Loading...
24107 76TH AVE W (2).pdfD z 0 a LU U. 0 z rTTV n11= PnMnX1nC PARBAR A FAHEY : . , I MAYOR ' 121 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-02M -TAX j,�10�� �771-6221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT I Public Works Planning/Building Parks and Recreation , Engin , e , a . On g, Wasterwater� Treatment Pla n I t C. -b Transmittal Date: A6gust 26,1997 F Mr. Amir Ashood 24107 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 L Subjed AP-97687/CU-97-'21 Transmitting Findings of Fact & Conclusion's of L" For Your Information: X -As you requested: For your file: Comment: Note affac men S: t S,' ince re y Diane :Cunning am,.Admimstrative Assistant CC: Mr. John Nordqu!St 11, .8�90 Incorporated August I Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan �n� 0 777 V W . . ........ t �f FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Lul LU Applicant: Amir Ashoorl File No: CU-97-21 -j C)l U11 LU LL This matter came on for hearing before the Edmonds City Council on the appeal V) 10 20 _3 of John Nordquist from a decision of the Edmonds Hearing Examiner approving an LL < nj �'.'b. I : .1 Co —01 accessory dwelling unit permit. The closed record appeal was heard before the City Z Council on August 5, 1997. Based upon the argument of the parties, the City Council z Uj LU; hereby adopts the decision of the Edmonds Hearing Examiner and denies the appeal. 063 Uj W DATED this 26th day of August 1997. z LU CITY OF EDMONDS 0 z Barbara S. Fahey, Mayor ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: 0 01 -Sandra S. Chase City Clerk W 34i, 9 al :C lap l- X z �—� ;: 0, Z 1— Uj uj� 0— D t= Uj LU m L) 1-- LL: 8� z LU tn 0 z [a k;.�! cwmfor (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES FROM DAVID L. D—M GOTTSCHALK (Amount Unknown) Approve (F) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #15950 THRU #19303 FOR THE WEEK OF Claim AUGUST 4, 1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $377,751.54; APPROVAL Warrants OF CLAIM WARRANTS #18954 THRU #19461 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 11, 1997, E%T THE AMOUNT OF $601,488.99; AND APPROVAL OF PAYROLL WARRANTS #17252 THRU #17497 FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 16 THRU JULY 31,1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $391,101.34 1997 Water REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 1997 WATER LINE UnaFrogram REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT storm (J) REPORT ON BEDS OPENED AUGUST 4, 1997, FOR 'THE 92ND AVENUE W/220TH Drainage STREET SW STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD OF Improvementsi CONTRACT TO GREEN RIVER CONSTRUCTION ($132,726.58, Including Sales Tax) M City Pak (K) AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT A WITH SVR DESIGN COMEPANY FOR THE, EDMONDS CITY PARK ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT Councilmember White advised he pulled Agenda Items C, G, and H to abstain from the vote as he was absent from the August 4 Council meeting. COUNCELMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEM C, G, AND H. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMIEMIBER ViHITE ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE ON ITEMS C, G, AND H; COUNCILME]MBER NORDQUIST ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE ON ITEM H. The items approved are as follows: Approve 8/5 minutes (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MOINUTES OF AUGUST 5, 1997 (G) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 5, 1994, ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION ISSUED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT TWO ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT OF THE APPLICANT'S BUILDING (Applicant: Marvin Smith; Property Location: 126 4th Avenue North; File Nos. ADB-96-131 and AP-96-148) Findinp of (H) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A Fact AP-97-87 MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 5, 1997, ON AN APPEAL OF THE BEARING (J. Nordquist) i EXAMINER'S DECISION TO GRANT APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT To LOCATE IN A NEW ADDITION TO AN ENISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 24107 76TH AVENUE WEST (Appellant: John Nordquist, File No. AP-97- 87 / Applicant: Amir Ashoori, File No.XU 920NEUVWX0" p. rT,e&-;7en—t-j Lester Blume, 19026 Olympic View Drive, distributed information regarding the Treatment Plant to Ipjant Councilmembers. He explained his discussions with King County indicate Westpoint provides a wholesale charge of $19.10 per month to the 35 cities and sewer districts it serves. He recommends the City make auxiliary power for the Treatment Plant a high priority to avoid future spills. Edmonds City Council Appmved h4inutes August 19,1997 Page 2 0 W Addiflan to Agenda I Approve U29 Minutes jApprove a/12 iminuft A EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 19, 1997 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the Library Plaza Room, 650 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT Barbara Fahey, Mayor Robin Hickok, Police Chief Dave Earling, Council President Paul Mar, Community Services Director John Nordquist, Councilmember Noel Miller, Public Works Manager Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Charles Day, Accounting Manager Jim White, Councilmember James Walker,, City Engineer Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Rob Chave, Planning Manager Gary Haakenson, Councilmember Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director ALSO PRESENT Scott Snyder, City Attorney Sandy Chase, City Clerk Andy Streit, Student Representative Jeannie Dines, Recorder 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA COUNCILMMMMER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED By COUNCILMEM3ER MILLER, TO ADD DISCUSSION OF EMS MEDIC 7 AS ITEM 9 AND RENUMBER AGENDA ITEMS 9, 10, AND 11 ACCORDINGLY. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SE CONDED By coUNCILNMMMER MYERS, To ADD AN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER AS ITEM 7A. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMEMSER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER. MYERS, FOR APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA As ADjusTED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember White pulled Agenda Items C, G and H. COUNCILMENMER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMENMER, I VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER,OF THE CONSENT AGENDA IT I EMS. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCII;MEETING MZqUUS OF JULY 29,1997 (D) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING M]NUUS OF AUGUST 12,1901 Edrnonds City Council Approved Minutes 19, 1997 pagi I ;7, foot buffer was not acceptable to the church, the City could not require more as the City's ordinance only required 5 feet. IL I 3: Ms. Hyde said her understanding was that the width of the landscaping could be negotiated with the �- W� cc 2i church. Mr. Snyder pointed out the City's ordinance stated 5-feet; it was not appropriate for the Council < -n to defer a quasi judicial decision to a third party. LU ;-y V) LU: Councilmember Nordquist clarified that his motion stated the buffer would be 5 feet. Mayor Fahey u) LU X, .1 1— clarified if the church did not want the landscape buffer, the buffer would not be provided. There was no (n LLI option in the motion for negotiating the amount of the buffer. UJ 0 it i =H Mr. Snyder advised the Findings would be prepared for the August 19 Council meeting. He U- < recommended the Council continue the hearing and decision to the August 19 Council meeting which D all would allow Ms. Hyde to obtain a letter from the church specifying their decision on the buffer. He F disagreed with the Council deferring the outcome to a third party. Ms. Hyde agreed to provide a le er z P� from the church. 1�ft. Snyder pointed out if the church agreed to the 5-foot buffer but only 3 - 4 feet �- R, z , could be provided, the Council could modify its decision. LU Ly� 2 M� COUNCILME1%0ER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED By cOUNCELMEMBER 0 ;7- HAAKENSON, TO CONTINUE THE HEARING AND DECISION TO THE AUGUST 19,1997 N COUNCEL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Nordquist requested this item be placed at the beginning of the August 19 Council zi agenda. Mr. Snyder indicated this item could be handled on the Consent Agenda if Ms. Hyde submitted W tun) I a letter from the church. z Closed 5. MEETING ON AN APPEAL OY- THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO GRANT Record APPROVAL OY—A REQUEST FOR A !COMTIONAL USE TO ALLOW AN Appeal !� ] -PERMIT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT AP-97-87 . NoTdquist J or ist TO LOCATE IN A NEW ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLEAFAMIIX RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 24107 76TH A3% IT (Appellant: John Nordquist. File No. &P--97-87 / Applicant: Antir Ashoo h File Ngiglr Mayor Fahey indicated Councilmeniber Nordquist had stepped down from his position on the Council for this matter. Mr. Snyder explained normally when a Councilmember stepped down, he/she would be encouraged to leave the Council Chambers. In this instance, doing so would deprive him of his rights under appeal; 0 therefore, he would be allowed to be present. He recommended Councilmembers disclose any conversations they have had with Mr. Nordquist regarding this matter or any financial interest in the property. He explained the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine specifically excluded a challenge that would destroy a quorum of the Council. Mayor Fahey asked if any Councilmember wished to make a disclosure. There were no disclosures. 0 Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson explained on May 15, 1997, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on a request by Mr. Ashoori for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be located within a new addition to an existing single family residence. On May 30, 1997,,,the Hearing Fdrnonds City Council Approved Minutes August 5, 1997 Pageti 71, 0 Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson advised the proposed parking dimensions would use the entire 60-foot area. He recalled Chapter 18.95, parking lot construction standards, had been modified. Prior to this modification, parking stall dimensions were deeper (18 feet); the dimensions could now be reduced to 16.5 feet in length. He noted the parking dimensions were engineering standards and declined to Lu! comment on turning movement requirements. D U Councilmember Haakenson asked what the ADB's responsibility had been upon remand. Mr. Snyder 01 referred to the Council's Findings and Conclusions which indicated the matter was remanded to the ADB for entry of written findings. V) U. 0 Councilmember Haakenson asked if the Council had the authority to determine what was in conflict. Mr. Snyder indicated the decision ultimately was whether the applicant complied with the criteria of the U_ g I Code and its application. (0 Oi X Uji Councilmember Myers noted the ADBs Findings were not dated and were signed by only one member. 1— 3:' Z City Clerk Sandy Chase advised the additional signature was obtained and was dated June 18, 1997. Copies were sent by certified mail to the Mr. Smith and Ms. Hyde. Z W W. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUN MBER MYERS, To APPROVE THE PARKING PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE_,,�,',�-'�-FOOT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT, SUBJECT TO THE CHURCH'S APPROVAL THE 5-FOOT LANDSCAPE UJ UJ STRIP. �L- 0i i Councilmember Myers referred to the ADB decision which indig' _4�' "the parking proposed fails to X provide for adequate landscaping along the lines between adjacent property owners and the adjacent street" and said he felt the 5-foot landscape buffer would be adeAi,Re. He did not see a need for a 5-foot m 0 . landscape buffer on the south side. He hoped the applicantA4 , _,W'the church could reach an agreement Z regarding the landscape buffer on the south side. Councilmember Haakenson asked if the 5-foot buffer w: be required if the church did not want it. 0,WU Councilmember Nordquist advised his motion midicat 5-foot landscape buffer. would be subject to the church's approval. Councilmember Haakenson '10'e he would support the motion. Councilmember Van Hollebeke expressed frustra the length of time this process has taken. Although he did not understand Mr. Smith's r fis for removing two on -street parking spaces and replacing them with two off-street parking spao0g,11: was Mr. SmitVs decision as long as the buffers as 0 intended were met. He pointed out clear instrug'#6n to citizens would avoid ambiguity. Councilmernber Myers asked whether a s r buffer would be acceptable if it was determined that it was not possible to provide a 5-foot u Councilmember Nordquist responded he would like the buffer to remain at 5 feet as required by ode and felt it would be possible. Councilmember Uaakenson recalled the Council was not permitted to consider the loss of two on -street 0 parking spaces. W. Snyder agreed the Council was not permitted to use the loss of two on -street parking spaces as a reason for denial. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING OPPOSED. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 5, 1997 Page s 0 7 L) 0 U) LU LL UJ 01 M r 9 -J Lt. F- z UJ LU Q 0 01-- LU LU X Z! LU (a z E Councilmember Haakenson asked what type of enforcement procedures existed if the applicant chose not to live in the residence. Mr. Wilson explained enforcement procedures of that type would be difficult for the City to administer as it may be difficult to determine actual residency. As part of the application process and a condition applied to all accessory dwelling units, the applicant must sign an affidavit indicating and acknowledging the requirements and conditions placed on granting the permit. That affidavit is filed with the property. A purchaser of the property is not granted the same rights to the accessory dwelling unit as the current owners; the City requires an owner reside in the property for at least two years. If the property were sold and the purchaser began using the property as an accessory dwelling unit, enforcement action would be taken to terminate the accessory dwelling unit. Amir Ashoori, 24107 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, indicated he had lived at this address for nine years but he and his wife had been living in an apartment in Mountlake Terrace for the past nine months. He explained he wished to add an accessory dwelling unit to his home for either his parents or he and his wife to live in. He explained his parents have lived in the residence with him for the past nine years. He indicated he had met all the City's requirements. Mr. Snyder explained the appellant was requesting the covenant be clarified so that, as an occupant of the home, the applicant would be required to live there. He asked if Mr. Ashoori objected to including stronger language in the covenant. 1W. Ashoori asked if that was normal. Mr. Snyder answered the covenant as proposed would be the standard one the City has used in the past. If the Council wanted to strengthen the language, the question would be whether it would be used in all future requests. Mr. Snyder clarified he represented the Council, not the appellant. Mr. Ashoori objected to strengthening the language and questioned why the additional requirement would be imposed upon him and not other applicants. Mr. Snyder explained this issue had not been raised to the City Council in the past; staff used a covenant he developed a number of years ago. Although it was always intended that an applicant live in the structure, the City Code uses the word "occupancy"; Mr. Nordquist has raised the issue whether that adequately ensures the person requesting the permit will be on the premises. Mr. Snyder pointed out this was not a requirement for only Mr. Ashoori but whether the City should tighten its covenant and use more specific language in the future. Mr. Ashoori objected to the City using his case as an example. He explained a real estate attorney who reviewed his case indicated the way the Hearing Examiner stated his findings is beyond the scope of the City's codes. He did not appeal the original decision and did not have an attorney present to avoid additional costs. He felt if the appellant was not a Councilmember, this case would not have progressed this far. Edmonds City Council Approved minutes August 5. 1997 Page 7 77 C-0 0 J1,1% - kN I Councilmember Myers asked how long Mr. Ashoori had lived in an apartment. Mr. Ashoori answered one year. Councilmember Myers pointed out Mr. Ashoori indicated to the Hearing Examiner that his parents may visit his sisters in Tacoma and Washington DC for 2 - 6 months. Mr. Ashoori answered the period of time may vary, but likely would be 1- 2 months. He said this was a personal issue and he felt Z the Hearing Examiner was policing him in his residence. Councilmember Myers clarified the reason for the question was to ensure the owner would occupy the residence. He asked why Mr. Ashoori had moved from his primary residence. Mr. Ashoori explained LU -J conflicts arose after he married and it was easier for he and his wife to move than for his parents to LU move. He stressed this was a personal issue; he would like to build an accessory dwelling unit and move U) W back into the residence. W U. 0� John Nordquist, 7516 241st SW, Edmonds, explained he and his wife purchased the property in 1960 he had and as much right as any citizen to defend his property. He reiterated he had not discussed this U. <1 matter with any Councilmernbers or with staff. He explained he was appealing the Hearing Examinees w 81 usage of the word "occupant". The Hearing Examiner states that the word "live" did not exist in Chapter 20.21 but rather the words "occupant, occupy, and occupancy" should be the "operative words" and the Z 1— definition should be sought out in a dictionary. He directed the Council's attention to page 10, paragraph 4, of the Hearing Examiner's decision in which he indicated one of the two dwelling units shall be LU LUI occupied but uses the word "live in" on page 5. In the Hearing Examiner's decision on the request for reconsideration, he again indicated ECDC only uses the word "occupant, occupy, and occupancy" and U 0 not the word "live" but the Hearing Examiner used the word "live". Mr. Nordquist expressed concern C3 with the Hearing Examiner's finding of stating one must consult a dictionary for the definition of LU La X 0: occupant. He pointed out an individual could occupy a space (such as an office) but may not necessarily �- P. live there, He recommended the Hearing Examiner develop a stronger definition of what it meant to live LL. 01 Z! in a place. He pointed out this application would result in basically a duplex —one of the units could be .. LU Cni U !� used for a business and the owner could indicate it was "occupied" by his business. He recommended P this issue be returned to the Hearing Examiner to request he provide a more definitive definition of the 0 Z word "occupanV'. Mr. Ashoori commented "occupancy" versus "live" was a word game. Although he agreed Mr. Nordquist had a point, he objected to his case being used to bring up that point and stated the Council bad ample opportunity to address this issue. He pointed out the report contained information that the applicant lives in Mountlake Terrace according to City records. He questioned how this information was obtained as he was denied this information when he requested it from the Water Department, COUNCELMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO EXTEND THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. 0 Councilmember Myeys referred to Mr. Ashoori's comment that Mr. Nordquisfs position on the Council was the reason this issue had gotten this far. He assured him all citizens had access to the same procedures. Mr. Ashoori clarified citizens may not know the procedures as well as 1�ft. Nordquist did. Mayor Fahey remanded the matter to Council for deliberation. 0 Councilmember Van Hollebeke referred to the Hearing Examiner's decision on the request for reconsideration indicating the words "occupant, occupy and occupancy" were not defined in the Edmonds Community Development Code; therefore, the dictionary definition of those words should be used. Mr. Snyder explained the Hearing Examiner was referring to the "standard maximum Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August 5, 1997 Page 8 interpretation", if a term was not defined in a law or ordinance, it was to be given its plain, ordinary meaning determined by reference to a dictionary. Regardless of the outcome of this appeal, he recommended this matter be remanded to the Planning Board for their consideration if the use of the term "occupancy" was an issue. He pointed out Section 20.21.035 of the accessory dwelling section Z regarding non -transferability stated a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit shall not be X Z transferable and shall expire automatically if the applicant ceased to be a resident and occupant of either uj� the accessory dwelling unit or the primary residence. He pointed out legal residency was a far more tenuous status than occupancy. _J 00' U) 0 Councilmember Myers asked if Mr. Ashoori's establishment of a separate residence would invalidate the U) Lu 3: .J 1-1 two year residency requirement. Mr. Snyder answered no, Mr. Ashoori had established his residency (n LL during the previous nine years. 0, LU Councilmember Haakenson asked how many conditional use permits for accessory dwelling units were issued this year. Mr. Wilson answered less than six. He noted approximately 6 - 10 requests per year T were issued over the past 7 years. LLi4, Z I— Mr. Snyder explained if it was alleged that the terms of a conditional use permit were being violated, the 1.- 0 Z �- Planning Department or three neighbors could refer the matter to the Council for revocation and the W UJI Council would then determine if a residence was being resided in and occupied. 2 =) 0! T) Councilmember Haakenson agreed Mr. Nordquisfs comments regarding the ambiguity of the word 0 a tt floccupy" were valid; however, if the wording of the ECDC was to be changed, he preferred it be done LU Lu, via a Planning Board process and not use this case as an example. 0; Zi. Councilmember Van Hollebeke appreciated the feelings the parties have regarding this issue. He pointed LU (D U out Mr. Ashoori adequately explained why he has not continuously lived in his home and did not feel his 0 intention was anything other than to live in the residence. Z COUNCILMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEIKE MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCI[LMEMBER HAARENSON, TO DENY THE APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AS APPROVED UNDER FILE NO. CU-97-21. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMOBER MYERS OPPOSED. Fam-T--­1 6. REPORT ON COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (CEHM PROGRAM pmgram Human Resources Director Brent Hunter explained the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) 0 was a volunteer program in which citizens in the community were trained to provide assistance to their neighbors in the event of a major disaster until assistance could be provided by Public Safety personnel. CERT members are trained in extinguishing fires, providing basic first aid, search and rescue, and working with neighbors. He indicated staff would like to continue this pro -gram and conduct additional classes. The cost of the first program was approximately $950, although classes were conducted by volunteer instructors provided by ESCA. He indicated these funds were available in his departmenes budget. The long range goal is to conduct four classes to train a core of volunteers and to maintain this as an ongoing program. He displayed photographs of volunteers being trained in building assessment, fire suppression, emergency first aid, transporting, search and rescue, and the volunteers from Edmonds and Woodway. He noted the clothing provided to volunteers was one of the primary expenses for the CERT program. Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes Aupst5,1997 Page 9 477 '71�7z.:­_. 0 t1l"t '. I . k* V Dan Tarbuck, Stella's Landing C ondominiums, 3rd and Walnut, Edmonds, said he volunteered for the first Edmonds CERT class and became a member of the Steering Committee as well as its Chairman. The Steering Committee was asked to develop a citizen's perspective as a result of the training. He explained four facts were developed, 1) the potential for a NW disaster, 2) not enough professional responders during a major disaster, 3) citizens will be on their own, and 4) with training, CERT could be an effective emergency response force He displayed a City map identifying fire stations, the City's command center, residences of members of the CERT team, and the Kingston Ridge fault line. to LJ; U3 Mr. Tarbuck explained the Steering Committee also developed conclusions that 1) readiness made sense, Lo UJ _J 2) utilization of spontaneous volunteers would be helpful to professionals, 3) the need to provide clear U) W guidance to CERT members and follow-up training, 4) CERT was a wise way to spend City tax dollars, 0! 2 �: Lcur and 5) the potential need for corporate sponsorship for specific training and exercise drills. U- <1 Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked whether the CERT volunteers would join with City professionals or work within their own neighborhoods. Mr. Tarbuck replied this was currently being defined. He X stated the Fire Chief has three levels of expertise, 1) his fire fighters, 2) architects, engineers, etc. who Z I-- would survey the level of damage in the area, and 3) the group of volunteers. CERT members' first 0: � I-- responsibility would be to their families and then to their neighbors. Once stabilization of the W ul 2 neighborhood had been completed, members would be available to the Fire Chief. D U 0 Councilmember Myers asked if CERT was affiliated with the group of Ham radio operators who provide C3 service during emergencies. Mr. Tarbuck answered no, but communication would be very important. LU Lu 3: He indicated the Fire Chief hoped to bring in the Ham radio operators as part of the communication link. Z! Councilmember Miller asked how corporate sponsorship would assist CERT and what success they had ca; :;:; had to date attracting corporate sponsors. Dan Good, Emergency Management Coordinator, Emergency Services Coordinating Agency (ESCA), advised he had a verbal obligation from The Boeing Company to provide financial support for the CERT teams. He indicated he is working to identify funding so building more teams can continue, Mr. Hunter advised ESCA requested Fire Chief Springer attend the CERT instructors course, conducted at the National Emergency Training Center in Maryland during the last week of August. The cost of the training is paid by ESCA; according to the City's travel policy, authorization for Chief Springer to attend the training is required. COUNCHMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, TO 0 AUTHORIZE FIRE CHIEF SPRINGER TO TRAVEL TO MARYLAND TO ATTEND CERT TRAINING. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Nordquist was not present for the vote.) Fire Chief Springer explained the CERT program is very successful in the South Snohomish County region. He noted some members were utilized during the winter storms. He invited citizens interested in the CERT program to contact Edmonds Fire Department or ESCA. He explained CERT members would 0 be utilized in a disaster preparedness drill in October and the Ham radio operators would be incorporated in the drill. He offered to provide a report on the result of the drill. Mayor Fahey encouraged interested citizens to participate in the CERT program Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes August5,1997 Page 10 L3 z LAJ U- uj z Su bject: Case No. CU 97-21 Appeal of the Hearing Examiner's Findings of Facts and Conclusions of my Request for Reconsideration Dated June 24, 1997 I am appealing the Hearing Examiner's response determined in his report as Paragraph 4. My comments in paragraph 4 are as follows: Throughout the record there is an interplay between the words floccupy" and "live". My testimony concerned the fact that warehousing of furniture could be used as a definition of occupy. Because this is a special benefit and an impact on a homogenous neighborhood the intent of the benefit should be more specific. My preference would be "live" be I cause we the surrounding and impacted neighbors "live" inlour homes., meaning day and night. I The Hearing Examiner in his response states that the w I ord "live" does not exist in Chapter 20.21 but rather the words "occupant, occupy and occupancy" should be the "operative words" and then the definition should be sought out in a dictionary. I My appeal is based on several concerns with this "comm ent": I I 1. Why then wasn't the Hearing Examiner consistent1with this "comment" in 6c and use the word "occupy or etc." in spelling out the requirements for loss of the use of the property under this special benefit? 2. 1 disagree with the Hearing Examiner's weak response in that he suggests that a dictionary definition of lloccupy,etc.") be used. If his responsibility is to I award a special benefit and specific guidelineslare to be used then there should specifisity in the language. in researching several dictionarys I can find definitions from "filling time and space" which could support my contention of warehousing furniture to "inhabit or live in" and many more. My appealis to request that the words "occupy etc" be given.,, true meaning in this case the applicant must "inhabit and live day and night in the required unit. �A X i a �i 0 EDMONDS HEARING EXAN11NER Z MAY 15,1997 < Z, Plaza Room - Edmonds Library UJ! 650 Main Street < UJ J O� cj Jfge��Tc� UJ LU (n LL —0 LU 2 � b. FILE NO. CU-97-21; Application by Amir Ashoor! for a Conditional Use Permit for an "Accessory Dwelling Unit" in an existing single-family residence located at 24107 76th Avenue West. The Proposed "accessory LL Dal dwelling unit" will be housed in a new addition to the existing residence. The* Subject Property is zoned RS-8. LU 3: Z I -- �- RZ Z : Steve Bullock, Assistant Planner: Thank you Mr, Examiner, yes, I still don't see the applicant for this application. Lu LU� M! 0 Ronald McConnell! Hearing Examiner: All right, Do you want to just wait then? LU UJ :r Q Architect: I am the architect; I am not overly familiar with this, but I will do the best I �- 1=1 0, can. Hearing Examiner: okay. I . I . Z; LU CA Architect: I brought som e drawings here that —In fact, I just started to read this. Z Hearing Examiner: If You want, I think the Cummins are here. We can go ahead. We can just reverse the order then. Architect: Oh, that's fine. He was supposed to be here at nine; he had some, meetings. Hearing Examiner. That will allow you time to might show within that period of time. read the staff report and maybe the applicant Architect: Okay. 0 Mr. Bullock: Mr. Examiner? Jeff is going to be doing the Cummins one. Hearing Examiner: Now we don't have staff for this one. Okay. Why don't we wait for 3 or 4 minutes then and see if Mr. Ashoorl shows up. And then, slr*, you can take a took at the staff report and be a little bit prepared. 10 Architect: I am reading It now. �J Hearing Examiner Okay. Here we go; here is Mr. Wilson. We'll Put him on deck then well., give you a chance to read that and we'll take the Cummins next then. ----------- (item c. - File No. V-97-54 - was considered at this time.) ----------- ............ ............ Hearing Examiner Meeting Verbatim Transcript - May is, 1997, Item 2 b. Page i 0 LL < -_ -_ -*'-' ­_ --- -., 1-1. ­- ­- ­- -�IIUARIUJJC31 U::)U r-UJJJJJL criteria for the accessory dwelling units. First of all, in response to Mr. Ehlers' letter which is (n C:)j attachment 7 for the staff report, his major concern that he stated in the letter was that it X dl appeared by a site plan that was submitted by Mr. Ashoori, that Mr. Ashood was using a brick z fence that he constructed on his property as the indication of where. the property line was for 1.- 0, I­- between their two properties. And, he just wanted to make it clear as part of his letter that that Z LU LW fence was actually located two feet on his side of the property line. That was something that he 2 D, did when he put the fence in; the choice he made to make sure that the fence would be entirely 02)1 on his property. Mr. Ashoori has shown in his site plan, which is attachment 4 of the a t=1 application, a dimension of 34 feet between the south side of his house and what he was calling LU Lu , X 0, the property line. Assuming that he was using the face of the fence for that property line, he i- _t would still have 32 feet there according to what Mr. Ehlers' is saying. And, since that property Z! is a comer lot, a seven and one-half foot setback would be all that is required on the south LU M, Y, property line. It appears that Mr. Ashoorli would still have adequate room to put that addition on there. 0 z Hearing Examiner: Wait a minute. Looking at this, the driveway is showing here ... and I don't know if the driveway is 27 feet or the structure is 27 feet. Mr. Bullock: The driveway is 27 feet in width. Hearing Examiner: Okay, so the structure is proposed to be what about 20 feet then? V_ Mr. Bullock: Probably 24 1 think. 0 Hearing Examiner: 24? Okay, because if you take the 34.... Architect: 23 is what it is now. It is 10 feet 1, 10 feet 3 from the fence. 8 feet 1 from the property line now taking in the 2 foot consideration. I changed those things so we wouldn't encroach on the setbacks. Mr. Bullock: That problem appears to have been addressed. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Mr. Bullock: With that, I guess I would like to call your attention to Page 5 of the staff report which is the section of the staff report where we go over the criteria that are set up for accessory dwelling units and what things the applicant has to comply with as part of their application before the city will approve this type of Conditional Use Permit. First criteria Is that Hearing Examiner Meeting Verbatim Transcript - May 15, 1997, Item 2 b. Page 2 7 0 I EWE � . ' ^ the application, orexcuse me, the accessory dwelling unit needs tobeowned and occupied by the applicant for edleast two years orawaiver ofcriteria they need baapply. Awaiver ofcriteria typically applied ... one of them is that a family member is going to be using one of the two units along with the owner or that some kind of financial hardship has arisen. The applicant has stated in their letter of declaration, vvh|oh is attachment 3 of the ubsff report, that their parents are going to be using the accessory ... their going to be using one of the two undo with the applicant. So it appears that they are either going to meet the waiver criteria or that they owned and occupied the property for two years. The Assessor's records indicate that they have owned the property since 1888. The second nhUeho iathe area used needs hzbalocated within or attached to on existing single-family dwelling unit. And, again the applicant has proposed onaddition totheir current house. |tionot going bzbeaseparate structure. |twill not be a detached guest house or a detached garage with another unit in it. It will be port of an existing house and, tbanshzne, it appears to meet that udbsdo. The next criteria is very similar and it deals with extra changes of the houoe, and its focused on the fooL that the ultimate design and character cfthe building aU|| needs to maintain a single family appearance. And, that can be done many different ways including putting entrances for the second unit on the side orthe rear cfthe building, things like that. And, the applicant has shown ontheir site plan, attachment again, has an entryway to the accessory unit located on the side oftheir house. There is many houses in the City of Edmonds that have second floor additions added on to one end. @o. again | think that they are complying with this odbeho. The next one has to do with parking. Our Code requires that for accessory dwelling un!ha, at least three on -site parking spaces need tobeprovided. Hearing Examiner: For the entire structure? Mr. Bullock: For both units, that's correct. And, those three stalls have to be able to be accessed atany time. They can't betandem or, you know, boch4o-back The stalls have bobe side -by -side. And, that is why the applicant showed on their site plan a driveway that is 27 feet in width to accommodate three cars side -by -side. They still have an additional two stalls in their garage which can't be counted for a total of 5 stalls because they would be back-to-back with the ones parked in front of the garage. But they do have 3 stalls that do count for that, ao, again, they meet that criteria. There is only going to be this one accessory unit, so a total of two units on the site. And, the occupancy was just something | guess that wojust need to clarify is that ... the occupancy of both dwelling units needs to comply with the city's definition of o family which is "any number ofpeople related by blood or heredity or up to 5 unna|ebsd people" so the applicant just needs to be ovwana of the fact that if it is going to be a family member living thora, they are okay; it's not going to be a problem. If it is going to be used for anyone besides family members, the total occupancy of the entire structure will only be allowed tobe5. Now, with that I guess I would call your attention to page 2 of our application which is our recommendation to you of the conditions that we have. And, they are fairly standard for accessory dwelling units. The key one. | thinh, is condition number 2which is the covenant concerning accessory dwelling units. The applicant has already signed this and has included it in your packet as ottaohment6. indicating that they are willing to sign and have this covenant recorded with the property. And, this covenant basically shabao that the opp||oan[ie aware of the hsot that they need to occupy one of the two units, that all the time they have this permit. And, also that if the property should ever be sold, that it will revert back to e single tam{k/ property. And, they have indicated bytheir already signing th�document.that they are vWU ' tononlp|ywith that oond0on. - Hearing Examiner Meeting Verbatim Transcript - May 15,1997; Item 2 b. Page 3 10.1 ' Hearing Examiner: Okoy, so the recommendation says "ooa attachment T", should be "attachment G",correct? ' Mr. Bullock: That's correct. | had that wrong. | apologize. With that, | would be happy to answer any questions that you might have from staff. ' Hearing Examiner: | would like clarified where Uhe—howfar away it is going to be from the pnopor�Une;get �ae�achmen�r�hL VV�||hear fnon�theapplicant. . ' Mr. Bullock: ExacUy. ` ' Hearing Examiner: Mc Ashooh you weren't here when everybody else was sworn ' in, so on � this matter, doyou swear bztell the truth? ' 88rAehoor: |du ' ' Hearing Examiner: Ohey. Go ahead. ' Mr. Aohoor: Well, thank �ou for giving mothis opportunity bzbahere today. Basically, what ' Mr. (word not clear) upset about, myreport, everything isright there. And, | have Mr. Sewars, my architect, doing the drawings. In regard to the letter that my neighbor on the south property sent, and the fact that she referred back bothat exhibit orottachrnenL.. Architect: 7, 1 believe it is. Mr. Ashoo6: 4,yeah He's referred toattachment 7,but he's referring toattachment 4i believe. In regards to that 34feet dimension that ! mentioned. Well, just want to clarify something here. That that drawing was apreliminary drawing that | did myself and | just went upbothe fence and not knowing any better | just measured from there. After that measure, | talked toPhil here and hehas supplied the drawings and he has looked up the records and he's the expert inthis. Hearing Examiner: Could | get your name and address for the record sir? Architect: Philip Gawono.."8.��.VK.E-R.8",3316Northeast 125th,Seattle, that's myoffice. Hearing Examiner: Okay, and the zip code there? K8n Saxvers: 98125. Hearing Examiner: All right. Go ahead. &r. Sowers: Well, | checked everything again. And I'm 1�f��t 7cn from the neighbor's on the south 10feet 3 from the fence. A �he has 2 - leaves us 8 feet I inches. His house is 5 feet 4 ... the fence extends 5 feet 4 north of his house. They built that thing years ago .... and in using the property technically he is |oo|nQ that with adverse possession. But that isnot aproblem with unbecause wacan make this work fine the way it is. Headng ExamIner MeeUng Hearing Examiner: Do you want to enter the copy of the drawings? Mr. Sawers: If fact, yes. Yeah, these can ... and it shows how the buildings are connected and possibly a kitchen. Yeah, just one. See, we go from one right through the other so its all attached. Hearing Examiner: Okay, so we'll enter the... Mr. Sawers: Those are just preliminary drawings. So.... Hearing Examiner: Okay. I will enter the preliminary drawings as Exhibit B. It will give us a pretty good indication if we are dealing with correct measurements. Mr. Sawers: That's right. We figure we are 8 - 1 from the property line and we only need to be 7 - 6. That's 7 inches room for error. Lot's of time there is.... Hearing Examiner: All right. Do you have anything further you want to say then? Mr. Sawers: Nothing from me. Hearing Examiner: Is there anybody from the audience who wants to speak? Yes, sir. Can I get you at the podium there? John Nordquist: Thank you Mr. Examiner. My name is John Nordquist. I live at 7516 241st SW, Edmonds. Abutting this property to the east. Just a little bit of history on this particular site. This was a four lot plat in 1959. Three of the homes were developed at that time in a rambler appearance. The house to the south which is the one that has the fence, was a custom built home. The residents in the other three homes have lived there over 30 years. I have lived there 37 years. Bought it new for $16,250. The applicant's home has probably had 6 or 7 owners and it is built on a wetiand. Really, a lot that wouldn't be developed today. The character of the neighborhood itself has been over the years ramblers with some split entries. We had comprehensive zoning on this lot when we first bought it and we had the capability of putting a duplex on along with the other property owners of these four lots - three of the lots. But, we chose to keep the neighborhood as a family looking neighborhood and, therefore, and eventually, the zoning was taken off. Anyway, but we didn't exercise it while we had the opportunity. I have reviewed the application which has been submitted by the applicant, and the drawing. It is unfortunate that there was some humor thrown out this morning that, well it's all preliminary. However, Mr. Examiner, I want you to appreciate the fact that this impacts the neighborhood, And, this is going to impact this neighborhood because it has had that single familylook, these four homes. But, I draw your attention to the drawing. There is an indication that there's 39 feet to the front lot line, and that 39 feet also includes the sidewalk. So, whether you include sidewalk or not, we prefer not to as far as the measurements for the driveway. As far as the application for the accessory dwelling, obviously we know that there is a need in every family. However, our concern in this particular area Is that this home is ... contains furniture, but very seldom lived in. In fact, this goes back to the first of the year when it is obvious that the driveway is empty, there Is no one there. And, so looking into that a little further, we found out that the applicant actually lives in Mountlake Terrace and has a residence at 4...., according to our city records where the water bill is sent, his application is over on 44th, it's 4214 236th SW. And, according to the city records, it's Apartment R201, and there is a Hearing Examiner Meeting Verbatim Transcript - May 15, 1997; Item 2b. page 5 t , E-0 k % BMW which is registered to him at the address in Edmonds but it is parked or housed or garaged over in that particular location. So, our question is, in ... on page 2, recommendations, it says, item 3, "dwelling shall be occupied by the applicant". Now, does occupation mean that it contains furniture or does it mean that they physically live there? And, to impact some neighborhood by building a building and saying that, yes, it is occupied by ... I'll put some furniture in there ... and then turn it into a duplex, is certainly an imposition on a community and we don't want that in our neighborhood. One of the other concerns we have is there has been some manufacturing going on on the property, and as recently as a week or two weeks ago there was a drum parked outside of the building. And I asked the Fire Department to look at it. There was assurance that nothing was being manufactured on the site. And, I would hope that this accessory building that is being built is number 1, not going to be used as a duplex without him being resident in. one of the other areas, and that the building in fact is going to be part of a manufacturing facility. We would hope that the architect would have in sincerity the ability to make it look similar to the rest of the buildings in this particular four building complex. And, with those comments, I think I would refrain and see if there is anything .... I do want to declare that I am a City Councilman in Edmonds, and if this is appealed, I will abstain from sifting. I may have an attorney, however, I have made declaration to the City Attorney that I will abstain from this particular item. Thank you. Hearing Examiner: Thank you. Roger Hertrich: Thank you. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive. I have been in this neighborhood a number of times. I wish to agree that this is an area of low ramblers, no buildings at a second story level are in this general area. And, when I saw the drawings on this, I thought to myself, that this add -on, this double story, kind of sticks out like a sore thumb. And, in fact, you end up with two driveways. Kind of it has the appearance of two separate residences. That wasn't the intent of the Code originally. I- remember when we got into the mother-in-law apartment, accessory dwelling, a number of years ago and the concern was for someone who had a house that wanted to maintain their residence and rent out part of their house to help them get along or help a relative, that certainly was the general idea. But to build a double -the -size of your building for this certainly is a indication of size that would l6ok to the neighborhood like another complete unit or with the double driveway, certainly look like, have the appearance of a duplex structure upon the same property. And, I think that's probably where the character of the neighborhood, it would be destroyed or affected. And, that, although you may want to build a second driveway for yourself, but a second a garage, just the appearance itself is prohibitive. And, I would certainly think that if this was modified to a single level, one driveway expanded in width to accommodate the parking requirements, I'm sure that would probably work out quite well, Thank you very much. Hearing Examiner: Thank you. Hearing Examiner: This is Mr. Ashood for the record. Mr. Ashoorl: Well, I'm sorry, I didn't catch the second gentleman's ... where is he... Hearing Examiner: Mr. Hertrich, your address? Mr. Hertrich: I live at 1020 Puget Drive, I stated I have been in this neighborhood a good number of times. Hearing Examiner Meeting Verbatim Transcript - May 15, 1997: Item 2 b. 1�� U-101 :��i `7 0 C " 3 N Nk Mr. Ashoorl: Where is that, Puget Drive? How far is that from.... Mr. Hertrich: It doesn't have any reference to this. I'm stating that I am interested in this subject and I'm concerned about accessory dwellings as a subject and wherever it appears in the city. If I feel it is not an appropriate use, I would speak up. Mr. Ashoorl: I'm not questioning that, I was just... Hearing Examiner: He doesn't live in the immediate neighborhood, he lives in the city. Mr. Hertrich: Don't have to. Thank you. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Mr. Ashoori. Mr. Ashoorl: Can you put that attachment 4 on the overhead. Mr. Bullock: You know, I didn't bring ... I neglected to and I apologize. Mr. Ashoorl: If you look at attachment 4.... Hearing Examiner: I am looking at attachment 4 right now. Mr. Ashoori: Okay. Let's focus on 241st Avenue SW, or southwest, which is the bottom portion of that attachment. That is how I get into my house. My driveway is that extension that you see on the bottom right-hand side. That is the garage. And you can see that on your drawing. That is how I get in. And the entry to my house, the front door is through that, what do you call this area,- the middle of the house on 76th, that recessed area, that's where my entry is. Hearing Examiner: So, your entry is in the recessed area. Mr. Ashoorl: That's right. And, I park, so when I drive to my house all I see is like the end of it, the garage. Hearing Examiner: What I hear Mr. Hertrich saying is that there is a driveway that is not showing on the plot plan. Is that correct? There is a driveway off of 241st at the present. Mr. Ashoorl: Yes. That's right. And, that's like on one side of the corner or house, that:.. Hearing Examiner: What this leads us to believe is that this driveway would be removed then'? Mr. Ashoorl: No. That is going to be.there. It's just the appearance of the neighborhood is not going to be affected by putting in another driveway on this other end of the street. Because when you stand on .... 136 feet long property. When you stand on this side with the shade, you �A won't be able to see what Is back there on the other side, on the 241st side. You don't see that. People have ended up leaving two phone books by my door. One from the 76th Avenue, and one from ... because they think it is like two different hou�es. The other day I just turned the 'getting s�cond phone book ... I am two of them. So, the point I am trying to make is that the Hearing Examiner Meeting Verbatim Transcript - May 15, 1997; Item 2 b. rail Z 0 F7M A appearance is not going to be affected by having another driveway. That's as far as the driveway is concerned. Having a second story unit there is not going to have that much of an Z < impact to the neighborhood through what the first person mentioned, he just focused on ur Z fo Z houses in that neighborhood. He talked about his house, my house, the person that wrote to LW the city on attachment 7, and another person on the comer. He's just focusing on those four. LU But if You move on 241st which is the north end of my house, there are two 2-story houses right _J 5 0 there. So, having me, which live on the comer lot, having another second story 0 LO C3. there that s n t LO LU going to impact the neighborhood. Because there are already houses on 241st the immediate LU X, _J I- north corner lot, and the one adjacent to it, they're two story houses. And, the fact that, you LO U.� know, a few people have lived there mo 0i re than I have, that's, I don't know, I don't want to say LU its understandable for lack of words, but the fact that my house was a wetland has been n �:' 15 brought up to me a number of times. During the past eleven years that I have lived in that U_ house, I have only talked to my neighbor which sits on the City Council for only three times. 0; And two of those times was the fact that my house was built on that wetland. And that it was all 3: filled in with rocks and dirt and how they built the house. So, I don't think what the first person Z I­ 1.- 0, mentioned is very friendly and neighborly, and the fact that he hasn't talked to me, and treated Z �- me as a neighbor, and as a human being, for the last eleven years that I lived there,* I may be LU W 2 going off the .... what I am saying is that building, and the fact that I do have another trade that's :3 for, I think that's a personal issue to be able to present another place, or have a problem ... The U Ln I 0 fact that I want to build this thing is economical reasons. I am paying two rents. I a !:=I� am paying Ui LUJ this rent; my parents are living there. The fact that my neighbor has seen that lot being empty X U! because they don't drive. I drive. So, when I am not there, the parking, the driveway is empty obviously. LU CA Hearing Examiner: So, what you say is your parents are now living in the house? 0 Z Mr. Ashoori: My parents have been living there. They may go and stay with my sister in Washington DC, or stay with my sister in Tacoma, for six months. If they go to Washington DC they may be away for 6 months. If they go to Tacoma, they may be away for 2 months. You know, they are older people. My dad is 80 years old; my step -mom is 75 years old. I have left my house, turned it to them, so they have a place to stay. I have rented a place for my wife and 1, but I still have half of my clothing at that house. I am using that house. I have business in that house. I am going there. I was there last night and I was there the day before. I am in and out. The fact that my wife doesn't live there is because living under the same roof created problems between my wife and my mom. So, I ended up moving my wife out. I want to build 0 this second unit so I move back in there. Hearing Examiner: The driveway separation will be enough for your wife and your mom? Mr. Ashoorl: Yes. No, right now, they are talking. But the fact that there is going to be a wall...before ... you now how women are. Two women In the kitchen is going to create problems. One women says, well, don't put that there ... that's what I went through. And, being a newly- wed, I didn't realize that was going to be the problem. So, when I got married, my wife came in and we all lived there. I have been living with my parents, or they have been living with me for the last nine years. I bought this house because of them. Because it has a nice, big size kitchen. So, when I got married and I saw that was a problem, I told my wife, I said, hold on, you know it's going to work out, you don't know my parents, that's all. It didn't work out. So, I ended up moving her out. Because I felt that my parents deserved that place more than my wife does. Hearing Examiner MeeUng Verbatim Transcript - May 15,1997, Item 2 b. Page 8 0 10 Z LIJ _J L) 0 a LO En uj UJ _J U) U.: —0� LU I ! T all :r UP i­- X Z I— 1.- 0, Z �- LU LU F- LJ_ 0 Z LU U) 0 Z R, Hearing Examiner: Okay. Now, let me ask you a question. You say you have a business there? What is your business? Mr. Ashoori: I don't have a business there. I have got a permit from the City of Edmonds to conduct home office activities and I have a license from the City of Edmonds and it is valid. I am working in the garage and making samples. I am an inventor. I have recently developed a product and in the garage I am testing this product. I have made this product. It is a small size. It is nothing like a production line, or anything that I make, I sell, I make money. It's like a hobbyist, if you want to put it, I am a hobbyist right now at this point. When I go into production, I'm going to be able to sell, and I am going to be able to afford a factory and make money and just move out of this house. Because, I personally don't like to live around neighbors that are unfriendly. I do not have a factory in that house and that second unit is not going to be turned into a factory. That is a residential area and I honor that, and I realize that. And, I honor that it is not feasible to do anything. Someone may want to work on his car, someone may want to build a small boat in his garage. I think people should have freedom to do so if they want to. And the fact that the Fire Department and Police are being called to my house, that just told me that I've got unfriendly neighbors. I am not doing anything that another neighbor wouldn't do. I am just staying within my limits, within my boundaries. I am a good citizen. I have been a citizen for 18 years. I have worked in this country for 18 years. I have bought that house for 11 years. I have lived here for 11 years. it is just the last 6 months I have rented an apartment for my wife so I can stop that friction between the two. And, building that unit with that wall, separate unit, is going to allow me to move back in there and occupy that. And that place, the existing structure, is being used by my parents. They are in and out. They go off to Washington DC. My sister hasn't seen us in two years, so they keep them for four months. So the place the last six months or eight months may have been, the lights may have been turned down for a week or two. But, I have been there everyday. It's just when I go there, my neighbors don't see me. I used to work, for a year I worked second shift. So, it is obvious that I would have been gone from my house early in the morning, when my neighbors were off to work. So, but there is no intention to ... I don't think with what Mr. Sawers has done, with his design, it is going to impact the neighborhood. As I mentioned, there is already two-story houses north of my property. Mr. Sawers: May I inject something here? Hearing Examiner: Just state your name for the record. - Mr. Sawers: Philip Sawers. Everything is legal that is being done. The height, the setbacks, everything. The only request really is the second kitchen. That makes it a mother-in-law apartment. If the kitchen is left out, everything could still be done the way its drawn within the limits of the Code. So the only unusual request is the kitchen, the second kitchen. Which as I just found out would separate the wife from the mother-in-law. Hearing Examiner: One question I've got ... you indicate these are preliminary in terms of... Mr. Sawers: Well, they are not completely finished working drawings. The sizes are all, and heights and all that... Hearing Examiner: The exterior is what really is being.... Hearing Examiner Meeting Verbatim Transcript - May 15, 1997; Item 2 b. 0 V Z Z LU L) 0 V) 0 Lo LL1 UJ -i (n wi UJ LL 31 Z i,- 1-0 Z �— LAJ LU 0— a �- LU Lij 3:01 LL 8i Z! LU U), U:5 Z Hearing Examiner: Mr. Bullock, you had indicated that they have three spaces. It appears they've got, what, six or seven spaces. Mr. Bullock: That's right. They've got a couple of extra. I had forgot about the driveway on the north of the property. Hearing Examiner: It is more than a driveway there. Mr. Bullock: On the north side of the property? Hearing Examiner: Right. Mr. Bullock: There is a driveway and a garage, but that only counts as one space because they are head to tail, tandem. I have a couple of things that I would like to address. Hearing Examiner: Anything further from Mr. Hertrich or Mr. Nordquist? John Nordquist: Thank you, Mr. Examiner. We can handle the personal inferences and indignancies at a different level than this.. I apologize. Hearing Examiner: This happens fairly frequently, sir. I don't write those up in my report. John Nordquist: Well, the last time I spoke to this gentleman was regarding a tree that has no foliage on it, and I offered to chain saw it for him if he wanted it done. So, that was the last time. Hearing Examiner: I try and stay out of it. John Nordquist: However, again I just wanted to make reference to two things. First of all, the yards all join together at one point. Four houses. Each of them basically have a rec room on the back. They look at virtually each other. So, whether or not the applicant is looking at it 0 from the street side, we have to look at whatever he is doing from our side. And, if it is not looking at trees, which apparently are going to come down on this, now we have to look at this addition. And, hopefully, something will be done in good taste. But, the last thing that really concerns me is item 3 on the recommendations. One of the two dwelling units shall be occupied by ... shall be occupied. Now, I wish that in your determination you would come out with a declaration of what occupancy is, and perhaps even insert that into the covenant. 0 Because, we need something besides what you have heard today. Thank you. Hearing Examiner: Mr. Hertrich, anything further from you? No? Anything further Mr. Ashood �J- before we turn it over to staff? Mr. Ashoorl: Well, I just want to make sure that I'm not being policed to live in my house. That I am not going to be policed to five in my house. That I am �golng to be able to do whatever a citizen can do inside his walls. As far as occupancy, the place is being occupied. Am I going to Hearing Examiner Meeting Verbatim Transcript - May 15, 1997, Item 2 b. Page 10 0 be policed if I want to go out on vacation? Should I call my neighbors and ask permission? z With that, everything I said, I conclude. z UJI Hearing Examiner: Mr. Bullock? L4 Ui Mr. Bullock: Yeah, the one thing that I wanted to add on parking was ... I thought about this U) later after I got the staff report out ... in looking at attachment 4, and the driveway that is U) uj� LU proposed on the south side of the property, they kind of just centered it on their proposed addition where there is going to be a new garage. And, it appears from the detail of the actual 0 floor plan that they showed on there too, in the lower part of the page, the garage is actually going to be shoved more to the north side of that addition. I don't know if this is making any Ug -J U- sense, this description. But, I was thinking it might be more logical if the driveway then was U) positioned in such a manner that the two stalls that are part of the new double car garage, could be accessed at any time. And, the third parking stall on the driveway would be... z 0 Mr. Sewars: That would be done. LU W� 2 =): I S Q� Hearing Examiner: I think the issue is that they already have parking. So, they do not need 9 three more; they need a total of three, 0 C.3 W UJ X L).! Mr. Bullock: Right. And, I just want to clarify that if they move the driveway a little bit, then P they can use the garage for two of those three stalls rather than not. LL 0 z L . U Mr. Sewars: That would be done and actually extended a little bit to the south possibly for a 0 _(word not clear). z Mr. Bullock: Okay. The other issue which I think is the biggest issue on this whole thing is the situation with occupancy. And, the applicant has, as I stated before, signed the covenant that is required for accessory dwelling units. And that covenant specifically states that the applicant will reside in one of the two units, and from staffs perspective as long as an applicant is not renting out both of those two units to somebody else, we wouldn't .... that's the main concern is that an applicant would get a permit for an accessory dwelling unit and then rent both of those, T- or lease both of those spaces out to other people. That would be our major concern. And, as long as that is not happening, and that is something that is specifically precluded from happening with the covenant that they sign, and as recorded against the property, then we're 0 satisfied that they will meet the terms of the accessory dwelling unit permit. With that —I will close with that. Hearing Examiner: Anything further from anyone before I close the hearing? Hearing nothing I will close this hearing and I will have a written decision out within two weeks. Thank you for coming and participating. 0 This verbatim trahscdpt was prepared by: Sandra S. Chase, CMC . . . . . . . . . . Edmonds City Clerk Hearing Examiner Meeting Verbatim Transcript - may is, 1997; Item 2 b. Pace I I 0 4. .1� Z Z Uj Lul. 0 UJI Z LLJ W 0 Z L41 201 CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 6TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 1206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING. EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECONSIDERATION DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Amir Ashoori RECONSIDERATION REQUESTED BY: John Nordquist CASE NO.: CU 97-21 LOCATION: 24107 76h Ave. W. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. John Nordquist, a neighbor of the applicant and a party of record, filed a request for reconsideration dated June 12, 1997 (Reconsideration Exhibit A). B. City of Edmonds staff responded to the request for reconsideration (See Reconsideration Exhibit B). C. The following represents the Examiner's response to each point raised in the request for reconsideration: Paraeralk 1: The Findings, Conclusions and Decision by the Hearing Examiner is silent in the area of relief to the impacted neighborhood. Response: It was and is the intent of the Examiner that the conditions of approval found in the Decision Section of the Examiner's report will minimize any significafi.t impact the proposed accessory dwelling unit may have on the neighborhood. Paragrah 2 (First Part): ':b Mr. Nordquist pointed out that in the Examiner's Decision there were two 6's but no 7. -11111- wecision Case No. CU 97-21 (Reconsideration) Page 2 Para aPlIj.—Se—c—ond PartL, Z < 5: �- Uj; TO which department and orperson in the Ci ofE tY dmonds do the Persons of concern report violations and in whatformatP cc LU Rgmonse: 0 0 V) tn UJ. Staff responded in Reconsideration Exhibit B that. LU (n LLI W 01; Since a Conditional Use Permit is a permit that is a&ninistered through Division, any complaints orpotendal code violations the Planning U- < would be submined to the planning Division. The Planning Division has aform $ On which to ubmit these conce La 0i M planning Division can rn S. If the confirm that there indeed is a code violation, the Cit the property owner of the Y will notify violation and the measures needed to correct it. z -01 a t_�a h �3- Z 1— Uj LW 2 M: M 0 0 Cn Item 2 reference is made to thefiling of a Covenant with the Snohomish County Auditor. The Paragraph is silent as to who do 0 a ;-7- 1 shall thefiling and to who will be charged with the filingfee. UJ LWU RWonse. �L- 01 Z� LM tn. Staff responded in Reconsideration Exhibit B that: 0 z In all cases where a Perm to submit the recOrdingf it requires documents to be recorded, the applicant is required ees to the City and we, the City Cler f documents. ks Oftce, record the La�a h �4- Throughout the record there is an interplay between the words "occupy- , 0 testimony concerned thef an Y d ive M act that warehousing offurniture could be used a s definition of occupy. Because this is a special beneft the intent 0 t and an impact on homogenous neighborhood f the beneflt should be more specific the surrounding and impacted neighbors - MY Preference would be live because we "live " in occupancy. our homes meaning day and night E Rguonse.- Chapter 20.21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code uses the words ,Occupant, occupy and Occupancy" throughout the chapter and does not use the word "live,, ata'll. Therefore, the Examiner believes the words Ilocc uPant, Occupy and Occupancy", should be the operative words used in this case. The words "Occupant, occupy and occupancy" . are not defined in the Edmonds Community Development Code. Therefore, the dictionary definitions of those words should be used. J 0 7, F�; RECONSIDERATION DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the Hearing Examiner Report dated May 30, 1997 is modified so that the last condition will be number 7 and otherwise, the report will remain unchanged. Entered this 24th day of June, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell Hearing Exan-dner APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing appeals. Any person wishing to file an appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Offi ce. t Case No. CU 97-21 (Reconsideration) Page 4 RECONSIDERATION EXHIBITS: z A < The following reconsideration exhibits were offered and entered into the record. LUI A. Request for reconsideration submitted by John Nordquist, dated 6/12/97. B. Staff memorandum dated 6/23/97. & Ln UJ PARTIES oF RECORD: Ln LL LU 0 John Nordquist ":Edmonds Planning Divisio, I n 7516 2415'SW Edmonds Public Works Division U- < Edmonds, WA 980,16 Edmonds En ineering Division 9 T Q4 Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division Edmonds Fire Department - z Oi Amir Ashoori David Ehlers LU Lull 24107 7e Ave. W. 24119 76h Ave. W. M Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 0 Roger Hertrich Philip Sawers 1020 Puget Drive 3316 NE 125h Edmonds, WA 98020, Seattle, WA 98125 - 0 3 Z j off Oil 0 71� 77� M . ...... : 7 , 717" NOI REMOTE,STATION I.D. START TIME DURATION #PAGES COMMENT' 6-23-97, 10:29Am 1'32" 2 TOTAL 0:01'32" 2 TELECOPIER 7020