Loading...
2007-07-19 Hearing Examiner MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING EXAMINER HEARING File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2007 Ms. Rice: If you haven't already; and you would like a copy of the decision, make sure you've signed at the sign in sheet. Great. Good afternoon, thanks everyone for being here. My name is Sharon Rice, I'm a member of the firm, Cole, Rice, Taylor. Our firm has been appointed by the Edmonds City Council to provide land use hearing examiner services for land use applications and appeals in the City. As a presiding official today, I have jurisdiction to hear and decide the matter on today's agenda pursuant to the City's code and State statutes. Ms. Rice: Before we begin, I just want to go over some procedures to make sure we all understand our mutual rights and responsibilities, myself included. First, the number one thing to remember in all land use applications is that the applicant bears the burden of proof. And this is a legal term that means it is the applicant's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the application satisfies the criteria for approval under City code. And today, we are hearing a variance application, and those criteria are in the Edmonds Community Development at Chapter 20.85. We'll go over those in detail in the course of the hearing. Ms. Rice: The second thing to remember is that as examiner, I am limited in my findings to the universe of evidence that's offered into the record. I literally can't go outside the record to rely on any facts or evidence at all. And my conclusions and decisions and decision have to flow from my findings, and that means that all evidence I can rely on has to be offered before the record closes. Typically, the record closes at the end of the hearing, and I expect that to happen today. So if there's something that's not here that you think I need, you need to bring it to my attention before I close the hearing today. That's important because, generally, no new evidence is admitted on appeal, at any level. Just keep that in mind. Ms. Rice: Another important thing to know is that I will not issue a decision in this matter today. State law and City code require my decision to be issued in writing. It's going to be issued in the format called findings of fact and conclusions of law; it's very orderly and detailed. And by reading the document you will be able to see what facts I believe are relevant to the application, what facts I believe lead to the conclusions that are necessary by applying those facts to the criteria, and my decision should make sense following that format. By City code, I have 10 working days after close of the record to issue that decision. So if the record closes today, you can expect a decision on August 2nd. If it doesn't close today, it will close 10 days after the close of the record, I'm sorry. The decision will be issued 10 days after the close of the record, whatever date that is. Ms. Rice: And today, as far as order of presentation, I will hear from the City staff first, and they will present their analysis of whether or not the application satisfies criteria for approval. After that, we will hear from the applicant, again, who has the burden, and the applicant will have an opportunity to correct, amend, contradict, suggest, agree, with anything that's been said by the City. After that, we will hear from members of the public. Everyone whose here will have a chance to testify if they wish, so please keep in mind your turn is coming. And please do afford the current speaker the same courtesy you wish to be afforded when it is your turn. Ms. Rice: Also, testimony at land use hearings is given under oath, and so at this time I'm going to administer a group oath. This is for the purpose of enhancing the credibility of the record, you know, anybody whose thinking about sitting, this will scare you into telling the truth. If at this time you would please raise your right hand if you intend to testify. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony given here today will be true? If so, say I do. Thank you very much, and the record will reflect that they are all under oath. Ms. Rice: Okay, are there any questions on the procedures I have laid out? Pretty standard stuff. I will now call to order the public land use hearing on File Number V-2006-102, which is the application of Christopher Thayer on behalf of Dr. Randy Bogart, for variances to reduce the required north side setback for a house from 10 to 8 feet. And the required north, hum, that this says, but I know we're talking about north and south side setbacks. So one from 10 to 8 and one from 10 to 5. Oh, there it is, and also one from 10 to 8, the south setback. And also to allow the 30-inch ease encroachment that is standard and to the setbacks as reduced. Property located at 18600 Sound View Place in Edmonds. That parcel is zoned single-family residential RS-12. We have an applicant representative. If I could at this point have the applicant representative and applicant introduce themselves, and then the staff introduce themselves, and then we'll clarify who this other person is sitting over here. Mr. Thayer: My name is Chris Thayer. I'm here on behalf of Dr. Bogart. Ms. Rice: I'm sorry. Thank you for standing, but if could have you seated and speak into the microphone because we are recording everything today. Mr. Rising: My name is Steve Rising. I'm the Bogart's architect for the proposed project. Ms. Rice: You're all together? Yeah. You're not some stranger who's just moved up to the front of the room. And for the City we have... Ms. Coccia: I'm Gina Coccia, I'm a planner in the Planning Division. Ms. Rice: Great. Ms. Taylor: Kathleen Taylor, associated planner. Ms. Rice: Okay. I think just before we start, I want to make note that in advance of the hearing I was given a packet of information. It involves a staff report dated July 12, 2007. Attached to the staff report are 8 attachments. Those include a staff report from a previous hearing on a similar or related application dated 9/15/2006, and then various revised statements from the applicant, revised site plans, some site sections, upper and lower floor plans, neighbor's proposed site plan regarding the application BLD-2007-0699, and affidavit of posting, and also some comment letters. Those are attached to the existing staff report, numbered 1 through 8. In advance of the hearing, Ms. Coccia offered additional letters. Did you say there are three? Ms. Coccia: That's correct. Ms Rice: So what I'm going to do with those letters, I'm going to introduce them by names. Everything else is listed by name in the staff report on Page 7, but right now, I have three new letters, and I will number them. Exhibit 1, Attachment 9, will be the July 13' letter from Neil and Jeannie Robblee. Exhibit 1, Attachment 10, will be a letter from Triad Law Group signed by Charles Greenberg and dated July 17t''. And Attachment 11 to Exhibit 1 will be a letter dated July 17' from Vicky Haynes, and it has also attached to it a letter dated September 13, 2006 and another letter dated September 20, 2006. All of those will be Attachment 11 to the staff report, which is Exhibit 1. Before we go any further, are there any objections from the parties to anything that's been offered as exhibits? Mr. Thayer: I know I've never seen them before. Ms. Rice: Okay, do we have copies for the applicant? Ms. Coccia: Sure there's one copy available right now, and she just handed to me 10 minutes ago. Ms. Rice: If you have additional copies, we should provide one to the applicant. And actually, just for the general rule, when you come to hearings, try to bring three copies of everything because there's one for the official record, one for the examiner to mark up and then one for the other party. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Ms Haynes: Excuse me, I made three copies, and I have some additional ones if that would be helpful. Ms. Rice: Okay, so we have ... The applicant has a copy, and the examiner has a copy, and does City staff have copy. Ms. Coccia: Yes. Ms. Rice: So you've got them all. You, in fact, brought extras. Excellent. Well, if you'd like, you can pass your letter around or you can put it over there by the sign in sheet as people can read it as well. Is that the Haynes letter? Ms. Coccia: Yes. Ms. Rice: Okay great. So that's Attachment 11 to Exhibit 1. Any objections to the exhibits are offered? I see Mr. Thayer is reviewing the letter quickly. It is a public hearing, and public comment is allowed, so as far as admissibility, I don't know if you would have any objection to it. You might want to respond to it during your presentation, and that would be fine. Mr. Thayer: No objection. Ms. Rice: Great, then we will admit them all. And we'll start with staff presentation. Ms. Coccia: I'm Gina Coccia, I'm a planner in the Planning Division. Next to me is associated planner, Kathleen Taylor, she is currently a consultant for the Planning Division, but she's worked here for many years and she's processed many variance applications, so I'd like to have her here today in case there's some questions that maybe she could field. Ms. Coccia: First, the staff report was mailed out as noted. We received three public comment letters, and they were all entered into the record. I will provide a brief introduction on this project because I know the applicant would like to make a more thorough presentation. We're going to try to hook up his lap top later. So let me make sure the site plan is up on the overhead so everyone knows where we're talking about. The property is located at 18600 Sound View Place in an RS-12 zone, and the applicant has applied for a variance to reduce the normally 10-foot side setback along the north and south property lines to a distance of either 5 or 8 feet. The original request was for a 5-foot side setback on both of these property lines. The revised request is for an 8-foot setback on the south property line for the new house and an 8-foot setback along the north property line for the new house. And also a 5-foot setback along the north property line for the new detached garage. Also, eves are typically permitted to be repeated in the setback area a distance of two 30 inches, and they have asked that the eves also be permitted in the setback area. Ms. Coccia: Staff has made a recommendation to deny the original variance application, which requested 5-foot setbacks. At the applicant's request, the hearing was continued to a later date so that he could work with the neighbors on a solution that would more adequately address their concerns. The applicant revised the application and has submitted several graphics which illustrate what they could with and without a variance. I'm going to put up the elevations that show the new sketches. The applicant would still like the hearing examiner to consider the original 5-foot setback variance request. Staff originally recommended denial of the variance, and even with the revised application, staff still recommends denial of the variance. Ms. Coccia: A variance is a method by which citizens are granted modifications from the strict application of specific provisions in the zoning code due to a hardship beyond the control of the applicant. In this case, the applicant has requested a reduction of the regular 10-foot side setback that's required for all structures in the RS-12 zone. Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code, Chapter 20.85 for variances, note it says no variance may be approved unless all of the following findings can be made. There are six, and I'll go through all of them. Ms. Coccia: Special circumstances. It says that because of special circumstances related to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use, rights, and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as in public structures. And this is set forth in ECDC Chapter 17.000.030. And environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with zoning Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make a more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. So staff agrees that due to the slope and the narrow lot width of 50 feet, an argument could be made that special circumstances may exist on the property. Ms. Coccia: Next criteria is special privilege. That the approval of a variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations of the other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. So basically, if you can meet all of the other criteria, this one takes care of itself in that it wouldn't be a special privilege. But since staff didn't feel that this project met all of the other variance criteria, then they couldn't have met this one. This is an area that was annexed into the City of Edmonds in 1961. The zoning code was established in 1956, so this explains why some of the homes in the area appear to be located close to property lines. Ms. Coccia: Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This needs to be found. The original staff report notes that one of the comprehensive plan policies encourages those building custom homes to design and construct custom homes that harmonize with the surroundings. And another policy that they encroachment of views should be minimized. The applicant will argue that the views will remain the same, and then they have some illustrations that I've included as attachments. So they can go over these. Ms. Coccia: Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of a variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. This just means that the variance would have to be approved for the proposed residence to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance, setbacks. Ms. Coccia: Number 5. Not detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved would not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or ?? to the property or improves in the vicinity in the same zone. The staff report notes that the views that the neighbors currently enjoy would be compromised, and staff felt that would be detrimental. Ms. Coccia: Minimum variance. This says that the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. I'm going to put up a picture of a lot down the street. It came in as a development application, coincidentally, and you can see that it's of similar size and shape to this lot. I apologize if that's out of focus a little. I still have my glasses on, that's why. I think that this is the main point that is missed, and again, if it's found that one of the six variance criteria is missed, then you miss all of them. The staff report argues that the minimum variance is no variance, because the owners could build a long, skinny house. Co coincidentally, the neighbor just down the street has applied for this building permit, and their property is also approximately 50 feet wide. And they have proposed a design that appears to meet the required 10-foot side setbacks for the zone. This permit has not been approved; it's only been recently applied for. But it serves to show that the property can probably be developed with a 30-foot wide single-family house, without the need for a variance. Ms. Coccia: Also, the garage that was proposed is a 2-car garage down the street her; not a 3-car garage as the applicant is requesting. So the 2-car garage fits on the property and is accessed directly from the east, without the need for a larger turnaround area like the applicant is proposing. They are proposing a 30-foot wide house, which appears to meet setbacks without a variance, so staff concludes that the project is not the minimum necessary. Ms. Coccia: In conclusion, staff recommends denial of both setback variances. However, if the hearing examiner wishes to approve the setback variances, staff recommended some conditions which are included in the staff report. So, I would be happy to answer any questions. Ms. Rice: So do I understand you correctly, Ms. Coccia, that the primary criterion that staff feels this application does not satisfy is the last criteria. Ms. Coccia: Correct. Ms. Rice: So you spoke briefly about the fact that some of the other lots in the area have narrower setbacks from structure to property line than 10 feet, and you said this had to do with when the zoning was established. Could you go over that again? Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Ms. Coccia: Sure. A lot of these lots were created prior to 1956, which is when we adopted our first zoning ordinance. We didn't have setbacks prior to then so you could build your house, you know, I suppose, wherever it was permitted. But then in 1961 when this area was annexed into the City of Edmonds, that's when you would have to apply for a building permit and meet the required setbacks. So anything prior to 1956 and also prior to 1961 we'd have to look at real carefully. Ms. Rice: Do you know... In the course of your review did you determine whether there are homes in this neighborhood with reduced setbacks that came into being through some other method than they predate the zoning? Ms. Coccia: The applicant did a lot of research and dug up several variances that were approved by the City. However, I didn't make note of them because I thought it was kind of like comparing apples to oranges because a lot of the time, it was for like a garage or something like that. So there are variances that have been approved, and also denied, in the vicinity. Ms. Rice: Okay. My understanding is that the minimum width currently in effect in the zone is bigger than 50 feet. Is that right? Ms. Coccia: Right. Ms. Rice: And so that is, what is the minimum lot width allowed? Ms. Coccia: I believe it's 80 feet. Ms. Rice: Thanks. Ms. Coccia: In an RS-12 zone, the minimum lot width is 80 feet. That means if you had a property in the RS-12 zone and you wanted to subdivide the property, one of the development standards that your surveyor would have to show on your map is that each new lot is at least 80 feet wide and can ?? an 80-foot diameter circle on each new lot. Ms. Rice: Okay. So the current lot, the subject property, is legally non -conforming? Ms. Coccia: Yes. Ms. Rice: My understanding is that... Well, I viewed the site before the hearing, and there is a house on the site. My understanding is that the current setbacks are less than 10 feet. Is that correct? Ms. Coccia: Yes. I'll put up the site plan that the applicant prepared. It looks like it shows an existing 5'/2-foot side yard setback to the north. And it's about 8 feet 73/4 inches to the south. And it looks like the existing carport is pretty much right on the south property line. Ms. Rice: If the applicant chose to remodel the existing house without demolishing it, would they be required to somehow alter or make the existing non -conforming setbacks into conforming setbacks? Ms. Coccia: No, they would have to show that all new additions meet the current required setbacks for the zone. Ms. Rice: But they could keep the current non -conforming setbacks. Ms. Coccia: As long as they're not touching. Kathleen might have something to add. Ms. Taylor: Only for that portion of the building that's already constructed. So if it was one level and they wanted to add a second level, the second level would have to meet the code. Ms. Rice: Okay. Could you go over again the department's interpretation of the special privilege criteria? Ms. Coccia: Sure. The special privilege criteria says that the approval of a variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparisons to the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. So it's my Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 understanding that if you can meet all of the other variance criteria, all of the other five, then it wouldn't be a grant of special privilege because we would approve a variance because you've proven that you meet all the other ones. So if someone else with the same circumstances came along and was requesting something similar, it's my understanding that they would meet the special privilege criteria, if these folks met it. Ms. Taylor: So the special privilege relates to the circumstances of the lot. For example, it wouldn't be a special privilege if there were two lots that had the same width and the same critical areas restriction. Do you see what I'm saying? Ms. Rice: No. Ms. Taylor: I'm not being very clear. Ms. Rice: Well, I'm just trying to establish why their special privilege relates to existing development in the area or whether it relates to existing lots in the area, I guess is really what I'm trying to show. Ms. Taylor: I'm not sure I'm following your comment exactly, but the way I will answer is that in the past, if the applicant can demonstrate that other people are in a similar situation and have been granted something similar, then for them to be granted this would not be a special privilege because other people before them have been granted it. Ms. Rice: Okay. And so this similar situation relates to restrictions on the lot, right? Ms. Taylor: Now how do you mean lot versus development? Ms. Rice: Well, I'm saying that there are other homes in the neighborhood that have reduced setbacks. Ms. Taylor: Right. Ms. Rice: And those lots, whether they're 50-feet wide or 80-feet wide or 120-feet wide, they still have this less than 10-foot setback. So does the criteria... Does the standard for development on the subject property then become other houses in the property have reduced setbacks, or in the neighborhood have reduced setbacks. And so, therefore, our house should also be allowed to have a reduced setback. So that relates to the development on a lot, or does it more relate to the fact that this other 50-foot lot also has a reduced setback or does not have a reduced setback? Ms. Taylor: So if this lot that's 50-feet in width. So if there were other lots that were 50-feet in width versus their lots are 60-feet, 70-feet, but they still got some setback relief or they are constructed closer to the property line. In the past, that has been left up to the hearing examiner for interpretation, and I have seen cases where the applicant has argued that it didn't matter the size of the lot. It's just that similar situation on neighboring lots. Ms. Rice: Okay, that answers my question. Sorry, I don't know why I'm having a hard time being clear about that Ms. Rice: And then, Ms. Coccia, could you just briefly expand on what you said. The applicant has submitted previously approved variances and evidence, and I did see there's a stack of them, there's at least seven of them in here, I think. And I trust the applicant will speak to those. But what I want to ask you is you said you didn't really look at them because that would be like comparing apples to oranges. Can you expand on that? Ms. Coccia: I did look at them, but I didn't feel there was a case in there that was similar enough to what they are proposing to speak to it. Ms. Rice: So the facts ought to distinguish. Ms. Coccia: But the applicant's more than welcome to go through why they felt that those were important ones. Ms. Rice: Okay. Then we will turn to the applicant. Mr. Thayer. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Mr. Thayer: Thanks your honor. Let me say, I'm having technical difficulty. I have a power point presentation, which will make every thing easier for everybody if I can get it to work. I'm having trouble with my projector, so I ask that we take a 5- minute break so I can transfer that or hook up my laptop to use the projector's that here. Or I will call my technical assistance guy so he can tell me what I'm doing wrong. Ms. Rice: Tell me this. Can you tell me this? Can you give us an idea how long your power point presentation is? Mr. Thayer: It's just going to be used to facilitate my presentation to you. I have the photographs that are in the materials already. I have some blow ups of some of the plans, and it would be easy to point at things so that you will be able to follow me. Ms. Rice: I agree. 20 minutes? Mr. Thayer: I don't know how long the presentation will take. Ms. Rice: It will depend on how many questions I have. All right. Mr. Thayer: My presentation might take five minutes. Ms. Rice: Great. Yeah, let's take a 5-minute break and see if you can get that set up. Mr. Thayer: Thank you very much. Ms. Rice: Are we ready? Great. Then we will go back on the record, if I can have everybody take their seats, we'll get back underway. Mr. Thayer: Thank you very much. This is Chris Thayer here again, on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Rice: I'm sorry. Just one second. Could everyone please have a seat so we can hear what is being said for the record? Thank you very much. Mr. Thayer go ahead Mr. Thayer: Thanks very much. I'll do a brief introduction, and I'm going to have Mr. Steve Rising, the Bogart's architect, kind of walk through some of the plans and outline what we are proposing and how we've come to what we're proposing now, because it differs from what we had initially proposed. One thing I wanted to point out to the court is that there is existing, in terms of the existing encroachments on the Bogart property, in terms of the existing structures that encroach beyond the required setback. Along the north side there's 12 feet 6 inches that extend into the setback approximately 5'/2 feet. 5'/2 feet from the property. Ms. Rice: And what structure is that? Mr. Thayer: The house. Ms. Rice: The house. On the north side. Mr. Thayer: Correct. Ms. Rice: Is 5.5 feet. Mr. Thayer: And then the south side, there is 49'/2 that extends as close as 4 feet then there's another 6 feet that's between 4 and 7 feet. Ms. Rice: Okay, just to clarify. What you're saying is there's 49.5 feet of house length that is only 4 feet from the south property line? Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Mr. Thayer: It varies between 4 and 7. Ms. Rice: Okay, as close as 4 and as far as 7 feet. Mr. Thayer: The majority is over 43'h feet from the property line. Ms. Rice: And that's the existing residence on site? Mr. Thayer: The existing residences on site, plus the carport, which is on the south property line. It's 18 feet 2 inches. So adding all that up, approximately 80 linear feet of existing structures encroach fairly substantially into the setbacks, and that is because the residence was constructed at a time that setbacks were not required. Ms. Rice: Do you know what the year is, of construction? Mr. Thayer: We don't, but it's a pretty old house. Ms. Rice: Okay. Mr. Thayer: And there'll be more evidence presented later. The properties of the neighbors to the north and neighbors to the south, they also encroach into the 10-foot setbacks on their property. For at least these three houses, the house immediately to the south owned by the Haynes, my client's house, the Bogart's house, and the house to the north, the Wilsons. All of those properties encroach into the 10-foot setback. Ms. Rice: Got it. Mr. Thayer: A quick look around the neighborhood indicates this is quite common, but we know for a fact that for these three properties, that they do. And just to keep in mind when we go through the rest of this is that the proposed structure will have 93 linear feet that will encroach into setback. However, they will encroach at a much lesser amount. 22'/z feet will only encroach 2 feet in the setback, and the other 35 feet will only encroach 2 feet into the setback, so leaving an 8-foot setback. And then the proposed garage will be five feet from the property line. And that's 43 feet. So the total linear feet is pretty similar. The amount of the encroachment into the setback in terms of depth is less. I think it kind of helps to get the big picture of what we're talking about. Mr. Thayer: Mr. Steve Rising is the architect on this project. We're going to have him walk through things. Any time you have questions, please ask Mr. Rising and either he or I will attempt to clarify. The first slide we're looking at here is the initial plan that was prepared after consultation with the City and Planning Department. There was an impression that, through a basic background discussion, that what was being proposed wasn't going to be a problem. This is the initial drawing, and this is the initial application form. It includes a longer section to the north and to the south that protruded into the setback. There's 70 linear feet on the north and I'm not quite sure what it is on the south. I'll review this briefly, and you'll see that in response to the safety concerns and the neighbor's concerns, we've come up with a new plan that we think does a really good job of addressing everybody's concerns here. So, Steve, could you explain this a little bit for them. Ms. Rice: My first question for Mr. Rising, is how do you spell your last name? Mr. Rising: R I S I N G. Ms. Rice: Thank you. Mr. Rising: So this is the initial proposal, as Chris said, and it came directly from our being told by Meg Gruwell that a variance shouldn't be any kind of a problem. All of the property was V. We talked about what that was. Subsequent to that conservation and to the submittal of the variance application, one of the guys in my office went down and talked to two planners, I don't know their names, to get a feel for what this proposal, what their reaction would be. In both cases, they said, it looks good, it looks great, submit it. So we were a little surprised and disappointed to find out that there was objection. So what this shows, as Chris said, is 5 feet from the north property line with a chimney, and closer projection to the south, the Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 garage and carport are similar. So what we did is took a big step back before the hearing and went, wow, we thought there was no issue. Let's take a look. Let's solicit feedback from the neighbors and from the City about what might be more sort of settling. Mr. Rising: The next slide here is the buildable footprint, based on lot coverage. So this is the 10-foot setback and sort of we're allowed to build a long, skinny house that's this large. And that's still leaving the existing carport. Ms. Rice: Just to clarify. Buildable footprint based on coverage. So this has 10-foot setbacks on the sides. Do you mean this is the maximum 35% lot coverage within those setbacks. Ms. Rising: Yeah. Ms. Rice: Okay. What is the length? Mr. Rising: Respecting the setbacks and pushing it ... Ms. Rice: What would the length of that overall structure be? Did you happen to note that? Mr. Rising: I do not happen to know that. It looks like it's 100's of feet, but no, I don't know that. We would never build this... Mr. Thayer: This was to show what we could build and also ... They're somewhat theoretical because we had to take an arbitrary point. But their viewpoint from the neighbors to the north and south, as you can see, if a neighbor were standing in that position on that deck of the property to the north, the Wilson's property, the views and the fact that they effectively wouldn't be obstructed. And then when you look to the south, you can see the existing views are not obstructed. In a kind of lighter color there, you can see the existing vegetation. The purpose of this is to show here is where we could build. Ms. Rice: I'm sorry, can we go back? This site is oriented with north sort of up in the upper left corner of the screen. Show me... Can you point to or tell me where the critical areas setback is in relation to this maximum allowed coverage depiction? Mr. Thayer: It would be to the far left. Ms. Rice: And so is this coverage area, the hypothetically allowed coverage area, abutted up against the critical area setback line. Mr. Thayer: It is like 30 feet back. Ms. Rice: From the critical areas setback line? Mr. Thayer: Yes. Ms. Rice: Okay. Mr. Thayer: There's the railroad trains cut through there, and I believe this is up to 25 to 30 feet back from the grade. Ms. Rice: It was just hypothetical. I just wanted to be oriented. Okay. Thanks. Go ahead. Mr. Thayer: So it's actually 25 feet back. There's a little connection at the upper left, and that's ... So what this is is just basically saying, here's the setbacks, here's the lot coverage, this is what we can do. There are a couple of, in reality, of course, we would be pulling that as required from the bluff. Actually, I don't know if that's true. We're 25 feet, that's what this diagram shows. Ms. Rice: Okay. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Mr. Rising: This is the initial proposal and then the outline of the buildable envelope. It's similarly now looking at the allowable height, and then the diagram, the lower diagram, begins to describe the massing of the proposed structure. Ms. Rice: Okay, so there are two images on the slide. The upper one is the hypothetical allowable development envelope and vertical orientation from grade up. Then below that is the depiction of what's proposed. Mr. Rising: Yes. Ms. Rice: Great. Mr. Rising: And that's to give an idea of the massing. Ms. Rice: And this is an overhead view of the same thing? Mr. Rising: This is a section view. So the dashed line... so this would be cutting sidewalks through the width of the site. And this shows the proposed mass and the dashed line shows the buildable. So on the upper image, you can see the 2-foot projection proposed. You can both see that it's a little lighter than, right, the setback volume, and it's also substantially lower than the setback volume, which will take you further. But that was a deliberate decision to not block light that we could otherwise block to the adjacent properties. So there are images here. One is at the wider western portion of the home and the lower one is at the narrower eastern, we'll call it half, of the home where to the left is the beef of this house. Having literally pulled that back to create more landscape buffer, so that 17 feet is pulled back where we skinned it up deliberately where we could within the program of the house and then retaining the 10-foot setbacks on the north. Mr. Thayer: To make this a little more clear, here's our revised proposal. And Steve can talk about what he's trying to accomplish here with this design. Mr. Rising: So the revised proposal was redesigned, it's a redesigned product after talking to the City and getting information that we could from the neighbors. There were objections to the proposed variance. We were actually, as I said, surprised, so we took a step back and said, okay, where can we make this smaller and work with, you know, and still get the width of the building to work. So to the north, that's the projection which was shortened up quite a bit, we pulled the majority of the north fagade back 10 feet. In south we actually moved it further north to where it's proposed now at 8 feet. The garage stayed essentially the same. Mr. Thayer: Why don't you explain a little bit about why you designed the garage the way you have in an effort to minimize impacts on ... Mr. Rising: We did a deliberate sort of choice here to avoid, and I thought it was in keeping with the comprehensive plan goals, to actually provide more view and light through the property by trying to turn the mass of the garage sideways and sort of burying it into the hillside. And so we deliberately avoided making a 30 foot high by 30 feet wide garage mass, which the building permit proposal previously refers to for a two -car garage. It wasn't a full 30 feet wide. So we were actually trying to preserve sight lines through the property by turning the thing and reducing its mass and block of view. Unfortunately, the only way to do that is to, and Gina had checked this with engineering, in order to get a car out, we really had no alternative but to push the garage into the north setback. (Inaudible) ..to deep for a garage, and the 20-foot turnaround so the apron in front of the garage, which is essentially a minimum to comfortably get a car turned around there. Mr. Thayer: If I may, there won't be any points for drawing, but the proposed garage is in line with the house. If we were to build a 3-car garage that did not require a variance to setbacks, it would be like this. But the result is this would be how hieh.. . Mr. Rising: Well if you have 30 feet. The difficulty with that is that in order, we have a sloped approach, Gina had brought up, or there's reference in the report to maintaining a work of a legal sort of driveway maximum slope, and in order to get the apron, in order to get in the garage, what we have to do is build up a platform, we've still got to put a bridge on that. You Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 know, we never really designed this because we really thought that this would be the highest impact of the garage on the site and the neighborhood. But I'm guessing it would be about 30 feet from where the front garage doors are. Mr. Thayer: The idea is that the impact on the neighbors to the east looking to the west, if you put a 3-car garage there, which there's no dispute it could be done without a variance, but if we put a 3-car garage there, it's going to be less attractive, less aesthetically pleasing. It's going to impact the neighbors' view, light and enjoyment of the area. And the Bogarts are trying to do everything as much as possible to be consistent with the goals and ideals of the comprehensive plan and local zoning. I think we can actually accomplish more of that by getting really a pretty small variance. Mr. Rising: And this allowed us to carry the north wall to the hill, literally. I mean, literally it excavated, I can't remember the exact dimension, but five six feet for the retaining wall, and it seemed like it was within the character of the neighborhood. It seemed like everybody had carports and garages that were closer than 10 feet to the property line. That includes the neighbor to the north, as well. Ms. Rising: Well I think there is another issue here. We really were trying to articulate the mass to be less of a block. And the reason one does that is it tends to, and this I guess would be subjective, it's done in architecture all the time, it tends to reduce your perception of the sizes of the map by articulating the fagade. We did that both on the left, we tried to project the deck to the left, purposefully, it's pretty thin to, I mean, I don't think the property itself really looks through there anyway because of the existing hedge, but the idea is to allow the most light towards the north and to the south through the structure. We actually did not put the house as far west as we could. Both concerns of what's acceptable to the geotechnical and the buffer reduction, and so right, so what we were really trying to do in both cases, on the north and south side, was to maintain as much vegetation as we could. The idea on the bottom right corner of the house was that there would be a courtyard. Those steps go down into a courtyard, intending to preserve a landscaped or provide for more landscaped area there. That, to me, is beneficial to the neighbor to the south. You know, it's yeah, anything that I've missed. Mr. Thayer: Just so that we're clear. What I'm drawing here now, getting a little bit better at this, those are the only sections requiring a 2-foot variance. And then all along the northern end of the garage, this area here, that's where I'm talking about a variance. This is another look at... This is the revised layout elevation, again showing the potential buildable mass and then what is actually being constructed. Mr. Rising: You know, it's particularly, one view of this is to look at garage massing here. Because, you know, you can see, I hope, what we were trying to achieve by really holding that low. And again, we were operating still on the premise that that seemed to consistent with what had been done elsewhere in the neighborhood. Mr. Thayer: This is the garage. Ms. Rice: Yeah. I've found the slide you're now showing in my record as Attachment 4. Mr. Thayer: Okay. Mr. Rising: So this is the lower floor plan, and this is included really just to show what the width of the building that we're trying to work with is. The tight spot across here is, you know, it's the width of the bedroom and the width of an exercise room. So those are of variable standards, I suppose, in architecture, but in a property and home of this size or this location, which is waterfront Edmonds, those spaces are none too big. It's more of a factor in the upper floor, where you know, again, it's not like we're trying to design huge spaces that push in. The dimension that most concerns me, Chris has circled the living room, which is actually big enough to put a seating group into and walk around and then get a dining to the south of it. The kitchen, again, I truly wish we had a width of the original proposal because it would make a huge difference to the living room, or excuse me, to the kitchen. That's in reality, again, by the standards of homes this size and this location, those are none too large. Ms. Rice: Question. When I read in advance, there was some discussion of the chimneys extending another 2'/z feet into the setback, but as I'm looking at your upper floor plan and your lower floor plan, they don't appear to do that. Mr. Thayer: We took that out of the revised proposal. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Ms. Rice: Okay. So the chimney only sticks out maybe a few inches. Mr. Thayer: Pardon me. Ms. Rice: I'm looking at the lower floor plan, and it looks like the chimney barely extends past the house at all. Mr. Thayer: That's correct. Mr. Rising: We pulled it back. So what we had done with the original projection is that there's a pretty normal allowable projection of the chimney. Then we realized that issues were brought up, and we simply pulled it in. However, that actually takes dimension out of the interior. When you pull the chimney in, you are in essence, perceptually moving the wall into the room. Mr. Thayer: The slide we're looking at now gives you another look at the massing. It also shows the encroaching structure from the neighbors, which I'll detail eventually when I get into my slides. But we have encroachment in the setback on the north and on the south. Also this up here on the Wilson's property. This shows sight lines with the buildable mass; I think this is a good comparison and I can push back and forth. Here's our proposal; there's potential. We could build a long, skinny house there; here's what we're proposing. Mr. Rising: So what we were trying to do is avoid ... We've never contended that you couldn't build a 30-foot wide building. It seemed consistent that there were encroachments into setbacks. And what we were trying to do is not do a 3- stories without a ??. With 30 feet wide, it... Mr. Thayer: The other property Mr. Rising's referring to, I think, is Attachment 6 to the City's report, which is her ?? for another narrow RS built lot. They were proposing to build a 3-story, tall, skinny townhouse. Mr. Rice: Got it. Mr. Thayer: Steve's saying he didn't think that a 3-story skinny town house is consistent with the houses in the neighborhood. Is it technically feasible, yes. Mr. Rising: That's not important. Yes, It's technically feasible to build a house with 30 feet width, but it's certainly arguable that it's more consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Thayer: This is a shot of the existing vegetation and the sight lines. And I'll bring this up again when I talk more. Steve, why don't you tell me what you were trying to show, here. Mr. Rising: So this is a diagram presenting what appears, right, to be the cut off angles of the view from the neighbors' properties. Because that's something that's been brought up as why the project, as proposed, why our proposal is detrimental. The weakness of that argument, from my perspective, really is whether the variance, right, the two feet, is at all additionally detrimental. Obviously Mr. Bogart has the right to, we have the buildable footprint, which, and the setbacks are dashed here. So what we're doing is sort of showing that the dashed line is what we're sort of by setback allowed to build to anyway. And these are simply the preexisting view angles. The vegetation was actually, that's pretty accurate. Just to be clear here, what we're discounting is the tall trunks, you know, because those are actually, you seen underneath those. Of the two trees on the north property. Mr. Thayer: These here. These are large fir trees. Mr. Rising: Yeah, and that's really not part of the argument at all. What we're really talking about is the existing vegetation that are essentially hedges by practicality. Ms. Rice: Okay. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Mr. Thayer: Here's just a couple of quick illustrations showing what the proposed house would look like and how it would be built into the hill and how Mr. Rising has designed in various features to break up the mass. Although there are streamlined, it does have a pitched roof, and Steve can talk briefly about the design features that we're used to make this a less imposing structure. Mr. Rising: So what we were trying to do is actually, well again, on the left side is to keep that whole deck area as thin across the view angles to the north and south. You know, the steps in both the north and south side, and actually the left side are all intended to reduce your perception of mass. We were trying to bring the roof line down towards the existing grade as you go east, so we're trying actually to keep roof lines and in many respects, we're really trying to get the feel more sensitively sited to the slope of the land. You know, we didn't want to do a giant excavation or build a 3-story house. We were actually trying to keep it low where we could. The heights that are shown in other diagrams are essentially high points within this design. For instance, the main house, in other words, we're showing a diagram of heights, its maximum heights. It's not the lower point and roof pitch. You can see the slope of the garage roof is intended to drop is intended to drop as low as we can get it on the north side. You can see how on the right side of the garage, we're building into the hillside to try to reduce the mass of it. In both this configuration, but also in comparison to the alternative building 30 feet across, we're trying to maintain light through the property as we kept the view angles. So by keeping it low and breaking up the mass. Mr. Thayer: One second. This shows the location of the Bogart property. I blew this up as much as we could. You'll see a wide variety of sizes and shapes for the lots in the area, but you will notice that their lot is the exception and not the rule. There are other long, skinny lots. Some of those long, skinny lots I believe to be jointly owned by the same parties. But nonetheless, there are other long, skinny lots in Edmonds. However, they are the exception and not the rule. In part because of the unusual features of the Bogart's property that they are forced to request a variance. Mr. Thayer: I'd like to go through some photographs. These are attached to our submission, which was attached to the City's report, but just to give you some perspective. This is the existing house, looking more or less west, looking from the driveway down into the house. This is the existing carport looking southwest at this point. This is standing in the driveway looking north and west. This is a structure owned by the Wilsons that encroaching into the setback. This is the view from the Bogart's current residence, looking out more or less west out onto Puget Sound. There's another picture; you'll get an idea that the existing house is set quite far back from the water. Why the original owners built the house so far back from the water, I don't know. Certainly, it does not take full advantage of the spectacular views that are available at this wonderful piece of property. This is looking to the north and west. That's the Haynes, pardon me, the Wilson house that you can see through the existing vegetation. Again, a good portion of that is encroaching onto the boundary line setback. Ms. Rice: Got it. Mr. Thayer: This is the Haynes residence as seen from the Bogart's property. Again, this would be looking approximately southwest, mainly south. This is part of their residence encroaches onto the 10-foot setback. This is the Wilson residence seen from the Bogart property. You can see the deck. This is the Haynes' deck to the south, encroaching. This is looking directly back at the Bogart residence to the left and basically north would be the Wilson's residence. To the right, more or less south, would be the Haynes' residence. You see the intense vegetation and the two large fir trees. From a better angle, here, you can see the Bogart residence on the right. You see the Wilson residence on the left, and you can see the cedar trees and rhododendrons and other shrubs that extend almost all the way out to the bluff. This is a giant laurel hedge on the southern boundary between the Bogart property and the Haynes residence. You can see the edge of their deck sticking out. This is just a shot looking down the western edge of the Bogart property onto the Burlington Northern right-of-way. It's actually a pretty steep slope there but it doesn't show on the picture. Mr. Thayer: This is another residence on Sound View Place as I was leaving the Bogart residence. There was some comment by Meg Gruwell in her initial report about the proposed structure not being in conformity with other houses in the neighborhood. This is just an example, this is a much more flat sided, slab, modern looking home than what the Bogarts are proposing. And this is just to show that there are more modern looking houses in the neighborhood. They do all have pitched roofs. I don't think that's a major point of contention. Ms. Rice: I also don't think it relevant to the variance per say. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Mr. Thayer: It was referenced in Ms. Gruwell's report in terms of whether or not the proposed residence was consistent with the neighborhood. So I will go on. This is the existing residence, kind of showing the existing vegetation, showing the sight lines, and we've already been through this a bit. But we have encroachment here. The Bogart's garage is basically on the property line. There's encroachment into the setback here. There's encroachment into the setback here. There's encroachment all along here. Mr. Rising: I'm going to interject here. So Gina has brought up this image to show that setback. The survey will actually show that there's a raised portion, that 4 feet that we referenced earlier on the right, and so in fact, this is for vegetation. It doesn't show the full existing encroachment into the variance on that last. The survey will clearly show that. Mr. Thayer: But just so we have an idea here. The property to the north has substantial encroachments into the setback requirement. The property to the south has substantial encroachments into the setback requirement. The existing structures on the Bogart property have encroachments into the setback. Ms. Rice: I don't want to be cutting you off, but we do have a large audience that would like to testify. So could you not repeat things that you've already said. Justo to help us stay on ... Mr. Thayer: Sure. Ms. Rice: Thank you. Mr. Thayer: We'll go to the factors to be considered for the granting of variance. Ms. Rice: Great. Mr. Thayer: Special circumstances. Hopefully, you've had the opportunity or will have the opportunity to review my letter dated April 9, 2007, where I detailed this at greater length. But as to the special circumstances, this is a long, narrow lot. It's 50-feet wide and doesn't conform for the RS-12 zone, which requires 80-foot wide lots. Given the 10-foot setbacks, that leaves a 30-foot buildable corridor. The topography is also a little unusual in that it's on a significant slope. There's a railroad right-of-way to the immediately west, which also has an associated critical area with the steep slope. There's another requirement under the code, 28.05.010, with regard to special circumstances. These special circumstances are not personal to the Bogarts. This is a feature of the property. It's not something that exists as a result of anything specific to the Bogarts, themselves. Mr. Thayer: Looking at the other variance application files that I reviewed, the non -conforming size appeared to me to be, as a general matter, accepted as a special circumstance. If you have a piece of property that does not conform to the zoning requirements, that was, effectively considered a special circumstance. Ms. Rice: I'm going to just say now. I noted that there were several previous variances and the staff reports that go with those decisions in the record. I haven't read them. I will read them. But every application for variance is decided on its own merits, and I have discretion to consider what has been done in the past. But this application won't be decided on what has been done in the past. It will be based on its own merits. Mr. Thayer: I understand. I didn't believe they constituted any kind of precedent, but I thought them illustrative of what has been done in the past and perhaps will provide you with some guidance with what other hearing examiners have considered to be special circumstances. Ms. Rice: Sure. No, I appreciate it. I just wanted to have that stated for the record. Mr. Thayer: Thank you. No special privilege, and that goes to whether or not the requested variance would give the applicant some sort of special or unusual privilege. I think the way to consider that is to look at the fact that the existing improvements on the Bogart's property encroach. The neighbors to the north and south have encroachments into the setbacks. Ms. Gruwell's report acknowledges approval of setback variances for seven properties on Sound View Place. We have examples of a number of hearing examiner findings where variances were granted. I would point out that, I think the Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Wilson's argued that those all related to depth and garages, but that is not correct. I think the Dahls had also included an addition to a home. But respecting the hearing examiners prior comment, I'm not going to belabor the point. Basically, we're not asking for a special privilege. We're asking for the same rights that are afforded to the other neighbors, not just the neighbors to the north and south, but the neighbors in the immediate neighborhood. The Bogarts want to be able to develop their property in a reasonable and respectful manner. They're not asking for some sort of special privilege. They've gone to great lengths and not an insignificant expense to come up with a proposal that would be least impactful on their neighbors and on the neighborhood. They're not asking to build a McMansion here. They're asking to build a very modest, nice house, which is consistent with waterfront property in the Puget Sound area. Mr. Thayer: Furthermore, the application is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan promotes high -quality residential development. The proposal harmonizes with the surroundings. Mr. Risings gone to great length to design a home to allow free flow of light and to break up the hard, long, straight lines so that it would be less imposing. It will be an aesthetically pleasing home and will fit in with the nice homes in the area. There is anticipated to be some testimony from the neighbors to the north and to the south who've made some sort of vague reference to an impact upon their views. As I've shown you on the slides, the views of the neighbors to the north and south are primarily, if not exclusively, essentially directed to the west out to the Puget Sound. The proposed construction and the very slight variance, and the only variance could even be argued to impact their view is a 2-foot variance for a modest section up north and a 2-foot variance for another modest section along the southern edge. So what the neighbors are effectively arguing is that that extra two feet is somehow materially adversely impacting their views. When you look at the existing vegetation, they don't have any views to the north or to the south. Moreover, the Bogarts have a right to build on their property if they had to within the 30-foot setback requirement. Ms. Rice: Understood. Mr. Thayer: A house that would block their views even more than what is being promoted. Ms. Rice: Got it. Mr. Thayer: We don't want to do that. And that gets to the last point, which is the alternative construction if there was no variance would actually be more impactful on the neighbors. They will have a greater mass. They will have the potential to block more view, but no variance would be required. We're actually, effectively, trying to do a favor to the neighbors to the north and south. Mr. Thayer: Zoning ordinance, 16.10.100. It encourages the preservation of light, including sunlight, the privacy of neighbors, the views of neighbors, shorelines and other natural features, air, water, noise and additional pollution. We believe that the proposed structure accomplishes all of that. That the alternative structure can be a 3-story, long, skinny house, we'd be more likely to have an adverse impact on the values than the proposed structure. And that goes for the garage, as well. I see the hearing examiner nodding so ... Ms. Rice: I do understand. Mr. Thayer: So I won't raise that point. Not detrimental. The Bogarts are asking for the same privileges afforded to their neighbors, and that is the neighbors have existing encroachments. They also have houses that are built further west on their properties. They more fully take advantage of the spectacular views of Puget Sound. For whatever reason, the prior owner of this property the Bogarts now have built their house way far back away from the water, and they really can't take advantage of the waterfront view for this beautiful piece of property. They just want the same rights to build a house, a reasonable house, that will afford them the same rights as their neighbors have. Mr. Thayer: We've gone to great lengths to address the concerns of the neighbors. My office specifically encouraged and attempted to solicit proposals from the neighbors, through their counsel, to see if there was some compromise or something that could be worked out. Despite repeated offers that a proposal would be forthcoming, no proposal was ever made, so we just brought this back for hearing. We thought we would just go ahead and present it as is. Ms. Rice: Okay. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Mr. Thayer: And it's not for lack of effort. This proposal will be more aesthetically pleasing and have less massing than the alternative. The alternative is a tall, skinny house, which as I said, is most likely to be more objectionable by the neighbors and it won't be as aesthetically pleasing nor really consistent with the surrounding houses in the area. But they wouldn't require a variance. And I think one of the things to focus on is we're only talking about, for the most part, is a few foot encroachment with regard to the residence. And I would submit that the actual impact on the neighbors to the north and south is dimenimous at most. Ms. Rice: Okay. Mr. Thayer: And that their views would be retained. I would submit that there's no impact, but if there's any impact, it would be negligible compared to the impact that there would be if no variance were granted. Mr. Thayer: And that gets to the last topic. The City noted that a neighbor is proposing to build a 30-foot wide, 3-story town house style house on a similar lot. The Bogarts have never contended that this is impossible. They just believe that it is not desirable. It's not only not desirable for them, but we believe it's less desirable for the neighborhood, less desirable for the neighbors to the north and south, and less desirable for the neighbors to the east who would like to retain their views to the west. We also believe that the tall, skinny townhouses, which living in Seattle, myself, you can't go three blocks without seeing one, we would submit that those are incongruous with development in the City of Edmonds and not consistent with the character of the houses there. The Bogarts believe the house that they've proposed is a modest, reasonable house that is consistent with the development and use of this type of property at the waterfront in Edmonds. Mr. Thayer: So we submit that the request variance is in fact the minimum variance. I'm not here to say that a house can't be built with no variance. What we are saying is a house built with no variance would have a more negative impact on the neighbors in the neighborhood than allowing a very minor variance we're asking for. Ms. Rice: Okay. Mr. Thayer: Thank you. Ms. Rice: Thank you. Can we have the lights up? And then I will now take public comment. Now that we can sort of see each other. Show of hands, please, who would like to ... Sir, please come forward to the podium. That podium right there. And if you could speak into the microphone and give us your name and address for the record. Go ahead and, there you go. Mr. Wilson: My name is Bill Wilson. Nicole, my wife, and I live at 18518 Sound View Place. It's the property immediately to the north of the proposed building site. We purchased in 2002 and have lived there since 2003. I will try to keep this brief because I think we only have the room until 5:00 and there are a lot of people who want to speak. We've loved living in the University Colony area, not only because of the spectacular views but because of the character and style of the community. In our immediate area, each home has retained the spectacular views over the years despite remodels and building, due to the layout of the homes, in my opinion. Alternative property, or adjacent properties have been laid out with homes either placed low and forward on the property or high and back on the property so that the widespread views can be enjoyed by all. The properties set back at a considerably higher altitude look over the forward placed properties, pretty much with an unobstructed view, other than maybe some trees which are on some properties, including the proposed Bogart site. Mr. Wilson: It is true that some of the oldest houses, and in this case ours included, have portions that extend near the property lines into the setback areas. In the case of our house, it was built in three sections. The initial section was placed in 1919, and that is the southern most portion of our house, which abuts the, nearly abuts the property line of Dr. Bogart. So that was placed decades before there was any building code in the City of Edmonds. Since then, the house had been added on again in the 1930's and finally the final addition in the 1960's to the north. Mr. Wilson: Traditionally, and is currently the case, the forward set homes are considerably lower in elevation on the slope, which allows the upper back set homes to have the views over the top. The other homes also have unobstructed views across their own properties, as well. This staggering affect of the adjacent homes has really been key to all the homes in the area being able to enjoy the beautiful views and privacy, which is a huge part of the character of the University Colony area, Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 where the homes are not wall to wall, as a more urban type setting would typically be. For example, starting from the south in our immediate area, the house owned by the Haynes, which is immediately south of the Bogart property is placed forward and at a low elevation. Going to the north, the Bogart property is placed back at a considerably higher elevation that looks over the top of both adjacent homes. Just to the north of that, the Neudorfer property is back and at an elevation where they look over the top of our home, with no obstruction in their view. And just to the north of us are the Yeagers, which are placed forward, etc. Mr. Wilson: Indeed, many of these homes, especially those built long ago, extend into the now required side setbacks. Because of this, the staggering of the homes has been essential. Of the previously mentioned properties, I know that the Haynes property extends into the side setbacks. The Bogart property extends into the side setbacks, and our property does as well, as explained thoroughly by Mr. Rising. The very fact that the Haynes property is within the northern setback, just south of the Bogart property, and our property sits within its southern side setback just to the north of the Bogart property, is precisely why it is not a prudent idea to insert what some might think is a disproportionately large house into that narrow space where the homes are very tightly placed already. It is true that the current Bogart house does extend into the side setbacks, as well, but because of the staggered effect and the fact that it's placed back, there's still extreme privacy to all involved, which certainly would not be the case with this current proposal. Certainly, to grant a variance of the side setbacks in a situation where a large home is being placed between two homes which already extend into the side setback would seem incongruent with the intent of the building code, in my opinion. Mr. Wilson: I don't want to be redundant at all, but ... Although the existing 2-story house on the Bogart property extends into the side setbacks to some degree, it and I believe the other homes, are not at all obtrusive, in that each property's afforded scenic views, as well as considerable privacy, again, because of the traditional neighborhood layout of forward and rear placed homes. So in summary, my wife and I have to oppose the request for a side setback variance. It seems that that opinion is also shared by the City planning committee. Just to touch on a couple of points, I think the fact that it is a long, narrow lot, I think the factor that it's a narrow lot, not that it's long, is not really a unique feature. There are other properties in the area, which are very similar, almost identical. The Haynes, which is immediately to the south, is almost identical dimensions and topography to the Bogart property. In the Planning Department's summary they looked at an example of another home with similar dimensions with construction which complies to the required setbacks and building code. Mr. Wilson: I think, finally, in summary, placing a large structure between two already tightly spaced homes would be a mistake. To grant a variance to the side setbacks would further worsen the effect, in my opinion. Personally, I think the views are affected. The view lines that were shown by Mr. Thayer were actually, especially the line that was more oblique, was actually to the west, and the other one is a little bit more to the northwest. So the sun sets right now sort of between where the two lines are. During the winter, the sun is below the lower sight line. The foliage or the vegetation that Mr. Thayer referred to is to some degree more obstructive, depending on the season. During the winter, we're able to see the winter sunsets, and that would certainly no longer be the case with this structure as proposed on the Bogart property. Mr. Wilson: Finally, I just was a little ... I just wanted to ... Perhaps this is a question, but I was a little confused because if the letter from Mr. Thayer, and also again stated, they refer to the revised proposal, but I believe, is it correct that you're also asking that the original proposal be considered, as well? Ms. Rice: Yeah, my understanding is that the first request is that the original 5-foot reduction be honored. But in the event that that's rejected, the revised proposal is offered as an alternative. Mr. Wilson: Okay. So we, just still on the record, oppose each of the proposals. Thank you. Ms. Rice: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. Anyone else who would like to speak? Please. Someone from the audience tried to address the hearing examiner, but the comments were not audible. Ms. Rice: Could I have comments from anybody else who doesn't represent the Wilson's first because the Wilson's already did have a chance? Okay, please go ahead. Your name and address for the record. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Ms. Haynes: My name is Vicky Haynes. I live at 18602 Sound View Place, immediately to the south of the Bogarts. In the letter that I submitted to you... Ms. Rice: Attachment I I? Ms. Haynes: Attachment 11. In Attachment 11 I talk about some thing that I'll just mention briefly. I fell in love with my University Colony in 1971 and bought my home in 1992. Yes, the view was certainly one of the endearing reasons for wanting that piece of property, but it was more than that. There is tremendous privacy. There is a tremendous sense of space. There is tremendous character. It is a part of Edmonds that is unique. It is like no other part. And just as we imagine the ?? of America, we are dangerously approaching the same with Edmonds. Ms. Haynes: Dr. Wilson talked about the staggered houses and the affect of that. The affect of that is to preserve character and space and light and privacy. And while it could be argued that I still will have a magnificent view, and I will, those other factors are deeply important. I think it's also important to reemphasize that we're talking here, when we talk encroachments, which indeed, there are encroachments on all sides, that we're talking historically. We are not talking in the moment. We're talking about a colony that was begun approximately 1916 — 1919, and homes that were begun at that same time. (Inaudible) ... that's where they felt they could best be placed to preserve the character. Indeed, beyond the historical encroachments that have nothing to do with the present, nor present intent, on either the Wilson's or my part. Beyond that, the hardship that is faced here by the long, narrow, I share. And it was a hardship that I incurred when I bought the property. It came with the territory. I too, if I were to ask to have something done to my home, would have to face the problems of the current variances. A Ms. Haynes: As far as the garage sight lines are concerned, please note that the homes to the east, the immediate east, are elevated, and they would not be looking directly at the garage. They would be looking over the garage for the most part. I also want you to imagine, if you will, that currently with the staggered house, we have where are located a continuous yard. It's as if there are no fences because there are none, and it's as if, in a sense, all of our property, in a way, belongs to all of that. And if we try and squeeze a home between these two homes, which indeed do violate the current setbacks, that's all going to change. Ms. Haynes: I really urge you, thought these are extra legal matters, to think not only in terms of what is being presently asked, which I also ask you to deny, but also to think about unique and very special nature of the neighborhood. Something will indeed be lost, which if it is lost, can never be regained. Thank you. Ms. Rice: Thank you Mrs. Haynes. I do want to hear from additional members of the public, but before we do go forward, I just want to remind everybody, the only issue that's up for discussion is whether or not the new home can encroach into setbacks. The Bogarts are free to build a home inside the setbacks at anyplace on their property. Just so we're clear, we're just talking about encroachments. So, since we are running short on time, if I could ask you to address comments specifically to the issue of the encroachment that would be most relevant. So please. And could I have your name and address, please? Mr. Yeager: My name is Walter Yeager, and the address is 18504 Olympic View Drive. It's the second property north of the Bogart's proposed construction. I was going to speak just to substantiate the staggered nature, both vertically and horizontally of the homes and the variety. But you did ask a question, I could add some to your question. You asked when the home was built, owned by the Wilsons. I first looked at the property in 1958, and the house was there and had been for a long time, and the southern part of the house was where it is now. But in those days, that house was a 50-foot lot. When they extended to the north, towards my house, why they purchased a 50-foot long, narrow lot to add to their 50-foot long, narrow lot. So there is a question of, you know, trying to abide by variances in past history. Ms. Rice: Okay, thank you. Other persons wishing to give comments please. Yes, please go ahead now. Ms. Swift: My name is Joan Swift, 18520 Sound View Place. That is not adjacent to the Bogart property as it might seem. We're across the street. The City gave us the wrong house number, and it's been that way for 33 years. I have lived there for 33 years, so I've seen many, many changes in this neighborhood. I guess, I don't want to repeat anything that's been said here about the history of the colony and the mixed up lot lines and all the encroachments and that sort of thing, because that's Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 been said before. When my house was built in 1972, I guess that area had been in the City for what, about 20 years, 19 years, whatever you said, 1951, it was in the 50's sometime Ms. Coccia: 1961 is when it was annexed. Ms. Swift: 61, I thought it was the 60's. That's my ears. I think the builder got very, and I'm glad of this, got lots of privileges. The house was built on a 50-foot lot. I was in California at the time and had nothing to do with this. He was given a 2-foot variance to the north, a 2-foot variance to the west, and a 2-foot variance to the south, plus a variance for building on a substandard lot. These variances enabled the house to not look like a square rectangular, not square rectangular, excuse me, a rectangular box. Although it does not have the detail that a custom designed house would have. He then went and built on the 50-foot lot next door, which he had the opportunity of combining with the other 50-foot lot and making 100-foot lot, but he didn't. He built another house with an 8-foot variance into the front setback. Both of these houses represent, I think, special privilege. Maybe that did not exist in 1972 as one of the criteria, I don't know. But I think that the 2-foot variances that Mr. Bogart is asking for, Dr. Bogart, excuse me, is asking for are no different. Ms. Swift: Dr. Wilson spoke of the staggering of the homes, and the first thing that struck me is this house on Astrala Hill's property, deceased Astrala Hill, 18720 Sound View Place. That appears to be, from the drawing up here and here, and 3- story house, very, very close to the edge of the bank. There is no staggering nor attempt to stagger, and I probably should say that the houses that Vicky Haynes and Bill and Nicole Wilson are living in are charming and have parts that were built decades and decades ago and will eventually probably maybe next year, maybe not by these owners, but by some other owner, be torn down and they may want variances of the same. They will, of course, have to move away from the encroachments they're occupying that they're occupying now. But they may still want variances, and that's something maybe these people should be thinking about. I don't think that 2-feet, 5-feet is over the top, I think, but I'm not speaking to the garage. I'm speaking of the original drawing submitted in 2006, with 5-foot variance, 5-foot into the setback. I think that was too much, but I don't think that 2-feet is going to make that much different in as much as he will go ahead and build in the legal area anyway, and it will not be as attractive. Thank you. Ms. Rice: Thank you. Others. Yes please. Mr. Nations: My name is Ron Nations. I live at 18602 Sound View Place. Vicky and I have lived there for 15 years, and in that 15 years, I've watched the neighborhood lose some of its quality already, and I'm deeply concerned to put a halt to that trend; to slow that trend or stop that trend. I'd love to reverse the trend if it were possible. One of the reasons we moved there was a sense of wildlife, of trees, of unsettled open spaces. I still remember how it used to feel when I would come driving home, and as I came up Sound View, I would see all the trees running up and down Sound View Place, and it was a sense. .. I like to go camping; I'm a camper and an outdoor kind of guy. When I come home from work to see all those trees and to hear the birds singing, it's like really coming home in a special sense, in a spiritual sense, and a deeply meaningful sense. And I treasure that feeling tremendously. It broke my heart to watch forests get knocked. I mean small forests knocked down to put up big houses all along Sound View Place, and it's happened many, many times since we have lived there. I can count from Wharf Street moving northward to where our house is and two or three lots north, when we first moved in there, there were five houses in a space that's now occupied by 10 houses. And the houses that have been recently constructed are far larger than the houses that were there before. So the effect of an increased sense of crowding is even more intense than it would have been had they all been the same size. Mr. Nation: That is really the core of the problem with the Bogart's plan. Regardless of what their attorney says about how they've been so careful and so sensitive, this is a very large house in comparison with the houses that immediately surround it. If you look carefully at those diagrams, and I don't have a little jazzy computer set up to put all the things on the screen, but if you were to look at those, you would see that the most comparable structures in that diagram in that immediate vicinity is our house and their proposed garage in terms of square footage. Ms. Nation: If you look at it, they're approximately the same size. Their house dwarf s the surrounding houses, and that to be wedged in between two houses, it's as though where Vicky's sitting over here and where I'm sitting is a way that the Wilson's house in her case, and in my case, our house are situation. The slope would be, or rather the cliff bank, would be where these rails are. There is a huge open space. When we stop outside onto our deck, especially during the summer months, we use the northern side of our deck. Our deck is around the west side our house and the north side of our house Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 approximately. Our house is actually not oriented perfectly to the compass. Anyway, the Wilson's house would sit like this, our house would sit like this, and here's the cliff. We look out this way, but when I step out onto my deck, and in the southern months I want to be on the northern part of my deck, I look straight north, and I don't see anything in there. The Wilson's house is back, and then I see two, three, four lots north. It's an unobstructed view that's tremendously valuable in terms of privacy, in terms of sense of being in nature, a sense of having fresh air, and sense of having contact with the birds and the squirrels, the raccoons that move around. Mr. Nation: If you put a very large structure, and do not make the mistake of believing these guys that this is not a very large structure, especially relative to its immediately context. You put a huge structure in there, and we lose all of that. And I think the real problem with the Bogart's plan is that they want to come so far down the slope, and they keep scratching their heads and saying, it's such a mystery why that other house is built so far off the slope; it exactly conforms the pattern of the neighborhood. It's no mystery. The house was built up there so it wouldn't be directly looking in the windows of the neighbor's house. If one doesn't like to step outside one's door and immediately find themselves in the neighbor's front yard. Or rather looking in their kitchen window, and that's what the Bogart's plan is is to wedge their house in between our house and the Wilson's, obstructing all this view, and making it so we're all going to be in each other's kitchens every time we come outside the door. To me, that's a very poor plan. Mr. Nation: I believe at one point, correct me if I'm wrong, it was offered to the Bogarts they could have whatever setbacks they wanted if they'd stay upon the western part of the slope, or pardon me, upon the eastern part of the slope, which is up high, and then they could build a larger house. But they've insisted on bringing this entire structure and carport and pavement leading up to the garage, shifting it our way and down the slope. It wipes out a lot of natural setting, and it destroys an awful lot of views. It is not true, regardless of what their attorney says, I do not step outside my door and stare only westward. I step outside and enjoy the view to the north, the south and the east. And to put a great big structure right there, very close to me, is going to be a tremendous impediment to my enjoyment of that. I'm wanting us to get back to the concept that nature is good, trees are good, birds are good, fresh air is good, space is good. Wedging houses in, consider the model of Woodway and the way they've preserved their trees and spacing, and the example of Ballard, where it's, I don't know if there's a tree left in Ballard. I used to live in Ballard 30 years ago, and I loved it. But you know, places become urban wastelands when you take out all the trees and wedge the houses in shoulder to shoulder to shoulder. We have the advantage here, we have a lot that's 285 feet deep, so is the Bogarts, 285 feet. So if one house is at the west end of that and one is at the east end of that, it's practically like we're not even neighbors. I don't even see the Bogarts when I step outside my house. The first people I would see would be the Wilsons, and I have to work to see them. Mr. Nation: This question about the shrubbery blocking their views, the shrubbery is there because we value privacy. We've attempted to construct privacy around our homes by having shrubbery. There is one big laurel hedge, but it's not a very long laurel hedge, and most of what's around us are low trees like holly trees, is the predominant thing right near our house, and a couple of mountain ash and a hawthorne tree, and then some low azaleas and rhododendrons. We see around the those and through those and over those in a way we would not see around or through or over a big slab of a structure sitting there. So it would be a big blockage of views. While you have the shrubbery there, that's a very nice sense of privacy that you have, and a sense of nature. Plugging in a big house in between the two defeats all that. Ms. Rice: Again, we're not talking about where on the lot, east to west, the house can go. We're just talking about where on the lot the setbacks... Mr. Nation: Except there was a key point that we said they could have their variances if they'd stay up higher on the slope. Ms. Rice: Did you want to speak to the encroachment into the setback? Mr. Nation: Is that not relevant, is that not the encroachment, itself, that I'm speaking to? Ms. Rice: No, you were talking about east to west, where the house is going to go on the lot. What we want to focus on is whether or not they should be allowed encroach into the 10-foot side yard setback. Mr. Nation: I feel you are not understanding my point. If they were to stay upon the upper part of the lot, we would happily say, go ahead and have your encroachments. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Ms. Rice: That's not relevant to the application. Mr. Nation: That's not? Ms. Rice: No. Mr. Nation: One last point. Our encroachment on their space, to my knowledge, is our deck. Ms. Rice: Did anyone else want to testify specifically about the encroachment issue? Please. Mr. Greenberg: My name is Charlie Greenberg and I ... Ms. Rice: Could I get you to say it into the Microphone. Mr. Greenberg: Sure, Charles Greenberg, and I'm working with the Wilsons. Obviously, I don't have a heck of a lot of time, but I thought I'd just mention a couple of features. You obviously, in the interest of time, are wanting to know how this, it's the variance, you know the strict application of the variance. Ms. Rice: That's all I'm deciding is the variance. Mr. Greenberg: Right, right. In preparing a letter that I submitted on behalf of the Wilsons that you have undoubtedly had a chance to take a look at, I went through what I thought were the elements. In large part, I think on behalf of the Wilson's we drew on many of the conclusion that have been drawn by the staff for the City of Edmonds. I think that's, we tried to hit on, you know, the relevant issues. I haven't seen case law that would militate one way or the other. The bottom line is the Wilsons are in a house that predates the building code, and I believe it's the same case with Haynes. So now the issue is, you know, do we allow the Bogarts... I mean, I heard counsel, and I think I heard Mr. Rising speak multiple times about they want to enjoy what the neighbors to the north and the south enjoy, which is a reduction in setback. And it seems to me and important distinction factor is that the Wilsons and Haynes have been there for years and predating the code, so I think it's a distinguishing feature. I would anticipate that if the Haynes or Wilsons build in the future, it would be a different set of circumstances. So it seems to me not terribly appropriate to just, you know, draw the bare bones analogy, you know if Haynes can do it, Wilsons can do it, then we can do it. Mr. Greenberg: A couple of other just brief items. I for one, found the development code instructive, and this was something that the City had made mention of, and that is Section 16.10.000, where we talk about preserving not only for the subject property, itself, but for the neighbors, light, privacy, views, open spaces. One might argue, you know, whether it's 5- feet reduction in setback or 2-feet reduction in setback, given the circumstances that are associated with these properties, it seems to me that it is a violation of this section of the code to grant the variance, whether it's 2 or 5 feet. Mr. Greenberg: As far as special circumstances, I think the City said it best. If there's somebody else building, despite the character of the house or the height of the house, because view, as you noted, we're not here to determine those factors. We only know that under very similar circumstances, the same width of lot and same setback rules, somebody's able to build and basically give credence to the setback rules, which obviously were allowing the rules to do what they were designed to do when you do that. So I found that really quite instructive when I was made aware of this building permit application that is in place. Mr. Greenberg: The same thing with the comprehensive plan's goals and policies. If you take a look at specific elements in the plan's goals and policies, encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identify and desirability. I guess in light of what we have here, you know, in a different time and a different place, it may have made sense, but given the situation we have here, I don't think what is being proposed is consistent with these plans, goals and policies. So in closing, on behalf of the Wilsons, and having listened to the input today, like I said, variances are designed to accomplish a goal, and it seems to me, the issue is not whether it is 2 feet or 5 feet because in this case, any reduction in variance, given the locale of the various homes and the scenarios that we're looking at, I just don't think it's appropriate. Thank you. Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 Ms. Rice: Thank you. All right. It's 5:00, and I'm not positive that everybody who wants speak has spoken. We're supposed to be kicked out of the room, here, at 5:00. Is that correct? Do we happen to know if there is somebody coming in? Ms. Coccia: We don't know, so you need to... How many more minutes do you think you need? Ms. Rice: Well, I want to hear from the applicant, again, and then I want to hear from the City in response to public comments. So are there other members of the public who wish to testify? I don't see any other members of the public that wish to testify, so I don't know if the applicant feels like maybe we should just... I don't want to continue this to another date. Just sort of, if we could make our final comments and then if somebody comes in, we'll just kind of ignore them for a few minutes. Ms. Coccia: Kathleen's going to be checking Ms. Rice: Thank you. Mr. Thayer: I can wrap up. Ms. Rice: Okay, thanks Mr. Thayer. Mr. Thayer: Thank you. Very quickly. I think the major focus needs to be, really for the most part on what is effectively a 2-foot variance on the north and south sides. We didn't hear hardly any testimony or discussion about the effect of the garage. They were just focusing on the 2-foot variance they requested to the north and to the south. I didn't hear any testimony as to the material or even the minimus impact that the actual variance would have, the granting of the variance. I heard a lot of complaining about having a house built further west on the lot, so that it would be between the Haynes' house and the Wilson's house. I understand why they may not want that, but that is not, as you point out, relevant to whether or not my client should get the variance. If they don't get the variance, they're going to build a house to the west that, to be honest, is going to be most likely impact their values to their light, view, etc. more than this very small variance would. Mr. Thayer: I just want to point out again, I don't recall any testimony as to how the 2-foot variance, north and south, was going to impact either properties, or any of the properties. I heard people who are not excited about a new home being built. I heard people who are not excited about neighborhoods changing because of new development. I understand those concerns, but they're not relevant to my client's variance application. Mr. Thayer: Lastly, I guess I would, two quick things. One is what have you admitted into evidence, and do we need to cover anything else to get it admitted evidence. Do you have sufficient things to consider? I assume you've admitted the packet submitted by the City, which includes my submission. Is that correct? Ms. Rice: That's correct. I identified at the beginning of the hearing, we have Exhibit 1, which is the staff report dated July 121, and it has 8 attachments. Amongst those 8 attachments, I have this from the applicant, which involves letters from you and the previous variance decisions and planning staff reports. And then I also have Attachments 3, is a revised site plan. Attachment 4, site sections. Attachment 5, revised upper and lower floor plans. Attachment 6, neighbors' proposed site plan. Mr. Thayer: Do you have all the attachments for my submission, the photographs, the drawings... Ms. Rice: I do, I have, let me compliment you. These are excellent black and white photographs. These are great. Not that the photographs, themselves are great, I mean they are, they're lovely. But I mean the copy quality is better than usual. I can actually see them; they're nice. No thank you. Mr. Thayer: It sounds like you have everything you need. The only other thing that I would say, if you have any questions that either I, Dr. Bogart, or Mr. Rising can answer at this time, while we're here. Ms. Rice: I don't believe I have any further questions for the applicant. Thank you. In addition to the 8 attachments that were attached to Exhibit 1 before the hearing, we now have also Attachment 9, 10 and 11, which were the comment letters Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 from the Robley's, from Mr. Greenberg on behalf of the Wilsons and from Ms. Haynes. So those are all admitted. Okay. It looks like we have a couple of minutes. Ms. Coccia, do you want to speak to public comment, please? Ms. Coccia: Sure, I just wanted to clarify a few items. The minimum rear setback in the RS-12 zone is 25 feet, so that illustration that showed the maximum building coverage showed it to a 25-foot rear setback. I'm not sure if that took into consideration the slope involved in the property. That's always sorted out with the building permit. Typically, our code says, in Chapters 23.40 and 23.80 that if someone were to build on a property that has a steep slope, that is a slope over 40%, there would be a 50-foot buffer from the top of that slope and then a 15-foot building setback. So it's a total of 65 feet. However, if they want to get a geotechnical engineer involved, the geotechnical engineer might find that they can be sited much closer to the steep slope. So I just wanted to clear that up. And that's always determined with the building permit. Ms. Rice: You mean the actual required setback is determined at time of building permit. Ms. Coccia: Right. For critical areas that is correct. Ms. Rice: Thank you. Ms. Coccia: Also, they mentioned, I think he might maybe have just misspoke, but you said that the neighbor's building permit application had a 30-foot garage, and I think you said 30-foot height, but that's incorrect. The maximum height of all detached accessory structures is 15 feet, and that's measured from average original grade. Also with the building permit that just came in being reviewed, there's several errors that I just noticed, you know, on the site plan that will need to be corrected, obviously. Ms. Rice: The point of admitting or offering Attachment 6 is to show that somebody else did design a house on a narrow lot that honors the 10-foot setbacks. It's not being offered for any other purpose. Ms. Coccia: Great. Thank you. Also, I wanted to point out there was mention of a 3-car garage, and everyone that's building these new homes has a 3-car garage. But I review building permits as part of my job, and I noticed that there are also a lot of 2-car garages that come in with building permits, as well. So I'm not really sure if a 3-car garage is the minimum necessary or if the 2-car garage would be the minimum necessary. Ms. Coccia: Let's see, I think that's about all I had to speak on. Thank you. Ms. Rice: Could you explain or expand a little bit on what the 3 versus 2-car garage has to do with the variance. Ms. Coccia: Sure. If the applicant wanted to propose a 2-car garage, they could. The driveway would come in from the east, and you would just have to pull straight back out onto Sound View Place. Or they could orient it where there's a turn around in the driveway. If you orient it so there's a turnaround in the driveway so you can back out and then go straight onto Sound View Place, then you'll need to push that structure further north or further south, however you design it. And that's why they're asking for a variance. But I did want to also mention that they are showing that the garage they're proposing is taking into consideration the topography, and they are building into the slope. And they'd like to do that to reduce the bulk of it, which I thought was nice. However, it doesn't meet setbacks. Ms. Rice: Okay. Mr. Thayer: If I could make one last comment on the garage. Ms. Rice: Yes. Mr. Thayer: One of the people who spoke indicated that the properties to the east are elevated so that if a garage had to be built facing with the garage door east within the setback which we have submitted, would be a taller, more obtrusive structure. People who spoke indicated that people to the east are elevated and you can see over. I don't think our point is whether or not you can see over it or not, it's what you see when you look at the road. What you're going to see when you look at the road with the proposed design is going to be a garage that's sunk into the hill that's very unobtrusive. The home Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24 is sunk into the hill, as well, so it will blend and be aesthetically pleasing. If they had to turn that garage 180 degrees and squeeze it in within the setback requirements, it's going to be the first thing you see from the road is this big garage. And with the limitations on how it can be designed within the space and with the layout, then it will be more opposing and less attractive, less aesthetically pleasing. Sure it would be functional, but I don't think anybody in the neighborhood would be happy with it as compared to the wonderful design Mr. Rising has come up with. Ms. Rice: Okay. Well, I appreciate that for all people who are here today, you've taken a lot of time to be here. Obviously, it's because this is very important to you, and I appreciate that on behalf of everybody. It is difficult when next door changes, and I understand that this is personal. I will reviewing all of the information that has been submitted. I will be applying the facts in the record to the criteria for variance approval, and I will only be looking at the variance from the side yard setback in making my decision. It's the only thing I have jurisdiction to consider. So just keep in mind I'm going to be focusing on the facts that you have all presented and on the criteria for approval. I believe that I have everything. So we're going to close the record and adjourn the hearing. Again, because the record is closing today, you can look for the decision on or before August 2nd. Thanks very much for being here; I appreciate everyone's testimony. I TESTIFY THAT THESE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTS ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY TO TRANSCRIBE THE PROCEEDINGS. Karin Noyes, Transcriber Date Verbatim Hearing Examiner Transcripts File Number V-2006-102 July 19, 2006 Page 24