Lake Forest Park hearing on Mark Gary RUE continued; applicant given 180 days to resubmit

Hearing Examiner John Gault continued an open-record hearing on city file 2021-RUE-0001, a reasonable use exception filed by Mark Gary, to a date and time uncertain and set a 180-day deadline for the applicant to submit any revised application materials for staff review.

The continuation comes after testimony from the applicant and his consultants describing design changes the team said they would pursue to address concerns raised by city staff and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). The applicant’s consultant said the team is “willing to reduce the house foot footprint size to 750 square feet,” and proposed a cumulative floor area of 1,500 square feet and site changes intended to reduce potential impacts to Lion Creek.

Gault said the applicant’s planned revisions and the volume of existing written comment made taking public testimony on the current materials less useful. “I truly believe that taking the time, taking more time to listen to your testimony would probably be not worthwhile because the project that I'm going to carry over or carry any significant weight to a project that's different,” Gault said, explaining why he would not hear public testimony at this sitting and would continue the matter.

Applicant Mark Gary described the proposal as a single-family house he plans to occupy, said he bought the property to build an ADA-accessible home and added context about delays in processing during staff turnover and the COVID-19 period. “I bought the property to build a single family home for myself,” Gary said. He also said the team expects to remove two trees and to plant additional native trees and to work with regulators on erosion-control and streambank stabilization measures.

Alex Capron, a consultant for the applicant, told the hearing that the site is zoned for single-family use and cited state and local legal considerations on property use and takings. Capron said project plans avoid the mapped FEMA 100-year floodplain and that the proposed first-floor elevation would be 272 feet, versus a delineated ordinary high-water mark of 262 feet for Lion Creek. He also said the team planned a hydraulic-project-authorization pre-application meeting with WDFW and requested the examiner remand the case so the applicant could amend materials after receiving agency feedback.

City staff, represented at the hearing by Community Development Director Mark Hoffman, asked for clarity about how resubmitted materials would be treated under the city’s procedural rules and stressed that staff needs adequate time to re-review any new submittal. Hoffman noted the city had already issued a recommendation on the existing record and said the staff’s review timeline could not be determined without seeing the precise revisions.

Gault described options for continuing the matter — a date-and-time-certain continuation or a continuation to a date to be determined after resubmission — and said he preferred not to leave the matter entirely open-ended. He set the procedural requirement that the applicant submit revised materials within 180 days of the hearing and that staff would then perform its ordinary review and notice steps before a new hearing is scheduled. Gault also discussed statutory context with the room, noting constitutional and state takings protections that underlie the reasonable-use/variance framework.

The record entering before this session included 27 marked exhibits from the city’s processing file and numerous public comments (exhibits cited in the hearing list 26 comments in one exhibit and additional comment collections for SEPA review). The examiner noted he had read the materials and that more than 68 public comment emails were already in the record opposing the proposal in its current form.

Direction to the applicant and staff included: show clear property dimensions and readable survey maps, depict easements shown in the title report on the site plan, provide up-to-date water and sewer certificates, clarify topography to show street elevations adjacent to the lot, and address whether the west slope qualifies as a regulated steep slope under city critical-area rules. The examiner also requested clarity on tree-canopy calculations and neighborhood-analysis comparators for lots with similar critical-area constraints.

The hearing concluded with the continuation: the application was continued to a date and time uncertain; the applicant agreed to submit any revised application materials within 180 days; staff will re-review the resubmission and follow the city’s normal notice and comment procedures before scheduling the resumed hearing.

What happens next: The applicant must provide revised plans and supporting studies (including coordination with WDFW as needed) within 180 days. Once submitted, staff will conduct its review and re-notice the application; a new hearing date will be set following standard procedural and notice requirements.