HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-04-2021 - Asdourian Shoreline and Admin Variance - LUA-21-0000251
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 1
CAO VARIANCE - 1
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF RENTON
RE: Asdourian House Remodel
Shoreline and Administrative Variances
LUA21-000025, V-A, V-H
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FINAL DECISION
Summary
Ryan and Ashley Asdourian request two shoreline variances from Lake Washington setback and
building coverage requirements and three administrative variances for front and side yard setbacks and
building height for the remodel and addition to an existing single-family residence located at 3901
Lake Washington Blvd N, Renton, WA 98056. The additions are composed of a third story to an
existing two-story residence and adding 352 square feet to the existing footprint. All three of the
administrative variances and the shoreline building coverage variance are approved. The shoreline
setback variance is denied.
The variance approvals are justified on the basis that they enable the Applicants to add a garage to their
home while also maintaining a home of reasonable size. The currently existing home is only 1,800
square feet in size and does not have a garage. The average home size in the surrounding area is 2,790
square feet. A two-car garage can be considered minimum reasonable use for a single-family
residence. If the Applicants were forced to convert existing living space into a garage that would leave
them with roughly a 1,200 square foot home, which would be significantly less than the average home
size of the area. The only way to accommodate additional construction for garage space is with
approval of the administrative setback variances and approval of the shoreline building coverage
variance. With just these three variance approvals, however, the building area of the project site will
still be several hundred square feet short of the average size for homes in the surrounding area. The
height variance enables a third story addition that will bring the total area of the home at or within 300
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 2
CAO VARIANCE - 2
feet of the average size for homes in the vicinity.
Since an average sized home with a two-car garage can be constructed with approval of four of the five
variances, there is no basis to approve the remaining shoreline setback variance. The shoreline setback
variance would enable the Applicants to extend their third-floor addition into the 25-foot setback of the
project site. With the ability to build a home that is 2,790 square feet or just a couple hundred square
feet shy of that size, there is no compelling reason to approve the shoreline setback variance.
Shoreline variance criteria set a much higher standard for approval than administrative variances,
requiring a showing that the shoreline setback “precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable
use of the property.” The Department of Ecology, who is also tasked with approving the shoreline
variances, submitted written comment questioning the need for the variances. Ecology’s comments are
well taken. It must be concluded that the 25-foot Lake Washington shoreline setback does not deprive
the Applicants of the reasonable use of their property when they are able to build a home over 2,000
square feet with a two car garage in an area that has homes of comparable size.
Testimony
A computer-generated transcript of the hearing has been prepared to provide an overview of the
hearing testimony. The transcript is provided for informational purposes only as Appendix A.
Exhibits
The October 19, 2021 staff report and Exhibits 1-13 identified at page 2 of the staff report itself were
admitted into the record during the hearing. The following exhibits were also admitted during the
hearing:
Exhibit 14: Staff PowerPoint
Exhibit 15: Google Maps
Exhibit 16: COR Maps
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicants. Ryan and Ashley Asdourian, 3901 Lake Washington Blvd N, Renton, WA
98056.
2. Hearing. A hearing was held on the applications via the Zoom application on October 19,
2021.
3. Project Description. Ryan and Ashley Asdourian request two shoreline variances and three
administrative variances for the remodel and addition to an existing single-family residence located
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 3
CAO VARIANCE - 3
within 100-feet of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) of Lake Washington at 3901 Lake
Washington Blvd N, Renton, WA 98056.
The proposal involves the addition of a third story to an existing two-story residence and a 352 square
foot increase in the building footprint to 1,342 square feet, resulting in a new total living square
footage of 3,579 square feet. The upland area (landward of the OHWM) of the project site is only
2,275 square feet. The proposal would not increase existing on-site impervious surfaces and would
not exceed the maximum 24-foot wall plate height applicable in the R-6 district.
The two shoreline variances are as follows:
A. Building Coverage. The Applicants seek a shoreline variance to RMC 4-3090D.7a, which
limits lot coverage for buildings landward of the buffer and within 100-feet of the OHWM
to a maximum of 25 percent for the project site. The entire upland area of the existing lot
is located within 100 feet of the OHWM of Lake Washington. As shown on Exhibit 2, the
proposed addition/remodel would result in a 352 square foot increase to the 1,029 sq. ft.
building footprint resulting in a total of 1,342 square feet. The addition results in a
building coverage of 59 percent, which exceeds the 25% maximum building coverage.
B. Building Setback. The Applicants seek a shoreline variance to RMC 4-3-090D.7.a, which
requires a 10-foot vegetation conservation buffer as well as a 15-foot building setback to
the vegetation buffer for a combined setback of 25 to Lake Washington. The proposed
third story addition would encroach into the required 25-foot shoreline setback. The
proposed increase in building footprint would not.
The three administrative variance requests are as follows:
A. Building Height. The Applicants seek an administrative variance to RMC 4-2-110A,
which authorizes a maximum of two stories for single-family homes in the R-6 district.
The Applicant proposes the addition of a third story.
B. Front and Side Yards. The Applicant seek an administrative variance to RMC 4-2-110A,
which requires a minimum 25-foot front yard and five-foot side yard with combined
minimum side yards of 15 feet in the R-6 zone. The Applicants propose a 0-foot front
yard setback, a 4-foot 9-inch side yard setback and a combined side yard setback of 12
feet.
4. Characteristics of Surrounding Area. The project site is in a segment of beach homes that
stretches from Kennydale Beach Park to a promontory to the north accessed by N. 40th Place. This
segment of beach serves as a natural and logical reference point for evaluating the land use character
of the surrounding community. Ex. 12 identifies that in this segment there are 25 homes with an
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 4
CAO VARIANCE - 4
average size of 2790 square feet. These 25 homes are composed of two one story homes, 18 two
story homes and 5 three story homes.
5. Adverse Impacts. There are no significant adverse impacts associated with the project. The
project is exempt for State Environmental Policy Act review. Impacts are more specifically
addressed below.
A. Environmental Impacts. As proposed the proposal might impact shoreline ecological
function by increased shading from the third floor addition. At least in the case of
overwater piers on Lake Washington, shading can have adverse ecological impacts in part
by providing hiding places for predator fish. See, e.g. Burnside v. Seattle, Shoreline
Hearings Board, p. 13. Shading impacts aren’t addressed in the record. However, as
approved it doesn’t appear that the more limited third floor addition would make any
appreciable increase in shading of the adjoining lake1. As proposed, the shading impacts
may also be nominal, given the proposed setback from the deck and the amount of
shading already occurring from the existing use.
No other environmental impacts are manifest from the record. As noted in the staff report,
the footprint expansion is located on the east side of the property, away from the Lake
Washington shoreline. Further, the footprint addition would involve the replacement of
existing pavement, which is considered pollution-generating impervious surface, with
building footprint, which is considered non-pollution generating impervious surface.
B. View Impacts. No significant view impacts are anticipated.
The proposal is not found to significantly impact views because it complies with the
City’s maximum height standards. Table 4-3-090D7a, Shoreline Bulk Standards,
establishes a maximum height of 35 feet for buildings. Footnote 7 requires compliance
with the maximum height of the underlying zone if that height less. For the R-6, zone the
underlying height is less. RMC 4-2-110A, applicable to the R-6 zone, along with Note 18
allows wall plate height of up to 24 feet with an additional 6 feet for roofs with a pitch of
equal to or greater than 4:12 or greater. The project is conditioned to comply with the R-6
height limit. The City Council has also adopted some standards protecting view corridors.
As identified in the Applicant’s view impact analysis no such standards apply to the
project area.
The height and view corridor code provisions set what the City Council has determined
are acceptable heights and hence acceptable view impacts at the project area. As noted by
the Applicant, if they weren’t seeking a variance to building story standards, they would
be free to construct a two-story structure with raised ceilings that extend to the maximum
30-foot height limit of the R-6 zone. Given that the City Council has deemed 30-foot
1 It is recognized that the large deck space proposed by the Applicant may also significantly reduce shading impacts.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 5
CAO VARIANCE - 5
height to be acceptable in this location, the proposal is not found to create any significant
height impacts.
C. Compatibility. The proposal as approved is fully compatible with surrounding
development. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 6 below, the proposal as approved will
be of similar size to surrounding development and is the same type of use, i.e. single-
family residential use.
6. Need for Variance. The three administrative variances and shoreline lot coverage variances
are necessary for the addition of a garage and reasonably sized home. The shoreline setback variance
is not necessary for reasonable use because approval of the other three variances will result in a home
that is roughly 2,500-2,700 square feet in area, which is close to or at the average area of other homes
in the vicinity.
At the outset it should be recognized that the need for the variance is due both to the small size of the
subject lot and the fact that it abuts shoreline on two sides. The upland portion of the lot is only
2,275 square feet and of this small area only what appears to be roughly a third is outside the 25-foot
shoreline buffer. The result of this configuration makes most of the currently existing home
nonconforming and does not leave sufficient unrestricted space to add a garage.
The inability to add a garage necessitates the administrative setback variances. As recognized in the
DOE comments, Ex. 9, garages are identified as an appurtenance to single family residences in WAC
173- 27- 040(2)(g). This means they are necessarily connected to the use and enjoyment of a single-
family residence. The Applicants do not currently have a garage. They could theoretically convert
living space into a garage, but at 1,800 square feet the home is already significantly smaller than the
average 2,790 square foot size of other homes in the vicinity. Consequently, the proposed garage
addition is necessary for the reasonable use of the subject property. The proposed location of the
garage additions are the minimum necessary for reasonable use since there is nowhere else on the
project site that can accommodate the additions.
The small lot and shoreline setback necessitate the administrative height variance. Without the height
variance the home size would be limited to roughly 2,1002 square feet without any significant second
floor deck space. This is significantly less than the 2,790 square foot average of surrounding homes.
While this necessity may not rise to the level of depriving the Applicant of reasonable use under the
shoreline variance criteria, it does deprive the property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by
other property owners in the vicinity under the administrative variance criteria. Given the high value
of waterfront properties, the comparatively small size of the home can have a significant impact on
the Applicant’s property value.
2 The floor plan and site plans submitted by the Applicant, Ex. 2 and 5, do not have sufficient information to
precisely calculate the areas added to the project site by each of the requested variances. Areas referenced to as
“roughly” being of a certain size in this Decision are based upon rough interpolations of some of the dimensions
shown in Ex. 2 and 5.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 6
CAO VARIANCE - 6
With approval of all three administrative variances and the shoreline lot coverage variance, the
Applicant has reasonable use of its property. The Applicant will have room on the third floor to add
at least 400 square feet of additional floor space for a roughly 2,500 square foot home, which puts it
within range of the average size of surrounding homes. Overall, it simply cannot be concluded that
the Applicant would be deprived of the reasonable use of their property if authorized to build a 2,500
square foot home.
Conclusions of Law
1. Authority. RMC 4-8-080(G) classifies administrative variances as Type II applications and
shoreline variance as Type III applications. RMC 4-8-080(C)(2) requires consolidated permits to
each be processed under “the highest-number procedure”. The shoreline variance has the highest
numbered review procedure, so both shoreline permits must be processed as Type III applications.
As Type III applications, RMC 4-8-080(G) grants the Examiner with the authority to hold a hearing
and issue a final decision on them, subject to closed record appeal to the City Council.
2. Zoning/Shoreline Designation. The subject property is zoned Residential 6 (R-6). The
shoreline environmental designation is Single-Family Residential.
3. Comparable Nonconforming Uses. Other nonconforming homes can be used to assess the
reasonableness and necessity of the Applicants’ variance requests.
As shall be evident in the analysis below, the variances approved for the project are heavily
dependent upon recognition that nonconforming homes in the vicinity are of similar size to the
proposal as limited by this Decision. Review of the COR maps of the area of comparison identified
in Finding of Fact No. 4 reveals that most, if not all, of the homes in the comparison area are
nonconforming. The homes appear to be nonconforming as to both shoreline regulations subject to
the Applicant’s request and many of the homes also don’t appear to comply with the setback
standards that are the subject of the Applicant’s administrative variance requests.
As identified by the Examiner at the hearing, as a general matter nonconforming uses may not be
used to support variance applications. See Ling v. Whatcom County Board of Adjustment, 21 Wn.
App. 497 (1978). The judicial reasoning for this conclusion is compelling – if a City amends its
zoning code to depart from current development patterns, that objective can be seriously undermined
if variance applicants are allowed to rely upon existing nonconforming development patterns to
perpetuate it.
The only case that goes in a different direction is Sherwood v. Grant County, 40 Wn. App. 496
(1985). Sherwood dealt with a variance application to place a mobile home in a zoning district that
prohibited mobile homes. The court found acceptable “special circumstances” because the project
site was located near numerous other mobile homes, some of them nonconforming within the same
zoning district. The court found Sherwood distinguishable from Ling because it found the project
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 7
CAO VARIANCE - 7
site to be in a “unique” location, thus precluding the “domino effect” that was of concern in Ling. 40
Wn. App. at 499.
Ling and Sherwood can be reconciled by a determination of whether a condition is indeed “special”
(or “unique” as referenced in Sherwood). If the circumstance is special, it by definition does not arise
very often and therefore on that basis will not set a precedent that will apply to numerous other
properties and thereby undermine the objectives of the development standard subject to the variance.
This interpretation is consistent with the general concept of variances, which is to provide an out for
“special” development circumstances that were not reasonably anticipated in the zoning code, while
leaving more generally applicable unanticipated situations to the legislative amendment process. As
to the administrative variances, the circumstances of the shoreline area likely are unique – the small
lots, large homes and associated high property values are likely all unique to the shoreline portion of
the R-6 zoning district that is the source of the regulations subject to the administrative variance
requests. Most of the land mass within the City’s R-6 zoning district is not composed of shoreline
lots, so the nonconformities of the homes along the Lake Washington shoreline can be considered a
unique R-6 area where the approval of the variances will not set a precent for undermining the R-6
setback and height limits in the rest of the R-6 district.
The shoreline vicinity of the project site is not as easy to classify as unique within the regulatory
reach of the shoreline regulations of the Applicants’ variance requests. The nonconforming homes
used as comparables in Ex. 12 are all nonconforming as to shoreline impervious surface and setback
regulations because the lots involved are small. This is not a condition that is unique to the vicinity
of the project area. As shown in the City’s COR maps, a large majority of all the Lake Washington
waterfront lots are small. As a result, it is likely that many, if not most, waterfront homes along Lake
Washington are nonconforming as to shoreline building coverage and setback requirements.
However, Lake Washington is not the only waterbody within shoreline jurisdiction in the City of
Renton. As identified at p.81 of the City’s comprehensive plan, there are several rivers also subject
to shoreline jurisdiction. The City’s COR maps reveal that the lots along these rivers are not all
substandard as with the waterfront lots, although much of the rivers are separated from adjoining uses
by greenbelts. Overall, it can be concluded that the nonconforming lots in the vicinity of the project
area are a unique condition found along the Lake Washington portion of the City’s shoreline
jurisdiction. As such, it is appropriate to consider the surrounding nonconforming homes in assessing
the reasonableness of the Applicants’ shoreline variance requests.
4. Review Criteria. RMC 4-9-190(I)(4)(b) sets the criteria for shoreline variances and RMC 4-
9-250B6 sets the criteria for administrative variances. The applicable regulations and policies are
quoted below in italics and applied through corresponding conclusions of law:
Administrative Variances
RMC 4-9-250B6a: That the applicant suffers practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship and the
variance is necessary because of special circumstances applicable to subject property, including size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property, and the strict application of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 8
CAO VARIANCE - 8
Zoning Code is found to deprive subject property owner of rights and privileges enjoyed by other
property owners in the vicinity and under identical zone classification;
5. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for all three administrative variances for the reasons
identified in Finding of Fact No. 6.
RMC 4-9-250B6b: That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which subject property
is situated;
6. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for all three administrative variances for the reasons
identified in Finding of Fact No. 5.
RMC 4-9-250B6c: That approval shall not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitation upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property is
situated;
7. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for all three administrative variances. The setback
variances merely give the Applicants the ability to have a garage while at the same time having a
reasonably sized home as detailed in Finding of Fact No. 6, which is a right/privilege shared by most
single-family homeowners. The height variance enables the Applicants to have a home of comparable
size to surrounding homes as identified in Finding of Fact No. 6.
RMC 4-9-250B6d: That the approval is a minimum variance that will accomplish the desired
purpose.
8. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for all three administrative variances. As detailed in
Finding of Fact No. 6, the Applicant is only able to have both a garage and a home of comparable size
to others in the vicinity if all three administrative variances are granted. In this regard, the variances
are the minimum that will accomplish reasonable use of the property.
Shoreline Variances
RMC 4-9-190I4b: Decision Criteria: Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where
denial of the permit would result in a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all
instances the applicant must demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the
public interest shall suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
i. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the ordinary high
water mark (OHWM), as defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(c), and/or landward of any wetland as
defined in RCW 90.58.030(2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of
the following:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 9
CAO VARIANCE - 9
(a) That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in the
applicable master program precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property;
9. Criterion Only Met for Building Coverage. The criterion is met for the shoreline building
coverage variance. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, a two-car garage qualifies as minimum
reasonable use for a lot developed with a single-family lot. As further determined in Finding of Fact
No. 6, the shoreline building coverage requirement precludes the Applicants from adding a garage
without having to reduce the size of their home to an unreasonably small size.
As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the shoreline setback variance does not meet the criterion. With
approval of the four other variance requests, the Applicants can have both a two-car garage and a
reasonably sized home. Consequently, approval of the variance is not necessary for reasonable use of
the property.
RMC 4-9-190I4bib: That the hardship is specifically related to the property, and is the result of
unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of the
master program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the applicant's own actions;
10. Criterion Met. The criterion is met for both shoreline variance requests. As outlined in
Finding of Fact No. 6, the need for the variance arises from the small size of the subject property and
the unusual circumstance that the property fronts Lake Washington on two sides.
RMC 4-9-190I4bic: That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within
the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and shoreline master
program and will not cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment;
11. Criterion Met for Building Coverage Variance. The criterion is met for the shoreline building
coverage variance for the reasons identified in Finding of Fact No. 5. Under the same finding, it’s
not entirely clear if the shoreline setback variance will not cause adverse impacts to the environment
due to the increase in shading impacts that would result from building closer to the shoreline.
RMC 4-9-190I4bid: That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by
the other properties in the area;
12. Criterion Only Met for Building Coverage Variance. The criterion is met for the shoreline
building coverage variance. As outlined in Finding of Fact No. 6, the variance is necessary for the
Applicants to accommodate a two-car garage while at the same time also accommodating a
reasonably sized home of comparable size to the other homes in their vicinity. As such, approval of
the variances cannot be construed as a special privilege since it is a right enjoyed by most other
homeowners in the area.
The criterion is not met for the shoreline building coverage variance. The Applicants seek to waive
shoreline setback requirements when that is not necessary for the reasonable use of their property.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 10
CAO VARIANCE - 10
There is no basis for such a request and such a variance would not be approved for anyone else. As
such, approval of the request would qualify as a special privilege.
RMC 4-9-190I4bie: That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and
13. Criterion Only Met for Building Coverage Variance. For the reasons identified in Finding of
Fact No. 6, the criterion is met for the building coverage variance. The shoreline building coverage
variance uses all of the space available and necessary to accommodate both a two-car garage and a
reasonably sized home in conjunction with the approval of the administrative variances. The
criterion is not met for the shoreline setback variance because the Applicants will have a reasonably
sized home along with a two-car garage upon approval of the other four variances. There is no
remaining legitimate “relief” to be sought under such circumstances.
RMC 4-9-190I4bif: That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
14. Criterion Met for Building Coverage Variance. The criterion is met for the shoreline building
coverage variance because it enables reasonable use of property without creating significant adverse
impacts as determined in Findings of Fat No. 5 and 6. The criterion may not be met for the shoreline
setback variance because of potential shading impacts at an individual project level or cumulatively.
DECISION
The shoreline and administrative variance applications are approved except for the shoreline
setback variance as they meet all the applicable regulations and policies addressed in this decision,
provided they comply with the following conditions:
1. A building height survey prepared by a qualified professional shall be completed and
submitted for review and approval by the Current Planning Project Manager prior to
the approval of the building permit’s framing inspection. The height survey shall
clearly confirm the proposed addition complies with the maximum wall plate height
of 24 feet with a total maximum height of 30 feet to the top of the pitched roof.
2. The east building elevation shall be revised to provide one of the following:
1. The front porch projects in front of the garage a minimum of five feet (5’),
and is a minimum of twelve feet (12’) wide, or
2. The roof extends at least five feet (5') (not including eaves) beyond the
front of the garage for at least the width of the garage plus the porch/stoop
area, or
3. The garage doors contain a minimum of thirty percent (30%) glazing,
architectural detailing (e.g. trim and hardware), and are recessed from the front
façade a minimum of five feet (5’), and from the front porch a minimum of
seven feet (7’).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 11
CAO VARIANCE - 11
The revised elevations shall be provided to the Current Planning Project
Manager for review and approval at the time of Building Permit review. If
none of the options above are feasible, the applicant shall demonstrate that the
proposal would comply with the applicable design guidelines for this standard
as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
3. The primary building entrance does not include a porch or stoop. The entry shall be
reviewed to provided either a porch or stoop with a minimum depth of five fee and
the minimum height of twelve inches above grade, or the applicant shall demonstrate
that the porch or stoop cannot be provided due to accessibility (ADA) requirements.
If the applicant is unable to demonstrate compliance with this standard, the applicant
shall demonstrate that the proposal would comply with the applicable design
guidelines for this standard as approved by the Current Planning Project Manager.
4. Revised elevations shall be submitted with the Building Permit application
demonstrating that twenty-five percent (25%) of the façade facing the private access
easement would be comprised of windows and/or doors.
5. Building elevations shall be provided at the time of Building Permit review that
provide:
1. Eaves projecting from the roof of the entire building at least twelve inches
(12") with horizontal fascia or fascia gutter at least five inches (5") deep on the
face of all eaves, and
2. Rakes on gable ends must extend a minimum of two inches (2") from the
surface of exterior siding materials.
6. Revised elevations shall be submitted at the time of Building Permit review that
provide the required:
1. Three and one half inch (3 1/2") minimum trim surrounds all windows and
details all doors, or
2. A combination of shutters and three and one half inches (3 1/2") minimum
trim details all windows, and three and one half inches (3 1/2") minimum trim
details all doors.
DATED this 2nd day of November, 2021.
________________________________
Phil A. Olbrechts
City of Renton Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
RMC 4-8-080(G) provides that the final decision of the hearing examiner is subject to appeal to
the Renton City Council. RMC 4-8-110(E)(9) requires appeals of the hearing examiner’s decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Shoreline and Administrative Variances - 12
CAO VARIANCE - 12
to be filed within fourteen (14) calendar days from the date of the hearing examiner’s decision. A
request for reconsideration to the hearing e examiner may also be filed within this 14 day appeal
period as identified in RMC 4-8-110(E)(8) and RMC 4-8-100(G)(4). A new fourteen (14) day
appeal period shall commence upon the issuance of the reconsideration. Additional information
regarding the appeal process may be obtained from the City Clerk’s Office, Renton City Hall – 7th
floor, (425) 430-6510.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 1 of 26
Appendix A
October 19, 2021 Hearing Transcript
Asdourian Home Remodel -- LUA21-000025, V-A, V-H
Note: This is a computer generated transcript provided for informational purposes only. The reader should
not take this document as 100% accurate or take offense at errors created by the limitations of the
programming in transcribing speech. A recording of the hearing is available from the City should anyone
need an accurate rendition of the hearing testimony.
Phil Olbrechts: Good morning, This is Phil Olbrechts, I'm a hearing examiner for the City of
Renton. For the record, it's 11:00 o'clock a.m., October 19, 2021.
We have the application for some variances, shoreline variances, administrative
variances, and a shoreline exemption for File #LUA-21-000025, for a single-
family home on the shores of Lake Washington. The hearing format today is,
we'll start off with a presentation from staff.
That'll be Jill Ding, who will give us an overview of the project. Once she's done,
we'll move on to the applicant, who then can speak in support of their project
with any witnesses they may have, and then we'll move on to public.
I see we do have a few members of the public here today who want to
participate. We'll provide some additional details as to how you can jump in
once that opportunity arises. Once we're done with public participation, we'll
move back to staff to answer any questions that were raised, and also provide
rebuttal evidence, if necessary.
Finally, the applicant has final word, and after that's all done, I have 10 business
days to issue a final decision. This is a little different from most, a lot of these
hearings that we have, in that it involves shoreline variances, and those are not
final until the Department of Ecology approves them.
Once I issue my decision on the variances, if they're approved, then the
Department of Ecology has to provide their approval, as well. And if there's any
disagreement at that point, those decisions from the Department of Ecology can
be appealed to the State Shorelines Hearings Board, based out in Olympia.
Any questions about the process or what we're doing today? I see, we do have a
raised hand from Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams, did you have a question or
something? There we go.
Dean Williams: Thank you, Mr. Examiner. My name is Dean Williams. I'm the attorney
representing the applicant, and wanted to introduce the applicant team, once
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 2 of 26
it's our chance to speak. I see that our planner, Mr. Eisemann, has been
admitted to the ... There we go. Thank you very much, as a panelist.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay, great. Yeah, we'll certainly give you that chance, once Miss Ding is done
with her presentation. Miss Ding, let's deal with exhibits real quick. By state law,
I'm only allowed to consider evidence that's in the record, so that everyone has
an equal opportunity to respond to it and consider it.
On page two of the staff report here, I'm going to share my screen. Let's see,
there we go. Should be the exhibit list, hopefully, I got the right one up there.
Jill Ding: Correct.
Phil Olbrechts: It's one through 13, and Miss Ding, I understand, staff usually wants to add
some exhibits to that, but 14 would be the staff PowerPoint, I'm just looking for
a pen to write this down somewhere, 15 would be Google Maps, 16 would be
the City of Renton Core Maps.
Those are available on the city's website, that shows where the critical areas are
located, and that kind of thing. Then finally, 17 would be Google aerial
photographs of the project site. Are there any objections over entry of those
documents?
If it's one through 17, if you do, go ahead and raise your virtual hand, or just
unmute yourself and say, "I object." Okay, seeing no objections, then Exhibits
one through 17 are admitted.
Miss Ding, let me swear you in. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, in this proceeding?
Jill Ding: I do.
Phil Olbrechts: All right, go ahead.
Jill Ding: Thank you, Mr. Examiner. Okay. Let's see. I will share my screen. Are you seeing
my PowerPoint?
Phil Olbrechts: Yes. Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Jill Ding: Okay. All right. Again, good morning. My name is Jill Ding. I am a senior planner,
and I am the project manager assigned to the Asdourian house remodel project.
Just a brief description of the overall proposal. The applicant is requesting two
shoreline variances, three administrative variances, as well as a shoreline
exemption for the remodel, and addition to an existing single-family residence,
that is located along the shoreline of Lake Washington.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 3 of 26
The project site is located within the R-6 Zone. It has an upland area of 2,275
square feet, and a total area, including submerged areas, of 13,503 square feet.
It is located within the shoreline residential designation of Lake Washington,
Reach D, in the city's Shoreline Master Program.
Continuing along with a brief description of the proposed variances, the
proposal includes the addition of a third story to an existing two-story
residence, as well as a 350-square-foot addition to the building footprint, which
would result in a total new living area of 3,579 square feet.
The maximum height of the proposal residence would have a 24-foot wall plate
height, and a maximum height of 30 feet to the top of the pitched roof. None of
the expansions of the footprint would encroach closer to the shoreline.
Here's a site plan. This is the shoreline, over here, this is the footprint of the
existing house, and then, these are the footprint additions here. We have one
that's about 100 square feet here. Then this area down here is also footprint
addition.
The variances that were requested include a shoreline variance to the 25-foot
setback requirements from Lake Washington, for the addition of a third story
within the shoreline setback; a shoreline variance, to increase the maximum
building coverage of 25% to 59%; a height variance to the maximum two-story
limit, for a third story; and a front and side yard setback variance to reduce the
25-foot front yard setback, to a minimum of zero feet, and to reduce the five-
foot side yard setback to 4'9", and the combined side yard setback, from 15 feet
down to 12 feet.
We issued a 30-day public comment period that began on February 21st, and
ended on March 3rd. Staff received six public comments and one comment
from the Department of Ecology. There was one public comment that had
concerns with regards to the height of the proposed structure, as it would
impact their views of Lake Washington. The other public comments were in
support of the application.
Based on the height concerns that were received, the proposal was revised to
reduce the overall height proposed, to comply with the 24-foot wall plate height
and 30-foot maximum height permitted in the R-6 Zone. The current height
variance requested is only to the maximum number of stories, it is not actually a
variance to the height limits within the R-6 Zone.
As far as an analysis of the shoreline setback, the city looked at the proposal.
The proposed third story addition would be located within the required 25-foot
shoreline setback, which is what triggered the shorelines setback variance.
There would be no expansions of the existing footprint toward Lake
Washington, so the only expansion within the footprint would be vertical, it
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 4 of 26
would not be horizontal at all, towards the lake. Staff did conclude that the
proposal would comply with these shoreline variance criteria, provided that all
conditions of approval are complied with.
Regarding the shoreline building coverage variance analysis, The proposed 350-
square-foot footprint expansion would result in a building coverage of 59%,
which exceeds the maximum 25% building coverage permitted within 100 feet
of Lake Washington.
None of that footprint expansion would extend closer to Lake Washington. And
staff did conclude that the proposed expansion would comply with the variance
criteria, provided all conditions of approval are complied with.
The picture that I have here is just to the south of the project site, and it was
just an illustration, so that you can see that most of the existing residents in this
area are not ... Exceed the 25% maximum building coverage, so what the
applicant is asking for is not at all out of character with what the existing
environment is, and that's the same thing here.
This is just to the south of the project site. These are other residences within the
R-6 Zone along the Lake Washington shoreline, and here, where you can see, in
addition to exceeding the 25% building coverage, you can also see most of them
do not comply with the required front or side yard setbacks. There are even
some like this one, where it's actually over the property line into King County
property, so there's a lot of nonconforming structures within this area.
As far as the height goes, I wanted to reiterate that the height variance
requested is only to the maximum number of stories permitted within the R-6
Zone. The R-6 Zone permits a maximum number of two stories. The height
variance requested is not a variance to the height envelope that is permitted
within the R-6 Zone, so the applicant would be permitted a height envelope of
24 feet, with a maximum height of 30 feet, for residences with pitched roofs.
Based on that, the proposal would comply with the administrative variance
criteria for the height variance, provided all conditions of approval are complied
with. And the front yard and side yard setback variants, the proposed addition
would be located within the front end side yard setbacks required in the R-6
Zone. As I mentioned, the 25-foot front yard setback is being reduced to a
minimum of zero, and the reduction in the five-foot side yard setback would be
to 4'9", and the combined side yard setback requirement would be reduced
from 15 feet to 12 feet.
Staff can now analyze the proposal, and compared it with other similarly
situated residences within this zone, and along the Lake Washington shoreline,
and concluded that the proposal would comply with the administrative variance
criteria, provided all conditions of approval are complied with. In conclusion,
staff is recommending approval of the Asdourian home remodel variances as
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 5 of 26
depicted in Exhibit Two, and we are recommending six conditions of approval.
That concludes my PowerPoint, unless there are any questions.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Yeah, normally when I do a reasonable unit use analysis, especially for
shoreline variances, I like to try to get in the sizes of adjoining homes if the
variance deals with increasing of the size. How much of a stretch of Lake
Washington Boulevard are we talking about here? About how many homes are
in the vicinity?
Jill Ding: Let's see. I had an exhibit that I included. Let's see. I did a comparison, it's
Exhibit 12.
Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay, okay.
Jill Ding: This exhibit compares all of the homes along Lake Washington. Now, this exhibit
is very rough. I did not go out and do a site survey or anything, so I went on King
County's website and used their property information, and they had photos of
many of the residences on their tax assessor data.
So that was what I used to estimate the number of stories. I've got estimated
square footages. I don't know if that includes garage area, or if it's just [crosstalk
00:14:02].
Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay.
Jill Ding: Let's see. I think there are 25 homes that are in the R-6 Zone, along Lake
Washington, in this area, in the vicinity of the project site.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay. I'm just trying to get that exhibit up on my screen. That has the square
footages of all the homes in the surrounding area, is that right?
Jill Ding: I've got the square footages, yeah.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay, okay.
Jill Ding: Then I did an average calculation, as well as a mean calculation.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay, okay. I noticed in the View Impact Analysis, that the views that were
assessed were only from the third story of houses. Is that correct?
I mean, I was just looking at the diagram. Why would you just pick the third
floor as opposed to, of course, to the lower floors, where the views are more
impacted?
Jill Ding: What happened was, the original submittal included a taller edition. The
applicant originally had a different proposal that actually included a height
variance, a variance to the building height envelope.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 6 of 26
They originally would have had a 29-foot wall plate height, with a flat roof and a
rooftop deck. Based on the information that we received, or concerns from a
neighbor up the hill, we gave the applicant an opportunity to provide a view
analysis.
Based on the results of that view analysis, we saw that there would indeed be
impacts of an increase in the height of the building envelope to uphill neighbors.
Because of that, we then reached out to the applicant, and it was agreed that
they would not ask for a variance to the height envelope, but would instead
revise their proposal to comply with the height envelope, and then include
three stories, instead of two stories.
Phil Olbrechts: Right. But, I mean, the view angles that they looked at from the adjoining
properties were taken from the third story of all those adjoining properties. It's
like, what about the impacts to the second story of those adjoining homes or
the first story?
I mean, why just pick a height that's least effected on adjoining views? It
seemed like it was a biased analysis of view impacts, in a sense, there.
Jill Ding: Yeah, I can't answer that, as to why they did only impacts from the third story. I
can just say, that based on the fact that there would be view impacts, we
recommended that they reduce the overall height of the structure.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay, okay, got you. Yeah, all right. Then also, one thing that was troubling
about this was the fact that I know the shoreline variance criteria, basically, the
bulk and density restrictions have to interfere with reasonable use of the
property.
If you look at it, if they didn't get their third story, they'd still get a home that's
over 2,000 square feet in size. I mean, isn't that still a reasonable use of
property that they're left with?
I mean, to say that the only way you can have reasonable use of property is to
have a house that's 3,500 square feet is ... That's a house that's larger than most
other homes, than the average sized home in the state of Washington. I'm
curious as to how staff conclude that these, including a third story, would
interfere with the reasonable use to the property.
Jill Ding: We looked at this a lot, and we had a lot of discussions, and square footage is
very subjective, as far as it comes to reasonable use. What we looked at is that
this property is incredibly constrained. It's got a really small upland area.
There's really nowhere to add out, and so, we felt like it was reasonable, if they
were going to add on up, we thought it was reasonable to accommodate three
stories within the maximum height envelope for the R-6 Zone. That was our
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 7 of 26
threshold for reasonable use, was that the height was not actually going above
the zoning height envelope limit of the R-6 Zone.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Also, there's been one case that's interpreted what reasonable use means
in the context of the shoreline variance criteria. It's an old case. Actually, I know
there's some criteria that were more, or rather less restrictive than the ones
that are out there now, but one of the factors cited in that case, [Beauchet
00:19:22] v. Mason County, was investment back to expectations? Was the
property bought at a discount?
Now they're trying to leverage that up through the variance process. I mean,
does staff have any information about when the property was purchased,
whether it was a purchased at a discounted price, because of the development
limitations attached to it?
Jill Ding: I don't have any information on that, no.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay, okay. All right. Yeah, yeah. That's an obscure requirement, but okay,
sounds good. Let's move on to the applicants at this point. Who wanted to
speak on behalf of the applicants, for starters?
Dean Williams: Thank you, Mr. Examiner, my name is Dean Williams.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay.
Dean Williams: I'm an attorney for the applicant, and I guess I'll be running the show, as it were.
Phil Olbrechts: Sure.
Dean Williams: I know that a few of my clients and consultants have frozen and gotten dropped
off, particularly Ryan and Ashley Asdourian, and Scott Brainard. If we could get
them back to panelists, we'd appreciate that.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Miss Cisneros, can you do that? Okay, great.
Miss Cisneros: Working on that.
Dean Williams: All right, thank you.
Speaker 5: There we go. We're back. Thank you.
Dean Williams: I'll take this opportunity to introduce the property owners, Ryan and Ashley
Asdourian. You can see them both right there in one picture. We have our
primary planner, Eric Eisemann, who has his video off right now for bandwidth
considerations, I presume.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 8 of 26
We also have Bruce Sinkey, our architect, and Scott Brainard, our wetland
consultant. I'm not sure if I see Bruce right now, he may have to be rejoining, as
well, at the moment.
Miss Cisneros: I don't see him, but if I do see him, I'll bring him in.
Dean Williams: Thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Miss Cisneros: You're welcome.
Dean Williams: Before I provide any argument in response to the Hearing Examiner's questions,
I'll ask, well, let's start with Eric Eisemann, and Mr. Hearing Examiner, would you
please swear him in?
Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay. Mr. Eisemann, just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell
the truth, and nothing but the truth, in this proceeding?
Eric Eisemann: I do.
Phil Olbrechts: All right, go ahead.
Dean Williams: Thank you. Mr. Eisemann, why don't you tell us a little bit about the
development of this proposal, where we started, how we got where we are?
Eric Eisemann: Sure, I'd be glad to. We started over a year ago with reaching out to the city
staff, Jill Ding, in particular, and we thank her for support, her help during this
project, to help us understand the written code better.
What we were looking to do is basically trying to find the minimum away that
we could expand the elevation of this building, without expanding the footprint
of the building, to provide the property owners with their needed living space, if
you will. With that, we did submit an initial application. That application we
revised, as Jill, mentioned, as a result of that view analysis.
I think the view analysis is probably not important anymore, but just as, I would
say, as an aside, that when Bruce did do the survey work, the architectural
survey work for this, he looked at not just the third floor, but he also looked at
the ground floor, and also looked the second stories, when he could get access
to the property, but a lot of the analysis was done on the ground floor, Mr.
Examiner. It may appear different, but Bruce has indicated that.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay.
Eric Eisemann: I think that what we've done is we've also communicated with the Department
of Ecology over time, and listened to their concerns, and so we've modified this
proposal, I think, significantly, in order to make it fit with, as much as we
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 9 of 26
possibly can, within the Renton Shorelines Program, and also within their
administrative code. That's essentially where we are right now.
[crosstalk 00:23:50] I guess I would also encourage everyone to take a look at
some of the photographic analysis that we provided in the narrative. I forget the
exhibit number for it, but it shows a variety of different homes along that reach
of Lake Washington, where the Asdourian house is.
They were taken from the street level and also from the waterfront. So you get
a pretty good picture of how tall these buildings are, and actually how their
stories are, and many of them are three stories, not all.
Dean Williams: Eric, is that Exhibit 13?
Eric Eisemann: I believe it is, yes. I see a building [inaudible 00:24:32].
Dean Williams: Okay, thank you. Eric, based on your experience with this project, are there
homes nearby that exceed the height of what this home will be?
Eric Eisemann: Oh, I believe so. I think that's just right along that the alleyway there, and I know
that Ryan and Ashley could testify to that as well. They've gone out and met
with the neighbors, and they've taken the photographs, and spoken with the
neighbors. So yes, there are a number of homes that are three stories tall, and
are taller than the Asdourian proposal.
Dean Williams: Okay. As to the expectations of what one might be able to do on this parcel, are
you familiar with the general building codes for this parcel, as you've been
working on it?
Eric Eisemann: I've been doing land use work in the State of Washington for almost 25 years, so
I'm very familiar with the state practices. I'm very familiar with the shorelines
codes in a number of different jurisdictions.
I admit that this was the first time I've worked on a Renton shoreline project,
but I've done them elsewhere in the state. So I would say I'm fairly familiar with
the codes.
Dean Williams: Okay. In your review of these written specific codes, is it possible to have three
stories along the shoreline in some situations?
Eric Eisemann: Well, on this particular site, it would be extremely difficult. As you look at the
site, it has a shoreline frontage on the west, and it has a shoreline frontage on
the north, which is unusual along this reach of Lake Washington.
That pushes that 25-foot ordinary high-water setback into the property in a very
significant manner, so the opportunity for expanding this property is very
limited. I think Bruce calculated that about at 532 square feet, roughly.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 10 of 26
I think that's similar with the rest of these homes along the waterfront here,
because this Garden of Eden, Plat Number Two, which is an ancient plat, but the
original lots were 20 feet wide, and they extend all the way out into Lake
Washington.
A number of properties have consolidated those ancient lots into two by two,
three, four, five. The ones to the north and ones to the south are four and five
plats are lots combined together into one lot. Some other homes in the area
have taken advantage of combining lots into a bigger footprint or a buildable
area than this one does, so this one's pretty unusual.
Dean Williams: Okay. Eric, do you have anything you'd like to add, in light of the questions
we've heard today, or testimony from staff?
Eric Eisemann: Yeah, I would just say one other thing, and that's in response to the reasonable
use question. I understand the concept, and understand the question, but I
would also argue, as I think that we put into our narrative, that reasonable use
also includes an expectation to use your property similarly to other similarly
situated people. If other properties along the lake shore here are taking
advantage of an increased story, which some are, then I would say that that's a
reasonable expectation, a reasonable use expectation.
Dean Williams: All right, thank you. I think Bruce Sinkey is online here somewhere, I'm not sure
exactly which one of these is him. Bruce, can you hear me? If so, please unmute.
Miss Cisneros: I don't see that there's a Bruce in here. I do see Admin, but that's about it.
Dean Williams: Okay. I'll ask Scott, then, to speak a little to his review of the ecological
considerations. Mr. Examiner, could you please swear him in?
Phil Olbrechts: Uh-huh (affirmative). All right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, and
nothing but the truth, in this proceeding?
Scott Brainard: I do.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Go ahead.
Scott Brainard: I'm Scott Brainard, Principal Ecologist at Wetland Resources. Address is 9505
19th Avenue Southeast, Suite 106, Everett, Washington, 98208. As part of
evaluating the site, I flagged the ordinary high-water mark of the lake
surrounding the property, and I believe, as Eric indicated, it's a fairly unique
situation, in that the ordinary high-water mark is not just on one of the property
boundaries, it's on the west boundary, and the north boundary, thus extending
the setback well into the property from two sides, not just one side. That was a
big part of the consideration.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 11 of 26
Then, evaluating the overall vegetative condition of the site, the site is virtually
entirely existing building, and/or decking, and/or impervious surfaces, so there's
essentially no shoreline ecological function that's currently occurring for this
particular property. That was a big part of what we evaluated in the lake study,
was to determine what, if any impact to future development or the
redevelopment of the site would have on the shoreline ecological function. The
gist of it is that by adding additional story, and remodeling the existing
structure, there would be no net loss of shoreline ecological function.
Dean Williams: Thank you, Mr. Brainard. Mr. Hearing Examiner, do you have any questions for
him?
Phil Olbrechts: No.
Dean Williams: I think we have Mr. Sinkey online now. Would you please unmute Mr. Sinkey?
Phil Olbrechts: All right, Mr. Sinkey, just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, nothing but the truth, in this proceeding?
Bruce Sinkey: I do.
Phil Olbrechts: For the record, how do you spell sour last name?
Bruce Sinkey: Sinkey, S as in Sam, I-N-K-E-Y.
Phil Olbrechts: Oh, great. Thank you.
Bruce Sinkey: You got it.
Dean Williams: Bruce, why don't you tell us a little bit about how you've revised this project as
time's gone on?
Bruce Sinkey: I didn't hear that last part you said.
Dean Williams: Could you tell us a little bit about your work on this project, and how it's been
revised?
Bruce Sinkey: Yes. Originally, we had a full three stories, and then, when the city came back,
we revised it to be within the envelope of a 24-foot plate line, and then, the 30-
foot ridge, and we've been over to accomplish that.
It does have a third floor. The walls are in, a little bit as far as ceiling heights, but
we were able to accomplish that. We've also pulled the deck back from the west
side by about 15 feet, so I think we're definitely within the envelope as directed
by Renton.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 12 of 26
Dean Williams: Thank you. Would you say that this project was particularly challenging, in light
of the size of the parcel, and it's a total upland area?
Bruce Sinkey: Yes, because there isn't any property, really, to work with. The only way we
could go is a little bit get towards the east, and then, not very far. We had to
stagger the face of the building to ... The property line is at a diagonal. Then, of
course, we've tried to capture a little more square footage for them on a third
floor, and so we were adjusting ceiling heights from the original, also.
Dean Williams: Okay. Is it your understanding of code right now that, whether it was two
stories or three stories, that the Asdourians would be able to build a home at
the same height as they're proposing to do so now?
Bruce Sinkey: Yes. My understanding of reading the Renton design standards, yes.
Dean Williams: Okay. As far as height goes, it's your understanding that they're not exceeding
any applicable thresholds vertically?
Bruce Sinkey: Correct.
Dean Williams: Okay.
Bruce Sinkey: Of course, we've had it surveyed in depth. Actually, they went out there a
couple times, so we were very accurate with our design at this point, with the
footings, and also, the heights.
Dean Williams: Okay. Thank you very much. Does the home currently have a garage?
Bruce Sinkey: No.
Dean Williams: Okay. How did you design the garage to minimize that impact?
Bruce Sinkey: We've captured some of this square footage of the existing livable, and then
again, because of the diagonal property line on the east side, we were able to
get a garage stall on the right, or on the north side. Then we also got a smaller
one on the south.
Dean Williams: Are those garages pretty small, from your experience, as compared to other
new homes?
Bruce Sinkey: Yes. Typically, we would try to get them a little bit bigger, but we've done
everything we can at this point.
Dean Williams: Are the garages proposed completely within the property lines?
Bruce Sinkey: Yes.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 13 of 26
Dean Williams: Are you familiar with nearby properties, and where their garages are, in relation
to the property lines?
Bruce Sinkey: At some level, mostly from looking at the existing properties from the
information that we have.
Dean Williams: What did you learn from looking at those other properties?
Bruce Sinkey: I think the garages vary, some are larger and some are smaller. There's quite an
array of garages along there. They're all really tight to the street, essentially, as
far as I could tell.
Dean Williams: Are there some that are right on the property line, or maybe even over the
property line?
Bruce Sinkey: I wouldn't be able to speak to that. I did not survey any of that.
Dean Williams: Thank you. Fair enough. Are there any other comments you'd like to make,
based on what you've heard today, the view analysis questions, et cetera?
Bruce Sinkey: No. Again, I think Eric spoke to the new analysis, but it wasn't just from the third
story. We actually tried to work from as though you were standing on the first
floor of any one house. Of course, we couldn't access the homes, so we had to
guesstimate some of that, but most of that was done from the ground.
Dean Williams: Okay. Do you have the exhibits in front of you?
Bruce Sinkey: The exhibits for the new settings, or ...
Dean Williams: Yeah, Exhibit 11, in particular.
Bruce Sinkey: Ooh. I do not.
Dean Williams: Would you mind pulling them up?
Bruce Sinkey: It'd just take me a minute.
Jill Ding: I can get it, and share my screen.
Phil Olbrechts: Thank you. Thanks, Jill.
Jill Ding: I've got the exhibits right here.
Dean Williams: Thank you. Can we do Exhibit 11, page 18?
Jill Ding: Yup, I'm happy to do that.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 14 of 26
(silence)
Are you seeing it?
Dean Williams: Yes, thank you.
Bruce Sinkey: Thank you, Jill.
Dean Williams: Bruce, is this what you're referring to?
Bruce Sinkey: Yes.
Dean Williams: As far as looking at ground level, what might the impact be?
Bruce Sinkey: Yes.
Dean Williams: Okay.
Bruce Sinkey: This one, we were actually standing on the ground at this one. The first floor
was higher than what we were able to access, so we did this one from the
ground.
Dean Williams: Okay. Would you say that the depiction here would be more egregious than
what we're actually proposing to build now?
Bruce Sinkey: Yes. Well, yes. The upper photo, we tried to illustrate the potential blockage of
view on that upper photo, so that height was taller, it was around 30. From my
recollection, it was about 35 or 36 feet.
Dean Williams: Okay. Are there any other comments that you would like to make?
Bruce Sinkey: No. Not unless you have additional questions.
Dean Williams: Not right now. Thank you, Bruce. With that, I'll introduce the homeowners, Ryan
and Ashley Asdourian.
Phil Olbrechts: Actually, Mr. Williams. I had a couple questions of Mr. Sinkey on this, and let me
share my screen, if I can. Let's see. Oh, here we go.
Mr. Sinkey, this goes back to the issue of the view analysis, and all the line of
site diagrams I could find were based from the top stories of homes. This is page
16, or excuse me, 19, 22. See, every single one of them is from the top there -
Bruce Sinkey: Right, I see what you're talking about.
Phil Olbrechts: ... So I couldn't quite figure out why that was done.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 15 of 26
Bruce Sinkey: I see what you're talking about now.
Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, yeah.
Bruce Sinkey: The building on the right, and even the building below were the best we could
do, they were more diagrammatic. We were coordinated with the surveyor, and
the information they gave us, but they were trying to be from ... The first floor
was the direction. I would say that it's more of a diagrammatic image, the best
we could do, without ...
Phil Olbrechts: Okay, because it did seem if you took your point of origin from the neighboring
property on the lower floor, that there would be some obstruction. I'm just
trying to make sure I understand these diagrams correctly, but ...
Bruce Sinkey: Right. Well, and I think we show that there is some obstruction. If you go back
to that one that we were just looking at in the yellow, in fact, back down, just
where it goes out into the water, right there?
Phil Olbrechts: Yeah.
Bruce Sinkey: That yellow is obstruction of view.
Phil Olbrechts: Oh, I see. Okay.
Bruce Sinkey: I'm sorry that was not clear.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Well, I just wanted to make sure I understood that.
Bruce Sinkey: Yeah, I know. You actually are looking down, from those locations down, in a
downward view, but there was ... All those yellow represent obstruction of
view.
Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay. Got you. Thank you.
Bruce Sinkey: Yes.
Phil Olbrechts: All right. That's all I had. Thank you very much.
Dean Williams: I'll do a little bit of redirect, if that's okay. Bruce, that view analysis refers to the
prior configuration of the home, correct?
Bruce Sinkey: Correct.
Dean Williams: The current proposal, going up to 30 feet, would be allowed within code, is that
correct?
Bruce Sinkey: Yes. My understanding, from the information we got from Renton.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 16 of 26
Dean Williams: Okay. That's it. Please swear in Ryan and Ashley.
Phil Olbrechts: Oh, okay. Just raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth,
nothing about the truth in this proceeding?
Ryan Asdourian: Yeah.
Ashley Asdouria...: Mm-hmm (affirmative).
Phil Olbrechts: Okay, great, go ahead.
Ryan Asdourian: All right. Hi, everyone. Thank you for the opportunity here. I'm Ryan. This is my
wife, Ashley.
Ashley Asdouria...: Hi.
Ryan Asdourian: We are a family of four. We also have two children, ages two and four. First, I
just want to say a big thank you, not only for the opportunity, but to our team
on our side, also, to Jill, who has coached us through this, for about a year and a
half, and to Maria, who has helped us on the Department of Ecology side to
really make sure we're doing everything right, as best we can. So thank you for
the guidance.
To your question about when this was purchased, and the reason, that was
slightly when we had cut out for a second, I just thought I would add, we bought
this in June of 2018. It's not bought as an investment property.
We bought this when we had one child, we now have two children, and we are
looking forward to making some very long term home. We don't have any plans
to sell it, this is for our use. So I just wanted to clarify that, and when we bought
it, per your question.
As that actually goes into your reasonable use comment, the one thing I wanted
to share on that front, that hasn't been shared already, based on other
neighbors and similar footprint houses in the area, is that both of us are working
individuals. We both work full-time jobs from home, with children, as well. We
are often looking for the different areas. We're currently coming to you from
our bedroom, which is where my wife works.
I think we plan, especially in this hybrid world of work, to continue seeing
ourselves working from our home for the foreseeable future, and we know that
the world is changing in that respect. We think about that as we've thought
about the design for what we would need for reasonable use as well.
I know we had a number of conversations on the height. We have taken the
feedback from Jill, and Maria, as well, to make sure that we are complying with
the zones. We have taken our original design, brought that down.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 17 of 26
We have also, if you will have noted in some of the pictures, we're not even
looking for the full third story. Part of that would still be an outdoor deck area,
to reduce the footprint, and make sure we're only building for what we need, or
for what we believe we need. So we're looking to minimize in every place.
We're also taking into effect the part that is on the water side, that is the part
that was deck, which should help with the view analysis even more, than the
reduced from 35 feet to 30 feet, and that it doesn't go out as far into the water.
So, two things that are reducing or increasing the viewability, in line with what
we've been asked for to do there.
You'll also notice, in the front, I think Jill showed this directly, that some of the
neighbors have built their garages over the property line. We have a reduced
property line versus all of our neighbors, minus four of us. We're still staying
within all of the property lines, and staggering our garage, to make sure that we
have no violations of that.
We've looked to really comply with every regulation, and even looking ... I know
some of our neighbors' houses were built before new shoreline regulations, but
it's worth calling out that even with the addition that we are proposing, we will
still be a lower height than many of our neighbors along our own lane, and
especially around the Renton area, including Ripley Lane, where there are a
number of three-story houses and even one that is a little bit larger, that we've
found on Zillow, advertised as a four-story property.
Look, we love the city of Renton. We see this as a long term home. We're
grateful for all the guidance we have gotten along this journey, to comply with
every regulation. That is our intent, that is why we're here. I just want to say
thank you again for all of the guidance to get us here, and thank you for all of
your consideration.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right, Mr. Williams, your next witness.
Dean Williams: I have a few questions-
Phil Olbrechts: Okay.
Dean Williams: ... For the Asdourians. Ryan, would you say, if not a financial investment, that
this home is an investment in your family?
Ryan Asdourian: This is absolutely an investment in our family. It was a stretch for us to purchase
it, and we did it because we wanted to be here for the long term. Our family has
been growing since we have moved in, and this is a place that we look to grow
our family. It is absolutely an investment in our family.
Dean Williams: Okay. Just from your experience, what do you see as the practical ... When was
your current home built?
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 18 of 26
Ryan Asdourian: Our current home was built, I want to say, I'd have to check the exact date, but I
believe it was the '60s. I'm sorry. I don't have that right in front of me.
Dean Williams: Would you say that it was older than 1980?
Ryan Asdourian: Yes.
Ashley Asdouria...: Yes.
Dean Williams: What would you say are some of the practical differences between living in a
single-family home in 1980, in this area and now?
Ryan Asdourian: Great question. It looks like it may have been 1971, I'm just looking that up. The
practical differences, I probably can't speak to all of them, but I know that
technology companies probably didn't even exist at the time, for the most part,
and both Ashley and I have made our living, working in the technology sector,
and something that has really forced us in many ways to work from home. I
think that there's probably too many differences to count between 1971 and
2021, but I believe it is a different era.
Dean Williams: Okay. I'd like us to pull up Exhibit 13, if we could, and I'm trying to figure out
exactly which page. Page 12.
Ryan Asdourian: I see it on my screen.
Dean Williams: Oh, and actually, page 11's better for my purposes, I think. Apologies. Are we
looking at a map here that shows your parcel?
Ryan Asdourian: Correct. You can see it's in the recessed property line. It's the one that is to the
north there.
Dean Williams: Can you describe for us what you were referencing, when you said it's different
than a lot of the other parcels?
Ryan Asdourian: Yeah. I've looked up and down all of the different rents and properties. One of
the things that I'll also say, when we first bought it, we didn't understand that
this would make such a difference in this, is that we have water wrapping
around the north side of our house.
The next house, one to the north of us, is set back a bit because of that, also
very close to the water, but we have water that is essentially on two sides of the
house, which has ... Well, we've learned through this process, created more
areas where we need to be really focused and compliant.
I think that's the guidance that really Jill and Maria were extremely helpful, in
making sure that our proposal met this, where it had two sides of water. I was
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 19 of 26
personally only able to find one other house in the City of Renton shoreline that
had this, which is a bit south of us, towards Gene Coulon Park.
Dean Williams: Okay. Is there anything else?
Ryan Asdourian: The other difference is, and you'll see this, north and south, there is a former
railroad that is now a walking path. You'll notice the green line in about the
center of the screen, where you'll see that ... And you can actually go all the way
up and all the way down.
There are only four houses, one of which, we are one of the four, where the
property line is moved further to the west than every other property. I don't
know the regulations or why that was, particularly, but it's worth noting our
property proposal stays within our recessed property line.
It's also good to know that in this area, there is a gate that is directly to the
north of us. There are actually two gates for the four houses north of us that
they've blocked off for private property, where that arrow is. So we are
essentially at the very end of our lane. We have very little traffic. All of it is
lower than the walking path there.
You have basically raised elevation for the walking path, further raised elevation
for the street, and then further elevation raised for where the houses are, that
are next, as you look to the east, on that image. But we are at the very end of a
lane, and get very little traffic, outside of ourselves, and a few Amazon
deliveries.
Dean Williams: Okay. Do you know about how many feet that difference is?
Ryan Asdourian: It is, I believe, about ... Wait a minute. I want to say it is approximately five to six
feet.
Dean Williams: Okay.
Ashley Asdouria...: All right. [crosstalk 00:53:15].
Ryan Asdourian: Sorry, I'm pulling it up.
Ashley Asdouria...: No, you mean how much shorter is our lot?
Dean Williams: Yes.
Ashley Asdouria...: Yeah, and it's 25.
Ryan Asdourian: 25 feet. Yeah, sorry. For the difference, they are 25 feet, it looks like.
Dean Williams: Do you know what that corridor is?
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 20 of 26
Ryan Asdourian: Sorry. What do you mean by corridor?
Dean Williams: The area where those other properties extend further east than yours?
Ryan Asdourian: Oh, it is simply the street. It is all street. Most of the houses are built onto it.
Our house is significantly further back, including in the proposal, but all of it is
just basically a one-lane road that is wider or shorter in different areas.
Yeah, and then to the east, there is plant vegetation, trees, rocks, but it is all
built on for all the other properties.
Dean Williams: Okay. Is there anything else that-
Ryan Asdourian: Yeah. Sorry.
Dean Williams: ... Is there anything else you'd like to add today?
Ryan Asdourian: In the exhibits, we have taken photos up and down the lane, that shows all of
the houses, or I should say, most of the houses, all extending out into that area,
and in some cases, even further. I think that plays into how we have thought
about reasonable use, even though we are not asking to extend into the same
areas that our neighbors have the liberty to do.
I think Jill mentioned this at the beginning, but we have had tremendous
support from our entire lane of neighbors, with a number of them commenting
publicly on the proposal. We have great neighbors. They've all been supportive
of our kids. It's a great area, and it just speaks volumes to why we're excited to
have this as a long term home for us.
Dean Williams: Thank you. With that, Mr. Examiner, I'll provide a little bit of closing argument,
and then of course, open it up for comment.
We have here a parcel with an upland area of just 2,275 square feet. In all of my
experience building homes along shorelines across Washington State, I've never
seen a parcel with that little space of land to work with. There's 568 square feet
that does not fall within one of the applicable buffers.
This parcel also doesn't meet the minimum widths for lots in the zone. That
doesn't mean that by expecting to build a home on this property, they are
expecting too much. The property is zoned for that, this is not a situation where
they've bought, they've purchased a property that was clearly not allowed to be
built upon, and now they're asking to do it anyway.
It also has no garage, and having a garage is a normal apartment, it's under
code, it's accepted, it's something that you are allowed to have. So this is
entirely where the new 350 square feet of building footprint on the ground is
coming from.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 21 of 26
Aside from what they're doing above that, which they are keeping within what
code allows for height maximums. They've done everything they can to keep
that impact to upland residents' views, et cetera, down to what they would be
allowed to do anyways, certainly within that 568-square-foot area, without
needing any sort of variance.
That is why we do believe that we are doing the minimum necessary to qualify
for this variance. As you acknowledged, there's a home on the property now,
and it raises the question, why is that not reasonable use? Well, that home was
built in 1971, and we believe it is unreasonable to compare life in 1971 to life
now.
The simple fact is that it costs significantly more to buy property these days. you
are expected to do much more in your home. If you don't leave every day to go
to work for eight, nine hours, and then return at the end of the day, you eat
dinner and go to sleep. Even pre-pandemic, that was true. People work from
home more often.
We have multi-generational households now, because our parents can't afford
to maintain their own property taxes, when they were living in [inaudible
00:58:44]. They moved out, so that they could have a little bit cheaper property,
but still visit the grandkids, but now they even get priced out there, so they're
moving to Eastern Washington. So they move into the home instead.
We're expected to have office space. I mean, I can go on. Daycares have year-
long lists, in order to just get in for your new children. So don't think that we are
asking for something here that is out of the ordinary, these days. As we've said
time and again, they've already peeled back several times as to what they're
proposing to do here, keeping it under that maximum height. They could have
two stories with large ceilings, which would at least make it feel larger.
If we can be creative, if we can take advantage of Mr. Sinkey's incredible
architectural design skills, and fit those three within that height, we don't
believe it is harming any of our neighbors, upland or otherwise, and we believe
we are meeting the intentions of code. With that, thank you very much for the
opportunity.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay.
Dean Williams: We look forward to [inaudible 01:00:08].
Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, quick question for you. A lot of the assessment of whether this is a
reasonable use of the property or not is based on some surrounding
nonconforming uses. I mean, there is a court opinion that says, as a general
matter, when assessing variance requests, you shouldn't consider
nonconforming structures and uses.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 22 of 26
The reason being that, for example, if City Council says, "Okay, we have too
many homes in the community that are 40 feet high, so we're going to reduce
the maximum height limit to 30 feet." Obviously, that objective will be
undermined, and then everyone just files for a variance after that saying, "Well,
there's all these 40-foot homes, so we should get a 40-foot home too."
I mean, if the Council's objective was to stop having these taller homes, people
shouldn't be able to circumvent that by pointing out that there are still taller
homes in the community. That was a 1978 case, Ling v. Whatcom County Board
of Adjustment, and it was related to the special circumstances criterion for
variances, but that seems equally compelling, and a reasonable use analysis as
well.
There was a later case, [Sherwin 01:01:16] versus Grant County, in '85,
distinguishing on the basis that, in that particular case, they were looking at
nonconforming uses that were unique to the area in which the project was
proposed. In other words, in that particular pocket of development of that
neighborhood, there was this common theme of nonconforming use. I can't
remember what the factor was, but all the homes were taller, let's say, than was
normal across the city.
Based on those line of cases, what's your response to that? Also, do you know
whether the degree of nonconformity along this bit of shoreline is unique
overall? In other words, that the homes in this part of the city of Renton tend to
be taller than other parts of shoreline in the city of Renton?
Dean Williams: Well-
Phil Olbrechts: That's a lot to throw at you, but if you haven't seen it before, but ...
Dean Williams: ... No, thank you very much. Yes. I've certainly spent a lot of time researching
those decisions that you're talking about.
Phil Olbrechts: Oh, good. Okay.
Dean Williams: I would first like to point out that I didn't refer to any of the other homes along
the shoreline in my argument. I recognized that it is something that we want to
talk about. My project team has mentioned, time and time and again, but that
does directly refer to one of the criteria, which is whether it's compatible with
surrounding uses.
I think that's why it's been discussed, but there are some other factors why I
understand if your point is that, what the other homes are doing, doesn't relate
to all the factors. and that's not what we're relying on. I think we're relying on,
"Well, what's reasonable use for this parcel? And what are the objective
expectations for this parcel?"
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 23 of 26
The truth is that the R-6 zoning standards were not designed for this parcel.
Because this parcel isn't wide enough, is bound on two sides by water, and I
would argue, no zoning standards that I have ever seen, have been intended to
accommodate someone being bound on two sides by water, in addition to only
2,275 square feet of land.
This is a very unique parcel, and that is what our arguments are based on, this
parcel. Especially with regard to those other variance considerations that have
to do with yes, more of that objective standard, versus comparison to your
neighbors. Objectively, we believe that what we are proposing is quite
reasonable, given all the factors that we have discussed.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Second question deals with the two-story requirement. It sounds like the
position being taken is, since this complies with the maximum height
requirement, that therefore you don't have to look at the impacts of exceeding
two stories.
But isn't the two-story requirement in itself its own height requirement? I mean,
basically, the height standard for single-family homes is the lesser of two
stories, or that 30-foot, I think it was the height standard. And if you're going to
vary from that, aren't you required by the variance criteria to consider the
impacts, which would then trigger the view analysis that you did, and that kind
of thing?
Because I hear the city at least saying that the view analysis is no longer
relevant, because they're complying with the 30-foot height standard. But
they're not complying with the two-story standard, and that's still a height
standard, in my view, and therefore, you do need to look at view impacts on
adjoining properties.
Dean Williams: Thank you. Yes, it is. As I said, we think we're meeting the intent of the
regulations. The truth is that you can have three stories on these properties, if
the bottom floor is a daylight basement. But again, going back to the unique
characteristics of this property, the fact that we have shoreline on two sides, we
simply don't have that consistent slope from one side of the property to the
other, making a daylight basement even feasible for this property, where it is, as
it may be feasible for a lot of the properties to the north or south.
I think we go back to, "Well, what do the regulations allow for property?" And
thus, what is reasonable to expect, when you see your property is zoned R-6?
Well, here, we're being undercut by the fact that this property is so unique, and
and there is water on two sides.
Now, digging into your question a little bit more, the simple truth is that we
could go up to 30 feet with two stories. If we are not allowed to have, based on
Mr. Sinkey's excellent design skills, that third story, then I would imagine that
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 24 of 26
my client would still want to seek that two stories, a little bit higher ceilings, just
to make it feel a little bit bigger.
That is pretty common these days, it's an architectural consideration. What
we're saying is that if we can make it work, then why not make it work,
essentially, when we could otherwise be making that impact without any sort of
variance another way?
Phil Olbrechts: Yeah. All right. Thank you.
Dean Williams: [crosstalk 01:06:51], yeah.
Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, great answer. All right. Let's move on to public comments at this point,
then. And Miss Cisneros, do you want to explain to the public how they can
participate at this point?
Miss Cisneros: Yes, there are some instructions on the screen. If you are wanting to participate
in the hearing, you'll be called on by that name that's visible in the window, but
you'll be prompted to unmute yourself when called upon, and you'll be sworn in
first.
There's a raised hand button, like you see here on the screen, that you want to
click on. If you are joined by phone, press in star nine to raise your hand. When
you're called upon, the host will allow you to participate in the meeting. And to
unmute yourself, that would be, dial star six.
Phil Olbrechts: Miss Cisneros, from my vantage point, if they hit the star nine, will I see a raised
hand, then, in the-
Miss Cisneros: Yes, you will.
Phil Olbrechts: ... Okay, good. Checking over the attendee panel, I don't see any raised hands,
and checking the panelist panel, just to double ... I don't see any raised hands,
either.
All right. If any of you are trying to let us know you want to participate, and for
some reason to due to technical issues, you can't ...
Miss Cisneros, you've got your ... There we go. She's got her phone number
there in the back. Just give her a call 425-430-6583, or send her a quick e-mail at
jcisneros@rentonwa.gov.
All right, so seeing no takers for public comment, then, and I will say I've already
read all the letters that were submitted, and it is certainly ... It's unusual to see
so many people in favor of a neighborhood variance.
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 25 of 26
I guess the applicants are really well liked in their neighborhood. That's great to
see. Let's move on back to Miss Ding. Any rebuttal comments at this point?
Jill Ding: The only thing I would like to add regarding the discussion of three stories
versus two, and with regards to height impacts, is that as the applicant noted,
their property is below the elevation of Lake Washington Boulevard, which is
the public street. So, from the public realm perspective, the three stories versus
two isn't going to have as much of an impact, because the property is lower
than the public right-of-way, abutting the project site.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay, and Miss Ding, maybe you can answer the question I had posed before. In
terms of the amount of nonconforming buildings that you see along the
shoreline here, is that pretty unique to this stretch of the shoreline? Or do you
see that a lot on Renton shorelines throughout the city?
Jill Ding: When I was looking at this variance, I specifically focused on R-6 zoned
properties, because I was looking at comparing the proposal to similarly zoned
properties along Lake Washington. It's a pretty narrow area. It's pretty much
along this area.
There are other situations, there are other properties that are zoned R-8, or
they have different zoning designations, and the issues are different. For the
analysis pertinent to this review, I specifically focused on properties along the
lake in the R-6 zone, because they're similarly zoned, they have similar
standards.
Phil Olbrechts: All right.
Jill Ding: That was primarily what I was focused on.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay, but in terms of the R-6 zoning on the shoreline, then, I mean, was this,
compared to other R-6 zoning, is a little different here, because of the number
of nonconforming buildings? I mean, did you look at that at all? You probably
weren't looking at that issue, but ...
Jill Ding: I'm not sure I understand the question.
Phil Olbrechts: Well, in terms of the case law I was citing, that basically said you can't rely upon
surrounding nonconforming uses to-
Jill Ding: Right.
Phil Olbrechts: ... Supply your variance request, unless, in that particular specific area,
neighborhood, there are more of those types of nonconforming uses than in
other parts of the city. What I'm asking you, you said you just looked at R-6
zoned properties. I'm assuming there are other R-6 pockets of shoreline
Asdourian Remodel
Transcript by Rev.com
Page 26 of 26
development, and is this area we're looking at, does it have more
nonconforming uses than those other R-6 zoned shorelines?
Jill Ding: The reason for the comparison with the surrounding properties was looking at
compatibility-
Phil Olbrechts: Right.
Jill Ding: ... With the neighborhood, so that was what brought in that analysis. What I
noticed here is I think a lot of the upland areas of the lots, and I don't even think
it's limited here. I think it's along the shoreline, period.
The upland area, I think a lot of the lots are substandard, particularly in depth of
lot, as well as the lot size. That's just my experience, based on the shoreline
work that I've done along the Lake Washington. Is that kind of ...
Phil Olbrechts: Yeah, yeah. No, that's good, that's good. Thank you. I appreciate your
comments. Is that it from the city, then? Anything else?
Jill Ding: That's all I have.
Phil Olbrechts: Okay. Fantastic. All right. Let's move, on Mr. Williams. You have final say, if you
want to make any final comments?
Dean Williams: No, thank you very much. I think we'll rest on ...
Phil Olbrechts: Okay, perfect. Yeah, well, okay, I'll go ahead and close the hearing, and have a
lot of information to look at here. And I think, applicants, you are well served by
your attorney. I think in this case, you really needed to have someone well
prepared to deal with ... There's a few complex legal issues involved here.
I've done a lot of variance applications in particular shoreline variances, in the
several decades I've been doing this, so I'm very familiar with all the case law.
I'm glad that Mr. Williams was, too, so that he could respond to all my questions
off the fly. That's really helpful.
I think I'm pretty sure there's going to be a positive outcome here, but I just got
to look at this in depth, especially the narrative that the applicants wrote. I
overlooked that particular exhibit, so I'm going to go back and read that very
closely, and we'll get that decision out within the next 10 days.
Again, thank you for all the great preparation, and all the work. It was all
needed. I think it will make a difference in this case, and you'll get that that
decision soon. Thanks again. We're adjourned for today.