1425 COLBY AVE 2022-05-13 - Laserfiche WebLink

views to the west from 1424 and 1428 Wetmore Avenue, as well as 1432 Wetmore Avenue. Other concerns mentioned were the potential for blocking of natural light and concern that the overheight structure would be incompatible with neighboring structures due to its size. Exhibit 6. 7. The Planning Director issued a decision dated September 28, 2017 denying the request to exceed the maximum 15-foot accessory structure height because the additional four feet of height proposed for the garage would most likely block partial views of the Olympic mountains of two neighbors who are located east of the alley on Wetmore Avenue. At hearing, Planning Staff submitted the position that the Appellant had provided no evidence that the neighbors' views would not be blocked. Exhibits 1 and 3; Kembra Landry Testimony. 8. Mr. Cook(Appellant)timely appealed. In his appeal,he indicated that in the location of the proposed garage,he had recently taken down a 35-foot Rainier cherry tree in order to. prepare for construction. He argued that it was removal of the cherry tree that created the views the City now seeks to protect by denying his request, and he does not feel this fact was adequately considered in the Director's decision. His appeal letter stated, "To state that this view is anything more than a recent convenience is disingenuous." Exhibit 2;Jeff Cook Testimony. 9. In his appeal,the Appellant submitted responses to the public comment the City received during the Review II process regarding concerns that the overheight structure would darken the alley,that it would darken the neighboring house,that an overheight garage would be out of character with the neighborhood, and that it would negatively impact property values. He.also noted that at under 1,000 square feet, it would meet the maximum area allowed by Code, and that his parcel is a triple lot and the garage would not result in excess impermeable surface. Exhibit 2;Jeff Cook Testimony. However,the Director's decision was expressly based on view impacts alone. Exhibit 3; Kembra Landry Testimony. 10. At hearing,the Appellant(who is himself an architect) offered renderings depicting the approximate location of the former cherry tree in relation to the neighboring residences. He also offered photos of his site and of the neighbors' views with superimposed circles attempting to identify the portions of the views that would be blocked. He testified that even with architectural software and with a surveyor involved, it would be impossible to show exactly what view would be blocked by the structure, and contended that even a 15- foot tall garage would impact the views complained of. Exhibit 2,pages 7-8;Jeff Cook Testimony. 11. Michael and Angelika Durovchic,who live at 1424 Wetmore Avenue, submitted comments and photos disputing the Appellant's assertion that they had no view until he cut down the Rainier cherry tree. They contended that removal of the cherry tree improved their view, but that while the tree was in place,they had partial views especially in the winter when that tree dropped its leaves. They stated that they could always see the Olympic mountains and always had partial views of the water. They also offered their opinion that they would have preferred to keep and have a view of the cherry tree than to look out at a 20-foot tall Findings, Conclusions, and Decision Everett Hearing Examiner Jeff Cook Appeal,APP-17-007 page 4 of 7