shape, contours, or physical dimensions of your
property? The hardships stem from years of the church acquiring properties and then building
over them on combined property lines. Also, property lines overlapping with our own
properties as well as neighbors. Our goal with this is to untangle the various lots to allow
for a better alignment with the existing structures. And then will the variance you
seek represent the least modification possible of the code provisions to provide relief from
the requirements of the zoning code? Yes, we are only proposing lot line adjustments within the
extents of our own properties. Do you propose any new construction? No. And will the variance you
seek increased congestion in the public streets or in any way endanger the public? No, all the
uses are remaining the same. And will the variance you seek substantially or permanently harm your
neighbor's use of the property or impair inadequate supply of light and air to those properties?
No, we're just mowing property lines.
And will the variance you seek substantially increase traffic congestion in the public streets or place undue burden on water source, school park, or other public facilities?
No, all uses will remain the same.
And will the variance you seek create environmental damage, pollution, erosion, or siltation, or increase the danger of flooding?
Thank you. And with that board, I would open it up to any questions that you may have.
Sure. Questions from the board?
I have a question. Go ahead, Cheryl.
No, you go ahead.
Quickly, at the RCO meeting, did the church inform the community of its possible intent or is just trying to figure out if they're going to sell the whole?
Yeah, it did come up. One of the concerns the church faces is that they have a small membership and lack revenue.
So what assets they have are the real estate.
So, you know, one of the possible intentions, and Ms. Krawchuk can confirm this, is possibly selling off the vacant lot to generate revenue to fix up the church and maintain it as a use.
That's really what I think has kind of generated all this, and that did come up during the RCO meeting, and we did explain it to them.
They did seem to have the concerns that were voiced were more on, well, if they sell it, what would go there next?
right i mean is it thought to have a deed restricted if it's sold um so that would
Right. I mean, is it thought to have a deed restricted if it's sold so that it wouldn't be, it couldn't be anything that the community didn't favor?
No, that discussion did not come up. What I did explain is that the property is owned RM1 and that whoever would buy it, they would be entitled to build whatever within the zoning code.
If they chose to go beyond that, they would have to come before the zoning board as well as the RCO again.
okay and and you do you think you clearly explained that the injection site overlags i
it can be kind of tricky to some lay people when they see injection site they're not thinking that
you have to come back to get permission to do something like that but do you feel like it was
that was good enough yeah i did the first 10 people kept asking the same question and i kept
repeating because they there was a lot of confusion on the zoom meeting with people coming on late
in different things. So I did repeat it a number of times. Finally, a woman, forget her last name,
I think it might be Mika, Mika Washington and Charles Reeves. They both explained that they,
I guess, had been in touch with the councilman's office to confirm that the injection site could
not go there and that was not permitted. And so that, you know, I believe was fairly well
discussed. And then after Mika and Mr. Reeves' discussion, the questions then focused more
on um you know if the church sold it what what could possibly go there
thank you the question other questions from the board
okay i guess my question is um you're not you you're consolidating these you're not consolidating
these what do we so so we're moving uh what we're doing is adjusting that we're not consolidating
or subdividing anything, what we're doing is simply moving existing lot lines so that
this area here, this open area that's currently deeded to the two individual residences will now
be part of the church campus. And by doing that, that eliminates putting the garage completely on
the property so that it's not straddling three different properties. So it's, I mean, it's,
i guess it's more of a lot line adjustment it's not really subdividing or adding anything new it's
the from the city's perspective um this will have to clean up this 2726 to 28 lot which the city
doesn't currently electronically recognize as a parcel but we do have deets showing that it is a
real piece and that is something on the uh revised uh refusal um that mr cohen of ellen i he did
note that that would be cleaned up, assuming that we get permission. And as we move forward,
that's where that'll get resolved. But, you know, that's the ultimate goal. And these are just the
three variance requests that we're seeking, as shown on the color-coded plan here. So you can
see here the change of the blue, basically. And the blue is what's triggering the different
variances and over here is a sort of like a highlight showing the adjustments to the property
lines to get them in line with the property walls instead of there being an encroachment on each
parcel as it moves up the block. Okay and you don't well I guess since you own the different
properties it's not a problem with respect to doing with respect to actual ownership of
No, well, the only, I guess, to answer your question, the only difference is that this parcel here, which is not owned by the church, that owner actually correctly gets two foot six to include now that his entire structure is on property deeded to himself instead of having two foot six of his property overlapping onto my client's property.
so rather than challenge the neighbor and tell him to tear down the house and move it
um and i could pull up a picture i think um let's see i think we have a good one yeah so this is the
this is the other structure that was built over the two foot six this is uh 2111 this is
one over on the right yeah the big brown building is not owned by the church and this is what was
built two foot six over the property line and then each one it looked like a surveyor's error
because these other two were also built two foot six over so rather than fight the neighbor for
this piece and have him move it um the church just decided to give this neighbor that two foot six
which now makes it in line with his actual built structure but to do that don't you have to do okay
But to do that, don't you have to do, okay.
I mean, wouldn't you have to do a subdivision, if you will, and then a consolidation so that it's part of the other property?
Not that I'm aware of.
When we were dealing with L&I, Mr. Cohen, what he proposes, the guidance we've been following.
okay which is you can just do this and i yeah and i think it might have more due to the fact
that these are all existing structures and that's just how they were built um so it's not like we're
building anything new or trying to you know tear down anything it's just yeah i'm not i'm not saying
that what i'm saying is that uh the the idea that you've got
the neighboring property this this property here right is two foot six over your property time
correct yeah so then
can i how are you can i mention something you're saying you're transferring it to
them but how do you how are you doing that without any kind of can i can i yeah go ahead
okay so the way 2109 2111 and 2113 through 15 if you read their deed there's um separate