Hillman written argument received 6-7-13.pdfDATE: June 7, 2013
PROJECT: HILLMAN RESIDENCE
1139 SIERRA PLACE
EDMONDS WA 98020
OWNER/APPLICANT: TOM & LIN HILLMAN
15915 74TH PL W
EDMONDS WA 98026
425-745-4669
REC# rr�� D
C c", c E
The following is our rebuttal to the arguments presented in the appeal, organized by topic
rather than the order presented in the appeal documents. Page number references are to
the above two appeal documents unless otherwise noted; four -digit references are to the
city's Bates Stamped numbering system per their request.
1. The Shoreline Master Plan (May 31, first page) does not apply to this
The plan's jurisdiction, per the city's website, only includes properties
within 200 feet of the shore, with a focus on places like the Edmonds Marsh and
Lake Ballinger. Compliance with this program is therefore not applicable to our
lot. That being said, we follow the appellants' reasoning that the city has adopted
Hillman Response to Appeal 1 June 7, 2013
environmental protection regulations over the years for the public good. The city
staff s approval of our proposal indicates their agreement that we have met their
code's requirements in this regard. The appellants seem to ignore the fact that our
proposal leaves the great majority of the lot and its critical areas not only
undisturbed, but in large part enhanced, to promote the functions of the wetland
and stream.
2. There is no arbitrary time limit for vacant lots to be developed.
There is no basis in city code to claim that if a lot has not been developed in
the last hundred years it cannot be (May 31, middle of p. 2). Attempts by previous
owners to develop a lot also do not form any basis for denial of a new application,
especially when the previous applications were not denied.
3. We have a clearly reasonable expectation to be able to build a house.
We disagree with the appellants' statement that we "simply had no
reasonable expectation that [we] would be allowed to develop" (May 31, middle
of p. 3) and so should not expect to be able to obtain a variance for this property.
The house next door (1111 Sierra Place) was built under a very similar variance
(city file PLN199900136) as described in the city's staff report of March 7, 2013
(beginning with 0083: History/Background), as that lot also contains wetland and
stream features (0199: Hachler site plan).
There was an existing variance (PLN20040008) in place on our lot that was
still active (under BLD20100196) at the time we bought it, and under which we
Hillman Response to Appeal 2 June 7, 2013
could have built a much larger home based on that prior plan (0205: Site Plan for
the Lewis Residence). However, we chose to submit a new variance application
with a smaller house plan and greatly reduced critical area disruption (0166:
Wetland Resources Inc., hereinafter "WRI" report, table 2 comparison). We
expected that a more modest proposal would be approved, and it was.
4. Price paid for a property does not dictate its buildability.
The appellants' comparison of our lot to two upslope view lots (May 8, top
of p. 12) without similar critical areas exaggerates our lot's value. The hearing
examiner considered the issue of lot price in his deliberations, but concluded that it
was irrelevant to our minimum reasonable use (0075: March 28, 2013 decision, p.
15, line 5). Considering only the price paid in a lot's value would render all
inherited property worthless, as the heirs did not pay anything for it; therefore
price paid cannot be the sole metric for property value. The price we paid for our
lot reflected other factors, including higher design and development costs than
would be needed for a plain, simple, flat, dry, non -stream lot. The price was also
affected by the state of the economy at the time, in a global housing depression
with property foreclosures and bank failures commonplace.
We felt we could invest our time and effort to optimize our design to
balance the competing critical area concerns with drainage, setback, tree,
neighborhood and economic factors. We believe our proposal is the most
Hillman Response to Appeal 3 June 7, 2013
reasonable way to develop this lot with a single-family residence in conformance
with its zoning and addressing all of the issues. We have used the code's variance
provisions contained in the city's zoning and development regulations that were
already in place at the time we purchased our lot, not something adopted
afterward. We do not seek "a total abrogation of the laws" as the appellants claim
(May 8, middle of p. 10), but rather are working within the framework of existing
codes.
We are not seeking a maximization of possible economic benefit nor do we
stand to "reap a windfall profit" (May 8, middle of p. 12). This .93 -acre lot in the
RS -12 zone (0109: Whole Site Plan) would normally be allowed 35% maximum
lot coverage (ECDC 16.20.030 Table of site development standards), yielding a
14,179 sf (square foot) footprint, a mansion with 6-1/2 times the size of our
proposed 2174 sf footprint (0109: Whole Site Plan).
5. "A minimum reasonable use of the subject property is a single-family home."
(0017: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration dated April 24,
2013, p. 17, item 10)
The appellants quote in the code's definition of reasonable use (May 8,
bottom of p. 8), "For example, the minimum reasonable use of a residential lot
which meets or exceeds minimum bulk requirements is use for one single-family
residential structure" but then go on to say bulk requirements are not defined. The
minimum requirements for an RS -12 lot include a 12,000 sf lot area and 80' of lot
Hillman Response to Appeal 4 June 7, 2013
width (ECDC 16.20.030 Table of site development standards), which our lot far
exceeds. Normally, these requirements would allow our lot to be subdivided into
three 12,000+ sf parcels, with a 4200+ sf footprint house on each one (based on
the 35% allowable coverage in the table).
The code does not, as the appellants suggest, then negate critical areas
considerations in development of that legal residential lot. Our consideration of
the critical areas led to our drastically smaller one -house proposal with only 5.8%
lot coverage (0109: Whole Site Plan). The appellants don't seem to have given
any weight to the huge positive of our leaving the remaining 94.2% of the lot
undeveloped.
6. Our proposed plan is minimal compared to others in the immediate vicinity.
Our proposed 2174 sf footprint (0109: Whole Site Plan), including garage,
is smaller than the footprints of all of the homes immediately adjacent to our lot,
which average 2936 sf (0167: WRI report, table 3). The appellant (Brown)
previously suggested (0271: letter of September 25, 2012, item 6), taking into
account the smallest home nearby, the Mallot house across the street built in 1962
(1344 sf floor 1 living space plus 483 sf garage = 1827 sf footprint), which brings
that footprint average down to 2798 sf, still way over our 2174 sf. In order to
enjoy what most of our closest neighbors do, we would have had to propose a
larger footprint resulting in an even larger area of wetland disturbance than the
11 % proposed.
Hillman Response to Appeal 5 June 7, 2013
7. One could claim that "minimum" is at least what the neighbors have, but we
are not asking for a house that big.
We do not contend that we are entitled to build a house that is as big as
those of all of our neighbors. As shown in 0167: WRI report table 3, our proposal
is significantly more modest than most of the other neighbors' homes. Their
average living area 3798 sf (or 3582 sf including Mallot), the largest being 4754
sf, which is over 2000 sf more than our proposal.
8. The previous variance approved for this lot was for a much larger house and
driveway.
The prior owners' approved variance (city file PLN20040008) was for a
4146 sf footprint (0166: WRI report, table 2, Lewis), and a long access driveway
(0205: Site Plan for the Lewis Residence) with much greater wetland and buffer
disturbance areas. Though the deck they proposed was denied (as described in
May 8, p. 5, top third), the rest of their variance remained approved, and was
active (city file BLD20100196) when we purchased the lot. How can we disturb
less wetland and buffer than a previously approved variance and not have
that be considered minimum?
9. The wetland/stream property next door was granted a similar variance.
Our variance does not create a precedent. In claiming our house would set
a "dangerous precedent" (May 8, last paragraph of p. 13), the appellants fail to
Hillman Response to Appeal 6 June 7, 2013
acknowledge the house next door to us at 1111 Sierra Place (0167: WRI report,
table 3, Hachler), on a similar wetland and stream lot, built under a similar
variance approval (city file PLN199900136), with a larger footprint. It was built
primarily in the wetland buffer, with the house edges intruding into the wetland
itself and located only 10' away from the stream (0199: Hachler Site Plan); their
driveway crosses both the wetland and the stream. They were not required to
design an even smaller house and shrink their rear yard setback to further reduce
their wetland disturbance.
The appellants' request for further research of other properties by the city
staff (May 8, middle of p. 14) has no basis in the record, and appears to be a delay
tactic. There is no better comparable property to use as a precedent for our
variance approval than the one next door at 1111 Sierra Place.
10. A building staying entirely out of the wetland is not reasonable for this lot.
On this lot, a house designed to be located completely out of the wetland
would be problematic, from size and configuration standpoints as well as drainage
aspects. Our attempts to create such a plan were discarded due to various non -
feasibility reasons and were not submitted to the city and therefore not included in
the record. As can be seen from the Partial Site Plan (0 110) the frontage of a
house staying completely out of the wetland would be limited on the east side by
the westernmost point of the wetland edge and on the west by the drainage ditch
Hillman Response to Appeal 7 June 7, 2013
and storm drain pipe, effectively allowing no more than a 25' front wall, or just
enough room for a 2 -car garage. This is not reasonable for a single-family home
in the RS -12 zone.
The 1600 sf footprint inclusive of garage (May 8, bottom of p. 6) discussed
by the hearing examiner would reduce the house's first floor living area to about
1000 sf, a limit to which no other neighbors have been held, and is unreasonable
for this vicinity. He did not put this size limitation in his conditions of approval
(0020: Hearing Examiner's Final Decision upon Reconsideration, dated April 24,
2103, p. 20).
The exact location of where "reasonable" ends and "unreasonable" begins
is neither codified nor always obvious, but the hearing examiner did include
guidelines for snaking that determination in his conditions of approval (0020). He
also recognized the complex engineering challenges involved in the design for this
lot, and that sweeping suggestions such as "Why don't you just build entirely out
of the wetland?" do not have simple answers, as individual changes have ripple
effect ramifications in the overall design.
Many preliminary designs we tried simply could not be built due to
engineering limitations (like drainage can't run uphill). For example, the drainage
design would be infeasible were the driveway catch basin to be placed so low in
elevation that downhill drainage would end up below the level of the stream bank
where it needs to discharge (0027: item J). Similarly, the driveway apron cannot
Hillman Response to Appeal 8 June 7, 2013
be placed at a different elevation than the existing roadway. The hearing examiner
recognized there were such limiting factors and left the city staff a certain amount
of discretion to verify that a given design is technically possible and appropriate
(0020).
Our design goal was to strike a balance between all of the competing
concerns, the wetland being one of them. Ours is a low -functioning sloped
wetland (beginning on 0 15 1: WRI report, p. 5) with minimal ability to affect water
flow, water quality, or wildlife habitat. The small portion of it we propose to
disturb is its least viable area, and our proposed mitigation pian is expected to
result in a net increase of wetland functions (0159: WRI report, p. 13, Stn
paragraph).
11. The wetland biologist's follow-up to the hearing examiner's decision is on file
at the city.
The appellants state that as of the date of their appeal filing, "no further
information has been provided by the City or Wetland Resources, Inc." On April
5, 2013 we forwarded to Jen Machuga of the Planning Department an April 4,
2013 letter from Andrea Bachman of WRI (0054-0055) that addressed wetland
versus stream buffer disturbance in response to the hearing examiner's March 28,
2013 decision (0077-0078: condition 1, p. 17 line 18 through p. 18 line 1). While
not admissible into the present record under the "no new evidence" rule, it is a
matter of public record available to the appellants (city file PLN20120033).
Hillman Response to Appeal 9 June 7, 2013
12. There is no justification for disrespectful comments about the wetland
biologist's credentials.
Although not stated outright, the appellants attempt to discredit the wetland
biologist on this project, calling her "paid" and "partisan" (May 8, middle of p.
13), as though her report is somehow unprofessionally biased. Maybe they feel
they must do so in order to dispute her approval of the project. However, the city
has verified and acknowledged the qualifications of Wetland Resources, Inc.,
placing the firm on their critical areas consultant roster, and has accepted and
agreed with their conclusions.
In summary, we believe the appellants' arguments have failed their burden of proof
for recommending denial of our variance, and we respectfully request that the
council deny their appeal and uphold the hearing examiner's decision.
We believe the foregoing to be true.
Thank you for your consideration.
Tom and Lin Hillman, Applicants
Hillman Response to Appeal 10 June 7, 2013