Regular Business
Action Item #1 APL01-002. Appeal by James Swan of a DSG Staff Decision denying a variance related to height and setback requirements in the rear and side yard setbacks.
Ann Marie Rennick, Senior Planner, presented the staff report to the Planning Commission. She also answered questions of the Commissioners.
Mike Monroe, 1500 114th Ave SE, Suite 102, Bellevue, WA 98004, the attorney for Mr. Swan, gave the history of the site and explained why he feels the variance denial was erroneous. He explained that he felt the Municipal Code allows the rockeries as they are built and that the walls do not threaten the safety of others or surrounding properties.
Richard Bielafeld, engineering geologist (registered, but not in Washington State) for Mr. Swan, 4538 Lake Washington Boulevard, Kirkland, WA, American Engineering Corporation, explained the background of the site and the methods used to build the rockeries. He feels that the rockeries were built in a safe manner and that there is no threat of failure.
Bill Chang, Geogroup Northwest Inc., principal, 13240 NE 20th, Bellevue, WA, Professional Engineer and Geotechnical Engineer for Mr. Swan, gave his background and qualifications in building rockeries. He feels there is no problem with the rockeries on this property, no problem with drainage, and no problem with the soils because they are reinforced with geogrid. From the standpoint of safety and stability, he feels the rockeries should remain as built and not remove rock to reach the 30-inch height limit.
Jack Lynch, 1001 NE Boat St, Seattle, a land use consultant for Mr. Swan, gave his opinion on how the section on rockeries in the Municipal Code should be interpreted. He feels the provision allows for rockeries and retaining walls up to six feet. He gave several examples of other sites on Mercer Island where he feels there are rockeries over 30 inches in height. He submitted copies of the permits for the record. He also cited several other jurisdictions that do allow rockeries within the setbacks.
James Swan, 4515 West Mercer Way, appellant, explained that his intention in building the rockeries was to gain a level yard, but there is almost the same topography on the site as when he began the project. He feels he has improved the safety of the property as he has addressed drainage problems and overgrown and difficult to maintain vegetation. He then answered additional questions of the planning commission and submitted pictures and a survey of the property for the record. (Exhibit 15 & 16)
Commissioners Sherwood, VanDerbeek, and Chairman Bryan disclosed that they all visited the site prior to the public hearing.
Chairman Bryan admitted the following exhibits for the record:
- Exhibit 12 – Supplemental group of letters
- Exhibit 13 – Pictures submitted by Mr. Bielafeld
- Exhibit 14 – Permits submitted by Mr. Lynch
- Exhibit 15 – Pictures submitted by Mr. Swan
- Exhibit 16 – Survey submitted by Mr. Swan dated August 10, 2000.
- Exhibit 17 – Pictures of pre-existing conditions of the site submitted by Mike Monroe, attorney for Mr. Swan.
Chairman Bryan opened the public comment period
Randy Peterson, 8035 SE 45th St, expressed concerns about the safety of the rock walls. His main concern is that the 30 inch limit as required by the permit was not adhered to.
Burt Berlin, 4525 West Mercer Way, voiced his concerns about the safety of the rock wall and the drainage from the Swan property. He feels that the walls were not constructed to meet safety requirements.
Chairman Bryan closed the public comment period.
The appellant was given an opportunity to give a rebuttal to the comments that were given. The attorney for Mr. Swan discussed issues of the wording in the code, topography of the site, safety of the wall, and drainage.
The Planning Commission asked questions of staff about the actual height of the rockery, other rockeries on the island, interpretation and clarification of the code regarding rockeries, and the topography of the lot.
The Planning Commission discussed the evidence that was brought forth during the open record hearing regarding safety and the applicable criteria for this variance request.
Commissioner Lewis moved to affirm DSG’s Notice of Decision dated August 2, 2001 and find that the record demonstrates no substantial error, no procedural irregularities or factual errors, no conflict with any standard for review, or a decision unsupported by evidence.
Commissioner Fox seconded the motion.
APPROVED: 6-0.
Action Item #2 APL01-004. Appeal by Ron & Randi Hulce of an administrative action by staff. The request is to change the wording of condition number three as written in the November 8, 2001 administrative approval for VAR01-011.
Commissioners, Fox, VanDerbeek, Sherwood, and Chairman Bryan all visited the site. Commissioner Ledbetter disclosed that he works at the same real estate agency, John L. Scott, as Mr. Hulce, but has not discussed the issue before the Commission and felt he could consider this variance without bias.
Elizabeth Arnesen, Associate Planner presented the staff report to the Planning Commission, and answered additional questions of the Commissioners.
Chairman Bryan opened the public comment period.
David James, 9 Lake Bellevue Drive, the architect for the Hulces, explained the Hulce’s plans to expand their home. He explained that there would be no addition outside of the approximately 1200 square foot footprint of the existing residence. He commented that the Hulces had no intention of demolishing the home. They simply want to add a second story addition, which would not be visible from the street. He also explained that it would not be feasible to incorporate the garage into the expansion due to the topography of the site.
Randi Hulce, 2521 68th Ave SE, commented that she felt that the findings of fact and conclusions were not consistent in addressing the enlargement issue. She explained that the carport is intended to comply with the covered parking requirement of the Municipal Code. She feels the garage cannot be incorporated into the design without demolishing the house.
Chairman Bryan closed the public comment period.
The Planning Commission discussed the special topographical circumstances that are found on this site and discussed specific wording of the condition that would allow for the expansion due to these circumstances.
The Planning Commissioners requested that staff incorporate the following restrictions into a revised condition of approval #3:
- One additional floor will be allowed not to exceed the existing footprint.
- A cantilevered deck will be allowed on the second floor.
- No structural alteration will be allowed over 50% of the foundation and walls.
Commissioner VanDerbeek moved to revise condition number three of the Variance approval dated November 8, 2001, removing the word “enlarge” and incorporating the following restrictions into condition #3:
- One additional floor will be allowed within the existing footprint of the residence.
- A cantilevered deck will be allowed on the second floor.
- No structural alteration over 50% of the foundation and walls will be allowed.
Seconded by Commissioner Sherwood.
APPROVED: 6-0.
Other Business
The next regular scheduled meeting will be on February 6, 2002.
Adjournment
The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 11:20 PM.
Important Note: The proceedings of the Planning Commission meeting were recorded on tape and are on file with the Development Services Group. The complete agenda and official minutes of this meeting are also available from the Development Services Group.
