Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecision Transcript Appendix A - Asdourian- 11-4-2021 Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 1 of 26 Appendix A October 19, 2021 Hearing Transcript Asdourian Home Remodel -- LUA21-000025, V-A, V-H Note: This is a computer generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available from the City should anyone need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony. Phil Olbrechts: Good morning, This is Phil Olbrechts, I'm a hearing examiner for the City of Renton. For the record, it's 11:00 o'clock a.m., October 19, 2021. We have the application for some variances, shoreline variances, administrative variances, and a shoreline exemption for File #LUA-21-000025, for a single- family home on the shores of Lake Washington. The hearing format today is, we'll start off with a presentation from staff. That'll be Jill Ding, who will give us an overview of the project. Once she's done, we'll move on to the applicant, who then can speak in support of their project with any witnesses they may have, and then we'll move on to public. I see we do have a few members of the public here today who want to participate. We'll provide some additional details as to how you can jump in once that opportunity arises. Once we're done with public participation, we'll move back to staff to answer any questions that were raised, and also provide rebuttal evidence, if necessary. Finally, the applicant has final word, and after that's all done, I have 10 business days to issue a final decision. This is a little different from most, a lot of these hearings that we have, in that it involves shoreline variances, and those are not final until the Department of Ecology approves them. Once I issue my decision on the variances, if they're approved, then the Department of Ecology has to provide their approval, as well. And if there's any disagreement at that point, those decisions from the Department of Ecology can be appealed to the State Shorelines Hearings Board, based out in Olympia. Any questions about the process or what we're doing today? I see, we do have a raised hand from Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams, did you have a question or something? There we go. Dean Williams: Thank you, Mr. Examiner. My name is Dean Williams. I'm the attorney representing the applicant, and wanted to introduce the applicant team, once Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 2 of 26 it's our chance to speak. I see that our planner, Mr. Eisemann, has been admitted to the ... There we go. Thank you very much, as a panelist. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, great. Yeah, we'll certainly give you that chance, once Miss Ding is done with her presentation. Miss Ding, let's deal with exhibits real quick. By state law, I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's in the record, so that everyone has an equal opportunity to respond to it and consider it. On page two of the staff report here, I'm going to share my screen. Let's see, there we go. Should be the exhibit list, hopefully, I got the right one up there. Jill Ding: Correct. Phil Olbrechts: It's one through 13, and Miss Ding, I understand, staff usually wants to add some exhibits to that, but 14 would be the staff PowerPoint, I'm just looking for a pen to write this down somewhere, 15 would be Google Maps, 16 would be the City of Renton Core Maps. Those are available on the city's website, that shows where the critical areas are located, and that kind of thing. Then finally, 17 would be Google aerial photographs of the project site. Are there any objections over entry of those documents? If it's one through 17, if you do, go ahead and raise your virtual hand, or just unmute yourself and say, "I object." Okay, seeing no objections, then Exhibits one through 17 are admitted. Miss Ding, let me swear you in. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, in this proceeding? Jill Ding: I do. Phil Olbrechts: All right, go ahead. Jill Ding: Thank you, Mr. Examiner. Okay. Let's see. I will share my screen. Are you seeing my PowerPoint? Phil Olbrechts: Yes. Mm-hmm (affirmative). Jill Ding: Okay. All right. Again, good morning. My name is Jill Ding. I am a senior planner, and I am the project manager assigned to the Asdourian house remodel project. Just a brief description of the overall proposal. The applicant is requesting two shoreline variances, three administrative variances, as well as a shoreline exemption for the remodel, and addition to an existing single-family residence, that is located along the shoreline of Lake Washington. Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 3 of 26 The project site is located within the R-6 Zone. It has an upland area of 2,275 square feet, and a total area, including submerged areas, of 13,503 square feet. It is located within the shoreline residential designation of Lake Washington, Reach D, in the city's Shoreline Master Program. Continuing along with a brief description of the proposed variances, the proposal includes the addition of a third story to an existing two-story residence, as well as a 350-square-foot addition to the building footprint, which would result in a total new living area of 3,579 square feet. The maximum height of the proposal residence would have a 24-foot wall plate height, and a maximum height of 30 feet to the top of the pitched roof. None of the expansions of the footprint would encroach closer to the shoreline. Here's a site plan. This is the shoreline, over here, this is the footprint of the existing house, and then, these are the footprint additions here. We have one that's about 100 square feet here. Then this area down here is also footprint addition. The variances that were requested include a shoreline variance to the 25-foot setback requirements from Lake Washington, for the addition of a third story within the shoreline setback; a shoreline variance, to increase the maximum building coverage of 25% to 59%; a height variance to the maximum two-story limit, for a third story; and a front and side yard setback variance to reduce the 25-foot front yard setback, to a minimum of zero feet, and to reduce the five- foot side yard setback to 4'9", and the combined side yard setback, from 15 feet down to 12 feet. We issued a 30-day public comment period that began on February 21st, and ended on March 3rd. Staff received six public comments and one comment from the Department of Ecology. There was one public comment that had concerns with regards to the height of the proposed structure, as it would impact their views of Lake Washington. The other public comments were in support of the application. Based on the height concerns that were received, the proposal was revised to reduce the overall height proposed, to comply with the 24-foot wall plate height and 30-foot maximum height permitted in the R-6 Zone. The current height variance requested is only to the maximum number of stories, it is not actually a variance to the height limits within the R-6 Zone. As far as an analysis of the shoreline setback, the city looked at the proposal. The proposed third story addition would be located within the required 25-foot shoreline setback, which is what triggered the shorelines setback variance. There would be no expansions of the existing footprint toward Lake Washington, so the only expansion within the footprint would be vertical, it Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 4 of 26 would not be horizontal at all, towards the lake. Staff did conclude that the proposal would comply with these shoreline variance criteria, provided that all conditions of approval are complied with. Regarding the shoreline building coverage variance analysis, The proposed 350- square-foot footprint expansion would result in a building coverage of 59%, which exceeds the maximum 25% building coverage permitted within 100 feet of Lake Washington. None of that footprint expansion would extend closer to Lake Washington. And staff did conclude that the proposed expansion would comply with the variance criteria, provided all conditions of approval are complied with. The picture that I have here is just to the south of the project site, and it was just an illustration, so that you can see that most of the existing residents in this area are not ... Exceed the 25% maximum building coverage, so what the applicant is asking for is not at all out of character with what the existing environment is, and that's the same thing here. This is just to the south of the project site. These are other residences within the R-6 Zone along the Lake Washington shoreline, and here, where you can see, in addition to exceeding the 25% building coverage, you can also see most of them do not comply with the required front or side yard setbacks. There are even some like this one, where it's actually over the property line into King County property, so there's a lot of nonconforming structures within this area. As far as the height goes, I wanted to reiterate that the height variance requested is only to the maximum number of stories permitted within the R-6 Zone. The R-6 Zone permits a maximum number of two stories. The height variance requested is not a variance to the height envelope that is permitted within the R-6 Zone, so the applicant would be permitted a height envelope of 24 feet, with a maximum height of 30 feet, for residences with pitched roofs. Based on that, the proposal would comply with the administrative variance criteria for the height variance, provided all conditions of approval are complied with. And the front yard and side yard setback variants, the proposed addition would be located within the front end side yard setbacks required in the R-6 Zone. As I mentioned, the 25-foot front yard setback is being reduced to a minimum of zero, and the reduction in the five-foot side yard setback would be to 4'9", and the combined side yard setback requirement would be reduced from 15 feet to 12 feet. Staff can now analyze the proposal, and compared it with other similarly situated residences within this zone, and along the Lake Washington shoreline, and concluded that the proposal would comply with the administrative variance criteria, provided all conditions of approval are complied with. In conclusion, staff is recommending approval of the Asdourian home remodel variances as Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 5 of 26 depicted in Exhibit Two, and we are recommending six conditions of approval. That concludes my PowerPoint, unless there are any questions. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Yeah, normally when I do a reasonable unit use analysis, especially for shoreline variances, I like to try to get in the sizes of adjoining homes if the variance deals with increasing of the size. How much of a stretch of Lake Washington Boulevard are we talking about here? About how many homes are in the vicinity? Jill Ding: Let's see. I had an exhibit that I included. Let's see. I did a comparison, it's Exhibit 12. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay, okay. Jill Ding: This exhibit compares all of the homes along Lake Washington. Now, this exhibit is very rough. I did not go out and do a site survey or anything, so I went on King County's website and used their property information, and they had photos of many of the residences on their tax assessor data. So that was what I used to estimate the number of stories. I've got estimated square footages. I don't know if that includes garage area, or if it's just [crosstalk 00:14:02]. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay. Jill Ding: Let's see. I think there are 25 homes that are in the R-6 Zone, along Lake Washington, in this area, in the vicinity of the project site. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. I'm just trying to get that exhibit up on my screen. That has the square footages of all the homes in the surrounding area, is that right? Jill Ding: I've got the square footages, yeah. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, okay. Jill Ding: Then I did an average calculation, as well as a mean calculation. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, okay. I noticed in the View Impact Analysis, that the views that were assessed were only from the third story of houses. Is that correct? I mean, I was just looking at the diagram. Why would you just pick the third floor as opposed to, of course, to the lower floors, where the views are more impacted? Jill Ding: What happened was, the original submittal included a taller edition. The applicant originally had a different proposal that actually included a height variance, a variance to the building height envelope. Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 6 of 26 They originally would have had a 29-foot wall plate height, with a flat roof and a rooftop deck. Based on the information that we received, or concerns from a neighbor up the hill, we gave the applicant an opportunity to provide a view analysis. Based on the results of that view analysis, we saw that there would indeed be impacts of an increase in the height of the building envelope to uphill neighbors. Because of that, we then reached out to the applicant, and it was agreed that they would not ask for a variance to the height envelope, but would instead revise their proposal to comply with the height envelope, and then include three stories, instead of two stories. Phil Olbrechts: Right. But, I mean, the view angles that they looked at from the adjoining properties were taken from the third story of all those adjoining properties. It's like, what about the impacts to the second story of those adjoining homes or the first story? I mean, why just pick a height that's least effected on adjoining views? It seemed like it was a biased analysis of view impacts, in a sense, there. Jill Ding: Yeah, I can't answer that, as to why they did only impacts from the third story. I can just say, that based on the fact that there would be view impacts, we recommended that they reduce the overall height of the structure. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, okay, got you. Yeah, all right. Then also, one thing that was troubling about this was the fact that I know the shoreline variance criteria, basically, the bulk and density restrictions have to interfere with reasonable use of the property. If you look at it, if they didn't get their third story, they'd still get a home that's over 2,000 square feet in size. I mean, isn't that still a reasonable use of property that they're left with? I mean, to say that the only way you can have reasonable use of property is to have a house that's 3,500 square feet is ... That's a house that's larger than most other homes, than the average sized home in the state of Washington. I'm curious as to how staff conclude that these, including a third story, would interfere with the reasonable use to the property. Jill Ding: We looked at this a lot, and we had a lot of discussions, and square footage is very subjective, as far as it comes to reasonable use. What we looked at is that this property is incredibly constrained. It's got a really small upland area. There's really nowhere to add out, and so, we felt like it was reasonable, if they were going to add on up, we thought it was reasonable to accommodate three stories within the maximum height envelope for the R-6 Zone. That was our Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 7 of 26 threshold for reasonable use, was that the height was not actually going above the zoning height envelope limit of the R-6 Zone. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Also, there's been one case that's interpreted what reasonable use means in the context of the shoreline variance criteria. It's an old case. Actually, I know there's some criteria that were more, or rather less restrictive than the ones that are out there now, but one of the factors cited in that case, [Beauchet 00:19:22] v. Mason County, was investment back to expectations? Was the property bought at a discount? Now they're trying to leverage that up through the variance process. I mean, does staff have any information about when the property was purchased, whether it was a purchased at a discounted price, because of the development limitations attached to it? Jill Ding: I don't have any information on that, no. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, okay. All right. Yeah, yeah. That's an obscure requirement, but okay, sounds good. Let's move on to the applicants at this point. Who wanted to speak on behalf of the applicants, for starters? Dean Williams: Thank you, Mr. Examiner, my name is Dean Williams. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Dean Williams: I'm an attorney for the applicant, and I guess I'll be running the show, as it were. Phil Olbrechts: Sure. Dean Williams: I know that a few of my clients and consultants have frozen and gotten dropped off, particularly Ryan and Ashley Asdourian, and Scott Brainard. If we could get them back to panelists, we'd appreciate that. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Miss Cisneros, can you do that? Okay, great. Miss Cisneros: Working on that. Dean Williams: All right, thank you. Speaker 5: There we go. We're back. Thank you. Dean Williams: I'll take this opportunity to introduce the property owners, Ryan and Ashley Asdourian. You can see them both right there in one picture. We have our primary planner, Eric Eisemann, who has his video off right now for bandwidth considerations, I presume. Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 8 of 26 We also have Bruce Sinkey, our architect, and Scott Brainard, our wetland consultant. I'm not sure if I see Bruce right now, he may have to be rejoining, as well, at the moment. Miss Cisneros: I don't see him, but if I do see him, I'll bring him in. Dean Williams: Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Miss Cisneros: You're welcome. Dean Williams: Before I provide any argument in response to the Hearing Examiner's questions, I'll ask, well, let's start with Eric Eisemann, and Mr. Hearing Examiner, would you please swear him in? Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay. Mr. Eisemann, just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, in this proceeding? Eric Eisemann: I do. Phil Olbrechts: All right, go ahead. Dean Williams: Thank you. Mr. Eisemann, why don't you tell us a little bit about the development of this proposal, where we started, how we got where we are? Eric Eisemann: Sure, I'd be glad to. We started over a year ago with reaching out to the city staff, Jill Ding, in particular, and we thank her for support, her help during this project, to help us understand the written code better. What we were looking to do is basically trying to find the minimum away that we could expand the elevation of this building, without expanding the footprint of the building, to provide the property owners with their needed living space, if you will. With that, we did submit an initial application. That application we revised, as Jill, mentioned, as a result of that view analysis. I think the view analysis is probably not important anymore, but just as, I would say, as an aside, that when Bruce did do the survey work, the architectural survey work for this, he looked at not just the third floor, but he also looked at the ground floor, and also looked the second stories, when he could get access to the property, but a lot of the analysis was done on the ground floor, Mr. Examiner. It may appear different, but Bruce has indicated that. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Eric Eisemann: I think that what we've done is we've also communicated with the Department of Ecology over time, and listened to their concerns, and so we've modified this proposal, I think, significantly, in order to make it fit with, as much as we Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 9 of 26 possibly can, within the Renton Shorelines Program, and also within their administrative code. That's essentially where we are right now. [crosstalk 00:23:50] I guess I would also encourage everyone to take a look at some of the photographic analysis that we provided in the narrative. I forget the exhibit number for it, but it shows a variety of different homes along that reach of Lake Washington, where the Asdourian house is. They were taken from the street level and also from the waterfront. So you get a pretty good picture of how tall these buildings are, and actually how their stories are, and many of them are three stories, not all. Dean Williams: Eric, is that Exhibit 13? Eric Eisemann: I believe it is, yes. I see a building [inaudible 00:24:32]. Dean Williams: Okay, thank you. Eric, based on your experience with this project, are there homes nearby that exceed the height of what this home will be? Eric Eisemann: Oh, I believe so. I think that's just right along that the alleyway there, and I know that Ryan and Ashley could testify to that as well. They've gone out and met with the neighbors, and they've taken the photographs, and spoken with the neighbors. So yes, there are a number of homes that are three stories tall, and are taller than the Asdourian proposal. Dean Williams: Okay. As to the expectations of what one might be able to do on this parcel, are you familiar with the general building codes for this parcel, as you've been working on it? Eric Eisemann: I've been doing land use work in the State of Washington for almost 25 years, so I'm very familiar with the state practices. I'm very familiar with the shorelines codes in a number of different jurisdictions. I admit that this was the first time I've worked on a Renton shoreline project, but I've done them elsewhere in the state. So I would say I'm fairly familiar with the codes. Dean Williams: Okay. In your review of these written specific codes, is it possible to have three stories along the shoreline in some situations? Eric Eisemann: Well, on this particular site, it would be extremely difficult. As you look at the site, it has a shoreline frontage on the west, and it has a shoreline frontage on the north, which is unusual along this reach of Lake Washington. That pushes that 25-foot ordinary high-water setback into the property in a very significant manner, so the opportunity for expanding this property is very limited. I think Bruce calculated that about at 532 square feet, roughly. Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 10 of 26 I think that's similar with the rest of these homes along the waterfront here, because this Garden of Eden, Plat Number Two, which is an ancient plat, but the original lots were 20 feet wide, and they extend all the way out into Lake Washington. A number of properties have consolidated those ancient lots into two by two, three, four, five. The ones to the north and ones to the south are four and five plats are lots combined together into one lot. Some other homes in the area have taken advantage of combining lots into a bigger footprint or a buildable area than this one does, so this one's pretty unusual. Dean Williams: Okay. Eric, do you have anything you'd like to add, in light of the questions we've heard today, or testimony from staff? Eric Eisemann: Yeah, I would just say one other thing, and that's in response to the reasonable use question. I understand the concept, and understand the question, but I would also argue, as I think that we put into our narrative, that reasonable use also includes an expectation to use your property similarly to other similarly situated people. If other properties along the lake shore here are taking advantage of an increased story, which some are, then I would say that that's a reasonable expectation, a reasonable use expectation. Dean Williams: All right, thank you. I think Bruce Sinkey is online here somewhere, I'm not sure exactly which one of these is him. Bruce, can you hear me? If so, please unmute. Miss Cisneros: I don't see that there's a Bruce in here. I do see Admin, but that's about it. Dean Williams: Okay. I'll ask Scott, then, to speak a little to his review of the ecological considerations. Mr. Examiner, could you please swear him in? Phil Olbrechts: Uh-huh (affirmative). All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, in this proceeding? Scott Brainard: I do. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Go ahead. Scott Brainard: I'm Scott Brainard, Principal Ecologist at Wetland Resources. Address is 9505 19th Avenue Southeast, Suite 106, Everett, Washington, 98208. As part of evaluating the site, I flagged the ordinary high-water mark of the lake surrounding the property, and I believe, as Eric indicated, it's a fairly unique situation, in that the ordinary high-water mark is not just on one of the property boundaries, it's on the west boundary, and the north boundary, thus extending the setback well into the property from two sides, not just one side. That was a big part of the consideration. Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 11 of 26 Then, evaluating the overall vegetative condition of the site, the site is virtually entirely existing building, and/or decking, and/or impervious surfaces, so there's essentially no shoreline ecological function that's currently occurring for this particular property. That was a big part of what we evaluated in the lake study, was to determine what, if any impact to future development or the redevelopment of the site would have on the shoreline ecological function. The gist of it is that by adding additional story, and remodeling the existing structure, there would be no net loss of shoreline ecological function. Dean Williams: Thank you, Mr. Brainard. Mr. Hearing Examiner, do you have any questions for him? Phil Olbrechts: No. Dean Williams: I think we have Mr. Sinkey online now. Would you please unmute Mr. Sinkey? Phil Olbrechts: All right, Mr. Sinkey, just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing but the truth, in this proceeding? Bruce Sinkey: I do. Phil Olbrechts: For the record, how do you spell sour last name? Bruce Sinkey: Sinkey, S as in Sam, I-N-K-E-Y. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, great. Thank you. Bruce Sinkey: You got it. Dean Williams: Bruce, why don't you tell us a little bit about how you've revised this project as time's gone on? Bruce Sinkey: I didn't hear that last part you said. Dean Williams: Could you tell us a little bit about your work on this project, and how it's been revised? Bruce Sinkey: Yes. Originally, we had a full three stories, and then, when the city came back, we revised it to be within the envelope of a 24-foot plate line, and then, the 30- foot ridge, and we've been over to accomplish that. It does have a third floor. The walls are in, a little bit as far as ceiling heights, but we were able to accomplish that. We've also pulled the deck back from the west side by about 15 feet, so I think we're definitely within the envelope as directed by Renton. Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 12 of 26 Dean Williams: Thank you. Would you say that this project was particularly challenging, in light of the size of the parcel, and it's a total upland area? Bruce Sinkey: Yes, because there isn't any property, really, to work with. The only way we could go is a little bit get towards the east, and then, not very far. We had to stagger the face of the building to ... The property line is at a diagonal. Then, of course, we've tried to capture a little more square footage for them on a third floor, and so we were adjusting ceiling heights from the original, also. Dean Williams: Okay. Is it your understanding of code right now that, whether it was two stories or three stories, that the Asdourians would be able to build a home at the same height as they're proposing to do so now? Bruce Sinkey: Yes. My understanding of reading the Renton design standards, yes. Dean Williams: Okay. As far as height goes, it's your understanding that they're not exceeding any applicable thresholds vertically? Bruce Sinkey: Correct. Dean Williams: Okay. Bruce Sinkey: Of course, we've had it surveyed in depth. Actually, they went out there a couple times, so we were very accurate with our design at this point, with the footings, and also, the heights. Dean Williams: Okay. Thank you very much. Does the home currently have a garage? Bruce Sinkey: No. Dean Williams: Okay. How did you design the garage to minimize that impact? Bruce Sinkey: We've captured some of this square footage of the existing livable, and then again, because of the diagonal property line on the east side, we were able to get a garage stall on the right, or on the north side. Then we also got a smaller one on the south. Dean Williams: Are those garages pretty small, from your experience, as compared to other new homes? Bruce Sinkey: Yes. Typically, we would try to get them a little bit bigger, but we've done everything we can at this point. Dean Williams: Are the garages proposed completely within the property lines? Bruce Sinkey: Yes. Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 13 of 26 Dean Williams: Are you familiar with nearby properties, and where their garages are, in relation to the property lines? Bruce Sinkey: At some level, mostly from looking at the existing properties from the information that we have. Dean Williams: What did you learn from looking at those other properties? Bruce Sinkey: I think the garages vary, some are larger and some are smaller. There's quite an array of garages along there. They're all really tight to the street, essentially, as far as I could tell. Dean Williams: Are there some that are right on the property line, or maybe even over the property line? Bruce Sinkey: I wouldn't be able to speak to that. I did not survey any of that. Dean Williams: Thank you. Fair enough. Are there any other comments you'd like to make, based on what you've heard today, the view analysis questions, et cetera? Bruce Sinkey: No. Again, I think Eric spoke to the new analysis, but it wasn't just from the third story. We actually tried to work from as though you were standing on the first floor of any one house. Of course, we couldn't access the homes, so we had to guesstimate some of that, but most of that was done from the ground. Dean Williams: Okay. Do you have the exhibits in front of you? Bruce Sinkey: The exhibits for the new settings, or ... Dean Williams: Yeah, Exhibit 11, in particular. Bruce Sinkey: Ooh. I do not. Dean Williams: Would you mind pulling them up? Bruce Sinkey: It'd just take me a minute. Jill Ding: I can get it, and share my screen. Phil Olbrechts: Thank you. Thanks, Jill. Jill Ding: I've got the exhibits right here. Dean Williams: Thank you. Can we do Exhibit 11, page 18? Jill Ding: Yup, I'm happy to do that. Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 14 of 26 (silence) Are you seeing it? Dean Williams: Yes, thank you. Bruce Sinkey: Thank you, Jill. Dean Williams: Bruce, is this what you're referring to? Bruce Sinkey: Yes. Dean Williams: As far as looking at ground level, what might the impact be? Bruce Sinkey: Yes. Dean Williams: Okay. Bruce Sinkey: This one, we were actually standing on the ground at this one. The first floor was higher than what we were able to access, so we did this one from the ground. Dean Williams: Okay. Would you say that the depiction here would be more egregious than what we're actually proposing to build now? Bruce Sinkey: Yes. Well, yes. The upper photo, we tried to illustrate the potential blockage of view on that upper photo, so that height was taller, it was around 30. From my recollection, it was about 35 or 36 feet. Dean Williams: Okay. Are there any other comments that you would like to make? Bruce Sinkey: No. Not unless you have additional questions. Dean Williams: Not right now. Thank you, Bruce. With that, I'll introduce the homeowners, Ryan and Ashley Asdourian. Phil Olbrechts: Actually, Mr. Williams. I had a couple questions of Mr. Sinkey on this, and let me share my screen, if I can. Let's see. Oh, here we go. Mr. Sinkey, this goes back to the issue of the view analysis, and all the line of site diagrams I could find were based from the top stories of homes. This is page 16, or excuse me, 19, 22. See, every single one of them is from the top there - Bruce Sinkey: Right, I see what you're talking about. Phil Olbrechts: ... So I couldn't quite figure out why that was done. Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 15 of 26 Bruce Sinkey: I see what you're talking about now. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, yeah. Bruce Sinkey: The building on the right, and even the building below were the best we could do, they were more diagrammatic. We were coordinated with the surveyor, and the information they gave us, but they were trying to be from ... The first floor was the direction. I would say that it's more of a diagrammatic image, the best we could do, without ... Phil Olbrechts: Okay, because it did seem if you took your point of origin from the neighboring property on the lower floor, that there would be some obstruction. I'm just trying to make sure I understand these diagrams correctly, but ... Bruce Sinkey: Right. Well, and I think we show that there is some obstruction. If you go back to that one that we were just looking at in the yellow, in fact, back down, just where it goes out into the water, right there? Phil Olbrechts: Yeah. Bruce Sinkey: That yellow is obstruction of view. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, I see. Okay. Bruce Sinkey: I'm sorry that was not clear. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Well, I just wanted to make sure I understood that. Bruce Sinkey: Yeah, I know. You actually are looking down, from those locations down, in a downward view, but there was ... All those yellow represent obstruction of view. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay. Got you. Thank you. Bruce Sinkey: Yes. Phil Olbrechts: All right. That's all I had. Thank you very much. Dean Williams: I'll do a little bit of redirect, if that's okay. Bruce, that view analysis refers to the prior configuration of the home, correct? Bruce Sinkey: Correct. Dean Williams: The current proposal, going up to 30 feet, would be allowed within code, is that correct? Bruce Sinkey: Yes. My understanding, from the information we got from Renton. Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 16 of 26 Dean Williams: Okay. That's it. Please swear in Ryan and Ashley. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, nothing about the truth in this proceeding? Ryan Asdourian: Yeah. Ashley Asdouria...: Mm-hmm (affirmative). Phil Olbrechts: Okay, great, go ahead. Ryan Asdourian: All right. Hi, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity here. I'm Ryan. This is my wife, Ashley. Ashley Asdouria...: Hi. Ryan Asdourian: We are a family of four. We also have two children, ages two and four. First, I just want to say a big thank you, not only for the opportunity, but to our team on our side, also, to Jill, who has coached us through this, for about a year and a half, and to Maria, who has helped us on the Department of Ecology side to really make sure we're doing everything right, as best we can. So thank you for the guidance. To your question about when this was purchased, and the reason, that was slightly when we had cut out for a second, I just thought I would add, we bought this in June of 2018. It's not bought as an investment property. We bought this when we had one child, we now have two children, and we are looking forward to making some very long term home. We don't have any plans to sell it, this is for our use. So I just wanted to clarify that, and when we bought it, per your question. As that actually goes into your reasonable use comment, the one thing I wanted to share on that front, that hasn't been shared already, based on other neighbors and similar footprint houses in the area, is that both of us are working individuals. We both work full-time jobs from home, with children, as well. We are often looking for the different areas. We're currently coming to you from our bedroom, which is where my wife works. I think we plan, especially in this hybrid world of work, to continue seeing ourselves working from our home for the foreseeable future, and we know that the world is changing in that respect. We think about that as we've thought about the design for what we would need for reasonable use as well. I know we had a number of conversations on the height. We have taken the feedback from Jill, and Maria, as well, to make sure that we are complying with the zones. We have taken our original design, brought that down. Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 17 of 26 We have also, if you will have noted in some of the pictures, we're not even looking for the full third story. Part of that would still be an outdoor deck area, to reduce the footprint, and make sure we're only building for what we need, or for what we believe we need. So we're looking to minimize in every place. We're also taking into effect the part that is on the water side, that is the part that was deck, which should help with the view analysis even more, than the reduced from 35 feet to 30 feet, and that it doesn't go out as far into the water. So, two things that are reducing or increasing the viewability, in line with what we've been asked for to do there. You'll also notice, in the front, I think Jill showed this directly, that some of the neighbors have built their garages over the property line. We have a reduced property line versus all of our neighbors, minus four of us. We're still staying within all of the property lines, and staggering our garage, to make sure that we have no violations of that. We've looked to really comply with every regulation, and even looking ... I know some of our neighbors' houses were built before new shoreline regulations, but it's worth calling out that even with the addition that we are proposing, we will still be a lower height than many of our neighbors along our own lane, and especially around the Renton area, including Ripley Lane, where there are a number of three-story houses and even one that is a little bit larger, that we've found on Zillow, advertised as a four-story property. Look, we love the city of Renton. We see this as a long term home. We're grateful for all the guidance we have gotten along this journey, to comply with every regulation. That is our intent, that is why we're here. I just want to say thank you again for all of the guidance to get us here, and thank you for all of your consideration. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right, Mr. Williams, your next witness. Dean Williams: I have a few questions- Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Dean Williams: ... For the Asdourians. Ryan, would you say, if not a financial investment, that this home is an investment in your family? Ryan Asdourian: This is absolutely an investment in our family. It was a stretch for us to purchase it, and we did it because we wanted to be here for the long term. Our family has been growing since we have moved in, and this is a place that we look to grow our family. It is absolutely an investment in our family. Dean Williams: Okay. Just from your experience, what do you see as the practical ... When was your current home built? Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 18 of 26 Ryan Asdourian: Our current home was built, I want to say, I'd have to check the exact date, but I believe it was the '60s. I'm sorry. I don't have that right in front of me. Dean Williams: Would you say that it was older than 1980? Ryan Asdourian: Yes. Ashley Asdouria...: Yes. Dean Williams: What would you say are some of the practical differences between living in a single-family home in 1980, in this area and now? Ryan Asdourian: Great question. It looks like it may have been 1971, I'm just looking that up. The practical differences, I probably can't speak to all of them, but I know that technology companies probably didn't even exist at the time, for the most part, and both Ashley and I have made our living, working in the technology sector, and something that has really forced us in many ways to work from home. I think that there's probably too many differences to count between 1971 and 2021, but I believe it is a different era. Dean Williams: Okay. I'd like us to pull up Exhibit 13, if we could, and I'm trying to figure out exactly which page. Page 12. Ryan Asdourian: I see it on my screen. Dean Williams: Oh, and actually, page 11's better for my purposes, I think. Apologies. Are we looking at a map here that shows your parcel? Ryan Asdourian: Correct. You can see it's in the recessed property line. It's the one that is to the north there. Dean Williams: Can you describe for us what you were referencing, when you said it's different than a lot of the other parcels? Ryan Asdourian: Yeah. I've looked up and down all of the different rents and properties. One of the things that I'll also say, when we first bought it, we didn't understand that this would make such a difference in this, is that we have water wrapping around the north side of our house. The next house, one to the north of us, is set back a bit because of that, also very close to the water, but we have water that is essentially on two sides of the house, which has ... Well, we've learned through this process, created more areas where we need to be really focused and compliant. I think that's the guidance that really Jill and Maria were extremely helpful, in making sure that our proposal met this, where it had two sides of water. I was Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 19 of 26 personally only able to find one other house in the City of Renton shoreline that had this, which is a bit south of us, towards Gene Coulon Park. Dean Williams: Okay. Is there anything else? Ryan Asdourian: The other difference is, and you'll see this, north and south, there is a former railroad that is now a walking path. You'll notice the green line in about the center of the screen, where you'll see that ... And you can actually go all the way up and all the way down. There are only four houses, one of which, we are one of the four, where the property line is moved further to the west than every other property. I don't know the regulations or why that was, particularly, but it's worth noting our property proposal stays within our recessed property line. It's also good to know that in this area, there is a gate that is directly to the north of us. There are actually two gates for the four houses north of us that they've blocked off for private property, where that arrow is. So we are essentially at the very end of our lane. We have very little traffic. All of it is lower than the walking path there. You have basically raised elevation for the walking path, further raised elevation for the street, and then further elevation raised for where the houses are, that are next, as you look to the east, on that image. But we are at the very end of a lane, and get very little traffic, outside of ourselves, and a few Amazon deliveries. Dean Williams: Okay. Do you know about how many feet that difference is? Ryan Asdourian: It is, I believe, about ... Wait a minute. I want to say it is approximately five to six feet. Dean Williams: Okay. Ashley Asdouria...: All right. [crosstalk 00:53:15]. Ryan Asdourian: Sorry, I'm pulling it up. Ashley Asdouria...: No, you mean how much shorter is our lot? Dean Williams: Yes. Ashley Asdouria...: Yeah, and it's 25. Ryan Asdourian: 25 feet. Yeah, sorry. For the difference, they are 25 feet, it looks like. Dean Williams: Do you know what that corridor is? Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 20 of 26 Ryan Asdourian: Sorry. What do you mean by corridor? Dean Williams: The area where those other properties extend further east than yours? Ryan Asdourian: Oh, it is simply the street. It is all street. Most of the houses are built onto it. Our house is significantly further back, including in the proposal, but all of it is just basically a one-lane road that is wider or shorter in different areas. Yeah, and then to the east, there is plant vegetation, trees, rocks, but it is all built on for all the other properties. Dean Williams: Okay. Is there anything else that- Ryan Asdourian: Yeah. Sorry. Dean Williams: ... Is there anything else you'd like to add today? Ryan Asdourian: In the exhibits, we have taken photos up and down the lane, that shows all of the houses, or I should say, most of the houses, all extending out into that area, and in some cases, even further. I think that plays into how we have thought about reasonable use, even though we are not asking to extend into the same areas that our neighbors have the liberty to do. I think Jill mentioned this at the beginning, but we have had tremendous support from our entire lane of neighbors, with a number of them commenting publicly on the proposal. We have great neighbors. They've all been supportive of our kids. It's a great area, and it just speaks volumes to why we're excited to have this as a long term home for us. Dean Williams: Thank you. With that, Mr. Examiner, I'll provide a little bit of closing argument, and then of course, open it up for comment. We have here a parcel with an upland area of just 2,275 square feet. In all of my experience building homes along shorelines across Washington State, I've never seen a parcel with that little space of land to work with. There's 568 square feet that does not fall within one of the applicable buffers. This parcel also doesn't meet the minimum widths for lots in the zone. That doesn't mean that by expecting to build a home on this property, they are expecting too much. The property is zoned for that, this is not a situation where they've bought, they've purchased a property that was clearly not allowed to be built upon, and now they're asking to do it anyway. It also has no garage, and having a garage is a normal apartment, it's under code, it's accepted, it's something that you are allowed to have. So this is entirely where the new 350 square feet of building footprint on the ground is coming from. Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 21 of 26 Aside from what they're doing above that, which they are keeping within what code allows for height maximums. They've done everything they can to keep that impact to upland residents' views, et cetera, down to what they would be allowed to do anyways, certainly within that 568-square-foot area, without needing any sort of variance. That is why we do believe that we are doing the minimum necessary to qualify for this variance. As you acknowledged, there's a home on the property now, and it raises the question, why is that not reasonable use? Well, that home was built in 1971, and we believe it is unreasonable to compare life in 1971 to life now. The simple fact is that it costs significantly more to buy property these days. you are expected to do much more in your home. If you don't leave every day to go to work for eight, nine hours, and then return at the end of the day, you eat dinner and go to sleep. Even pre-pandemic, that was true. People work from home more often. We have multi-generational households now, because our parents can't afford to maintain their own property taxes, when they were living in [inaudible 00:58:44]. They moved out, so that they could have a little bit cheaper property, but still visit the grandkids, but now they even get priced out there, so they're moving to Eastern Washington. So they move into the home instead. We're expected to have office space. I mean, I can go on. Daycares have year- long lists, in order to just get in for your new children. So don't think that we are asking for something here that is out of the ordinary, these days. As we've said time and again, they've already peeled back several times as to what they're proposing to do here, keeping it under that maximum height. They could have two stories with large ceilings, which would at least make it feel larger. If we can be creative, if we can take advantage of Mr. Sinkey's incredible architectural design skills, and fit those three within that height, we don't believe it is harming any of our neighbors, upland or otherwise, and we believe we are meeting the intentions of code. With that, thank you very much for the opportunity. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Dean Williams: We look forward to [inaudible 01:00:08]. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, quick question for you. A lot of the assessment of whether this is a reasonable use of the property or not is based on some surrounding nonconforming uses. I mean, there is a court opinion that says, as a general matter, when assessing variance requests, you shouldn't consider nonconforming structures and uses. Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 22 of 26 The reason being that, for example, if City Council says, "Okay, we have too many homes in the community that are 40 feet high, so we're going to reduce the maximum height limit to 30 feet." Obviously, that objective will be undermined, and then everyone just files for a variance after that saying, "Well, there's all these 40-foot homes, so we should get a 40-foot home too." I mean, if the Council's objective was to stop having these taller homes, people shouldn't be able to circumvent that by pointing out that there are still taller homes in the community. That was a 1978 case, Ling v. Whatcom County Board of Adjustment, and it was related to the special circumstances criterion for variances, but that seems equally compelling, and a reasonable use analysis as well. There was a later case, [Sherwin 01:01:16] versus Grant County, in '85, distinguishing on the basis that, in that particular case, they were looking at nonconforming uses that were unique to the area in which the project was proposed. In other words, in that particular pocket of development of that neighborhood, there was this common theme of nonconforming use. I can't remember what the factor was, but all the homes were taller, let's say, than was normal across the city. Based on those line of cases, what's your response to that? Also, do you know whether the degree of nonconformity along this bit of shoreline is unique overall? In other words, that the homes in this part of the city of Renton tend to be taller than other parts of shoreline in the city of Renton? Dean Williams: Well- Phil Olbrechts: That's a lot to throw at you, but if you haven't seen it before, but ... Dean Williams: ... No, thank you very much. Yes. I've certainly spent a lot of time researching those decisions that you're talking about. Phil Olbrechts: Oh, good. Okay. Dean Williams: I would first like to point out that I didn't refer to any of the other homes along the shoreline in my argument. I recognized that it is something that we want to talk about. My project team has mentioned, time and time and again, but that does directly refer to one of the criteria, which is whether it's compatible with surrounding uses. I think that's why it's been discussed, but there are some other factors why I understand if your point is that, what the other homes are doing, doesn't relate to all the factors. and that's not what we're relying on. I think we're relying on, "Well, what's reasonable use for this parcel? And what are the objective expectations for this parcel?" Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 23 of 26 The truth is that the R-6 zoning standards were not designed for this parcel. Because this parcel isn't wide enough, is bound on two sides by water, and I would argue, no zoning standards that I have ever seen, have been intended to accommodate someone being bound on two sides by water, in addition to only 2,275 square feet of land. This is a very unique parcel, and that is what our arguments are based on, this parcel. Especially with regard to those other variance considerations that have to do with yes, more of that objective standard, versus comparison to your neighbors. Objectively, we believe that what we are proposing is quite reasonable, given all the factors that we have discussed. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Second question deals with the two-story requirement. It sounds like the position being taken is, since this complies with the maximum height requirement, that therefore you don't have to look at the impacts of exceeding two stories. But isn't the two-story requirement in itself its own height requirement? I mean, basically, the height standard for single-family homes is the lesser of two stories, or that 30-foot, I think it was the height standard. And if you're going to vary from that, aren't you required by the variance criteria to consider the impacts, which would then trigger the view analysis that you did, and that kind of thing? Because I hear the city at least saying that the view analysis is no longer relevant, because they're complying with the 30-foot height standard. But they're not complying with the two-story standard, and that's still a height standard, in my view, and therefore, you do need to look at view impacts on adjoining properties. Dean Williams: Thank you. Yes, it is. As I said, we think we're meeting the intent of the regulations. The truth is that you can have three stories on these properties, if the bottom floor is a daylight basement. But again, going back to the unique characteristics of this property, the fact that we have shoreline on two sides, we simply don't have that consistent slope from one side of the property to the other, making a daylight basement even feasible for this property, where it is, as it may be feasible for a lot of the properties to the north or south. I think we go back to, "Well, what do the regulations allow for property?" And thus, what is reasonable to expect, when you see your property is zoned R-6? Well, here, we're being undercut by the fact that this property is so unique, and and there is water on two sides. Now, digging into your question a little bit more, the simple truth is that we could go up to 30 feet with two stories. If we are not allowed to have, based on Mr. Sinkey's excellent design skills, that third story, then I would imagine that Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 24 of 26 my client would still want to seek that two stories, a little bit higher ceilings, just to make it feel a little bit bigger. That is pretty common these days, it's an architectural consideration. What we're saying is that if we can make it work, then why not make it work, essentially, when we could otherwise be making that impact without any sort of variance another way? Phil Olbrechts: Yeah. All right. Thank you. Dean Williams: [crosstalk 01:06:51], yeah. Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, great answer. All right. Let's move on to public comments at this point, then. And Miss Cisneros, do you want to explain to the public how they can participate at this point? Miss Cisneros: Yes, there are some instructions on the screen. If you are wanting to participate in the hearing, you'll be called on by that name that's visible in the window, but you'll be prompted to unmute yourself when called upon, and you'll be sworn in first. There's a raised hand button, like you see here on the screen, that you want to click on. If you are joined by phone, press in star nine to raise your hand. When you're called upon, the host will allow you to participate in the meeting. And to unmute yourself, that would be, dial star six. Phil Olbrechts: Miss Cisneros, from my vantage point, if they hit the star nine, will I see a raised hand, then, in the- Miss Cisneros: Yes, you will. Phil Olbrechts: ... Okay, good. Checking over the attendee panel, I don't see any raised hands, and checking the panelist panel, just to double ... I don't see any raised hands, either. All right. If any of you are trying to let us know you want to participate, and for some reason to due to technical issues, you can't ... Miss Cisneros, you've got your ... There we go. She's got her phone number there in the back. Just give her a call 425-430-6583, or send her a quick e-mail at jcisneros@rentonwa.gov. All right, so seeing no takers for public comment, then, and I will say I've already read all the letters that were submitted, and it is certainly ... It's unusual to see so many people in favor of a neighborhood variance. Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 25 of 26 I guess the applicants are really well liked in their neighborhood. That's great to see. Let's move on back to Miss Ding. Any rebuttal comments at this point? Jill Ding: The only thing I would like to add regarding the discussion of three stories versus two, and with regards to height impacts, is that as the applicant noted, their property is below the elevation of Lake Washington Boulevard, which is the public street. So, from the public realm perspective, the three stories versus two isn't going to have as much of an impact, because the property is lower than the public right-of-way, abutting the project site. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, and Miss Ding, maybe you can answer the question I had posed before. In terms of the amount of nonconforming buildings that you see along the shoreline here, is that pretty unique to this stretch of the shoreline? Or do you see that a lot on Renton shorelines throughout the city? Jill Ding: When I was looking at this variance, I specifically focused on R-6 zoned properties, because I was looking at comparing the proposal to similarly zoned properties along Lake Washington. It's a pretty narrow area. It's pretty much along this area. There are other situations, there are other properties that are zoned R-8, or they have different zoning designations, and the issues are different. For the analysis pertinent to this review, I specifically focused on properties along the lake in the R-6 zone, because they're similarly zoned, they have similar standards. Phil Olbrechts: All right. Jill Ding: That was primarily what I was focused on. Phil Olbrechts: Okay, but in terms of the R-6 zoning on the shoreline, then, I mean, was this, compared to other R-6 zoning, is a little different here, because of the number of nonconforming buildings? I mean, did you look at that at all? You probably weren't looking at that issue, but ... Jill Ding: I'm not sure I understand the question. Phil Olbrechts: Well, in terms of the case law I was citing, that basically said you can't rely upon surrounding nonconforming uses to- Jill Ding: Right. Phil Olbrechts: ... Supply your variance request, unless, in that particular specific area, neighborhood, there are more of those types of nonconforming uses than in other parts of the city. What I'm asking you, you said you just looked at R-6 zoned properties. I'm assuming there are other R-6 pockets of shoreline Asdourian Remodel Transcript by Rev.com Page 26 of 26 development, and is this area we're looking at, does it have more nonconforming uses than those other R-6 zoned shorelines? Jill Ding: The reason for the comparison with the surrounding properties was looking at compatibility- Phil Olbrechts: Right. Jill Ding: ... With the neighborhood, so that was what brought in that analysis. What I noticed here is I think a lot of the upland areas of the lots, and I don't even think it's limited here. I think it's along the shoreline, period. The upland area, I think a lot of the lots are substandard, particularly in depth of lot, as well as the lot size. That's just my experience, based on the shoreline work that I've done along the Lake Washington. Is that kind of ... Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, yeah. No, that's good, that's good. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. Is that it from the city, then? Anything else? Jill Ding: That's all I have. Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Fantastic. All right. Let's move, on Mr. Williams. You have final say, if you want to make any final comments? Dean Williams: No, thank you very much. I think we'll rest on ... Phil Olbrechts: Okay, perfect. Yeah, well, okay, I'll go ahead and close the hearing, and have a lot of information to look at here. And I think, applicants, you are well served by your attorney. I think in this case, you really needed to have someone well prepared to deal with ... There's a few complex legal issues involved here. I've done a lot of variance applications in particular shoreline variances, in the several decades I've been doing this, so I'm very familiar with all the case law. I'm glad that Mr. Williams was, too, so that he could respond to all my questions off the fly. That's really helpful. I think I'm pretty sure there's going to be a positive outcome here, but I just got to look at this in depth, especially the narrative that the applicants wrote. I overlooked that particular exhibit, so I'm going to go back and read that very closely, and we'll get that decision out within the next 10 days. Again, thank you for all the great preparation, and all the work. It was all needed. I think it will make a difference in this case, and you'll get that that decision soon. Thanks again. We're adjourned for today.