2011-01-05 HEX# 10-008 Final DecisionDECLARATION OF MAILING
I, Kristen Olbrechts, make the following declaration:
I am a resident of the State of Washington, over the age of 18 years, not a
party to this action, and competent to be a witness herein.
2. On the 15th day of January, 2011, I mailed, via First Class U.S. Mail, a
true and correct copy of the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision on the
Federal Way decision for Reagan to the following:
Kirk and Denise Reagan
11410 Farwest Drive SW
Lakewood, WA 98498
Carol McNeilly
City Clerk
City of Federal Way
P.O. Box 9718
Federal Way, WA 98063-9718
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that
the foregoing is true and correct.
EXECUTED at Granite Falls, Washington, this 15th day of January, 2011.
Kriste Olbrechts
{PA0793149.DOC;1\13041.150035\ }
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR THE CITY OF FED
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
,�Aff 18 2011
RE: Kirk and Denise Reagan
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF
10-104032-00-UP LAW AND DECISION
INTRODUCTION
The applicants request Process IV approval of a variance to FWRC 19.195.010, which imposes a
ten percent lot coverage maximum for detached dwelling units within Suburban Estate zones.
The applicants propose 18 percent lot coverage. The request is approved.
ORAL TESTIMONY
Matt Herrera, Associate Federal Way Planner, summarized the staff report. In response to
questions from the Examiner Mr. Herrera noted that the 10% lot coverage requirement for
SE zones is highly unusual and that lot coverage restrictions for higher density zones is
typically 50% or more. He explained that the 10% lot coverage requirement for a five acre
lot yields a total impervious surface amount similar to that allowed for higher densities. He
also noted that gravel driveways and pervious pavement is considered impervious surface
under the code for purposes of the 10% restriction.
David Boe of Boe Architects testified on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Boe noted that his
client did not ask for five acre minimum zoning and that there are very few properties in
the SE zone that meet this minimum lot size. All surrounding zoning allows much higher
lot coverage. The property is also very long and narrow, which increases pervious surface
due to access needs. The property also has a 13% grade until you get to the existing house
and garage, which is at the end of the property, thereby further necessitating lengthy
access and corresponding impervious surface.
EXHIBITS
All exhibits are admitted that are identified in the "Exhibit List" on page 1 of the staff report
prepared by Matt Herrera, dated December 22, 2010.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Procedural:
Applicant. The applicants are Kirk and Denise Reagan.
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application at 2:00 pm. at
Federal Way City Hall on January 5, 2011.
{PA0793145.DOC;1\13041.150035\ }
Variance Request P. 1 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
Substantive:
3. Site/Prl2osal Description. The applicants have applied for Process IV approval for a
variance to FWRC 19.195.010, which imposes a ten percent lot coverage maximum for detached
dwelling units within Suburban Estate zones. The applicants propose 18 percent lot coverage for
the replacement of an existing single-family home. The proposed development includes a 4,030
square foot building footprint (2,838 house and 1,192 garage); 2,027 square foot gravel
driveway; 1,850 square foot permeable parking area; and 160 square -foot concrete walkway.
The property is a 48,351 square foot (1.11 acre) lot located in the northwestern portion of the city
and along the Puget Sound shoreline. The applicants have calculated that existing lot coverage is
17.6% composed of 8,527 square feet. The lot is narrow and long, with approximate dimensions
of 100 x 450 feet. From the adjoining access road to the current building site the grade is 13%.
The grade levels out at the existing building site. Beyond (waterward) the existing buildings the
lot descends into a steep bluff.
The property is accessed by SW 307t' Street, which is a private street serving eight residences.
Staff have found the road to be adequate to serve the proposed home. The existing home is
already served by adequate utilities (as determined by staff) and these utilities will be transferred
to the new home upon completion.
4. Characteristics of the Area. The lot is one of what appears to be 14 contiguous shoreline
lots zoned Suburban Estate (SE) bordering or adjacent to Dumas Bay. Nine of the lots are
smaller than the 5 acre minimum lot size required in the SE zoning district. Five of the nine
undersized lots contain homes and accessory buildings in excess of 4,000 square feet of gross
floor area. Additionally, an abutting lot received a variance in November 23, 2005 to exceed the
10% impervious requirement for a paved driveway.
5. Adverse Impacts. As conditioned, no adverse impacts are discernable from the record.
As discussed in the staff report and during testimony, the proposal will result in significantly less
lot coverage than most other lots developed under other zoning districts. Given the relatively
high lot coverage allowed in other districts (starting at 50% for medium density development), it
is fairly clear that the proposed single family residence will be surrounded by more permeable,
undeveloped land than the vast majority of other homes constructed in Federal Way. Further, the
project is proposed to include permeable paving for the parking area and the driveway will be
composed of gravel.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Procedural:
1. Authority of Hearing Examiner: FWRC 19.70.150 provides that the Examiner shall issue
a written decision on Process IV applications. FWRC 19.70.210 provides that the Examiner's
decision is appealable to the City Council.
{PA0793145.DOC;1\13041.150035\ }
Variance Request p. 2 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
Substantive:
2. Toning Designation: Suburban Estate (SE).
3. Review Criteria and Application. FWRC 19.45.010 requires Process IV review for
variances. Process IV criteria are governed by FWRC 19.70.150(3). A variance must also
satisfy the variance criteria of FWRC 19.45.030. All applicable criteria are quoted in italics
below and applied to the application under corresponding Conclusions of Law.
FVMC 19.45.030 Variance Criteria
(l) That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon uses of other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject property
is located
4. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 4, the proposed home is generally the same size as other
homes built in the SE enclave where the subject lot is located. As testified by Mr. Boe, a portion
of the impermeable surface is due to the lengthy driveway necessitated by the grade and shape of
the lot. The applicants have proposed the minimum amount of impervious surface reasonably
necessary to build a home of comparable size to those in their zoning district and vicinity. The
criterion above is satisfied.
(2) That the variance is necessary because of special circumstances relating to the size,
shape, topography, location or surroundings of the subject property to provide it with use
rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the subject
property is located
5. There are several circumstances that qualify as special circumstances under the criterion
above. As emphasized by staff in the staff report and during public testimony, the 1.1 acre lot
size of the subject lot is significantly smaller than the five acre minimum for the SE zone. Given
the much higher maximum lot coverage requirements of Federal Way's other zoning districts, it
does appear likely that the 10% maximum assigned to the SE zone was based upon the
understanding that the relatively large minimum lot size of the SE zone would still accommodate
a reasonably sized home. Mr. Boe also correctly noted that the topography of the lot and its
narrow width necessitated a long driveway, which of course increases the need for impermeable
surface. The relatively small, nonconforming size of the lot, its narrow width and its steep
grades constitute special circumstances that necessitate the requested variance.
(3) That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the
subject property is located.
6. As noted in Finding of Fact No. 5, no adverse impacts are discernable from the record for
this project. The criterion above is satisfied.
(4) That the special circumstances of the subject property are not the result of the actions
{PA0793145.DOC;1\13041.150035\ }
Variance Request p. 3 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
of the owner of the subject property.
7. As previously discussed, the special circumstances of this application are attributable to
the size, shape and topography of the lot. These circumstances are not the result of the actions of
the owner of the property.
Hearing Examiner Review Process IV Decisional Criteria, FWRC 19.70.150(3):
(a) It is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
8. As noted in the staff report, the project is consistent with Federal Way Comprehensive
Plan Policy HG1, which requires new housing to be of a scale and design that is compatible with
neighborhood character. The requested variance enables the applicant to build a home that is
compatible with neighborhood character as contemplated in HG1. There is nothing about the
project that is inconsistent with any Comprehensive Plan policy. The criterion above is satisfied.
(b) It is consistent with all applicable provisions of this chapter and all other applicable
laws.
9. Staff have circulated the proposal through all City departments with jurisdiction and no
concerns over code compliance were raised. Nothing in the record suggests that the proposal
would be inconsistent with any development regulations beyond the lot coverage requirement.
Hearing Examiner Review Process IV Decisional Criteria, FWRC 19.70.150(3)(c):
(c) It is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
10. The criterion is satisfied. Approval of the variance enables the applicant to build a home
of comparable size to those in their vicinity and no adverse impacts are discernable from the
record.
Hearing Examiner Review Process IV Decisional Criteria, FWRC 19.70.150(d):
(d) The streets and utilities in the area of the subject property are adequate to serve the
anticipated demand from the proposal.
11. As discussed in Finding of Fact No. 3, the proposed home will be served by adequate
streets and utilities.
(e) The proposed access to the subject property is at the optimal location and configuration
for access.
12. Staff have determined that the proposed access is at an optimal location and there is no
evidence to the contrary. The criterion is satisfied.
{PA0793145.DOC;1\13041.150035\ }
Variance Request p. 4 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation
09 Traffic safety impacts for all modes of transportation, both on and off site, are
adequately mitigated.
13. The staff report notes that traffic safety impacts will be addressed during building permit
review.
DECISION
The requested variance is approved with the proviso that the project design includes pervious
surface for the parking area.
Dated this 13th day of January 2011.
hil 01brechts
Hearing Examiner
City of Federal Way
APPEAL AND NOTICE OF VALUATION
This decision may be appealed to the Federal Way City Council within 14 calendar days of
issuance as governed by FWRC 19.70.170.
Affected property owners may request a change in valuation for property tax purposes
notwithstanding any program of revaluation.
{PA0793145.DOC;1\13041.150035\ }
Variance Request p. 5 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation