HomeMy WebLinkAboutD_HEX_Decision_LUA06-0241 CITY OF RENTON HEARING EXAMINER
2 KING COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON
3 IN RE:
No. LUA-06-024
4 3707 Lake Washington Blvd N., CllY OF RENTON
5 Renton, WA.
6
7
8
SEP 182006
RECEIVED
CllY CLERK'S OFFICE
I;J.:{)/ fm
1I~t.. i"flu/ Svc.
VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
OF
HEARING
9
10
11
12
13
BEFORE THE HONORABLE FRED KAUFMAN, HEARING EXAMINER
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
5/16/2006
APPEARANCES
Cyndie & Alan Provost
Jill Ding
Rebecca Wynsome
Gary Weil
Mike Brown
22 Transcribed at the Request of Wolfstone, Panchot & Bloch, P.S.
23 Requested by Kevin Michael Paulich
24
25 Transcribed by Brian Killgore
1
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 2
1 (Proceedings of 5/16/2006)
2 THE COURT: I would like to call to order the Tuesday,
3 May 16, 2006, session of the office of the hearing examiner. My
4 name is Fred Kaufman. I am the hearing examiner for the City.
5 Seated in front of me is Nancy Thompson. She does run the
6 recording equipment. We do record the entire public proceedings.
7 Representing development services this morning will be Jill
8 Ding. She will be delivering the preliminary report to the
9 examiner. It is the recommendation to the examiner. It is
10 affected by testimony or evidence submitted at today's hearing.
11 Other members of the City staff may testify as necessary.
12 A copy of today's agenda is posted outside the chamber
13 doors. There also should be a copy of the agenda and a copy of
14 the preliminary report to the examiner on the back credenza. If
15 you haven't received a copy of those items, you can do that now.
16 The purpose of this meeting is to hold a public hearing on
17 the applications pursuant to ordinance number 3071. This hearing
18 constitutes the hearing of the city council. It is the only
19 public hearing that will be held on the matter, unless the matter
20 is continued. Reconsideration by the examiner or an appeal to
21 the city council will only consider the evidence submitted at
22 today's public hearing.
23 Unless I request additional time, the written report
24 containing findings and conclusions would be issued 14 days from
25 today's hearing. In all rezones, preliminary plats and PUDs, the
2
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 3
1 examiner's report is a recommendation. In all other matters the
2 decision I issue is final.
3 I will note for the record that actually two of the items on
4 this morning's land-use agenda are variances with the examiner
5 and those are final decisions. The shoreline variance is a
6 decision by the City, but it does have to be approved by the
7 state Department of Ecology, and so the decision is forwarded to
8 them for their final approval of the decision.
9 Further information about the appeals and reconsideration
10 procedures would be contained within the examiner's report. You
11 may also contact the city clerk's office, Ms. Ding's division, or
12 the examiner's office for further information about the appeals
13 and reconsideration procedures.
14 Copies of the examiner's report will automatically be sent
15 to all parties of record; that is anybody who testifies at
16 today's hearing does become a party of record. They would
17 receive a copy of the report.
18 If there is someone who speaks --or doesn't testify, but
19 would like to become a party of record, at the close of the
20 hearing if you would step up and give Ms. Thompson your name, we
21 would be happy to include you on the roster and make you a party
22 of record at that point.
23 The procedure we follow is I will call the application and
24 have all those who are go to testify take the following
25 affirmation: Do you affirm the facts you are now about to give
3
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 4
1 in the matter being heard is the truth, to which you would
2 respond I do. At that point Ms. Ding will deliver the
3 preliminary report to the examiner. After that, the applicant or
4 supporting representatives of the applicant may testify in
5 support of the application.
6 If there is opposition to the request, or additional
7 questions regarding the request, there will be an opportunity for
8 those types of questions or statements, also. Again, during the
9 course of the proceeding, I'm going to ask questions and members
10 of staff may testify as necessary.
11 If there are no unresolved questions, the hearing would be
12 closed. If for whatever reason there are unresolved questions,
13 the hearing would be continued to a time and date certain.
14 As I indicated, the hearing is recorded. We ask anybody who
15 testifies to step to the microphone next to the video equipment,
16 state your name, spell your last name, and give us your complete
17 mailing address, including ZIP code.
18 If someone speaks again out of turn for whatever reason,
19 just restate your last name so on the recording we can recognize
20 that voice.
21 This is an administrative hearing. We do not adhere to the
22 strict rules of evidence, but please, anything you say should be
23 relevant. Please avoid repetitious testimony.
24 Just for the record, there is an administrative appeal, and
25 that is what was going on here. Apparently the parties may be
4
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/1612006) -P. 5
1 trying to reach some kind of settlement, and that item will be
2 heard second, if it is heard today, unless there is a settlement
3 achieved.
4 The item right now that we will hear is the Provost
5 variances. The file number is LUA-06-024. They are variances
6 with the hearing examiner. Again, two are land-use variances
7 from the zoning code, and that is for front yard setback and the
8 height of the building. There is also a variance for the setback
9 from the shoreline of Lake Washington, and that again would be a
10 recommendation to the Department of Ecology.
11 The property is located north of 3707 Lake Washington
12 Boulevard North. It is on the shores of Lake Washington. It is
13 west of Lake Washington Blvd. and accesses via private road.
14 All those who are going to testify, if you would please
15 raise your right hands.
16 Do you affirm the facts you are now about to give in the
17 matter being heard is the truth? If so, answer I do.
18 (The witnesses answer, "I do. ")
19 HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you. Ms. Ding?
20 Sorry to catch you slightly off guard. I should have
21 probably specified I was going to start with the land-use matter,
22 anyway.
23
24
25
MS. DING: That's fine.
(Brief Pause in Proceedings)
HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you, Mr. examiner. This is
5
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 6
1 Jill Ding of development services here to present the staff
2 recommendation for the Provost variances.
3 First I would like to enter the following exhibits into the
4 record: Exhibit 1 is the project file. Exhibit 2 is the
5 neighborhood detail map. Exhibit 3 is the site plan. Exhibit 4
6 are the building elevations dated March of 1998. Exhibit 5 is
7 the lower level floor plan and second floor framing plan dated
8 March 1998. Exhibit 6 is the second level floor plan and upper-
9 level framing plan dated March of 1998. Exhibit 7 is the upper-
10 level floor plan and roof-framing plan dated March of 1998. And
11 Exhibit 8 is the zoning map sheet C3, east half, dated December
12 28, 2004.
13 HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you.
14 MS. DING: I have up here on the screen Exhibit 8. As
15 you can see, the property is located along the shores of Lake
16 Washington; that is an urban shoreline designation at that
17 location. They are west of Lake Washington Boulevard, south of
18 N. 38th St, and north of N. 36th St.
19 The property is zoned residential, eight dwelling units per
20 acre, or R8, which is a single-family residential zone, and it is
21 located within the residential single family comprehensive plan
22 land use designation.
23 The property is currently used as --well, it's got a
24 detached existing garage structure, a shed, and a boathouse and
25 dock. The shed and the existing garage are proposed to be
6
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 7
1 removed, but the boathouse and the dock would remain on the
2 subject property.
3 As you previously stated, the applicant is requesting three
4 variances to construct a three-story single-family residence,
S with a maximum footprint of approximately 960 square feet. The
6 variances requested include a shoreline variance from the
7 required shoreline setback, a height variance, and a front yard
8 setback variance_
9 A shoreline variance and height variance were previously
10 granted under LUA-97-06S. That was granted back in August of
11 1997_ A single-family building permit was also issued on the
12 property in April of 1998. Both of those approvals have since
13 expired.
14 HEARING EXAMINER: Let me ask, I think the variance was
15 never executed because the applicants never submitted the
16 restrictive covenants that were required, and the matter was
17 dismissed, if I recall?
18 MS. DING: That was a little bit unclear to me. I have
19 got a timeline here from the original file and what it indicates
20 is that, let's see --
21 HEARING EXAMINER: Well, usually we get a copy of the
22 restrictive covenants, and I don't remember them ever being
23 signed and executed?
24 MS. DING: Yeah, there was a letter from the
25 examiner --a certified letter from the Examiner on January 24 of
7
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 8
1 2000, stating that he had not yet received the required
2 covenants, and that the variance application would be treated as
3 dismissed, or would be dismissed if the covenants were not
4 received by February 7, 2000.
5 There is a receipt in the file that the Provosts had
6 received that letter. On February 1, 2000, the Provosts recorded
7 a second covenant that runs in perpetuity as requested by the
8 city attorney; however, there is no documentation of the attorney
9 review or approval. The original covenant was not rescinded and
10 both covenants currently encumber the property.
11 HEARING EXAMINER: And do we have copies of those,
12 then?
13 MS. DING: No, it says no copies of either covenants
14 are found in the file unless printed off of the recorder's
15 office.
16 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
17 MS. DING: So perhaps the applicants can discuss that a
18 little bit more. This is just an old timeline that I had from
19 the original file.
20 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay, thank you.
21 MS. DING: Staff first reviewed the proposal for
22 compliance with the City's comprehensive plan and determined that
23 the proposal for the single family residence would be consistent
24 with the community design element of the City's comprehensive
25 plan.
8
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/1612006) -P. 9
1 This is Exhibit 3, which is the proposed site plan.
2 Staff next reviewed the proposal for compliance with the
3 zoning variance criteria. The variances requested were variances
4 from the height limit, not to exceed the maximum 30-foot height
5 limit, but to exceed the maximum stories permitted, which is two.
6 They have proposed three stories.
7 In addition, since the original variance was approved, the
8 City's regulations changed, and we're now required to measure the
9 front yard setbacks from the edge of an access easement, as to --
10 as opposed to from the edge of the property line, which is what
11 was in effect at the time that the Provosts originally applied
12 for this permit, so they are also at this time requesting a 5
13 foot setback variance from the edge of the access easement.
14 The front yard setback requirement is 20 feet in this zone.
15 HEARING EXAMINER: And why don't you point out where we
16 are talking about here?
17 MS. DING: This is the east side of the residence that
18 there is an access easement there.
19 HEARING EXAMINER: And so the house has to be set back
20 under code --
21 MS. DING: Under code because --and this is because
22 the first level of the house has a garage, and so per code, it
23 would have to be set back from the edge of that access easement
24 20 feet.
25 HEARING EXAMINER: And they are proposing 5 feet?
9
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA·06·024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 10
I MS. DING: They are proposing 5 feet, so that is an
2 additional variance that was not originally reviewed back in
3 1997.
4 So the first variance criteria that the examiner has to find
5 to exist is that the applicant suffers undue hardship, and that
6 the variance is necessary because of the size, shape, topography,
7 location, or surroundings of the subject property.
8 Regarding the height variance, the applicant contends that
9 the height variance is necessary due to the size and shape of the
10 existing parcel. The applicant is proposing a three-story
II residence, which would not exceed the 30-foot maximum height
12 limit.
13 The maximum building footprint --
14 HEARING EXAMINER: Why don't you put up an elevation
15 drawing?
MS. DING: An elevation --
HEARING EXAMINER: So we can --okay.
16
17
18 And physically, what is the extreme height? I know how we
19 average and measure from peaks and eaves and things like that,
20 but --
21 MS. DING: 29' 11". So in no way would the residence
22 exceeds the maximum feet of 30 feet.
23 HEARING EXAMINER: I'm trying to decide whether to let
24 you go on, or at this point if this variance is approved for
25 height, why wouldn't this create a precedent for every home in
10
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 11
1 the city of Seattle to be three stories high?
2 I mean I have a little trouble with granting a variance
3 which creates that kind of established precedent. The code was
4 specifically changed to limit height to two stories and 30 feet,
5 but that means everybody imaginable who could come in and build a
6 house within a 30-foot height limit would want three stories, and
7 the idea was not to create that kind of home.
8 MS. DING: Correct. That was the intent of the code.
9 However
10 HEARING EXAMINER: It still is the intent of the code.
11 MS. DING: It is the intent of the code, yes.
12 The parcel --a lot of the parcel is located underwater,
13 which is obviously unbuildable. The land area of the parcel is
14 3363 square feet, which, by city standards, would be a
15 substandard lot.
16 The City doesn't permit lots that are small in a single-
17 family residential R8 zone, so the applicant is dealing with a
18 very small land area combined with the shoreline setback, the
19 required side and front yard setbacks so there are a lot of
20 constraints on this piece of property.
21 So in order to mitigate for all of those constraints, the
22 applicant has proposed to construct a three-story residence.
23 That would give them an adequate building area with a minimal
24 footprint.
25 HEARING EXAMINER: As I read it, though, the house
11
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 12
1 would be --still it would be, what, about 1800 square feet, 1900
2 square feet if it didn't have a third story, which is not --
3 MS. DING: It would be about 1900 square feet; however,
4 that includes the garage area, so the living space area would be
5 just under 1500 square feet.
6 HEARING EXAMINER: Which is still not, for a small lot,
7 an unusual amount a living space?
8 I mean we have to give the people reasonable use of the
9 property, but not unreasonable or exceptional use of a small lot.
10
11
MS. DING: Sure.
HEARING EXAMINER: I realize part of the lot is
12 underwater. I have dealt with these lots before, but I am
13 concerned --everybody along the shoreline would probably want to
14 build a three-story home, so you are creating an exception; why
15 don't we just change the code, because most of these lots are
16 undersized due to the fact that half a lot, two thirds of the lot
17 is submerged, in most of these cases. Not all of them, but most
18 of these cases. The uplands is pretty small, but the code was
19 designed, generally, and if we want that kind of exception, then
20 we should allow it for any kind of small lot. There are other
21 small lots in the city, also.
22 But I will let you go on with the report. I mean that's
23 why --I wasn't sure whether to stop you now and have you tackle
24 some of the harder issues, which I think is a harder issue than
25 some of the other setbacks that they are requesting, but go
12
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/1612006) -P. 13
1 ahead.
2 MS. DING: Right. That is a good point. I don't know;
3 I didn't do any research --the applicant submitted some
4 information indicating that there are other three-story
5 residences in the vicinity along the shoreline.
6 HEARING EXAMINER: Right, and I have questions on how
7 and why those are there.
8 MS. DING: I haven't
9 HEARING EXAMINER: They may have been older homes under
10 pre-existing code or
11 MS. DING: They could have been. I didn't look at any
12 of those other residences to see if we had processed variances on
13 those. I haven't seen any variances go through on height since I
14 have been here.
15 HEARING EXAMINER: Neither have I, that is why this one
16 is unusual, and it could create a very wide open precedent, and I
17 am reluctant to entertain that kind of thing, but I might, you
18 know, if I am convinced it is appropriate, so I will let you go
19 on with the rest of the report.
20 MS. DING: Okay.
21 So staff is supporting the three-story height variance,
22 again, due to the constrained lot area, in addition to, you know,
23 the staff feels that the third story would allow for adequate
24 space in this residence.
25 with regard to that first criteria and the front yard
13
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 14
1 setback variance, the applicant contends that the front yard
2 setback variance is again necessary due to the size and shape of
3 the existing parcel, and the fact that a lot of it is located
4 underwater.
5 The applicant also notes --it is kind of hard to see on
6 this exhibit --under the proposed building footprint, you can
7 see that there is an existing garage that is located on the
8 subject site. The garage is actually located --the southern
9 let's see, I guess the southeastern portion of the garage is
10 actually located within the access easement. The remainder of
11 the garage is located closer than 5 feet to the access easement.
12 HEARING EXAMINER: I can see it, but why don't you
13 point it out in case there is somebody else in the audience.
14 That hatched line rectangle --that is the corner, but the garage
15 is that hatched kind of right --okay. Thank you.
16 MS. DING: So staff concurs that the proposed single
17 family residence would result in an improved situation because
18 the residence would be set back farther than the existing garage.
19 In addition, complying with the front --compliance with the
20 front yard setback --compliance with the required 20-foot front
21 yard setback, that may have encouraged the applicant to ask for a
22 further setback or further reduction of the shoreline setback.
23
24 The next criteria is that the granting of the variance will
25 not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
14
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North· LUA·06-024 • (5/1612006) • P. 15
1 to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone.
2 With regards to the height, the granting of this variance
3 would not be materially detrimental to the public as the
4 applicant indicates that no adjacent site lines or views of Lake
5 Washington would be affected. In addition, they note that the
6 maximum height of 30 feet would not be exceeded.
7 With regard to the front yard setback variance, the
8 applicant also contends that the proposed 5 foot front yard
9 setback variance would not be materially detrimental to the
10 public as the existing garage is located closer than 5 feet to
11 the access easement, and actually within the access easement.
12 In addition, the applicant noted that the existing homes in
13 the neighborhood are already located closer than 5 feet to the
14 access easement. Staff concurs that the 5·foot setback from the
15 access easement would improve the situation there.
16 The next criteria is that the approval shall not constitute
17 a grant of special privilege. The applicant contends that the
18 granting of the three stories within that 30 foot height limit
19 would not be a grant of special privilege, being that the
20 proposed residence would not exceed 30 feet in height.
21 They also note that there are existing residences in the
22 neighborhood that have three stories, and so their proposed
23 residence would not be out of character with other residences in
24 the neighborhood.
25 With regard to the front yard setback variance, the
15
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 16
1 applicant contends that the granting of the variance to encroach
2 15 feet into the 20 foot front yard setback is also not a grant
3 of special privilege being that the existing detached garage is
4 located closer than 5 feet to the access easement, and again,
5 that the removal of that garage and the construction of the new
6 residence would result in an improved situation.
7 And the final criteria for the zoning variances is that this
8 is the minimum variance necessary to accomplish the desired
9 purpose.
10 The applicant is proposing a 30-foot, three-story structure,
11 and they contend that the three-story structure is the minimum
12 required to achieve their goal of constructing a single-family
13 residence with a reasonable amount of interior living space.
14 I know I am jumping ahead a little bit here, but to kind of
15 address some of your previous concerns about the height, with
16 regard to the shoreline setback variance that I will go through a
17 little bit later, I do want to note that staff is not supporting
18 the full variance that is being requested. Staff is requesting
19 that the residence be moved back an additional 5 feet, which
20 would further result in a constrained building pad, and would
21 further reduce the area of the single-family residence that could
22 be permitted within two stories on the subject property.
23 So I think that adds a little bit more, by constraining
24 them, you know, from the shoreline side, as well as the other
25 remaining setbacks, that would result in a very small building
16
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/1612006) -P. 17
1 envelope.
2 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
3 MS. DING: With regard to the minimum variance needed
4 for the front yard setback variance, the --you know, the front
5 yard setback would be 5 feet. The proposed residence would
6 result in a maximum footprint of 960 square feet. It would
7 actually be less than that if staff's recommendation that the
8 residence on the shoreline side be moved back an additional 5
9 feet, so that would be actually a less footprint than 960 square
10 feet.
11 So the applicant contends that this is the minimum variance
12 necessary that would allow them to construct a single-family
13 residence with an adequate area of living space.
14 So now I will go through the shoreline variance criteria.
15 I will zoom in a little bit there so that you can see the
16 applicant is proposing a 20 foot setback from the shoreline on
17 the --I guess you would call it the north half of the proposed
18 residence.
19 The 20-foot setback was the original setback requirement
20 when they originally applied for this variance back in 1997. The
21 City's regulations have since changed and the City now is
22 requiring a 25-foot setback from the shoreline.
23 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay, why don't you show the shape
24 of the lot? I don't know who is in attendance and who may not be
25 familiar, but it is an odd shape shoreline, so --that is sort of
17
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 18
1 the north, and it jogs out in the south, and then it creates
2 MS. DING: Right. It kind of creates almost a
3 panhandle like shape on the south portion of the lot.
4 HEARING EXAMINER: And the boathouse is the
5 crosshatch--
6 MS. DING: Yes, that is correct.
7 HEARING EXAMINER: --in the north sort of notch of the
8 property?
9 MS. DING: Yes.
10 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
11 MS. DING: So they have designed the residence to kind
12 of mimic the shape of the shoreline there.
13 The southern portion of the residence is proposed to be 10
14 feet from the shoreline, kind of at the Northwestern most corner,
15 I guess you would call it there, of the southern half.
16 So the first criteria that the Examiner must find in
17 granting this variance is that exceptional or extraordinary
18 circumstances or conditions applying to the subject property, or
19 to the intended use thereof, that do not apply generally to other
20 properties or shorelines in the same vicinity.
21 The applicant indicated that the land area is unusual in
22 that an existing rock wall foreshortens the land area of the lot
23 and kind of creates a Z shape building pad. The applicant
24 contends that the shape coupled with the 25-foot setback
25 requirement from the shoreline unjustly restricts the building
18
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA·06-024 -(5116/2006) -P. 19
1 pad size.
2 HEARING EXAMINER: I'm not sure I would call it
3 unjustly. It is the shape of the lot and someone put a bulkhead
4 years ago and created this lot.
5 MS. DING: Sure.
6 HEARING EXAMINER: So some previous owner obviously
7 established the line.
8 MS. DING: Yes.
9 HEARING EXAMINER: Now it may have even followed this
10 general shape, and it probably did, I would have to say, but go
11 ahead.
12 MS. DING: So as I previously stated, was that under
13 the original variance the applicant was not requesting any
14 variance for the north portion of the residence. It would have
15 been in compliance with the 20-foot shoreline setback. The only
16 variance that was being requested was for this northwest corner
17 of the south portion of the residence to be 10 feet from the
18 shorel ine.
19 Again, the City has adopted different regulations since that
20 time, which require a 25 foot setback, so the current request is
21 actually an increased variance over what the previous request
22 was, being that now they are also asking for a 5 foot protrusion
23 into the shoreline setback variance now on the north portion of
24 the residence.
25 Staff is recommending that the --basically that the same
19
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5116/2006) -P. 20
1 magnitude of variance be approved as the previous variance, so
2 that would be no variance on the north portion of the residence,
3 so it would have to move back 5 feet to comply with the 25 foot
4 setback, and then a 10 foot protrusion into the setback variance
5 area, shoreline setback variance area for the south portion, so
6 it could --from 25 feet, could protrude in 10 feet, would have a
7 15 foot setback.
8 HEARING EXAMINER: So on this thing, why don't you just
9 generally sketch what you are proposing to move back --you call
10 it a Z shape, and this is exhibit --which one?
11 MS. DING: This is Exhibit 3.
12 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay, and MS. Ding is going to draw
13 on it and show --and of course you're not drawing to scale?
14 MS. DING: I'm not drawing to scale.
15 HEARING EXAMINER: Right. But you are pulling back the
16 north property line about 5 feet?
17 MS. DING: Mr. Provost just gave me a sketch of that
18 recommendation already.
19 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay, I think --okay. Does it also
20 pull back the south --the house --oh, okay, I see where we are.
21 Okay.
22 And just for the record on the recording, the house could be
23 described as sort of a backwards L-shaped section. There is a
24 panhandle, as Ms. Ding said, of the house, as well as the lot,
25 that extends out from approximately the halfway point of the
20
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 21
1 house, width wise, and the drawing now, and we will make this
2 Exhibit 9, and again, I'm not sure it is drawn exactly to scale,
3 so we will just call it a representation of where the house would
4 be drawn back.
5 There would be a 5 foot wide section along the west section
6 of the north that would be drawn back, and then there is a kind
7 of tangential or circle that would bring back a portion of the
8 house where it approaches the 10 foot setback. Again the lot is
9 this odd shaped lot
10 MS. DING: Yes.
11 HEARING EXAMINER: --so someone will have to check the
12 map to figure out what I'm trying to describe on the recording.
13 MS. DING: Correct.
14 HEARING EXAMINER: So the applicant, rather than
15 pulling back the entire south section of the west part of the
16 house, has sort of brought back a circle or a radii from the --
17 where the lot itself notches in. Okay.
18 MS. DING: Correct.
19 HEARING EXAMINER: And again, this is Exhibit 9.
20 MS. DING: Yes. So moving on, the second criteria is
21 that the variance is necessary for preservation and enjoyment of
22 a substantial property right of the applicant possessed by owners
23 of other properties on shorelines in the vicinity.
24 The original variance that was requested would permit a home
25 that is a maximum footprint of up to 960 square feet on three
21
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/1612006) -P. 22
1 levels. Again, staff is recommending a slightly reduced
2 footprint due to the increased setback from the shoreline. This
3 would reserve the applicant's right to develop a residential home
4 comparable or less than comparable to other existing homes in the
5 neighborhood.
6 The third criteria is that the variance would not be
7 materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to
8 other property owners in the shoreline.
9 The variance would not be materially detrimental to the
10 public welfare as staff has recommended a setback of 15 feet from
11 the southern shoreline and 25 feet on the northern portion of the
12 house --I guess 25 --15 feet for the southern portion of the
13 house, and 25 feet for the northern portion of the house.
14 It would not impact a natural beach area, or public access
15 point, and it would not impede any views from any of the adjacent
16 property owners to the shoreline edge.
17 HEARING EXAMINER: I guess I have to --obviously the
18 city council, in its wisdom, determined that the setbacks should
19 be increased to 25 feet?
20 MS. DING: Yes.
21 HEARING EXAMINER: It is --obviously it has to be
22 aware of the Lake Washington shoreline and the fact that a lot of
23 these lots are I will call them cramped --you know, in
24 acknowledgment of the fact that they are small, yet they didn't
25 create any kind of exception --neither for height, which is the
22
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North· LUA·06·024 • (5/16/2006) • P. 23
1 first variance, one of the first variances we talked about, or
2 the shoreline variance. As a matter of fact, they enlarged the
3 setbacks required, obviously attempting to protect the lakeshore
4 environment, or at least the lake, and it may be salmon that use
5 the near shore or whatever, so why are we still looking at
6 variances, and why didn't someone suggest the council carve out
7 its own exception rather than attempting to piecemeal each lot as
8 it comes in?
9
10 And of course these lots have been redeveloping over time,
11 but we still keep coming in and trying to get variances.
12 MS. DING: Sure.
13 HEARING EXAMINER: And yet the council has increased
14 the setback requirement rather than decreasing or even making an
15 exception, and we're still we are trying to make an exception
16 where the council has sort of strengthened and put more teeth
17 into the setbacks on our shorelines.
18 MS. DING: Correct.
19 With regard to the height, again, the council has adopted
20 certain zoning standards that limit the height to 30 feet and two
21 stories. The shoreline code actually permits a residence up to a
22 height of 35 feet, so the shoreline code is a little bit more
23 forgiving, I guess, than what the City's zoning regulations are
24 with regard to height.
25 HEARING EXAMINER: Or someone missed the
23
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 24
1 incompatibility of it, too.
2 MS. DING: It could be.
3 with regard to the setback from the shoreline, I can't think
4 for the city council and what they were intending to do; they
5 have been increasing the setback requirements from the shoreline.
6 Those are, you know, type 1 waters --environmentally sensitive
7 areas.
8 They did provide a provision for a variance from those
9 requirements. I think the reason that they went that route as
10 opposed to providing for exceptions within the code is that it
11 makes it --it is more difficult to get a variance than if you
12 provide some exceptions within the code. By going that route, my
13 speculation would be that they felt that they would get
14 development along the shore land that would better preserve the
15 critical area there.
16 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
17 MS. DING: The fourth criteria is that the variance,
18 the granting of the variance would be in harmony with the general
19 purpose and intent of the master program.
20 The shoreline master program encourages uses that are not
21 view obstructing; that don't disturb the community and have an
22 appropriate design theme.
23 In addition, the applicant's proposal would meet the use and
24 compatibility and aesthetic effects portion of the shoreline
25 master program. There are utilities available to the subject
24
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 25
1 property. In addition, the applicant's proposal would satisfy
2 the residential development portion of the shoreline master
3 program, meaning that they are proposing one single-family
4 residence, and that it would not exceed the 35 foot height that
5 is permitted under the shoreline regulations.
6 The fifth criteria is that the public welfare and interest
7 will be preserved by the granting of the variance.
S The requested variance would not result in harm; as I
9 previously have stated, the majority of the residence would
10 comply with the 25-foot setback requirement.
11 Back in 1997 if --you know, when the applicant originally
12 had their proposal approved, if they had gotten all of the proper
13 covenants and had built the residence, the residence would have
14 been built according to the footprint that the applicant has
15 proposed, and it would be there.
16 HEARING EXAMINER: That obviously doesn't justify it,
17 because it wasn't built and codes have changed and obviously
18 MS. DING: It wasn't built and codes have changed, so
19 the applicant --again, staff is recommending that the applicant
20 move the north portion of the residence back 5 feet, which would
21 be less impacting than the original 20 foot setback proposed, and
22 would be in compliance with the City's current shoreline
23 regulations.
24 In addition, staff is also recommending that the southern
25 portion of the residence, or that radius you see there, kind of
25
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 26
1 be moved back so that it is no closer than 15 feet to the edge of
2 the shoreline there.
3 The remaining portions of the residence would comply with
4 the City's shoreline master program.
5 HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you, and so your final
6 recommendation?
7 MS. DING: The staff is recommending --in conclusion,
8 the staff is recommending approval of the Provost variance
9 subject to the following conditions: That the height of the
10 residence not exceed the maximum allowable height of the
11 applicable zone as measured in feet, which is 30 feet --that is
12 in effect at the time application is made for building permit;
13 the minimum allowable setback from the water's edge shall be no
14 less than 15 feet for the portion of the proposed structure that
15 is nearest to the existing rock wall; that the applicant shall be
16 required to maintain the minimum required setback of 25 feet for
17 all other portions of the site; and that the applicant shall be
18 required to obtain all other necessary permits and approvals for
19 the proposal.
20 HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you.
21 MS. DING: So unless you have any other questions?
22 HEARING EXAMINER: Qh, I think I have peppered you with
23 a couple during the course of the proceedings. Thank you.
24 If the parties don't mind, apparently the other appeal
25 hearing, it sounds like they may have reached an agreement, and I
26
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 27
1 will just take a slight break in the Provost variance to just let
2 Ms. Nielson explain what is going on with that one, and my
3 secretary can sort it out when she does the minutes. Ms.
4 Nielson?
5 (The hearing examiner hears another matter)
6 HEARING EXAMINER: The Provost matter, we will get back
7 to that.
8 The applicant or representative representing that party, if
9 you will step to the microphone, give us your name, spell your
10 last name, and give us your complete mailing address, including
11 ZIP code.
12 MR. PROVOST: Good morning. My name is Al Provost, P-
13 R-O-V-O-S-T, and I own this property.
14 My mailing address is P.O. Box 1492, Renton, WA 98057. My
15 physical address is 3707 Lake Washington Boulevard N., Renton
16 98056.
17 HEARING EXAMINER: And if I read the property location
18 correctly, that would be immediately south of this subject site?
19 MR. PROVOST: That's correct.
20 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
21 MR. PROVOST: First of all, let me thank you for having
22 an opportunity to speak to this issue, and talk a little bit. I
23 will try to be brief. I will try not to cover things that have
24 already been covered.
25 We are attempting to develop the lot to the north of us and
27
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 28
1 as shown on the screen at the current time --we originally, as
2 you well know, applied for a variance to build there, and I want
3 to clear up --maybe I can shed some light on the initial issue
4 that you had with regard to the covenants that were supposed to
5 be recorded.
6 We had a builder at the time, and some of the correspondence
7 that occurred between the City of Renton and our builder was not
8 communicated to us as the owner of the property, and we found out
9 about the requirement for the covenants; we agreed with those
10 covenants, but there was some verbiage that pertained to the
11 perpetuity of those covenants that we discussed with the Renton
12 City Attorney at the time, and when we worked out those issues,
13 we did record the revised copy of those covenants, and I am
14 not --I don't really understand why the City doesn't have a copy
15 of those, but we can certainly --we have a copy of them, and we
16 don't have them with us, unfortunately, but we can certainly
17 furnish a copy to the City to help alleviate that part of the
18 equation.
19
20 At the time --I guess this might be semantics, but in the
21 height requirement variance issue, we're not requesting a
22 variance in the 30-foot requirement. I know that when we
23 originally presented the application for variance in front of
24 you, Mr. Kaufman, in 1997, you expressed at that time a little
25 wonderment about the City's regulation that said you could have a
28
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 29
1 30 foot height requirement, which would limit the exterior impact
2 to surrounding houses, but there was a limitation on the number
3 of stories that you could have within that 30 feet.
4 We at the time, then and now, do not --are not asking for a
5 change or an extension or an increase in that 3D-foot height
6 record. We just want to have one story inside of that 3D-foot
7 exterior containment.
8 So the way the law read at the time, and I assume, at least
9 from our perusing of the law, it hasn't changed, you could have a
10 30 foot high building with two, 15 foot stories, but you couldn't
11 without a variance have a 30 foot building with three stories,
12 and so the additional story is what we are actually asking for
13 with regard to that variance.
14 HEARING EXAMINER: I understand that.
15 MR. PROVOST: Okay.
16 And the only other issue that we have with the
17 recommendation from the City is that when we first applied back
18 in '97, and subsequently this time, we maintained the same
19 building plans that we had approved. Nothing in the neighborhood
20 has changed with regard to conditions that were addressed and
21 approved both by the City and yourself at that time, so kind of
22 what we are asking for with regard to the setback issues is that
23 we maintain or we get approval for the original 20 foot setback
24 for the northerly, and the 10 foot setback for the --what I
25 would call the southerly portion of our building.
29
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 30
1 As is noted from the City staff, the southerly portion of
2 the lot actually extends out so the --I don't know if this will
3 show up if I --will this show up if I use this as a pointer?
4 HEARING EXAMINER: Is that the 56-foot dimension, I
5 think I've read, or something?
6 MR. PROVOST: Yes. Yes, sir.
7 There is a 56 foot extension, so technically, according to
8 the current zoning requirements, we could extend the southerly
9 portion of the building to the west towards the shoreline 31 feet
10 with a 10 foot width --that is accounting for a 5 foot setback
11 on each side of the property there towards the lake.
12 Because of functionality of that narrowness --that the
13 structure would have to be, because of the jog in the property,
14 and because there is a beautiful 50 foot redwood that is even
15 with the front of the boathouse, the east end of the boathouse on
16 that property, which we don't want to remove --we want it to be
17 there and remain --we chose to give up that portion of the
18 building that we could build in lieu of having a smaller building
19 and saving the tree.
20 I don't know if you have seen the rendition that we have of
21 the existing houses to the north and south; it is not in a place
22 where you can see it on this board here from where you were
23 sitting, but I could move that, if you --
24 HEARING EXAMINER: Is it different than the --other
25 than it is a colored rendering, but it is what is shown in the
30
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 31
1 staff report, isn't it?
2 MR. PROVOST: It is actually not included --that
3 rendition is not included in the staff report.
4 HEARING EXAMINER: Well, I will review it.
5 MR. PROVOST: If you physically --if you look at the
6 house --
7 HEARING EXAMINER: How wide is this --again, we will
8 call it a Panhandle, because actually
9 MR. PROVOST: The Panhandle is approximately 20 feet
10 wide.
11 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay, well actually, you would
12 probably have to be set back 25 feet from the north side of the
13 panhandle, anyway, so really you would not have very much house
14 you could extend because that is not a side yard on the north,
15 that is a shoreline on the north, so
16 MR. PROVOST: Right.
17 HEARING EXAMINER: you really couldn't go any
18 further to the west with the house.
19 MR. PROVOST: And when we were looking at it in our
20 non-building standard minds, we looked at --
21 HEARING EXAMINER: Most people would like to be able to
22 build with a non-building standard.
23 MR. PROVOST: Well, we looked at that, the kind of
24 easterly/westerly division or direction of that shoreline, and
25 assumed that that kind of is the crux of why our lot is really
31
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 32
1 unusual, because, as you are well aware, the normal persuasion of
2 the shoreline of Lake Washington is in a north --
3 northerly/southerly direction, especially in this particular
4 area, and so this little indent causes a whole bunch of little
5 problems; one of those, of course, is that if you look at that as
6 a shoreline, it could also be looked at, and I understand this is
7 certainly your ability to do this, you could look at it as a side
8 yard, or you can look at it as a front yard or a shoreline
9 setback, so I am only arguing the case that if you viewed it as a
10 side yard, you know, for that short period that it goes in an
11 easterly/westerly direction, that we would be able to build in
12 there, but I understand your position, too.
13 But again, the problem is that this little jog in the lot
14 creates a lot of available space hindrance because of the
15 existing regulations, and partially on our own behalf because we
16 want to save that tree.So we chose to bring it back a little
17 bit.
18 Now the houses that are existing --one to the north --was
19 built approximately in the late 80s/early 90s, and so it is a
20 relatively recent house, and it was built to the 20 foot setback
21 standard, so because of the nature of that particular structure,
22 if we build that 20 feet, our requested variance or setback, we
23 wouldn't stick out farther towards the shoreline than the several
24 row of houses that are to the north of us.
25 To the south of this lot, the property that we own, it --
32
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 33
I the full lot extends out that 56 foot distance out to a rather
2 northerly/southerly shoreline, and we just got done building a
3 house there which was finalized in given the final in January
4 of this year excuse me, in November of this year, and it is
5 set back the 25 feet, but because the lot protrudes out farther,
6 there is really no view along the shoreline from several houses
7 to the north of our lot because our house naturally sticks out
8 farther to the west.
9 HEARING EXAMINER: We won't ask your northerly
10 neighbors what they think about that, but again, we're dealing
II with the altered but somewhat natural shape of the shoreline?
12 MR. PROVOST: Right.
13 HEARING EXAMINER: Obviously this property somehow is
14 on the notch where it narrows down and moves --the shoreline
15 moves to the east?
16
17
MR. PROVOST: That's correct.
HEARING EXAMINER: And it continues that way to the
18 north, and looking at the map, and it is obviously not perfect,
19 the zoning map on the back. The shoreline does stagger in and
20 out, and other lots are probably just as, you know, restricted,
21 in some areas --not all of them, but some of them will be.
22 MR. PROVOST: Right.
23 HEARING EXAMINER: My concern about setting the
24 precedent is we have an entirely new plat going in north of this,
25 and if we grant the variance for this property, then we will
33
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 34
I probably see, since none of those homes are built yet, people
2 coming in and saying, Well, you granted a variance a little south
3 of us, grant one for us, also.
4 You know, the code was specifically changed and modified to
5 enlarge the setback. Again, we don't know why the council did
6 it; obviously probably to protect some of the natural amenities.
7 Again, the shoreline has been altered in a lot of respects, but
8 at least still trying to move the homes away from the shoreline
9 while allowing a home to be developed, but I will definitely
10 consider your request and consider the precedent --non-precedent
II of the prior variance. Again, the code has been changed, so --
12 MR. PROVOST: Sure.
13 HEARING EXAMINER: And the variance wasn't used, so it
14 has lapsed.
15 MR. PROVOST: Yes, sir.
16 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
17 MR. PROVOST: Again, I think the unusualness of our lot
18 with that jog is kind of a little bit different because of the
19 leg of the jog in a easterly/westerly direction.
20 Again, the houses to the north, when the lot lines were
21 originally laid out, our direct neighbor to the north that you
22 can see at the very top of the screen here, 3711, and those folks
23 are here in the audience, their lot is 45 feet wide, and I assume
24 that some of that width of the lot was given to those lots to the
25 north because they were not as deep as the southerly portion of
34
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 35
1 our lot.
2 So from our lot north, those lots were considerably wider
3 or a little bit wider --and so it allowed them to have more
4 square footage on the house that they built, giving the reduction
5 in the depth of the lot between the shoreline and the existing
private access road. 6
7 The ones to the the lots to the south, and our lot here,
8 were limited to 40 feet in width, so we had five less feet of
9 width, which results in, even if we get the request for variance
10 that we are asking for, our house will be physically smaller than
11 both the House that we just built to the south, and the existing
12 houses to the north.
13 If the recommendation of the City is followed through with,
14 that will reduce by the drawings on that are hatch marked in red,
15 that will also reduce our existing house by even more --150
16 about 150 square feet per story, so for three stories, would be
17 about 450 square feet.
18 It will additionally reduce the living area of our house
19 because the garage, of course, is on the other end of the house,
20 the east side.
21 And we also, unlike a lot of people that are in this
22 situation, when we applied before in 1997, we had plans drawn up
23 at that time through an architect and geological folks and
24 folks --when submitted to the City, we got approval for those
25 plans. The City at the time required some structural steel for
35
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA·06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 36
1 vertical stability of the house, and that was kind of a surprise,
2 I guess, to our builder and to us, and it imposed a substantial
3 monetary increase in our budget for building the house, and so we
4 were unable to continue because we didn't have that amount of
5 money available to put in that structural steel that was required
6 by the city of Renton.
7 So that was why we kind of gave up that project at the time,
8 but those plans were approved by the City with that caveat, and
9 we obviously paid for that variance, and paid for those plans to
10 be drawn up, and so we stayed with those plans, and if --while
11 we certainly appreciate that the City is granting us a variance,
12 if we have to reduce the size of the house again, it will require
13 going to an architect again and redoing those plans, of course,
14 because the foundation and all of the stories about that will be
15 affected by that change in the 5 foot difference between what we
16 asked for and what the City recommends that is approved.
17 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay, thank you.
18 MR. PROVOST: I don't think I have anything more. I
19 hope I have been brief enough here. I have tried to be.
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank you very much, again, for your time.
HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you.
Further testimony regarding this application?
MS. DING: I have one thing to clarify.
HEARING EXAMINER: Ms. Ding?
MS. DING: As I was looking at the --sorry, this is
36
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5116/2006) -P. 37
1 Jill Ding --at the setback, if I redraw on this Exhibit 9?
2 HEARING EXAMINER: Go ahead.
3 MS. DING: What we would actually recommend is that
4 this line --that there's not an arc; it would instead be a
5 straight line there to make sure that it is 15 feet from all
6 portions of this rock wall.
7 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
8 MS. DING: Just a clarification there.
9 HEARING EXAMINER: Ms. Ding, again there is the sort of
10 semi or half circle that would be the notch out of the northwest
11 corner of the south part of the house, again trying to describe
12 it, and it shows a curve, and Ms. Ding has sort of cleared up
13 that it would have to be actually set back 15 feet along the
14 entire section, and so she has drawn into the --and I can't
15 see --red? Apparently that crosshatching is red yeah, I
16 guess it is red on that monitor. On this monitor it doesn't show
17 it.
18 Thank you, and that is Exhibit 9.
19 For the record, I'm going to make Exhibit 10 the covenants,
20 which I would like to get a copy of, the ones that are actually
21 executed and part of the file --will be part of this file.
22 MR. PROVOST: I've got a copy of those covenants here,
23 if you would like.
24 HEARING EXAMINER: Oh, okay. Well, then someone can
25 submit them. My secretary can make a copy at the close of the
37
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5116/2006) -P. 38
1 hearing.
2 The woman in aqua/turquoise or whatever? Thank you.
3 MS. WYNSOME: Good morning, everyone, my name is
4 Rebecca Wynsome --that is W-Y-N-S-O-M-E --and my physical
5 address is 3711 Lake Washington Boulevard North, and my husband
6 Gary and I live just north of Al and Cyndie, and we have a few
7 comments to make, or I do, and I would like to start with the
8 tree, the redwood tree, which I believe is probably more like 100
9 feet, and if I could draw in pencil, I would like to draw it on
10 this, if I could?
11 This is incorrect, where that is located, so if I could draw
12 it here --if you have a pencil --thanks. This is a pen. If I
13 make a mistake, it will be permanent.
14 HEARING EXAMINER: As long as we have it on one of the
15 drawings --I'm not sure it is necessary --
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MS. WYNSOME: Okay.
HEARING EXAMINER: because apparently --what was
the other exhibit we were looking at? Is that Exhibit 3? Okay,
Exhibit 3 shows the canopy of the tree, supposedly.
MS. WYNSOME: Yeah, how about if I point to the tree --
HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
MS. WYNSOME: and say that I believe that it is
further this way; that the western portion of the tree is
actually in alignment with the boathouse.
HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
38
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA·06·024 -(5/16/2006) • P. 39
1 MS. WYNSOME: So the tree is closer to the proposed
2 structure than it actually appears.
3 Why I think that is important is because I believe that --
4 not being a builder, I believe that digging into the root system
5 there will affect the health of that tree, in addition to all of
6 the branches to the east side would be removed because they would
7 go into the structure that is proposed right now.
8 So I think that will significantly impact the health of that
9 tree. There is an immature bald eagle that lands in that tree
10 regularly, and other eagles use that tree, so that is important
11 to us, and I think it is important ecology of the neighborhood.
12 The 25-foot setback is the second thing I would like to
13 speak to, and that is that of course we are in favor of that.
14 The biggest thing that will impact us about the house is the
15 privacy of our home from this area to the south. If it has
16 windows, the drawing --I'm sorry, thank you --these windows
17 directly face us, and we have windows on that side of our home,
18 so we would respectfully request that those be minimized and have
19 the setback further to the 25 feet.
20 In terms of I'd also like to --the third thing I would
21 like to speak to is the square footage of the home. I believe
22 the value that people are looking for is in the lakefront, and
23 the boathouse has tremendous value. That is why they need to be
24 grandfathered in these days. You can't build new boathouses, so
25 I think this parcel is very valuable to any potential buyer, and
39
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 40
1 I don't think that the square footage of the home is as important
2 as the boathouse and the lakeshore, in terms of the value --
3 speaking to that issue.
4 We're not so opposed to the size of the home as to the
5 setback from the lake.
6 Those are my three main points, and I think my husband would
7 like to speak next.
8 HEARING EXAMINER: We will let him decide that.
9 MS. WYNSOME: Was that brief enough?
lO HEARING EXAMINER: Fine. No problem.
II MS. WYNSOME: Is there anything else that needs
12 clarification?
13 HEARING EXAMINER: No, I think you have addressed the
14 points you are concerned with, and we will have
15 MS. WYNSOME: Okay, this is Gary.
16 MR. WElL: Gary Weil, W-E-I-L, 3711 Lake Washington
17 Boulevard North, Renton 98056.
18 MR. WElL: The first --I am a little confused. When I
19 spoke to Noreen in the planning committee back in '97 when the
20 variance was applied for, it was my understanding they weren't
21 approved.
22 HEARING EXAMINER: Well, and that's what I --
23 MR. WElL: So when we talk about the past if something
24 wasn't approved, I could ask for anything and it's not
25 HEARING EXAMINER: Well, that's why - -unfortunately, I
40
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/1612006) -P. 41
1 have a reasonable recollection of things, and remembered this one
2 and pulled the file upon seeing --and saying, wait, I thought
3 the variances --because I remember it sat in a drawer for ages
4 in our office; no covenants had ever come in; and finally there
5 was the authority granted to dismiss it, and therefore count it
6 as null and void_
7 But even besides that, its precedent value is probably
8 fairly limited. The codes have changed, and that's why I asked
9 some of the questions I asked. The code has changed. The
10 council saw fit to increase the buffer along the shoreline, here
11 and along the rivers and creeks in the city, and to deal with
12 that, I want justification, and whether --I will have to
13 determine that after I have heard your testimony --
14 MR_ WElL: Okay.
15 HEARING EXAMINER: --and your wife's testimony, and
16 the Provosts' testimony, along with the city staff's own
17 professional recommendation on this thing.
18 So I'm not giving that much credence to the old variance.
19 It was obviously granted, but was not acted upon. We have
20 something called vesting in this state; it has lapsed for this
21 property.
22 I mean certain things are allowed. Obviously in certain
23 places you can't even build on substandard lots, so why don't we
24 go on prospectively --what you are looking for in this
25 application as it is now presented?
41
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
MR. WElL: Andthe second is the way that this, if we
look at this particular one, or Exhibit 3, the actual drawing, it
looks like the side yard in this drawing is as big is
approximately half of the total width of the lot.
Now has anyone done and verified, because in my walking and
looking at it, that side yard is quite narrow, and it is not
HEARING EXAMINER: We are talking about the side yard
where the tree is?
MR. WElL: Yes.
HEARING EXAMINER: That is probably the best way.
MR. WElL: Yes, the side yard by the tree
HEARING EXAMINER: Again, the lot is this sort of
panhandle shape with the south section of the lot extending out
into the lake approximately 56 feet further than the north
section.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 I don't know how wide it is. Obviously someone has probably
17 surveyed it, but as I indicated when Mr. Provost was talking
18 about extending the house out there, there is a north shoreline
19 and the setback from the north shoreline I assume would have to
20 be 25 feet. It's not really a side --it is a side yard, or
21 maybe a side yard. The side yard probably is established by your
22 property line to the north, but it is a shoreline which still
23 requires a 25-foot setback, I would believe.
24 The south side would be a 5 foot setback, unless, again,
25 there is water there, also, so
42
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North· LUA·06·024 • (5/1612006) • P. 43
I MR. WElL: Under any circumstances, it is not really a
2 buildable piece of property.
3 HEARING EXAMINER: Probably not.
4 Also, you know, and I don't know what the covenants say
5 because I haven't seen them yet; I know it was required; there
6 was supposed to be nothing built in any of the open space to the
7 rear of the lot, and we will obviously try establishing that,
8 because those covenants, even if the property and variances
9 weren't used, the covenants are still active on the site,
10 apparently, and again, I don't know what they say, so they may
II not restrict anything at all.
12 MR. WElL: Then when you look at the setback from the
13 shoreline, the way it is drawn in these pictures is at an angle;
14 is it 25 --my understanding of a 25 foot setback is that it is
IS 25 feet from the water from not at --from the closest part of
16 the water, rather than at an arc or --you know, so it is a
17 straight line rather than a --as you see in these pictures, it
18 is angled out.
19 HEARING EXAMINER: Well maybe Ms. Ding - -I will tell
20 you what, Ms. Ding, why don't you take the drawing we are looking
21 at now, and --and again, we're not drawing to scale, but in some
22 color, and I don't know if you have a different color, or in a
23 dotted line, kind of establish where the 25 foot setback --and
24 again, you don't have to scale it out, but the concept is it
25 would follow the jog shaped shoreline by --you know, 25 inland
43
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/1612006) -P. 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
from it --okay, but now if you extend it across --obviously the
property is a little wider at the south, so the 25 foot --are we
looking at yeah, there we go. Okay. There is sort of a
rockery so it would be 25 feet in from there, but also from
the north portion, so we --and again --
MS. DING: Well, if the southern portion is 20 feet
7 wide, the setback from the
8 HEARING EXAMINER: Would be the entire width of that --
9 MS. DING: Right.
10 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
11 But you can draw the 25 feet at the west edge, anyway --you
12 know, again, you are drawing a dotted line that generally
13 represents --it is not to scale at all, and again --and I
14 don't --you know, I was looking at the scale. I couldn't quite
15 figure it out, but it is only 25 feet wide, then all of the that
16 is adjacent to that jog of the lake would be 25 feet of setbacks.
17 So nothing is going in there, apparently, at least I don't think
18 so.
19 Go ahead, Mr. Weil.
20 MR. WElL: Okay.
21
22
HEARING EXAMINER: Is it Weil?
MR. WElL: Weil.
23 We had to sign a little --a variance allowing that --our
24 fence, their boathouse that is existing, is on our --goes over
25 our property line, just the way it was built, and that's fine,
44
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 45
1 but in terms of the actual building of a new home, I hope it goes
2 from the actual line and not where our fence is located, because
3 our fence is --we own 18 inches or 2 feet --it is kind of a
4 piece of pie, as it goes that way, just the way that --and it
5 would actually --anything that would be --the 5 foot setback
6 would have to be from that line and would go from the actual --
7 HEARING EXAMINER: I will let you folks deal with your
8 property line issues.
9 MR. WElL: Okay.
10
11
HEARING EXAMINER: As long as you make it --
MR. WElL: Fine.
12 HEARING EXAMINER: --clear to the City, and you may
13 want a surveyor out there, again, if necessary --adverse
14 possession or issues with fence lines and where the lines are
15 is --
MR. WElL: Okay. 16
17 HEARING EXAMINER: --would have to be established, but
18 no, the setback is from the property line, not necessarily a
19 fence which could have been 10 feet into your property.
20 MR. WElL: And the last is that --is about this tree
21 that's within 5 feet of the water, and I thought that was
22 obviously would be included in any shoreline vegetation.
23 I would like to show a picture of this tree, and if you just
24 would take a look at this, the --all the easterly limbs of this
25 tree, and any --
45
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 46
1 HEARING EXAMINER: That will be Exhibit 11.
2 MR. WElL: Thank you.
3 If you look at how this is --my estimation is a 100 foot
4 cedar tree, but I'm not I did not go out and measure it, but
5 if you look at any of the easterly limbs, they would all be
6 required, because of the location of the tree, all need to be
7 removed in order to put a 30 foot building up where it jogs out.
8 Now what happens when you dig down a foundation X number of
9 feet to the roots and what happens when you limb that tree, to
10 the livelihood of this tree?
11 And I don't know that, but I would assume that, you know, as
12 I read through the ordinances, 5136 and 5137, that it is the
13 requirement of the applicant to verify that any vegetation there
14 would not be --the livelihood would be maintained.
15 HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you.
16 MR. WElL: Okay.
17 HEARING EXAMINER: That will be Exhibit 11, the tree
18 picture.
19 Further testimony at this point? Yes?
20 MR. BROWN: Yes, I am Mike Brown, and I am Al and
21 Cyndie's neighbor to the south next door of the existing house.
22 HEARING EXAMINER: Can you give us the spelling of your
23 last name
24 MR. BROWN: Brown like the color, B-R-O-W-N.
25 HEARING EXAMINER: Just have to verify it.
46
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 47
1 MR. BROWN: Okay.
2 HEARING EXAMINER: And the mailing address?
3 MR. BROWN: Yeah, 3703 Lake Washington Boulevard North.
4 HEARING EXAMINER: And you are on the south side of
5 the --their existing home --
6 MR. BROWN: Right.
7 HEARING EXAMINER: --which is sort of two lots south
8 of this vacant --
9 MR. BROWN: Yeah.
10 HEARING EXAMINER: --well, semi vacant lot?
11 MR. BROWN: That's right.
12 Well anyhow, there's a couple of things that I wanted to
13 talk about here today.
14 When I was up to the city here before, I happened to pick up
15 these restrictive covenants, and I will give you these as an
16 example --or exhibits --what is it, 10 or 11? I forget.
17 HEARING EXAMINER: It will be 10, I think.
18 MR. BROWN: But number one, no additional structures
19 within any of the setback areas are permitted, and these areas
20 shall be maintained as open planted area or ground-level patio.
21 Number two, the boathouse may be repaired, but shall not be
22 expanded in any direction, or have any change in its bulk, and I
23 don't think that is a part of this; you know, I haven't heard
24 anything about the boathouse.
25 And then number three, the actual physical height of the
47
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 • (5/16/2006) -P. 48
1 residence shall not exceed a plane of 30 feet above ground level,
2 and that goes from December 31, 2002 --5 --it was recorded back
3 in 1997 on November 24, and I will submit that here now if you
4 would like.
5
6
7 but --
8
HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you.
MR. BROWN: That's not what I came to talk about,
HEARING EXAMINER: But you have the covenants, and
9 those are the recorded ones?
10 MR. BROWN: Those are the recorded documents right
11 here, if you would like a copy?
12 (Cell phone rings)
13 MR. BROWN: Let me take two seconds while you get that.
14 (Brief Pause in Proceedings)
15 MR. BROWN: Sorry for that, but the main reason I came
16 today is because I'm not sure what is being proposed, and the
17 more I look into it --you know, I got something originally in
18 the mail from Jill Ding of the city that said 3953 foot house was
19 going to be built, and I came down and met Jill, I don't know,
20 three weeks ago, I guess, and she gave me some things, but then
21 she said it is a 960 foot footprint, so I went home and I said,
22 Wait a minute. 960 feet times three, even if it was approved at
23 three stories, is 2880 feet, and they are proposing 3953.
24 HEARING EXAMINER: Actually, there is that --there is
25 a smaller number, and I can't remember where I saw it, and I
48
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 49
1 actually did mark that down, but it looked like, from what I
2 could establish, and I didn't ask the question, but --is every
3 sound effect going off here today? Okay. Wait. Somewhere
4 Ms. Ding, do you know where it is, because I know it was --I
5 know I saw --oh, here is 2400 --2800 square feet.
6 MR. BROWN: Yeah.
7 HEARING EXAMINER: It is on page --
8 MS. DING: Page 2
9 HEARING EXAMINER: 8 of nine.
10 MR. BROWN: Which one is that now?
11 HEARING EXAMINER: And that is the department analysis,
12 and it is
13 MR. BROWN: Is that the latter one or the changed one,
14 or is that the original one?
15 HEARING EXAMINER: Well, and that is --
16 MR. BROWN: On the very front it is --
17 HEARING EXAMINER: Right --
18 MR. BROWN: Well, I was going to get to this. It has
19 been changed back from 3953 to 3226, but that is still, if you do
20 the math, it doesn't work out.
21 UNKNOWN: If you include the boathouse. I think they
22 are including the existing boathouse.
23 MS. DING: They are including the boathouse.
24 MR. BROWN: Oh, I see. Okay.
25 Well, let me see if I understand. When I talked to Jill
49
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 50
1 here just a couple of days ago, again, she said staff was going
2 to recommend a smaller house on the version of approximately an
3 800 square foot footprint, and I think that is accurate still?
4 Now so the question is the 5 feet on both sides, and that is
5 up there on the plan, and I also --there is a document in here
6 that says they are basically going to build on the footprint of
7 the existing garage, and I think that is accurate --no? Is it
8 going to be forward towards the tracks or back away from them?
9 MR. PROVOST: It is --
10
11
HEARING EXAMINER: Wait, let's not have cross talk.
MR. BROWN: Okay.
12 HEARING EXAMINER: You can ask your question --
13 MR. BROWN: That's why I'm here --
14 HEARING EXAMINER: Ms. Ding probably can address some
15 of that.
16
17
MR. BROWN: I'm not sure what is when there, and I --
HEARING EXAMINER: Ms. Ding, why don't you put that
18 picture back up, the one showing the arc in the curve where it
19 has been redrawn --or maybe --okay, first this one.
20 As you can see, the yellow line is the proposed footprint,
21 more or less, and again, I won't swear the accuracy of these
22 diagrams. The existing garage is that hatch line she is showing;
23 you can see where it now extends out to the east.
24 MR. BROWN: Okay, so that's
25 HEARING EXAMINER: So there is the southeast corner of
50
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 51
1 the garage.
2 MR. BROWN: Is that this --or this is the garage?
3 HEARING EXAMINER: That is the garage, that grayer
4 inner hatch line.
5 MR. BROWN: I see. Okay.
6 HEARING EXAMINER: The yellow line is the proposed
7 footprint, which overlaps the garage in some respects. It
8 obviously goes further to the north. It is located generally
9 more west of the garage and the eastern end of the house, and
10 extends out to the west of the garage on the west of the house.
11 MR. BROWN: Okay.
12 HEARING EXAMINER: And now as proposed by Ms. Ding, or
13 city staff, would be that Exhibit 9, I believe --and that would
14 reduce the north section showing the crosshatch, and again, I
15 don't see the red on my monitor, but it would reduce the house
16 over there, and it would reduce the house --if the staff --you
17 know, I have to consider all of the recommendations; I may not go
18 along with it. It would reduce the house over there somewhat.
19 Again, whether they went with a round circle, that is what they
20 are showing.
21 Well, it could be an architectural feature, or it could be
22 pulled back in a rectangular manner, but that would meet setback
23 requirements the City has specified.
24 MR. BROWN: Well, I am going to speak for myself
25 HEARING EXAMINER: That's what you're here for.
51
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 52
I MR. BROWN: --but I suspect that maybe we would all
2 want to know what is going to be approved, and what has been
3 submitted, and --
4 HEARING EXAMINER: Well, we don't know what is going to
5 be approved and recommended
6 MR. BROWN: Well, let me see again --if I have a 40
7 foot lot with 5 foot side yards, I know I have a 30 foot --at
8 least going east and west, 30 foot envelope, if you will?
9 HEARING EXAMINER: Urn-hum.
10 MR. BROWN: And I think we can agree to that. And then
II let's pretend that we don't know what the final form or shape is,
12 but the 800 foot, approximate what Ms. Ding had told me they
13 were recommending, just doing the math, 30 times 26 is 780 feet
14 of footprint. 30 times 27 is 810 square feet of footprint.
15 Now whether we go two stories, one story, three stories,
16 just --are we --is that accurate, that if we have a 30 foot
17 wide house, to create this 810 feet, we would be either at 26 to
18 27 - -feet --
19 HEARING EXAMINER: Trying to use your math --
20 MR. BROWN: I'm just trying to find out what --
21 HEARING EXAMINER: Well, trying to use your math may
22 complicate the issue. There are building envelopes or setback
23 requirements. As you indicated, five on the north, five on the
24 south.
25 Obviously if you look at Exhibit 3 here, we're building
52
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 53
I somewhat of a trapezoid. It is not square or rectangular because
2 the lot line --the street access on Lake Washington and the
3 railroad track, confine where this --so there is an angle.
4 So you'll have a little trouble using straight multipliers
5 to come up with a footprint, but if Ms. Ding is correct and
6 reduces the buildable area on the west of the house by the amount
7 they have said, then it would be approximately --she said 800
8 square feet times three stories, which would be approximately
9 and again, we are dealing with approximate numbers here
10 until --I assume the dimensions we have now were drawn by
II someone --maybe an architect, and therefore they're pretty
12 accurate. Once we start reducing the house, it will obviously
13 have to be reproduced and redrawn by someone who can actually
14 measure it and scale it out appropriately.
15 MR. BROWN: Well then, if I understand what I have
16 heard today, and in the past few days or few weeks, it is that
17 the recommendation is for an approximate 800 foot --square-foot
18 print, and whether it is two stories, which would make it 1600
19 square feet, or whether it is three, which would make it 2400, is
20 the proposal?
21 HEARING EXAMINER: Right.
22 MR. BROWN: Is that understood or?
23 HEARING EXAMINER: Well, no, that is the proposal by
24 the city staff.
25 MR. BROWN: Right, and I do know to make it 2400 feet
53
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5116/2006) -P. 54
I you would have to violate the covenant, plus the city council --
2 by variance --well, actually, the variance, I don't know that it
3 would affect the covenant; I think the covenant is a separate
4 issue.
5
6 HEARING EXAMINER: Yeah, and again, I don't know what
7 the covenant covers --
8 MR. BROWN: But you've got a copy of it, so --
9 HEARING EXAMINER: Right.
10 MR. BROWN: --I am going to let you deal with that
II one, and I'm not going to be opposed to building the house. I
12 did a major remodel of our place, and I wanted to get closer, and
13 build right on top of --some kind of existing footprint, but I
14 wasn't able to, but it was --I understood the process. So I
15 have been there, and we certainly --they've got a nice house
16 next door, and I'm not going to be opposed to it, but I was
17 trying to figure out what is going in, and that's why I came.
18 HEARING EXAMINER: Well, what is going in is a --
19 probably a home. It may be what the Provosts want, or it may be
20 what the City wants, or it may be some compromise that I throw
21 together, but it would be at a maximum what the Provosts want,
22 which would be --is it the 2800 square foot number? That would
23 be the --over three stories, if they get what they want. If it
24 is reduced to two stories, but it maintains the footprint the
25 Provosts want, it would be approximately --well, reduce that by
S4
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 55
lone third --900 square feet, if the top floor was lopped off,
2 and if the City gets what it wants ultimately --well again, it
3 varies, because it could be --the City reduces the footprint on
4 the west, but I allow the building to go to three stories, or it
5 could be reduced on the west, and the house only goes to two
6 stories.
7 So again, we're not really decided yet. We know what the
8 Provosts want, and what the City has recommended. It is up to me
9 now to either merge those desires and come up with something --
10 MR. BROWN: Okay.
11 HEARING EXAMINER: based on --
12 MR. BROWN: I think I understand.
13 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
14 MR. BROWN: The Provosts want a 960 square foot
15 print --
16 HEARING EXAMINER: Right.
17 MR. BROWN: three story, and the City is saying 800
18 feet, approximately --
19 HEARING EXAMINER: Approximately.
20 MR. BROWN: --three story. and the neighbors are
21 saying. you know. for a lot of reasons that you just heard.
22 something less than that.
23 I'm just here to keep score.
24 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
25 MR. BROWN: All right, thanks.
55
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 56
1 HEARING EXAMINER: And thank you_
2 Did you want a copy of these covenants back, or did you --
3 MR. BROWN: That's fine. I just --they did them to me
4 in my handout, so when I asked, so you can have them.
5 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay. Well it is interesting
6
7
someone had them.
Is there anything Mr. Provost? Yes, I will give you an
8 opportunity to respond to some of the questions raised by your
9 neighbors.
10 MR. PROVOST: Thank you.
11 Would you like me to say my name again?
12 HEARING EXAMINER: Well, I just said Mr. Provost, so
13 hopefully we will have that on the tape.
14 MR. PROVOST: All right. Thank you.
15 As to the tree issue, which seemed to be one of the primary
16 concerns of our neighbors to the north, Gary and Becca, we had
17 discussions at the original time when we were going to do this
18 back in '97 and the same foundation plan, same setbacks; we had
19 two separate arborists come out to our property and physically
20 inspect both the tree and the site, and both of the arborists
21 suggested that there was a way to minimize the impact to the
22 tree, and that was to be very careful in the excavation of the
23 portion of the foundation that is adjacent to the tree.
24 They suggested that you could go down very carefully with a
25 backhoe and when you got to the roots, when you got to the point
56
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/1612006) -P. 57
1 where you uncovered the root system, you could decide what manner
2 of disturbance or lack of disturbance you wanted to follow
3 what course --to maintain integrity of the tree, and you would
4 be better able to decide, once you uncovered the earth on top of
5 the roots, you could discover whether there were main roots that
6 went that direction, or subsidiary roots that went that
7 direction, and you could address those by hand digging them out,
8 or by digging them out entirely, depending on their size, and
9 repositioning them adjacent to the foundation.
10 HEARING EXAMINER: I understand.
11 MR. PROVOST: So both arborists agreed that there were
12 ways to mitigate any damage to that tree, because then as now, we
13 are interested in maintaining that tree, too.
14 We have owned the property since 1986 and the tree has
15 remained and we have had people come in and do work on the tree
16 to maintain its health, and everything along that period of time
17 for 20 years.
18 So we are interested in maintaining the tree. We have no
19 want to destroy that tree or remove it or injure it. So I hope
20 that helps.
21 HEARING EXAMINER: This may not be an appropriate
22 question, but I presume you are planning on selling the lot and
23 not living in two houses? Because I guess the question would
24 be --the tree seems pretty prominent, and someone's view is
25 probably blocked --everybody's view is probably blocked in some
57
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA·06·024 • (5/16/2006) • P. 58
1 direction by the tree, but it mostly would affect the new home
2 directly east of the tree, and they may want to take it down
3 altogether?
4 MR. PROVOST: Well, what we have decided to do is --
5 and I am not sure of the legal term, but our attorney has assured
6 us that the sales agreement can be written in such a way to
7 provide
8 HEARING EXAMINER: Well, you can --
9 MR. PROVOST: --protection for the tree.
10 HEARING EXAMINER: --include more comments on the
11 property, but --okay, thank you.
12 Ms. Ding, back to this --oh, do you have something else,
13
14
then?
MR. PROVOST: Yes, one other thing, and I failed to
15 show this earlier, but when we got the requirement of the City,
16 or the recommendation of the City that the easements be changed a
17 little bit or increased, there are --and I'm not sure that these
18 are the houses that you spoke of earlier, but they might be in
19 the same area --in the lumber mill, Barbie Mill area, there are
20 three brand-new houses that are currently under construction on
21 the shoreline, and their addresses are 3905, 3907, and 3909 Lake
22 Washington Boulevard North, and we took pictures of those houses,
23 and I have about, I don't know, five pictures here. I don't know
24 if they will show up if I lay them over there, but --
25 HEARING EXAMINER: Ms. Ding, why don't you hand them up
58
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 59
1 here first. Let me just quickly look at them, and then --
2
3
4
5
on.
MR. PROVOST: Sure.
HEARING EXAMINER: That way I will know what is going
MR. PROVOST: Sure.
6 HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you.
7 MR. PROVOST: I will kind of explain a little
8 background of the pictures. They are pictures of the three
9 houses, although it is hard to decipher because they are in a
10 row. This is --all of those pictures are facing north, I
11 believe, towards
12 HEARING EXAMINER: I will let you put you can show
13 them --MS. Ding can help him adjust the video, if necessary, and
14 we are going to keep those, so hopefully you have other copies or
15 whatever
MR. PROVOST: Yes, sir. 16
17 HEARING EXAMINER: So it is five photos. It is Exhibit
18 12.
19 MS. DING: Can you see that?
20 HEARING EXAMINER: I mean he can --they're for
21 illustrative, so --we have a little glare off of the reflected
22 photo, but --
23 MR. PROVOST: I am going to --this is one photo
24 again, this is looking north. Hopefully --I tried to get the
25 water's edge, which is kind of right down from the bushes, that
59
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 60
1 kind of overhang the rockery and the bulkhead that are there, but
2 with that one picture, I am going to switch to another picture
3 that is maybe a little bit more illustrative of the situation
4 here.
5 I think you can see there kind of the edges of the house are
6 protruding out. The first one, of course, is pretty much flat
7 front. The other one is a little bit angled --again, to kind of
8 correspond with little variations in the shoreline, I suspect.
9 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay.
10 MR. PROVOST: And this is a picture of myself about
11 at the middle house, and I am extending my arms out --in the
12 photo, looking at it, my right arm --to the left in this
13 photo --the tip of my arm was over the edge of the water. The
14 tip of my other extended arm is about halfway to the edges of the
15 house --the foundation of the houses. So what I did was --
16 HEARING EXAMINER: Ms. Ding, would you scale off his
17 arm with --I'm kidding. I'm kidding.
18 MR. PROVOST: So as you can see there, and it may be
19 clearer in the other photos --I will let you look at those as
20 you decide, but I tried to give perspective as to those houses.
21 Again, they are currently under construction, and I don't
22 know, I didn't do the research to find out whether at some point
23 those were given a variance, but at the very least, assuming that
24 they had a variance, they are within 10 to 12 feet from the edge
25 of the lake with those foundations.
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 61
They are currently being built. They are under
construction. As you can see, those pictures were taken on
Sunday, two days ago, and I can pretty much assure you that I
don't have a 12 1/2' arm span, so you can look at the scale and
see that they are in fact that close to the shoreline, and I am
not saying any of this to get anybody in trouble or presume
anything, but I am saying that there is a precedent here already
sent by houses under construction currently that the houses are
within that 10 to 12 foot setback area.
The beams that you can see on the farthest house they are
hard to see in this, but they are supporting beams to an upper
deck area that comes out --those beams are exactly 10 feet from
the water's edge.
HEARING EXAMINER: Okay, thank you.
MR. PROVOST: Yes, sir. Thanks again.
HEARING EXAMINER: Mr. Weil?
MR. WElL: Mr. Weil at 3711 and here is just a picture
18 of the eagle in that tree.
19 HEARING EXAMINER: Well, that is the question I was
20 coming back to Ms. Ding for. What is the requirements for and
21 then obviously it doesn't sound like it is a nesting tree, but
22 even trees used by eagles --and was the City aware of the eagle
23 situation?
24 MS. DING: This is Jill Ding. There are several trees
25 within the City that eagles use for perching; for hunting or
61
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/1612006) -P. 62
1 fishing, you know, in the lake_ Unless it is a nesting tree,
2 there are no requirements.
3 HEARING EXAMINER: Okay, thank you.
4 If there is nothing further, I want to thank everybody for
5 their patience. It has been a long morning and again, thank you
6 for allowing me to take that little break to dismiss the other
7 appeal item.
8 I am also going to ask additional time to get the report
9 out. We are trying to catch up on some larger matters and this
10 one has been around since 1997, anyway, but --no, I will try
11 getting it out as soon as possible.
12 (End of proceedings for 5/16/2006)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
In Re: 3707 Lake Washington Blvd. North -LUA-06-024 -(5/16/2006) -P. 63
1 C E R T I F I CAT E
2 I, Brian Killgore, do hereby certify:
3 That ACE Reporting Services, Inc., is a court-approved
transcription company for the state of Washington, counties of
4 King and Cowlitz, and for the United States District Court for
the Western District of Washington;
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
That the annexed and foregoing transcript of CD-recorded
proceedings was transcribed by me to the best of my ability;
I further certify that I am not a relative or employee or
attorney or counsel of any of the parties to said action, or a
relative or employee of any such attorney or counsel, and that I
am not financially interested in the said action or outcome
thereof;
I further certify that the transcript is a true and correct
record of all audible portions of the taped testimony, including
questions and answers, and all objections, motions and
exceptions of counsel made at the time of the foregoing
proceedings. Areas of the tape(s) or CD(s) that were not
decipherable for any reason are noted as [INAUDIBLE].
Dated this 13th day of September 2006.
Brian J. Killgore
ACE Reporting Services, Inc.
1900 West Nickerson Street
Suite 209
Seattle, WA 98119-1650
(206) 467 -6188
Notary Public in and for the
State of Washington,
Residing at Seattle.
My commission expires 11/1/2008
63
39t77
~i f Zt~1 If! i/ /) Ii
'.
-3 9 (} :;;-
3707
, ..
, , ..
• ,
!
LX l2.d
3 iC)S'
od~ WI! gl ~tv
;;780 (~
3 10 7 1J1~{
? 9 0 7 7LeNh--
~C17Y ~-;3 roc;
/-dk aM If:/b io/!/
4/23/2006 10:32:56 AM
4/23/2006 10:33:48 AM
My AlBum
M.F. W1WAMS CONSTRUCTION CO., IN<'.
P.O,8OX361
MERCER ISLAND, WA.!8l4O
","
,
!
i
;a
i
I
OOUAATION~~rnwro~ I
WHEREAS Aland ~ I'mvIlsI ~ !be ......... d die followill! raJ property in !be Oty d Ii!
RClIIOII, County ofKiac. Slate ofWasbill8lon. clcscribed.. 1:1
LOrS 49 ANI) so. BLOCK "AM, C.D. HIllMAN'S lAKE WASHINOTON
GARDEN OF EDEN ADDI110N TO SEATI1..E. NO. 2, ACCORDINOTOTIlE
PlAT RECORDED IN VOLUME 11 OF PLATS, PAGE 64, IN KINO
COUNTY, WASHINGTON:
TOOCTHER wrrn SECOND CU.SS SUOREUNDS AIlIOININO; AND
TIlEWESIERLY 15 FEET ~ THAT PORIlON OF FORMER NOR11iERN
PACIRC IWLWAY COMPANY RIGHT-OF-WAY AS UES BETWEEN TIlE
NORllfERLY AND TIlE sourHERLY UNES OF SAID wrs49 AND SO.
TAXPARCELJDl:33421Q.m5O.03
WHEREAS, !be 0WIICI1 d Aid described properIydcsile ID ilIIpoocdle f~teIIricIive
COI'eIIIIIIlS IIIlIIIifts willi die land as 10 use, prexnI ond fUlUre. d!be Ibovelbcd raJ property.
NOW, THEREFORE, die lIforesaid ow .... hereby esIIIbIish, 8'8111II1II impose RIIricIioas and --1IIlIIIifts willl die lond b<teIn above desciibed willi respectlD!be .... by Ibe omdcJBipod.
lheir sucx:csson, 1lein,lIDCIlSSIgm as follows:
RESTRlcrIVECO~
1. Noadditional stnICIUra witbin any of die oedJock .... me permillOd, ond 1hal1bese .... shall
be maintained IS opea ..... ted area or ground Ievd polio.
2. The nlhotlR may be IOpOirtd but shall DOl be e>pODded iaany diJecIion or IIawe any c:boIIp:
i. its bulk.
DURATION
",... __ Is sbaII run willi tbc land and expire 011 DeoCIIIbcr 31. 2025. If alany lime
diljlW'emems are imIaIIed pu>UlllllO Ibese oovoaaalS, die podioa of .... __ pataiDiallD
_spceme iasWled impuo.."..,ts requir<d by _ 0nIi_ of tbc OIyofRmlca !IbII1
_ wilbout III:QI:SSity of furtber doc:umenIIIioo.
:! '-
-.'~--""'-''''
Sf ATE OF WASHINCII"a'I
•••
CoWIIy dXlNG
CD dIis :trJ!" dayoC I\(aw .. k l!m. WCBIIIC penoaoIIylfllll'lRd
die peDDIIS who.-urod die wjlhin and foresoi .. ~ ..... -*-'edpd IBid __
Ia be die fn:e ..... >01-, lOCI and deed oC said pa-. Car die oases ..... J>UIP<*8 ......
...... Iicacd. C'1,.JJe f',tNDf>+-.f 41c """,.at-
INWiTNE9S WHEREOF,I have h<:mmrolCllII)'baacilllchlfJml my cft"oc:iII .... IIIe
day ..... yt1IIr fUll obove wri-.
tjj!!:Y 1'uIiic ill ,and for die Slate oC Wa""ingbl, oaidlns • .;Jr.4re=:::L:I"--__ _
~ fib
---.
IfWIItGUERi&IM .... --" ..... .. ' """"Htt
.~
-~
NORTHWEST ]/41. SECTION 32, TOWNSHiP 241. NORTH, !RA.NGE 5 fEA.ST. W.M
lr cnv OF RENTON, COUNTY
/" /
=10 --.--~~ l r Se:.vtR ,"'. g70Q -LAKE: WA. . CIISO .... n>r _
'It 7Clo'3.9.30365
~/
----I
I 5.S. ROCK ~~' / BvC~H
"") ELEVATION.OF" L4.KE / ?i "-J~ . 17
/
I
/ -'
\ ~JP II',),'" WAt!
:i} ::
PJA'r
~s __________ $5 __
I $1.1>0 SEIIJ"II.
I
I
" I
OF I< ~ N G ,
0" i <~~~
STATIE OlF
';:"
t
-: ..
WASHINGTC ,
~w ...... ,t.t'
E"St'.,
'" ).613S3;)..
)..../b;---.... p .. W~,.. POL£"
,/?/U>,n::::44t? P/LN'.S"W ...
~O !.o', w/.?i£
" ' ~ rIZDr«'1';,p.D
_ ,: c ,
C --~.tII.~ c: . ~I
(V
i!/
Q:-
~/
:>
0'
G. 3
CITY OF RENTON
CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION FROM
SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
EXEMPTION FILE NO.:
PROJECT NAME:
OWNER/APPLICANT/CONTACT:
PROJECT MANAGER:
PROPOSAL:
PROJECT LOCATION:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
SEC-TWN-R:
WATER BODYIWETLAND:
October 13, 2006
LUA-06-024,V-H, SME
Provost Shoreline Exemption
Alan and Cynthia Provost
PO Box 1492
Renton, WA 98057
Jill K. Ding, Senior Planner
Applicant is proposing to construct a 3,951 square foot
3-story single family residence on a 3,363 square foot
parcel located along the shoreline of Lake Washington.
The subject property is zoned Residential -8 dwelling
units per acre (R-8). The subject site is currently
developed with an existing detached garage, garden
shed, and boat house. The garage and shed are
proposed to be removed and the boat house is proposed
to remain on the. The shoreline designation of the
property is urban.
3709Lake Washington Blvd N
Lots 49 and 50, Block "A", C.D. Hillman's Lake
Washington Garden of Eden Addition to the City of
Seattle, No.2
31-24-5E
Lake Washington
An exemption from a Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permit is hereby granted
on the proposed project described on the attached form for the following reason(s):
Exemption from Shoreline Management.doc
~ ConstruGtion on shorelands by an owner, lessee or contract purchaser of a single-
family residence for his/her own use or for the use of his/her family, which residence
does not exceed a height of thirty-five (35) feet above average grade level and which
meets all requirements of the State agency or local government having jurisdiction
thereof, other than requirements imposed pursuant to this chapter.
1. "Single family" residence means a detached dwelling designed for and
occupied by one family including those structures and developments within a
contiguous ownership which are a normal appurtenance. An "appurtenance" is
necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-family residence
and is located landward of the ordinary high water mark and the perimeter of a
wetland. On a statewide basis, normal appurtenances include a garage; deck;
driveway; utilities; fences; installation of a septic tank and drainfield and grading
which does not exceed two hundred fifty cubic yards and which does not involve
placement of fill in any wetland or waterward of the ordinary highwater mark.
2. Construction authorized under this exemption shall be located landward of
the ordinary high water mark.
The proposed development is consistent or inconsistent with (check one):
CONSISTENT INCONSISTENT
xx Policies of the Shoreline Management Act.
N/A The guidelines of the Department of
Ecology where no Master Program has
been finally approved or adapted by the
Department.
Attachments: Legal Description
Vicinity Map
Site Plan
cc: Owner/Applicant
Contact
File
Exemption from Shoreline Management.doc
The Master Program.
Neil Watts, Director
Development Services Division
_~_--....... ---."",,",,,,, .. ""I"--. ~_-------.... ., . .:l$.Z!fu;;::l'" .. ··
) : ~
EXHIBIT A
Lots 49 and 50, Block "A", C.D. Hillman's Lake Washington Garden of Eden Addition to the City of
Seattle, No.2, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 11 of Plats, page 64, records of King
County, Washington;
Together with Second Class Shorelands adjoining; and
The Westerly 15 feet of that portion of former Northern Pacific Railway Company right of way as lies
between the Northerly and the Southerly lines of said Lots 49 and 50.
End of Schedule A
Page 3 of9 Order Nwnber: 372201
----1-
------------,
-- -----,-.•.• ----. ----
-------
-------
COR
-------------,
I --------, - - - - - - ---J
\
i
I
31 T24N R5E E 1/2 Sl31
,-' I /
I .•
49/ OVERHANG
I
so
.~
52.
ELEVATION OF LAKE
AS OF 11-04-96 -17.6
I \ i '
I
<' (' .'
I I /
~ " ... l 5
BOATHOUSE
FF·20.06
ROOF· 32 2
ROCIC. RE1~IN\NG W,\LL
\ T8P ROCK WAl i . i
o-fh-
/
, 5
%1 ,
!.
~I < , .:t----r-
t(]t1
DECK
NE l."
. ,
" '.
«~
HOUSE
F F • 26 35
f I
/ ), /, \ ~
.< ,
I ~"'''t~tlVi
~ I'J'U>.-."ec
.' ~O Lo"'"
"..c
}-lW' ~~Q'iK WALL
r tv
/
I
I
/
E"h,\) q