Thank you. So can you confirm then that a copy of this agreement was submitted to L&I when you filed this application?
Yes, I can.
Thank you. Uh, okay. Um, Scott, did you hear in my introduction, uh, where I provided some background on the timeline of this application?
I did, yes.
Could you, in your own words, just describe to the board why this application was filed and what was changed in this application as compared to the original application that was permitted in 2018?
Sure. So based on constructability and access to construct the building, it was determined that the building needed to be trunk, obviously in the width dimension, by eight inches.
This was in efforts to not have to impede on adjacent property for access to construct the building.
That was the only thing that changed in this zoning code, in the zoning submission,
essentially making the majority of the building a 15-foot-1 dimension instead of a 15-foot-9 dimension
uh with a small eight inch section that does attach that one portion of the building
um that change in itself changed the open area calculation as well um but that was the only change
changed the open area calculation as well. But that was the only change that was made
as it relates to the previously approved zoning to the newly approved zoning permit.
And would you agree that based on your review of L&I's regulations that no permits are required
for a code compliant fence? Correct. Yes.
And based on that guidance, did you provide any documentation about the fence on the zoning permit plans?
We provided no documentation on the plans. We did show an elevation of raw iron fence that was more than 50 percent opaque and less than four feet in height.
that would be compliant with design code.
There is not a note that dictates that.
can you confirm that
when the building permit was obtained,
did you secure all required prerequisite approvals
from any related city agencies, including but not limited to the Streets Department.
Correct. We did.
That's all I have for this witness.
I will reserve the right to redirect, depending on any cross.
Mr. Orphanides.
Sure. Hello, Mr. Woodruff. How are you today?
So, Meredith, I'm wondering if I could share, show my screen regarding the documents that were uploaded.
First of all, in terms of the application and the permit, and you had indicated that you had submitted it, that permit that's under a PLZP 2023-006457, you submitted the application, correct?
Correct. Our firm submitted the application, correct.
Yeah. And did you submit it as an amendment or was it submitted as a new application?
New application.
Okay. So I know your counsel has indicated that it's essentially effectively an amendment, but it's not.
It's a new application. It's got a new permit number and there's nowhere on this application and this permit that references that it's an amendment, correct?
Correct. We're not permitted this. We weren't permitted to submit an amendment per L&I's regulations.
So as a new application, it gets as a not as if it were an amendment, you can incorporate prior the prior submissions, correct? Or they'd be considered. Is that correct?
Yes, we'd be clouding changes in an amendment scenario.
But in this situation, this is like starting this brand new application starting from scratch.
Yes, no, no amendment clouds referencing the previous.
Understood. And so as such, and I think now we've seen, and again, I don't have access to, as you know, if I'm not associated with the application, I don't have access to what your council or council just posted or what the city might have.
i had no way to know since it wasn't in the zoning archives that any letter whatsoever had been
submitted um but the um in terms of the of the terms of the plans you prepared the plans for
this application correct correct all right and you indicated back on the i'm just going to touch
on the fence again i i think you know without this again could have been addressed very simply
as far as what the you know what it was but the plans that were submitted depicted a fence but
did not depict it looks like it's a state fencing which I would agree with Mr. Reuter is generally
more than 50 percent of pay but the the height is not indicated anywhere on the plan so we would
have no way to know the height from the plans unless we printed them to scale and then scaled
it off correct correct unless you scaled it which the drawings are scale drawings right and it's
you know hoping that they were scanned in the right way okay but that that's actually you know
that's never that something that could always be easily fixed it could have been addressed
communicated to us you could have somehow submitted something to document that
um you could have somehow submitted something to document that but the main concern is the
parking so your firm and I think it's your your seal your seal is on the plans correct
correct okay now in terms of the in terms of the parking um and the letter that was referenced
um you know again I you know this may have been something that could be corrected but
For my client, it was something of a concern. The letter references 12 parking spaces. The letter that we now see was apparently submitted with this application, which is the same one that was submitted with prior applications that we have to assume is still in effect.
But your plans don't reference that the parking that's shown on the plans is for 319 Chariot references that it's parking for 141 to 43 North 4th Street, correct?
Correct, which, again, could be an oversight.
The letter both states 141 and 319 within that letter that we saw previously.
And the travel plan at detail two on Z003, is it correct that that also looks to show the travel distances from 141 to 43 and not from 319, correct?
Correct. It doesn't fully extend to 319, although obviously under the 1,000-foot distance by quite a sum.
Okay. So as far as our assertion and our appeal that the plans do not accurately reflect that the off-site parking that's shown on the plans is for use of 319 Cherry, whether that was an oversight, an accident, you know, you just copy, somebody copied and pasted over the detail.
In fact, it's the same detail that's used for 141 to 43. Is that correct in those plans?
correct as the same garage is utilized for the parking for that property as is stated in the
parking letter and is it your do you do you believe that you could have this this could
have been corrected and we might have saved the board some time if if an amendment could have
been filed to make this correction or a new application could have been filed to make this
correction i believe that l and i reviewed the the drawing and found it in compliance based on
their assertion of the code if if the plans were revised to show that the parking spaces were for
319 cherry i believe that again there's the letter and the drawings again together i think
the assumption is made that those 12 spaces are both you know for the minimum parking requirement
at 319 Cherry and 141 4th Street and the diagram obviously showing I think Ellen and I put it
together that essentially it was an oversight stating only 141 to 43 North 4th Street and found
obviously the parking in compliance. Okay and but but the plans as they're shown are like you said
oversight or not are not correct? Again I think there's an oversight that we should have mentioned
319 cherry street within that specific uh text where we're talking about the dimension
and maybe fix the travel the travel path correct an additional 10 feet on that 193 would get us
the cherry street right or wherever i don't know where the nearest entrance is that's assuming it's
at that back corner so and and again and you said did you have communications with the lni examiner
about this that you had mentioned that you know that they made they made this connection that
this was really showing for 319 as well uh they made no mention specifically uh against those
text deviations now they didn't want to clarify that the dimensions of the parking spaces
uh located within the parking garage but that was the extent and again this this oversight could
have been corrected with either an amended application or a new application that correctly
reflected specified the spaces for 319 correct correct if they would have given additional
information that said we would like to see the words 319 cherry street accompanying the 141 to
43 North 4th Street on that text string.
We could have complied with that, given that the parking letter clearly states that the
12 spaces are for 141 to 43 and 319 Cherry Street.
But in light of this appeal, that issue, which is clearly stated and indicated.
that issue, which is clearly stated and indicated in our appeal, could have been eliminated or
addressed by either filing an amended application or a new application that properly reflects the
addresses in the many months that have intervened since our appeal in August, correct?
We have an approved zoning permit. Again, that's...
I have no further questions. That's fine.
Leonard?
no I don't I don't really have anything else I can do that
have any other witnesses I do not
Hillary one I want to take maybe we'll have some
quick closings is that okay that's fine Mr. Chair
David sure so again
I think there's no disputing that
we had no knowledge we raised the issue in our appeal that there's
no letter um we had no knowledge of that there was um that there was a letter in effect we didn't
know that the agreement that was referenced in the prior permits uh in the letters with the prior
permits was still in effect or not that when that a letter was submitted as required um with that
being said, on their face, the plans are defective. And again, in the six months, seven months,
eight months, seven months since we filed the appeal, it could have easily been addressed by
an amended application or a new application to correct it if, in fact, there were spaces that
were specifically delineated for 319 cherry um and it's unfortunate that that didn't happen in
this time and that we had to take time to clarify the record to for my client to make sure that
everything was in order um but he was exercising his rights um based upon the information that and
we were doing so on his behalf based upon the information that we had that was made available
to us. I still believe that an amended application or a new application to make the record plans,
the record documents accurate rather than relying on an assumption or, I mean, there wasn't a
conversation or communication regarding that the plans were okay. I think the L&I examiner,
again, it was an oversight by the examiner probably as well as by Mr. Woodruff's office,
But that doesn't mean that these these plans should not be made accurate because, you know, who knows what happens in the future.
And I would still insist that on its face, these plans are defective and that they should be the permit should be revoked and it should be corrected or amended.
The plans could be the permit can be amended.
100 well uh again uh the the city's position here again is that the the what we have is what
we had i mean the appeal was filed um based upon documents that the appellant had access to which
again we think on their face were were valid uh especially with respect to the question of whether
amended plans should have been submitted with respect to the parking the reality is that they
could eliminate the off-site parking altogether and it wouldn't matter I mean if you have a
if you get a zoning permit that says you can have a bar restaurant with entertainment and you decide
not to have the entertainment it's not a violation you just don't have to have the entertainment if
you get a permit that says we're going to have off-site parking and now you don't need the
off-site parking you don't need to provide the offset parking why would you submit an amended
plan i mean they could submit an amended plan that'd be nice if they wanted to but i don't see
what point there would have been in doing that uh as far again as as far as the fence goes again
we've heard very little about the fence uh as the applicant's architect uh indicated uh the fence
the elevations that were shown uh that were presented as part of the zoning plans were done
to scale uh the appellant is the one that brought the appeal it would have been their burden to
show that that fence was the wrong height or that was in fact more than 50 opaque and there's just
no indication of that at all in the record the plans speak for themselves and again if that
fence is built too high or is too opaque when it's constructed, that would be a violation.
Same with the Juliet balcony issue. If it is an extension of floor space, that would be a
violation. But, you know, if you sit out on your fire escape, that doesn't turn the fire escape
into an extension of your floor. It's, you know, you could sit on the railing of a Juliet balcony
You know, you could sit on the railing of a Juliet balcony if you want, probably wouldn't recommend that.
if you want, probably wouldn't recommend that.
But it's but the fact that it's a railing that extends out does not make that a per se extension of the floor area.
And again, we've heard nothing to indicate otherwise. So that's pretty much it for the city.
Mary, you stand with that. I do. OK, thank you. Meredith.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that Mr. Reuter's closing was quite well stated. I would just add that this board hears appeals against L&I fairly frequently, and even putting aside the fact that the issue relative to the parking is entirely moot at this point,
um l and i has discretion to review a set of plans and determine whether based on the information on
those plans the plans are in compliance with the zoning code and given the fact that the letter
submitted clearly shows that the parking was intended to be allocated both 141 north 4th street
and 319 cherry street whether or not there is a typo on a plan uh l and i had perfectly reasonable
discretion to determine that the plan here did comply with the requirements of the code as it
relates to off-site parking. And again, that issue at this point is really quite moot. And I would
fully agree with everything that Leonard stated relative to the fact that L&I does not routinely
require new permits if there is an intervening code change that would render a part of that
permit unnecessary. I mean, I cannot even imagine the reality if Elle and I were to impose
requirements like that. So we would state that the appellant has not met their burden here and
that this permit should absolutely stand as issued. Any questions from the board?
No, Chair.
no chair no chair okay um any questions from our attorney hillary emberson
um i just wanted to check with the parties um if they felt like based on the presentation
and information today if there was anything additional they wish to submit for the board
to consider before the board votes or if they would be comfortable with the board voting today
i'm comfortable with it i don't i mean i've once meredith pulled up her her um her uh eclipse
account i could see what len would have otherwise provided i didn't need any other information that
was the only thing i'd ask len to provide again this is just stuff that we didn't have information
on i agree everything that i presented was publicly available information so i'm comfortable
as well except for your eclipse accounts not publicly about fair leonard are you okay yeah
i'm fine with that okay so mi 2023 is zero zero five one six zero three nineteen cherry street
i vote appeal denied permit upheld thank you
jim james snell appeal nine
ish ish no shaheed appeal denied permanent appeal thank you all thanks thank you
is there anyone in the uh virtual audience whose the 9 30 case has not been called
i see no he's sure thanks everyone see everybody tomorrow at the
9 30. Thank you. Take care. Thank you, Chair.
Thanks, Chair. Have a good one. Great job, everyone.
Bye, everyone.