Hearing Examiner Decision.pdfI
2
',lc. 109V
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 51h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY
OF EDMONDS
RE: Gary Hitchens
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
Shoreline Variance
PLN20180071
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant has applied for a shoreline variance to build a single-family home 15
feet into a 50 foot shoreline bluff buffer imposed by ECDC 24.40.090 for development
within the Shoreline Residential I shoreline designation for a waterfront parcel located
at 17901 Vista Del Mar. The application is approved subject to conditions.
TESTIMONY
[This summary is only provided for the convenience of the reader, to provide an
understanding of the testimony presented at the hearing. The summary of testimony is
not to be construed as containing any findings of fact or conclusions of law, or as
indicating what information the examiner found pertinent or significant.]
Kernen Lien, Environmental Programs Manager, summarized the staff report. In
response to examiner questions he responded he wasn't aware of the specific sizes of
the other homes located in the same subdivision.
Shoreline Variance
P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Garth Hitchens, Applicant, noted that if they had to comply with the shoreline setback,
they would have to take an additional 15 feet out of the home.
In response to further Examiner questions, Mr. Lien noted that the City normally doesn't
get involved in enforcement of private covenants but that the narrow private road subject
to the recommended barricade condition was too narrow for safe and efficient use and
that this conclusion was verified with consultation of public works staff. Mr. Lien
confirmed there were no sidewalks on the private drive but there are sidewalks on Vista
Del Mar.
Mr. Hitchens noted that aerial photographs in the record show that the homes in Vista
Del Mar are very sizeable.
Robin Kearsley, Applicant's builder, noted that the base of piles will probably daylight
below the bottom of the slope at the railroad tracks. This is why building closer to the
slope makes the home safer.
Dana Graves, neighbour, noted she has no objections, but the residents using the private
drive are elderly and it would be unsafe to add traffic to it and parking is limited.
Construction vehicles have also delayed access through the road. The examiner
inquired of Mr. Lien whether the recommended condition requiring that the private road
be barricaded identify that the barricade be placed prior to construction to prevent
construction vehicles. Mr. Lien agreed to the modification. Mr. Kearsley noted that
he's built two other homes in Vista Del Mar and has not had any problem avoiding use
of the private drive.
Mr. Lien noted that all the homes in the Vista Del Mar development are on the bluff.
He also noted that any development within the buffer of a bluff is subject to a
geotechnical report that addresses slope stability.
Mr. Hitchens emphasized that the project site is in the Vista Del Mar subdivision, which
has dramatically larger homes than that proposed.
EXHIBITS
The Staff Report with attachments 1-21 was admitted as Ex. 1 at the March 14, 2019
hearing. The staff power point was admitted as Ex. 2.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
1. Applicant. Garth Hitchens, 3380 126th Ave NE, Bellevue, WA 98005.
Shoreline Variance p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2. Hearing. A hearing was conducted on the subject application on March 14,
2019 at 3:00 pm in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Public Safety Complex.
Substantive:
3. Site and Proposal Description. The Applicant has applied for a shoreline
variance to build a single-family home 15 feet into a 50 foot shoreline bluff buffer
imposed by ECDC 24.40.090 for a waterfront parcel located at 17901 Vista Del Mar.
The subject lot is currently developed with a small single family home that is located
approximately 5-6 feet from the top of the bluff on top of a public sewer easement. The
existing home will be removed as part of the proposal. The bluff separates the existing
home from Puget Sound, which his located to the northwest of the parcel. The parcel
upon which the home will be located is 22,200 square feet in area. The parcel slopes
downwards to Puget Sound. The eastern half of the property has an elevation change
towards Puget Sound of approximately 20 feet with a slope of approximately 19%. The
property then drops off at 70-119 percent down to the railroad right of way. The overall
height of the bluff is approximately 10-140 feet.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The subject property is Lot I I of the 15 lot
Vista Del Mar plat recorded under Auditor File No. 2000L0195002 (Attachment 11).
All the other lots of the Vista Del Mar plat have been developed. All the Vista Del Mar
lots are zoned RS-12 (Single-family residential; 12,000 square foot minimum lot size)
and developed with single family residences. Most of the other homes developed in
the plat are over 5,000 square feet in area.
5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. There are no significant adverse impacts
associated with the proposal. Overall, the impacts of approval would be highly
positive, as approval would enable the Applicant to remove the existing home located
only 5-6 feet from the bluff and replace it with a home 35 feet from the bluff. In the
absence of the variance the Applicant would have to expand the existing home eastward
(away from the bluff) in order to build a reasonably sized home. The adverse impacts
of such an expansion would be exacerbated by the fact that the existing home is located
upon a public sewer easement. Approving the variance would give the Applicant
sufficient room to remove the existing home and build it further from the bluff with a
35 foot separation, completely away from the public sewer easement. Slope stability
has been thoroughly reviewed in a geotechnical report, which concludes that if
recommended measures are taken that the proposal can be constructed without
impairing slope stability. The recommendations of the geotechnical report are made
conditions of approval of this decision. Approving the variance would also reduce
existing view impacts to adjoining homes by placing the homes further back from the
shoreline. In addition, according to the Applicant, building closer to the slope enables
the home to be built lower into the slope, thus reducing the height of the home as seen
from adjoining properties.
Shoreline Variance p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
As noted in the staff report and the public comment letters, the plat is served by both a
public road, Vista Del Mar drive, and a private road, Maple Manor. Two neighbors
have requested that a barrier be placed upon Maple Manor blocking access to the
private drive as a covenant prohibits use of the private road for access to the subject
lot. The City's public works staff has reviewed Maple Manor and has determined that
its substandard width does not provide safe and efficient access to the subject property.
The Applicant has not objected to a condition requiring a barrier to Maple Manor. Due
to the safety issue, the conditions of approval require the Applicant to place a barricade
upon Maple Drive that prevents vehicular access to the subject property.
6. Necessity for Variance. The variance is necessary to either avoid the adverse
impacts of expanding upon the existing home as identified in Finding of Fact No. 5 or
to facilitate the construction of a reasonably sized home in a new location. As shown
in Attachment 4, the Applicant proposes a 4,690 square foot two story home that
completely takes up all available space (with a modest sized deck and patio) when
encroaching 15 feet into the 50 foot shoreline bluff. If the 50 foot bluff were to be fully
imposed, the size of the home would be reduced to approximately 3,000 square feet.
3,000 square feet is significantly less than the 5,000 square foot home sizes that
predominate in the Vista Del Mar subdivision. As noted by the Applicant, the Vista
Del Mar plat had lots configured to accommodate development for a 30 foot bluff
buffer, as expressly depicted in the Vista Del Mar plat map, att. 11.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. The shoreline variance application is
classified as a Type III -A decision under ECDC 20.01.003. ECDC 20.01.003(B)
provides that the hearing examiner holds a hearing and makes a final decision on Type
III -A permits.
Substantive:
2. Zoning Designations. Single Family Residential (RS-12).
3. Permit Review Criteria. The criteria for shoreline variances are governed
by ECDC 24.80.060(C). All applicable criteria are quoted below and applied through
corresponding conclusions of law.
ECDC 24.80.060(C)(1): That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or
performance standards set forth in the applicable master program precludes, or
significantly interferes with, lawful, reasonable use of the property;
4. The criterion is met. Application of the ECDC 24.40.090 50 foot buffer would
significantly interfere with reasonable use of the subject property. As outlined in
Findings of Fact No. 5 and 6, application of the buffer would give the Applicant the
Shoreline Variance p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
unreasonable choice of either expanding the existing home in a manner that would be
significantly detrimental to surrounding properties and the public interest, or building a
new home that is almost half the size of most other homes located in the same
subdivision.
ECDC 24.80.060(C)(2): That the hardship described in subsection (C)(1) of this
section is specifically related to the property, and is the result of unique conditions such
as irregular lot shape, size, or natural features and the application of this master
program, and not, for example, from deed restrictions or the Applicant's own actions
or those of a predecessor in title;
5. The criterion is met. The need for the variance is attributable to the 50 foot buffer
resulting from the Puget Sound shoreline and the configuration of the lots. As noted by
the Applicant, the lots were configured to accommodate a 30 foot bluff buffer, which
was recognized in the plat when it was approved in 2000. See att. 11. As determined
by staff, the subdivision is no longer vested to the 30 foot buffer and is now subject to
the increased 50 foot buffer that was recently adopted by the Edmonds City Council.
As is evident from the floor plans, att. 4, there is no room on the lot to accommodate
the 4,690 square foot home proposed by the Applicant without the proposed
encroachment into the 50 foot buffer.
ECDC 24.80.060(C)(3): That the design of the project is compatible with other
authorized uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the
comprehensive plan and shoreline master program and will not cause adverse impacts
to the shoreline environment;
6. The criterion is met. As determined in the findings of fact, the proposal is of
comparable size to other homes in the subdivision and it will not interfere with the
views of other homes or otherwise create any adverse impacts to adjoining uses.
Further, the proposal is consistent with all applicable comprehensive plan and Shoreline
Master Program policies and regulations for the reasons identified in the staff report.
ECDC 24.80.060(C)(4): That the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege not enjoyed by the other properties in the area;
7. The criterion is met. Approval of the variance will simply enable the Applicant to
build a home that is of comparable size to surrounding homes.
ECDC 24.80.060(C)(5): That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to
afford relief; and
8. The criterion is marginally met. As determined in Finding of Fact No. 6, without
the variance the Applicant would still have room to build a home that exceeds 3,000
square feet in area. It is highly questionable to assert that the Applicant lacks "relief'
if development is limited to a 3,000 square foot house. However, it must also be
recognized that without the variance the Applicant could build a house of the requested
Shoreline Variance p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
size by expanding the existing home, which would cause far more harm by its proximity
to the bluff, by blocking the views of adjoining homes and by remaining on a public
sewer easement. Given that the "relief' sought can be characterized in terms of
avoiding this harm by building a 4,690 square foot home in a more appropriate location,
the variance is concluded to serve as the minimum necessary to afford relief.
ECDC 24.80.060(C)(6): That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental
effect.
9. The criterion is met. As determined in in Finding of Fact No. 5, there are no
significant adverse impacts associated with the project. As a consequence, the public
interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
DECISION
As conditioned, the shoreline variance application complies with all applicable review
criteria for the reasons outlined in the Conclusions of Law above. The application is
approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Recommendations in the December 20, 201,8 geotechnical report prepared by
Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. must be implemented (Attachment 9 and 10).
2. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding recorded under Auditor
File Number200006220188 access to the subject property shall solely be by Vista
Del Mar D rive. Prior to commencement of any development activity, a barrier
shall be constructed at the terminus of the Maple Manor private drive to prevent
access to the subject property. The barrier may consist of fencing, landscaping, or
other methods that prevent access.
Dated this 27th day of March 2019.
Ph—tf A.Olbrechts
City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner
Appeal Right and Valuation Notices
This land use decision is final and subject to approval by the Washington State
Department of Ecology as regulated by Chapter 90.58 RCW. Appeals of final variance
decisions issued by the Department of Ecology must be filed with the Washington State
Shoreline Variance p. 6 Findings, Conclusions and Decision
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Shoreline Hearings Board as regulated by Chapter 90.58 RCW. Reconsideration may
be requested within 10 calendar days of issuance of this decision as required by ECDC
20.06.010.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
Shoreline Variance
p. 7 Findings, Conclusions and Decision