Loading...
24107 76TH AVE W.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS. BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR STH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS. WA 98020 ('425) 771-0220 FAX (426) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT C. Public Works Planning/Building Parks and Recreation Engineering Wastewater Treatment Plant TransmittAl .0 X1 Date: August 26, 1997 n LL —0 .0 To: Mr. Amir Ashood 24107 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA,98026 LLI z 11-- Subject: AP-97-87/CU-97-12.1 0 w"LU 21 Transmitting Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 01; LU LU 3: For Your Information: I As you reouested: z For your file: z Comment: Note attachments: Sincerely, Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant w. Mr. John Nordquist Incorioomt4August'711j. 1 Sister Citieslnt�rnatidnal Hekinan, '46pan w LA. LU z I, 1Z � 11:!X;�,,, 1Y, YX FINDINGS OF -FACT AND INS OF LAW BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Applicant: Arnir Ashoorl File No: CU-97-21 This matter came on for hearing before the Edmonds City Council on the appeal Of John Nordquist froin a decision of the Edmonds Hearing Examiner approving an accessory dwelling unit permit. The closed record appeal was, heard before the'' City Council on August 5, 1997. Based upon the argument of the parties, the CityCouncil .hereby adopts. the decision of the Edmon ds "Hearing Ex am ine r I and d I enies the appeal. DATED this 26th day of August .11997. CITY OF EDMONDS Barbara S. Fahey, Mayor ATTESTIAUTHENTICATED: 'Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk z l- ��- R Uj LU; U 0 Q �L Ly �- r- LA- 0 z LU U) 0 z El (E) ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF CLAIM FOR 'DAMAGES FROM DAVID L. GOTTSCHALK (Amount Unknown) pplovo (F) APPROVAL OF CLAIM WARRANTS #15950 THRU #19303 FOR THE WEEK OF 12 AUGUST 4, 1997, IN THE AMOUNT OF $377,751.54; APPROVAL OF CLAIM WArrants WARRANTS #18954 THRU #19461 FOR THE WEEK OF AUGUST 11, 1997, IN 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 $391,10134 1997 Water (1) REPORT ON FINAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR THE 1997 WATER LINE Line Program REPLACEMENT PROGRAM AND COUNCIL ACCEPTANCE OF PROJECT Storm (J) REPORT ON BIDS OPENED AUGUST 4,1997, FOR THE 92ND AVENUE W/220TH Drainage STREET SW STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND AWARD OF Traprovernents, CONTRACT TO GREEN RIVER CONSTRUCTION ($132,726.58, Including Sales Tax) E City Park AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT Access WITH SVR DESIGN COMPANY FOR THE EDMONDS CITY PARK ACCESS EMPROVEMENTS 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. COUN - CILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED By COUNCrLMEMBER HAAKENSON, FOR APPROVAL OF AGENDA ITEMS C, G, AND H. MOTION CARRIED, COUNCILMEMBER WHITE ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE ON ITEMS C, G, AND H; COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST ABSTAINED FROM THE VOTE ON ITEM H. The items approved are as follows: Approve 815 (C) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 5, 1997 Minutes (G) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A Findings of MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 5, 1994, ON AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION ISSUED R., AP-9&148 BY THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD TO DENY AN APPLICATION TO (M. srnith) 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) (11) APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING A MEETING HELD ON AUGUST 5, 1997, ON AN APPEAL OF THE HEARING 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 EXISTING SINGLE-FAMELY RESIDENCE —w ATED AT 24107 76TH AVENUE WEST (Appellant: John Nordquist, File No �-� ,, tipplicant: Amir Ashoori, File No. CU-97-21) f y9p FT—it—atm-ent-1 Lester Blume, 19026 Olympic View Drive, distributed information regarding the Treatment Plant to 1P)ant 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 Approved Minutes August 19,1997 P4ge 2 V 0: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES AUGUST 19,1997 < .5 The Edmonds City Council meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Barbara Fahey in the j '10! Library Plaza Room, 6.140 Main Street, followed by the flag salute. uj;, LU _j ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT V) LL Uj 01 Barbara Fahey, Mayor Robin Hickok, Police Chief Dave Earling, Council President Paul Mar, Community Services Director John Nordquist, U_ < Councilmember Noel Miller, Public Works Manager Ln M "F C) Roger L. Myers, Councilmember Charles Day, Accounting Manager Uh �- X Jim White, Councilmember James Walker, City Engineer Z �-: Dick Van Hollebeke, Councilmember Rob Chave, Planning Manager ;7- o! Gary Haakenson, Councilmember Stephen Koho, Treatment Plant Manager Z ui W1 Thomas A. Miller, Councilmember Brent Hunter, Human Resources Director 2 mi :3 0� ALSO PRESENT Scott Snyder, City Attorney U T1 0 Sandy Chase, City Clerk 0 t Andy Streit, Student Representative Jeannie Dines, Recorder APPROVAL OF AGENDA Z: W cumin) U Y JAMtion to I COUNCILMMEBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MILLER, P I [�� TO ADD DISCUSSION OF EMS MEDIC 7 AS ITEM 9 AND RENUmmER AGENDA ITEMS 9, 10, 0 AND 11 ACCORDINGLY. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING MOVED, SECONDED By COUNCILMEMMER MYERS, To ADD AN E XECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING A LEGAL MATTER AS ITEM 7A. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCIELMEAMER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED By COUNCILMEMMER MYERS, FOR APPROVAL OF TBE AGENDA AS ADjUSTED. MOTION CARRIED. 2. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Councilmember White pulled Agenda Items C, G and H. 0 COUNCILMIEMMER NORDQUIST MOVED, -SECONDED By couNcILMEMEBER VAN HOLLEBEKE, FOR APPROVAL OF THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. MOTION CARRIED. The agenda items approved are as follows: (A) ROLL CALL Approve 7/29 minutes (B) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 29,1997 IApprove 8/12. I (D) APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MZETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 12,1997 minutes Ednmnds City Council Approved Minutes August 19,1997 Page I d. Planning Supervisor Jeff Wilson advised the proposed parking dimensions would use the entire 60-foot area. He recalled Chapter 18.95, parking lot construction%tandards, 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 comment on turning movement requirements. Councilmember Haakenson asked what the ADB's responsibili had been upon remand. Mr. Snyder ty 01 93, referred to the Council's Findings and Conclusions which indicated the matter was remanded to the ADB n UJ; .0 for entry of written findings. _J Ln U. —0 LU Councilmember Haakenson asked if the Council had the authority to determine what w4g""`� ,in conflict. Mr. Snyder indicated the decision ultimately was whether the applicant complied with thQo'�`Pfiteria of the Code and its application. U. "My Councilmember Myers noted the ADB's Findings were not dated and were signed by one member. F— =1 Z I— City Clerk Sandy Chase advised the additional signature was obtained and was d June 18, 1997. Copies were sent by certified mail to the Mr. Smith and Ms. Hyde. Z LU LW J"F411ER COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCELA MYERS, To APPROVE THE PARIMG PERMIT SUBJECT TO THE 5-174& LANDSCAPING 0 8) REQUIREMENT, SUBJECT TO THE CHURCH'S APPROVAL OF TH%10'FOOT LANDSCAPE LU U�. STRIP. , �� NO# U_ Q Councilmember Myers referred to the ADB decision which indicated "the k0king proposed fails to Z Lis provide for adequate landscaping along the lines between adjacent prope wners and the adjacent U street" and said he felt the 5-foot landscape buffer would be adequate. He di ot see a need for a 5-foot landscape buffer on the south side. He hoped the applicant and the ch ould reach an agreement Z regarding the landscape buffer on the south side. Councilmember Haakenson asked if the 5-foot buffer would be require the church did not want it. Councilmember Nordquist advised his motion indicated the 5-foot land e buffer would be subject to the churelfs approval. Councilmember Haakenson indicated he would s ort the motion. Councilmember Van Hollebeke expressed frustration with the leng time this process has taken, Although he did not understand Mr. SmitWs reasons for removing on -street parking spaces and replacing them with two off-street parking spaces, it was Mr. Smith' cision as long as the buffers as intended were met. He pointed out clear instruction to citizens would id ambiguity. 0 Councilmember Myers asked whether a smaller buffer would be a table if it was determined that it was not possible to provide a 5-foot buffer. Councilmembeff st responded he would like the buffer to remain at 5 feet as required by the Code and felt it would be possible. Councilmember Haakenson recalled the Council was not permitted to consider the loss of two on -street parking spaces. Mr. 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. Ed—ds City Council Approved Minutes August 5, 1997 Page 5 Mr. Snyder indicated Findings would be provided at the next Council meeting. He noted the Findings would include a mechanism for the church to indicate its approval in writing. He pointed out if the 5- foot buffer was not acceptable to the church, the City could not require more as the City's ordinance only required 5 feet. ,:k -1 r. �! Ms. Hyde said her understanding was that the width of the landscaping could be negotiated with the UJi church. Mr. Snyder pointed out the Citys ordinance stated 5-feet; it was not appropriate for the Council to defer a quasi judicial decision to a third party. Councilmember Nordquist clarified that his motion stated the buffer would be 5 feet. Mayor Fahey UJ! clarified if the church did not want the landscape buffer, the buffer would not be provided. There was no Ln U. option in the motion for negotiating the amount of the buffer. LU 0 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 would allow Ms. Hyde to obtain a letter from the church specifying their decision on the buffer. He X �- XF disagreed with the Council deferring the outcome to a third party. Ms. Hyde agreed to provide a letter z P1 from the church. Mr. Snyder pointed out if the church agreed to the 5-foot buffer but only 3 - 4 feet 0 could be provided, the Council could modify its decision. z LU Uil 2 =); COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, TO CONTE41M THE HEARING AND DECISION TO THE AUGUST 19,1997 0 a COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. LU UJ X Councilmember Nordquist requested this item be placed at the beginning of the August 19 Council L)- z agenda. Mr. Snyder indicated this item could be handled on the Consent Agenda if Ms. Hyde submitted W a letter from the church. 0 z 5. - MEETING ON -AN -"PEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DFCISION To rzRANT JAppeal I APPMVAL OF A REQMS USE -2ERN9Z-1Q—ALLQ—W-AN 7.87 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT' TO I OCATE IN A "M AppITI J, Nordquist SINGL&FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 24107 76TH AVENUE VMI%T (Appellant: John Nordquist. File kshood. File No. CU--97-21 Mayor Fahey indicated Councilmember Nordquist had stepped down from his position on the Council for this matter. EV 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; 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 Appeariance 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. 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 Page 6 0 7 Examiner issued his de cision to approve the request for the Conditional Use Permit application, finding it complied with the City's ordinances. On June 13, 1997, the appellant (Mr. Nordquist) filed a request for reconsideration with the Hearing Examiner citing his concerris with the decision. On June 24 the Hearing Examiner denied the request for reconsideration and upheld his original decision. On June 25, 1997, the appellant filed an appeal to bring this matter before the Council. Mr. Wilson indicated a verbatim transcript of the Hearing Examinees hearing (Exhibit 3), the appellanfs letter (Exhibit 2), background information and testimony provided to the Hearing Examiner, memorandums from staff, and the Hearing Examiner's decisions (Exhibits 4-9) were included in the Council's packet. LIJ I V) Wi Councilmember Haakenson asked what type of enforcement procedures existed if the applicant chose not LU X11 11-1 to live in the residence. Mr. Wilson explained enforcement procedures of that type would be difficult for V) U. LU 0 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 :3 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 Ln a accessory dwelling unit as the current owners; the City requires an owner reside in the property for at 4: X , least two years. If the property were sold and the purchaser began using the property as an accessory z dwelling unit, enforcement action would be taken to terminate the accessory dwelling unit. i7- , z R LU W� 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 0 explained he wished to add an accessory dwelling unit to his home for either his parents or he and his C3 != wife to live in. He explained his parents have lived in the residence with him for the past nine years. He LU Lui Cy indicated he had met all the City's requirements. LJ- 0 z 0 Mr. Snyder explained the appellant was requesting the covenant be clarified so that, as an occupant of the 3: home, the applicant would be required to live there. He asked if Mr. Ashoori objected to including 0 stronger language in the covenant. z Mr. 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 0 "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 Appmved Minutes August5,1997 Page 7 0 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 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 conflicts arose after he married and it was easier for he and his wife to move than for his parents to move. He stressed this was a personal issue; he would like to build an accessory dwelling unit and move back into the residence. —0 UJ John Nordquist, 7516 241st SW, Edmonds, explained he and his wife purchased the property in 1960 and he had as much right as any citizen to defend his property. He reiterated he had not discussed this matter with any Councilmembers or with staff. He explained he was appealing the Hearing Examiner's U- < Ln usage of the word "occupant". The Hearing Examiner states that the word "live" did not exist in Chapter X 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 Z : UJ uJi occupied but uses the word "live in" on page 5. In the Hearing Examiner's decision on the request for 2 =� = 0�. reconsideration, he again indicated ECDC only uses the word "occupant, occupy, and occupancy" and U T not the word "live" but the Hearing Examiner used the word "live". Mr. Nordquist expressed concern 0 1 a El with the Hearing Examinees finding of stating one must consult a dictionary for the definition of LU UJI L)! occupant. He pointed out an individual could occupy a space (such as an office) but may not necessarily iz! live there. He recommended the Hearing Examiner develop a stronger definition of what it meant to live 01 in a place. He pointed out this application would result in basically a duplex --one of the units could be LU used for a business and the owner could indicate it was "occupied" by his business. He recommended this issue be returned to the Hearing Examiner to request he provide a more definitive definition of the Z word "occupant". Mr. Ashoori commented "occupancy" versus "live" was a word game. Although he agreed Mr. Nordquist bad 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 be was denied this information when he requested it from the Water Department. COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCELMEMBER MIOLLER, TO EXTEND THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM FOR 15 MINUTES. MOTION CARRIED. 0 Councilmember MyeFs referred to Mr. Ashoori's comment that Mr. Nordquist's 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 Mr. 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 0 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 regarding non -transferability stated a conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit shall not be transferable and shall expire automatically if the applicant ceased to be a resident and occupant of either the accessory dwelling unit or the primary residence. He pointed out legal residency was a far more tenuous status than occupancy. Councilmember Myers asked if Mr. Ashoori's establishment of a separate residence would invalidate the two year residency requirement. Mr. Snyder answered no, Mr. Ashoori had established his residency during the previous nine years. Councilmember Haakenson asked how many conditional use permits for accessory dwelling units were issued thig year. Mr. Wilson answered less than six. He noted approximately 6 - 10 requests per year were issued over the past 7 years. Z P, Mr. Snyder explained if it was alleged that the terms of a conditional use permit were being violated, the �: 0. Planning Department or three neighbors could refer the matter to the Council for revocation and the Z �­ W W, Council would then determine if a residence was being resided in and occupied. 2 = Councilmember Haakenson agreed Mr. Nordquisfs comments regarding the ambiguity of the word 0 C3 "occupy" were valid; however, if the wording of the ECDC was to be changed, he preferred it be done LU via a Planning Board process and not use this case as an example. Z! Councilmember Van Hollebeke appreciated the feelings the parties have regarding this issue. He pointed .. 1� UJ (n, out Mr. Ashoori adequately explained why he has not continuously lived in his home and did not feel his T intention was anything other than to live in the residence. 0 Z COUNCELMEMBER VAN HOLLEBEIKE MOVED, SECONDED By COUNCILMEMBER HAAKENSON, TO DENY THE "PEAL 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, COUNCELMEMBER MYERS OPPOSED. 6. REPORT ON COMMUNITY EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM (CEEM PROOUM CERT progmm Human Resources Director Brent Hunter explained the Community Emergency Response Team (CERI) 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 program 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 Rinds were available in his departmelifs 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 August 5, 1997 Page 9 0 A,, Dan Tarbuck, Stella's Landing Condominiums, 3rd and Walnut, Edt I honds, 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 b& 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 King4on Ridge fault line. nw� n LU; Mr. Tarbuck explained the Steering Committee also developed conclusions that 1) readiness made sense, .0 3:1 2) utilization of spontaneous volunteers would be helpful to professionals, 3) the need to provide clear n LL guidance to CERT members and follow-up training, 4) CERT was a wise�i way to spend City tax dollars, W 0 and 5) the potential need for corporate sponsorship for specific training an d� exercise drills. U. <1 Councilmember Van Hollebeke asked whether the CERT volunteers wotildjoin with City professionals rn or work within their own neighborhoods. Mr. Tarbuck replied this was currently being defined. He I stated the Fire Chief has three levels of expertise, 1) his fire fighters, 2) architects, engineers, etc. who Z would survey the level of damage in the area, and 3) the group of volunteers. CERT members' first 0i responsibility would be to their families and then to their neighb Once stabilization of the Z �-, ors LU W� neighborhood had been completed, members would be available to the Fir e� Chief 2 M!, M La Councilmember Myers asked if CERT was affiliated with the group of Ham radio operators who provide 0 D �J- service during emergencies. Mr. Tarbuck answered no, but communication would be very important. UJ W He indicated the Fire Chief hoped to bring in the Ham radio operators as part of the communication link. �L- 0 Z Councilmember Miller asked how corporate sponsorship would assist CERT and what success they had had to date attracting corporate sponsors. 0 Z 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. COUNCILMEMBER MYERS MOVED, SECONDED BY COU N�CELMEMBER MELLER, TO 0 AUTHORIZE I= CHIEF SPRINGER TO TRAVEL TO MARYLAND To ATTEND CE RT TRAINING. MOTION CARRIED. (Councilmember Nordquist was Inot present for the vote.) Fire Chief Springer explained the CERT program is very successful in'Ahe 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 be utilized in a disaster preparedness drill in October and the Ham radio � erators would be incorporated in the drill. He offered to provide a report on the result of the drill. op Mayor Fahey encouraged interested citizens to participate in the CERT pro, gram. kkknonds City Council Approved Minutes Aupst5,1997 Page 10 5" �:o Item #: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL Agenda Memo Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: u �01 a! Subject: CLOSED RECORD APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION TO uj� GRANT APPROVAL OF A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO J iE! ALLOW AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT TO LOCATE IN A NEW ADDITION LL 0 TO AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESEDENCE LOCATED AT 24107 76TH AVENUE WEST (APPELLANT: JOHN NORDQUIST, FILE NO. AP-97-87 APPLICANT/APPELLEE: AMIR ASHOOR19 FILE NO. CU-97-21). J_ L"I I— X� Clearances: Departmenttlnitials Z i1 Agenda Time: 30 minutes AdminSvcs/Finance— CommunitySvcs_ W LW City Attorney_ Engineering 2 M� of Agenda Date: August 5, 1997 City Clerk Parks & Rec U)l 0 Court Planning 0 5, Exhibits Attached: Personnel Public Works LU See Attached List - Fire Treatment Plant Police City Council U. C) Mayor UJ Li Reviewed by Council Finance 0 Committee: Community Services ftblic Safety Approvedfor ConsentAgenda: Recommend Review by Full Council: Expenditure Amount Appropriation Required: $0 Budgeted: $0 Required: $0 Funding Source: Not applicable. 0 Previous Councfl Action: Not applicable. Narrative: On May 15, 1997, the Hearing Examiner held a public hearing on an application by Amir Ashoori, File No. CU-97-2 1, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an "Accessory Dwelling Unit" to be located in a proposed addition to an existing single-family residence located at 24107 76th Avenue West (see Exhibits 4 and 5). Page I of 3 ME&RWRTMOUNCIL "ic W4, 4 4 On May 30, 1997, the Hearing Examiner issued his Findings, Conclusions and Decision to approve the requested application submitted under File No. CU-97-21 for an accessory dwelling unit (see Exhibit 6). On June 13, 1997, the a ellant in this matter, John Nordquist, filed a Request for Reconsideration with pp the Hearing Examiner (see Exhibit 7). On June 23rd, Steve Bullock, a member of the Planning Staff for < the City of Edmonds, submitted a memorandum to the Hearing Examiner regarding the request for reconsideration filed, by Mr. Nordquist (see Exhibit 8). On June 24th, the Hearing Examiner issued his Cr. Findings, Conclusions and Decision to deny the request for reconsideration and approved the subject LU application for an accessory dwelling unit (see Exhibit 9). -J, L) On June 25th, the appellant filed an appeal of the Hearing Examiner's decision (see Exhibit 2). In cn tul UJ addition to the appellant's letter of appeal, the appellant also filed with the City a complete written transcript of the May 15th hearing before the Hearing Examiner (see Exhibit 3). 0 Recommended Action: The Council has several options for action on the subject appeal. The Council may elect to either: 1. Uphold the appeal and overturn the Hearing Examiner's decision to approve the application for an Z accessory dwelling unit on the subject property, as approved under File No. CU-97-2 1; or, 0 2. Deny the appeal and uphold the Hearing Examiner's decision to approve the application for an LU accessory dwelling unit on the subject property, as approved under File No. CU-97-21; or, 3. Remand the underlying permit, File No. CU-97-21, to the Hearing Examiner for an additional hearing to collect additional testimony on any specific point the Council wishes to receive further LU, testimony and clarification on. X U. Council Action: Z LU (0i EMIIBITS LIST V, TILE NO. -APa-97-87 (Submitted as of Part of the Official Record, for File No. C 7-21) U,9 391 nw, 1. Vicinity Map 2. Letter of Appeal file by John Nordquist, (received 6/25/97) ou- Verbatim Transcript of the 'May 15, 1997 Hearing Examine hearin re: File No. CU;-97-21 r 9 4. PI ung e anni Division Staff Advisory Report to the Hearing Examiner re:, Fil -No. CU-97-21 J. (prepare 5/5/97) A PC. 6? 5. Letter from John W. Betrozoff to the Hearing Examiner re: File No� CU -2 1, (received 797 Z, 5/14/97) Fin dings, Conclusions and 'Decision of the Hearin Examiner re: File No..CU-97-21 I 9 LUILU (issued. 5/30/97) 0 7. Request for Reconsideration (submitted 6/13/97) LU 8. Memorandum from Steve Bullock, Planner, to ffie Hearing Examiner re: minents "Co on Reconsideration Letter Submitted by Mr. Nordquist (issued 6/23/97) Z LU W 9. Findings, Conclusions and Decision of the Hearing Examiner regarding the:Re uest for q Reconsideration filed by Mr. Nordquist (issued 6/24/97) 0 Z 1*2 Um (3M 2 ST S�V -7-1 F LU > < \x CC) x RS-8 Oj e t Pr T,: 241 76th 241S sw Pt uj > RSW-12 242ND ST SW 242ND PL SW 141 "k a. 3: 74 Vn x MV — a icinity and zonina Map %OF EXHIBIT 1 File No. AP-97-87 0 LUI V) LL 0 UJ 2 *b LL Uh z I-! OR LU LUI U U) 0- a t=. LU uj Z,1 0 z June 24, 1997 TO: Planning Department City of Edmonds From: John Nordquist 241st S.W. Edmonds, Washington 026 Subject: Case No. CU 97-21 Appeal of the Hearing Examinerls Findings of Facts and Conclusions of my Request for Reconsideration Dated June 24, 1997 I am appealing the Hearing Examiner's response deter I mined in his report as Paragraph 4. 'My comments in paragraph 4 are as follows: Throughout the record there is an interplay between the words "occupy" 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".because we the surrounding and impacted neighbors "live" in our homes meaning day and night. The Hearing Examiner in his response states that the word "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. My appeal is based on several concerns with this "Comment": 1. Why then wasn't the Hear4ng Examiner consistent with 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 wit h the Hearing Examiner's weak response in that he suggests that a dictionary definition of "occupy,etc.") be used. If his responsibility is to award a special benefit and specific guidelines are 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 mpst "inhabit and live day and night in the required unit. EXHIBIT 2 File No AP-97-87 I I A Z X EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER MAY 15,1997 Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street Verbatim Transcript Public Hearin U. 0 b. FILE NO. CU-97-21; Application by Amir Ashoorl 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 dwelling unit" will be housed in a new addition to the existing residence. The subject property Is zoned RS-8. ki Z �-i I— oi� Z I.-! Steve Bullock, Assistant Planner: Thank you Mr. Examiner, yes. I still don't see the Lu� applicant for this application. 0— Ronald McConnell,'Hearing Examiner: All right. Do you want to just wait then? LU Lul P1 Architect: I am the architect; I am not overly familiar with this, but I will do the best I can. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Architect: I brought some 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 8head. 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 read the staff report and maybe the applicant might show within that period of time. 0 Architect: Okay. 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. Ashood shows up. And then, sir, you can take a look at the staff report and be a little bit prepared. Architect: I am reading it now. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Here we go; here Is Mr. Wilson. We'll put him on'deck then we'll 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.) EXHIBIT 3 File NO. AP-9747 Hearing ExarnIner Meeting Verbatim Transcript - may 15, 1997. Item 2 b. mw 31, nR, g"o r 2 T) I X z z 0 U_ 0 z Hearing Examiner: Mr. Bullock, go ahead. Mr. , Bullock: Thank you, Mr. Examiner. Just for the reocord, my name is Steve Bullock. I will be representing the City on this item. And, Mr. Examine—_r, I have given you an exhibits list for this one, and right now, it just ... the only thing it has on it: is the actual staff report admitted into the record as Exhibit A. And, this again, is a Conditional Use Permit Application by Mr. Ashoori to allow an accessory dwelling unit to be part of a neew addition that he is building on his property located at 24107 76th Avenue West. And, I knoow that you are Pretty familiar with the application. You have read through the staff report so I t::hink I am going to pretty much confine my comments to a letter that was submitted by Mr. Ehler-s and also the Conditional Use Permit criteria for the accessory dwelling units. First of all, in r-esponse to Mr. Ehlers' letter which is attachment 7 for the staff report, his major concern thnat he stated in the letter was that it appeared by a site plan that was submitted by Mr. Ash000d, that Mr. Ashoorl was using a brick fence that he constructed on his property as the indicatiflon of where the property line was for between their two properties. And, he just wanted to mal ke it clear as part of his letter that that fence was actually located two feet on his side of the propDerty line. That was something that he did when he put the fence in; the choice he made to makee sure that the fence would be entirely on his property. Mr. Ashoori has shown in his site plan, which is attachment 4 of the application, a dimension of 34 feet between the south sidea- of his house and what he was calling the property line. Assuming that he was using the face of the fence for that property line, he would still have 32 feet there according to what Mr. Ehlerrs' is saying. And, since that property is a comer lot, a seven and one-half foot setback woulcd be all that is required on the south property line. It appears that Mr. Ashood would stillhave adequate room to put that addition on there. Hearing Examiner: Wait a minute. Looking at this, the oddveway 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 i be what about 20 feet then? Mr. Bullock: Probably 24 1 think. Hearing Examiner: 24? Okay, because if you take. the 3--4.... Architect: 23 is what it is now. It is 10 feet 1, 10 feet . 3 from the fence. 8 feet I from the property line now taking in the 2 foot consideration. I cHhanged those things so we wouldn't encroach on the setbacks. Mr. Bullock: That problem appears to have been address�'ed. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Mr. Bullock: With that, I guess I would like to call your a-,ttention to Page 6 of the staff rep I rt which is the section Of the staff report where we go o,-ver' the criteria that are set, up 0 1 for accessory dwelling units and what things the applicant thas to comply with as part of their application before the city will approve this type of CondificOnal Use Permit. First criteria is that Hearing Eanniner MesUng Verbaft Transcript. May 15, J997, Iteern 2 b. - the application, or excuse me, the accessory dwelling unit neeneds tco be owned and occupied by the applicant for at least two years or a waiver of criteria they rneed to apply. A waiver of criteria typically applied ... one of them is that a family member is goingg to be using one of the two units along with the owner or that some kind of financial hardshil=p has arisen. The applicant has stated in their letter of declaration, which is attachment 3 of Uthe s taff report, that their parents .0 fjare going to be using the accessory ... their going to be usir-ig orle of the two units with the 5 applicant. So it appears that owned and occupied the property years. going are either -- --' -- waivercriteria-~" "=` "=x ��� ha»eown*dthepnzper�o�oa1gD8 The The As:s�*us"r�urecords mo/ca� that they within or attached (o an existing � e ��|o�oonUcr�er��t�heer�aueedneedetoba|000had LU �,� g single-family dwelling unit':. Amnd, again the applicant has proposed anaddition hotheir current house. )tisnot going toLben separate structure. KvWUnot be a detached guest house or detached garage onothnarun|t |n |L |� vviU be' � f �oxiet{nQhousoand,Mhanahzre.itappeo:mbznieetdhetohtade Thonex1ohbehoiavpo �i�n �y and it deals with mdno changes of the house' and its fouu-'ed czn the hsot that the ultimate '- / design and character of building yU|| needs to maintain --uin[�(e family appearance. "'ww�"* = that can be done many different ways including putting en -'noeza for the second ""='o�vw' r side orthe rear cf the building, things like dhet And, the ap-i--ont has shown onthe�"'a//kax: unit �=p="' their'=""e'roenaimnenyhoueeaintheCKyofEdmondathothoveeeo~n.. fl`orodditionaaddepunozone0- Q end. Go. again | think that they are complying With this ohbx-ria. "The next one has todowith parking. Our Code requires that for accessory dwelling uni-Ata, o-t least three � on--e parking � t spaces need toboprovided. Hearing Examiner: For the entire structure? u K0c Bullock: For both units, that's correct. And. those bhr-aestalls have to be able to be q accessed atany time. They can't bo�tandem or, you know, bawck-to"'bock The stalls have tobae@e'by- (de. And, that iswhy the applicant showed ontheir oiib- /'onao''`~`~x that io37feet |nwidth bzaccommodate three cars side -by -side, They still ha~vaornadditional two stalls intheir garage which can't bacounted for atotal of5stalls because they would bobook-ho-bochwith the ones parked in front of the garage. But they do have 3 steU*s that do count for ! � —x -"thatoo 'eQain. they meet that cdteda. There is onkgoing to be this mone accessory unit' so o bz^*| o/ Ttwo units on �hes�bo' And, the occupancy was just oomoUh|�ng / guess that mm]uat need hzdah�/othoi the occupancy ofboth owwU/ngun8sneeds Uoc�np|yw�h�odtv�dofin0ono[o family which is "any number of people related by blood omrheredity or up to S unrelated0 peop(e^uo the applicant just needs to be aware of the fact -that if it is going to be o family member there, they are okay; It's not going to be e poobi|om. �d-gohng to be used fornnyonabeo/desfbm/�membarn.the total occupancy ofthe en- hnws�o-~vWUo�b�allowed bzbeS. Now, with that ( guess | would call your attention hzp;age 2of our app/(--- nnwh|chisourecommendation to you of the conditions that we have, -And, Umey�om fairly standard foracnowsory dwelling units. The key one. ( think, is condition . umber2 which the covenant concerning accessory dvmmUnu unbn. The appUmsnthas olet od-'ys|�Jnod Mh|san | | oa /ndudad |t |nyqurpaokateootoohment-G./ndcaUngthettbeynnavWUing hn��/gnondh~~'^^som/enent nsoordedwththeprnpery. And.thscovenantbasca/k/m-�'mWhatbhmap--�~'ksoworeof thetac±thattheyneodb000cupyonooftheb*munKo tb-~-~0h U th ''~~''^ And, oh;o that fthe pnopery should ever be sold ~` � noo«m w mno xkey have this permit o , o10 It '�'o | neu'o� back to a single familypnope�y' And, they their already signing �hi_-3*dnounnntthat they arewilling bzcomply with that condition. H081ing Examiner Meeting the application, or excuse me, the accessory dwelling unit neeneds tco be owned and occupied by the applicant for at least two years or a waiver of criteria they rneed to apply. A waiver of criteria typically applied ... one of them is that a family member is goingg to be using one of the two units along with the owner or that some kind of financial hardshil=p has arisen. The applicant has stated in their letter of declaration, which is attachment 3 of Uthe s taff report, that their parents .0 fjare going to be using the accessory ... their going to be usir-ig orle of the two units with the 5 applicant. So it appears that owned and occupied the property years. going are either -- --' -- waivercriteria-~" "=` "=x ��� ha»eown*dthepnzper�o�oa1gD8 The The As:s�*us"r�urecords mo/ca� that they within or attached (o an existing � e ��|o�oonUcr�er��t�heer�aueedneedetoba|000had LU �,� g single-family dwelling unit':. Amnd, again the applicant has proposed anaddition hotheir current house. )tisnot going toLben separate structure. KvWUnot be a detached guest house or detached garage onothnarun|t |n |L |� vviU be' � f �oxiet{nQhousoand,Mhanahzre.itappeo:mbznieetdhetohtade Thonex1ohbehoiavpo �i�n �y and it deals with mdno changes of the house' and its fouu-'ed czn the hsot that the ultimate '- / design and character of building yU|| needs to maintain --uin[�(e family appearance. "'ww�"* = that can be done many different ways including putting en -'noeza for the second ""='o�vw' r side orthe rear cf the building, things like dhet And, the ap-i--ont has shown onthe�"'a//kax: unit �=p="' their'=""e'roenaimnenyhoueeaintheCKyofEdmondathothoveeeo~n.. fl`orodditionaaddepunozone0- Q end. Go. again | think that they are complying With this ohbx-ria. "The next one has todowith parking. Our Code requires that for accessory dwelling uni-Ata, o-t least three � on--e parking � t spaces need toboprovided. Hearing Examiner: For the entire structure? u K0c Bullock: For both units, that's correct. And. those bhr-aestalls have to be able to be q accessed atany time. They can't bo�tandem or, you know, bawck-to"'bock The stalls have tobae@e'by- (de. And, that iswhy the applicant showed ontheir oiib- /'onao''`~`~x that io37feet |nwidth bzaccommodate three cars side -by -side, They still ha~vaornadditional two stalls intheir garage which can't bacounted for atotal of5stalls because they would bobook-ho-bochwith the ones parked in front of the garage. But they do have 3 steU*s that do count for ! � —x -"thatoo 'eQain. they meet that cdteda. There is onkgoing to be this mone accessory unit' so o bz^*| o/ Ttwo units on �hes�bo' And, the occupancy was just oomoUh|�ng / guess that mm]uat need hzdah�/othoi the occupancy ofboth owwU/ngun8sneeds Uoc�np|yw�h�odtv�dofin0ono[o family which is "any number of people related by blood omrheredity or up to S unrelated0 peop(e^uo the applicant just needs to be aware of the fact -that if it is going to be o family member there, they are okay; It's not going to be e poobi|om. �d-gohng to be used fornnyonabeo/desfbm/�membarn.the total occupancy ofthe en- hnws�o-~vWUo�b�allowed bzbeS. Now, with that ( guess | would call your attention hzp;age 2of our app/(--- nnwh|chisourecommendation to you of the conditions that we have, -And, Umey�om fairly standard foracnowsory dwelling units. The key one. ( think, is condition . umber2 which the covenant concerning accessory dvmmUnu unbn. The appUmsnthas olet od-'ys|�Jnod Mh|san | | oa /ndudad |t |nyqurpaokateootoohment-G./ndcaUngthettbeynnavWUing hn��/gnondh~~'^^som/enent nsoordedwththeprnpery. And.thscovenantbasca/k/m-�'mWhatbhmap--�~'ksoworeof thetac±thattheyneodb000cupyonooftheb*munKo tb-~-~0h U th ''~~''^ And, oh;o that fthe pnopery should ever be sold ~` � noo«m w mno xkey have this permit o , o10 It '�'o | neu'o� back to a single familypnope�y' And, they their already signing �hi_-3*dnounnntthat they arewilling bzcomply with that condition. H081ing Examiner Meeting LU �FA- Z D U 0 0 LU LL. Z 1 0 Hearing Examiner: Okay, so the recommendation says "see attachment 7", should be attachment 6", correct? Mr. Bullock: That's correct. I had that wrong. I apologize. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have from staff. Hearing Examiner: I would like clarified where the .... how far away it is going to be from the property.line; get the attachments right. We'll hear from the applicant. Mr. Bullock: Exactly. Hearing Examiner: Mr. Ashood, you weren't here when everybody else was swom in, so on this matter, do you swear totell the truth? Mr. Ashoorl: I do. Hearing Examiner: Okay, Go ahead. Mr. Ashoorl: Well, thank �ou for giving me this opportunity to be here today, Basically, what Mr. — - (word not clear) upset about, my report, everything is right there. And, I 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 to that exhibit or attachment... Architect: 7, 1 believe it is. Mr. Ashoorl: 4, yeah. He's referred to attachment 7, but he's referring to attachment 4 1 believe. In regards to that 34 feet dimension that I mentioned. Well, just want to clarify something here. That that drawing was a preliminary drawing that I did myself andl just went up to the fence and not knowing any better I just measured from there.. After that measure, I talked to Phil here and he has supplied the drawings and he has looked up the records� and he's the expert in this. Hearing Examiner: Could I get your name and address for the record sir? Architect: Philip Sawers.."S..A..K.E.R.S", 3316 Northeast 125th, Seattle, that's my office. Hearing Examiner: Okay, and the zip code there? Mr. Sawers: 98125. Hearing Examiner: All right. Go ahead. * Mr. Sawers: Well, anyway, I checked everything again. And, I'm 15 feet 7 or something from the neighbor's on the south building. 10 feet 3 from the fence. And, if he has 2 f6et, that 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 losing that with adverse possession. But that Is not a problem with us because we can make this work fine the way it Is. Hearfng ExamIner MeaUng Vorbaft Transcrict - Mav is. 1997: Ram 2 b. Hearing Examiner: Do you went toenter the copy of the drawl ngs7 � � &r. Sawers: �fact, yes. Yeah, these can ..and it shows how the buildings are connected and — possibly kitchen. Yeah, just one. See, wegofrom one right through the other so its all LU attached. ^� Hearing Examiner: Okay' so we'll enter the... ���u'l00 0��� K8�Saxxers: Those are just preliminary drawings. So.... Hearing Examiner: Okey. | will enter the preliminary drawings as Exhibit B. It will give us o LL pretty good indication Ifweare dealing with correct measurements. 4 = 01^ Mr. Samers: That's right. VVefigure weare 8'1from the property line and waonly need hobe Z'— 7-6. That's 7inches room for error. Loteoftime there is.... �� Hearing Examiner: All right. Doyou have anything further you want hosay then? 0Mr. Sawers: Nothing from me. LU �� Examiner: kothere anybody from the audience who wants tospeak? Yes,o|c Can gat you atthe podium there? Zi Lli to' John Nordqmist Thank you Mr. Examiner. Myname isJohn Nonjquist. / live ed7S16241ot 0 SW, Edmonds. Abutting this property to the east. Just |Ut|ss bit ofhistory 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 tothe south which is the one that has the fence, was a custom built home. The residents inthe other three homes have lived there over 30years. | have lived there 37years. Bought |tnew for $1G.250. The applicant's home has probably had Gor7owners and it isbuilt onawetland. Really, olot that wouldn't bedeveloped today. The character of the neighborhood itself has been over the years ramblers with some split entries. ~~ VVehad comprehensive zoning onthis lot when wefirst bought itand wahad the capability of putting o 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. Anywoy, but we didn't exercise it while we had the opportunity. | have reviewed the application which has been submitted bythe 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, Iwant you boappreciate the fact that this Impacts the neighborhood. And, this is going to impact this neighborhood because it has had that single family look, these four homes. But, | draw your attention hathe drawing. There isonindication that there's 39feet tothe front lot line, and that 39feet 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 dwaUnQ, obviously we know that there is a need in every hann||v. However, our #znmann In this particular area Is that this home Is —contains -- furniture, but very seldom lived in. In foct, this goes bock to the first of the year when It is obvious that the driveway is empty, there Is no one there. And, eolooking into that a idUe further, we found out that the applicant actually lives In Mountlake Terrace and has a residence at4...,according boour city records where the water bill Is sent, his application Isover on44th' ' It's 4214 238d/ SW. And. according to the city macnrde. It's Apartment R2U1, and there Is a Hearing Examiner Meeting vvrbumnnm"n,mint'wmv`u`ourItem Th. ;�[' 0 o" BMW which is registered to him at the address in Edmonds but it is parked or housed or z 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 51 U neighborhood by building a building and saying that, yes, it is occupied by ... I'll Put some L) 01 furniture in there ... and then turn it into a duplex, is certainly an imposition on a community and C3 V) UJ: we don't went that in our neighborhood. One of the other concerns we have is there has been LU X, _J some manufacturing going on on the property, and as recently as a week or two weeks ago En U_ there was a drum parked outside of the building. And I asked the Fire Department to look at it. 0 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 LL < him being resident in,one of the other areas, and that the building in fact is going to be part of a M 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 z t--! those comments, I think I would refrain and see if there is anything .... I do want to declare that I Z: 0i am a City Councilman in Edmonds, and if this is appealed, I will abstain from sitting. I may LU UJI 2 Mi have an attorney, however, I have made declaration to the City Attorney that I will abstain from this particular item. Thank you. 0 Hearing Examiner: Thank you. LU LU U. 01 Roger Hertrich: Thank you. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive. I have been in this 211 neighborhood a number of times. I wish to agree that this is an area of low ramblers, no LU UY, buildings at a second story level are in this general area. And, when I saw the drawings on this, 0 1 thought to myself, that this add -on, this double story, kind of sticks out like a sore thumb. And, z 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 look to the neighborhood like another complete unit or with the double driveway, certainly took 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 0 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. Ashoorl for the record. Mr. Ashoorl: Well, I'm sorry, I didn't catch the second gentleman's ... where Is he... ppof g?"; Hearing Examiner: Mr. Hertrich, your address? Mr. Hertrich: I live at 1020 Puget Drive. I stated I have in this neighborhood a good number of times. Hearing Examiner Meeting Verbaft Transcript - may 18, 1997; Item 2 b. 7__ N 7M___V_ Z LU U_ d; Y 0 Z IKI Li., 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. Alshoori: 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. Ashoori: No. That is going to be * there. Its 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 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 houtes. The other day I just turned the si4cond phone book ... I am getting two of them. So, the point I am trying to make Is that the Hearing &smlner Mfttlng VArhaffm Tmnqj�fnf . AAmu I 'I lfP7* ItArn 7 h. 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 four LU r houses in that neighborhood. He talked about his house, my house, the person that wrote to < :D! the city on attachment 7, and another person on the comer, He's just focusing on those four. But if you move on 241 st which is the north end of my house, there are two 2-story houses right there. So, having me, which live on the comer lot, having another second story there, that's not LUI LU going to impact the neighborhood. Because there are already houses on 241st, the immediate LO LL —0 north corner lot, and the one adjacent to it, they're two story houses. And, the fact that, you know, few LU a people have lived there more than I have, that's, I don't know, I don't went to say its understandable for lack of words, but the fact that my house was a wetland has been LL brought up to me a number of times, During the past eleven years that I have lived in that rn D 0 house, I have only talked to my neighbor which sits on the City Council for only three times. !E And two of those times was the fact that my house was built on that wetland. And that it was all Z filled in with rocks and dirt and how they built the house. So, I don't think what the first person mentioned is very friendly and neighborly, and the fact that he hasn't talked to me, and treated W LW me as a neighbor, and as a human being, for the last eleven years that I lived there,' I may be going off the .... what I am saying is that building, and the fact that I do have another trade that's 0 for, I think that's a personal issue to be able to present another place, or have a problem ... The Jact that I want to build this thing is economical reasons. I am paying two rents. I am paying W L"I'l X 0, this rent; my parents are living there. The fact that my neighbor has seen that lot being empty �L_ 0 because they don't drive. I drive. So, when I am not there, the parking, the driveway is empty Z obviously. LU M 0 Hearing Examiner: So, what you say is your parents are now living in the house? Z Mr. Ashoorl: 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 r 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 0 problems between my wife and my mom. So, I ended up moving my wife out. I want to build 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. 0 One woman 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 Mfe 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, ilhat'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 MaeUnq VGfba0m Transvipt - May 15, 1997, Item 2 b. .. ... . . Hearing Examiner: Okay. Now, let me ask you a question there? What is your business? You say you have a business I I � C, Mr. Ashoorl: I don't have a business there. I have got a permit from the City of Edmonds to 0� conduct home office activities and I have a license from the City of Edmonds and it is valid. I U am working in the garage and making samples. I am an inventor. I have recently developed a V) 16 X!, _J I- product and in the garage I am testing this product. I have made this product. It is a small V) U_ size. It is nothing like a production line, or anything that I make, I sell, I make money. It's like a LU 0 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 LE <t just move out of this house. Because, I personally don't like to live around neighbors that are 0 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 Z P! is not feasible to do anything. Someone may want towork on his car, someone may want to ;7 0i Z 1--: build a small boat in his garage. I think people should have freedom to do so if they want to. W LU!, ni And the fact that the Fire Department and Police are being called to my house, that just told me 01 that I've got unfriendly neighbors. I am not doing anything that another neighbor wouldn't do. I 0 am just staying within my limits, within my boundaries. I am a good citizen. I have been a L,U LU citizen for 18 years. I have worked in this country for 18 years. I have bought that house for 11 X LX years. I have lived here for I I 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, Z separate unit, is going to allow me to move back in there and occupy that. And that place, the LU (n existing structure, is being used by my parents. They a�e in and out. They go off to 0 Washington DC. My sister hasn't seen us in two years, so they keep them for four months. So Z 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? 0 1 Hearing Examiner: Just state your name for the r ecord., 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 Meating VArhatIM Trannryint. Mav 1.5.1997: Item 2 b. W ----------- 0 7r!c `il'_'V�,-,:�"'-� '5, A U Mr. Savvers: It's just not really a final drawing. Its not a working drawing for application purposes. Lui mi Hearing Examiner: Mr. Bullock, you had indicated that the have three spaces. It appears y Ot they've got, what, six or seven spaces. LW LU :C VeW Mr. Bullock: That's right. They've got a couple of extra. I had forgot about the dri ay on -i �-- V) U. the north of the property. I I �.i I —0 LU :3 Hearing Examiner: It is more than a driveway there. U. < D Mr. Bullock: On the north siAe of the property? LJ X Z F-1 Hearing Examiner: Right. Z UJ Lui Mr. Bullock: There is a driveway and a garage, but that only counts as one space because 2 Mi --101 they are head to tall, tandem. I have a couple of things that I would like to address. 5 0 Hearing Examiner: Anything further from Mr. Hertrich or Mr. Nordquist? UJ LU X !i- 0 John Nordquist: Thank you, Mr. Examiner. We can handle the personal inferences and Z indignancies at a different level than this.. I apologize, Ui Hearing Examiner: This happens fairly frequently, sir. I don't write those up in my report. Z 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 0 on the back. They look at virtually each other. So, whether or not the applicant Is looking at it 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. 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 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 live In my house, That I am -going 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 Headng Ewminer Meeffng Verbatim TranscrIpt. May 15, 1997; Item 2 b. 0 Tr M U 0 di z N v be policed if I want -to go out on vacation? Should I call my neighbors and ask permission? With that, everything I said, I conclude. Hearing Examiner: Mr. Bullock? Mr. Bullock: Yeah, the one thing that I wanted to add on parking was ... I thought about this later after 1 got the staff report out ... in looking at attachment 4, and the driveway that is 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 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 sense, this description. But, I was thinking it might be more logical if the driveway then was 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... Mr. Sewars: That would be done. Hearing Examiner: I think the issue is that they already have parking. So, they do not need three more; they need a total of three, Mr. Bullock: Right. And, I just want to clarify that if they move the driveway a little bit, then they can use the garage for two of those three stalls rather than not. t Mr. Sewars: That would be done and actually extended a little bit to the south possibly for a (word not clear). 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, 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 satisfied that they will meet the terms of the accessory dwelling unit permit. - With that-1 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. This verbatim trahscriptwas prepared by: Sandra S. Chase, CIVIC 4)ate6 Edmonds City Clerk Hearing Examiner Meeting Verbatim Transcriot - May 15, 1997, Item 2 b. V, 54 V CITY OF limpa"IM-ONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron onnell, Hea m'g EVammer From: -;Ite Ste en Bullock en Bullock Assistant Planner Date: May 5,1997 File: CU-97-21 Hearing Date, Time, And Place: May 15. 19'96. At 9:00 AK Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page L INTRODUCTION ....................................................................... ...................... . ................................................................ 2 A. APPLICATION ................................. ........................... 2 B. DEsCRuyriON OF PROPOSAL ...................................... .......... I ...................................................... ............................ 2 C. RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................... .............. I ........................ I ................................................................. 2 U. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS, ............................................................... I., .............................................. 3 A. SITE DEsCRIPrION ....................................................... ................................ '*""**** ....... .. ....... I ....... I ...................... 3 B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE ... ................................................ 3 C. EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE .................................................................................................... 6 M. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS ................................................................ 6 A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERA71ON ...................... .............. ................ 6 B. APPEALS ............................................................. ............................... .............................................................. 6 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ...................................................................................... ........................................................... 7 V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR ...................... ................... ...................... .............................................. 7 VI. APPENDICES ...................................................................... .............................................. ............................................. 7 VIL PARTIES OF RECORD ................................................ ............. .................................................................................. 7 c97-o EXH191T.4,:; File No. APL07-Z7 C d —�;11 �yt Arnir Ashoori File No. CU-97-21 C-9 Page 2 of 8 INTRODUCTION A. Application I Applicant: Amir kshoori (see Attachment 2). z < 2. Site Location: 24107 76th Ave. W. (see Attachment 1), UP 3. Request: A Conditional Use Permit to allow an "Accessory Dwelling Unit" in a new addition on the south side of tile existing house. A total of at least three off street parking stalls would be UJ ri! lot with this proposal (see Attachments 2-5). provided on the U 0, 1 01 U) lu� 4. ReviewProcess Conditional Use Permit; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes UJ X,. final decision. U) U. 0 5. Maior Issues: UJ a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.010 (Single Farrily Residential - Uses). U. b. Compliance wi�h Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.05 (Conditional Use Permits), c. C ompliance wi�h Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.21 (Accessory Z Dwelling Units B. Description of Proposal W &U1 M The applicant is proposing an addition to their home which would allow them to have an "Accessory L) Dwelling Unit". In compliance with the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling 0 Unit the addition has been designed to appear as part of the original building and therefore fit into the surrounding neighborhood. Three parking stalls would be provided on site in front of a proposed garage which would provide two additional parking spaces. C. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend approval of this Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions: z 1. This application is 'subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code.! It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the v ious provisions contained in these ordinances. ar 2. The covenant concerning "Accessory Dwelling UnWsigned be Mr. Amir Ashoori shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditors Offices (see Attachment 7). 3, One of the two dweilling units shall be occupied by Mr. Amir Ashood as long as the accessory -d! for dwelling purposes separate and distinct from the primary dwelling. dwelling unit is use I 4. In no event shall the total number of occupants exceed one 'family"- as d efined by the Edmonds Community Development Code Section 21.30.010. 0 5. The subject permit shall expire immediately upon any of the following circums tances: a. The accessory dwelling unit is substantially altered And is no longer in. conformance with the plans and drawings reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner in this application, b. The subject site ceases to maintain three or ff-street parking spaces which comply wi more o ith the standards set fbr� in the ECDC, 8.5' x 18'. c. Mr. Amir Ashoori ceases to own the property or live in one, of the two residences on the sub ect 0 property. 'r K 6. The permit shall not be transferable to any other property owners. g! C97-021.DOC/ May$, 1997/ Staff Rep oft Amir Ashoori File No. CU-97-21 Page 3 of 8 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning: a) Facts; (1) Size: The subject property is rectangular in shape and has approximately 11,600 square feet LU DI (see Attachments I & 3). -J U I I 01 0; (2) Land Use: The property is currently developed with a single family detached house. V) U) Us LU :C1 (3) Zonine: The zoning of the subject property is Single -Family -Residential (RS-8) (see -J 10- Attachment 1). U) U. —0 W (4) Terrain and 3Legetation: The subject property is flat with limited ornamental landscaping and a couple of evergreen trees along the south side of the property. U. 2. Surrounding Development and Zoning: LD 5 ug a) Facts: (1) North: This area is currently zoned under the RS-8 zoning designation and is dev eloped with single family homes (see Attachment 1). I Lul (2) South: This area is currently zoned under the RS- 8 zoning designation and is developed with single family homes (see Attachment 1). W (3), Wesh This area is currently zoned under the RS-8 zoning designation and is developed with single family homes (see Attachment 1). U- (4) Last: This area is currently zoned under the RS-8 zoning designation and is developed with single family homes (see Attachment 1). B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance 9 Z 1. ECDC Section 16.20-010 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESEDENTIAL - USES) a) Facts: (1) "Accessory Dwelling Units" are a permitted use requiring a conditional use permit in the RS-8 zone, per ECDC 16,20.0 10. (2) "Accessory Dwelling Units" are required to comply with criteria outlined in ECDC Chapter 20.21 (Accessory Dwelling Units). See section H.C.3 for a discussion on how this proposal f meets the criteria for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. b) Conclusions: 0 (1) A Conditional Use Permit is required to allow the establishment of an Accessory Dwelling Unit in a single family zone. If a Conditional Use Permit is granted, the use will be consistent with the Edmonds Community Development Code. 2. ECDC Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FANHLY RESIDENTL41, - Development Standards) a) LBO (1) A letter from Mr. David Ehlers raises a concern that the applicant is using a fence that is 2 feet onto Mr. Ehlers property as the actual location of the property line. (2) The subject property is a comer lot and as such will be required to provide a side yard., , setback of 7.5 feet from the property line between the applicant and Mr. Ehlers. C97-02 LDOC May 8,4997 StMeport R11", 10! MOM— P1. 11, —wo�., PdlKq!,111, LU U_ di U 0 Z p �A .. " P� J, 7." 1 T C I t, ��l Amir Ashoori File No. CU-97-21 Pkee 4 of 7 b) Conclusions: (1) The setback will be measured from the property line aand the applicant will be responsible to located the property line accurately as part of thneir building permit application and,%. inspection process, It appears from the submitted -- site plan that the applicant will have adequate room to complete the proposed addition as well as provide the required 7.5 foot side yard setback. 3. ECDC Chapter 20.05 (CONDITIONAL USE PEFRMITS) a) FacU: (1) ECDC Section 20.05 contains the review and approvael criteria for Conditional Use Permits. According to, the aforementioned code section,. "l-No Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless all the findings in this section can be rmnade." The findings are as follows: Comorehensive Plan -The proposed use is compa-itible with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Ordinance - That the proposed use, an -id its location, is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpos—se of the zone district in which the use is to be located, and that the proposed use will ameet all the applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Not _Detrimental - That the use, as approved or-r conditionally approved, Will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safee-ty and welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a publi ic necessity. Transferability - The Hearing Examiner shall deetemine whether. the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be personal. . (2) The applicants have stated in their declarations or showwri on their plans' the following: 0 The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensi- ve Plan in that the area, is designated for residential use which is what they are proposin..g. 61 The zoning ordinance allows for "Accessory Dwe�elling Units" I i , n a single family zone if a Conditional Use Permit is approved. Assuming the proposed Conditional Use Pem , it is approved, the "Accessory Dwelling Unit" vwill be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Because four on -site parking stalls will be prov---ided and the small addition will not appear to be any more than an addition to aA single family house the proposed "Accessory Dwelling Unit" will not be detrime—ental to the public health, safety an welfare, or to nearby private property or improveninents; (see Attachments 3 & 5). b) Conclusions:, (1) See Section H.C.4 (page 5) of this report for a discussiion on how this proposal is consist I ent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edmonds. (2) See Section II.B.1-3 (pages 3-5) of this report for at discussion on how this proposal is consistent with the uses allowed in the Zoning Code of - the City of Edmonds,, (3) The proposed application will not have any signifi=ant negative impact to . surrounding properties in that a minimum of three on -site parking stalls will be provided and the small addition will not appear to be any more than an additiorm to a single family house. (4) The permit should not be transferable. C97j21X0C/Mayg. I'M/Staffft eport ....... ..... 2 2 Amir Ashoori File No. CU-97-21 Page 5 of 7 4. ECDC Chapter 20.21 (ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS) a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.21 contains the review and approval criteria for Accessory Dwelling Units, According to the aforementioned code section, "No Accessory Dwelling Unit may be approved unless all the findings in this section can be made." The findings are as follows: r Compliance with the Conditional Use Permit criteria set forth in ECDC 20.05.010. Existing Residence. The single-family dwelling in which the proposed unit is,to be 01 built shall be owned and occupied for at least two years by the applicant or the waiver criteria established by ECDC 20.21.015 shall be satisfied. .0 Area Used. Accessory dwelling units must be located within or attached to sing e- _J family dwelling units. In no case shall an accessory dwelling unit be permitted in a LU 0 detached structure such as a guest house or garage. Exterior Changes. The single-family appearance and character of the residence shall U. < be maintained when viewed from the surrounding neighborhood. Whenever possible, D LI) a new entrances should be placed at the side or rear of the building. Only one electric and X ut one water meter shall be allowed for the entire building, serving both the primary Z t—; residence and the accessory dwelling unit. 0 ! Parking. Three off-street parking spaces shall be provided for a single-family res'idence z UJ UJI with an accessory dwelling unit. Number of Units. Only one accessory dwelling unit shall be approved for each primary single-family dwelling. 0— a �— 0 Occupancy. The primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied by UA LU X Y the owner of the subject site as long as the accessory dwelling unit is used for dwelling and distinct from the primary dwelling. In no event shall the total purposes separate 0 number of occupants exceed one family as defined in this code. Safety, Light, Ventilation, Floor Area and Similar Factors. Accessory dwelling units U shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code adopted by 9 ECDC Title 19 and shall comply in all respects with the provisions of the Edmonds z Community Development Code. No conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit shall be issued to a nonconforming structure unless that structure is brought into conformance with the current provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. (2) The applicants have stated in their declarations or shown in their plans the following: 0 An addition will be built on the home which maintains the single family character and appearance of the residence (see Attachments 3 & 5). 0 Three on -site parking spaces that can be accessed at any time will be provided on the property. A proposed, garage would provide two additional parking spaces (see Attachments 3 & 5). Only one Accessory Dwelling Unit is proposed (see Attachments 3 & 5). Amir Ashoori will occupy one of the two units once completed (see Attachment 4). (3) County Assessor records show the following: Amir Ashoori has owned the property for approximately 9 years (see Attachment 6). (4) The proposed addition will be reviewed by the Building Division for, compliance with the UBC upon submittal of a building permit application. b) ConclusioLig: (1) See Section H.B.2 (pages 34) of this report,for a discussion on how this proposal is consistent with the Conditional Use Permit criteria for the City of Edmonds. C9702 IMOC May 8, V997 Staff Report �— 1 z LU 0 0 LIJ LL 0 z (2) Based on the documents submitted by the applicant, both plans and declarations, indicate that the proposed accessory dwelling unit will be done consistent with the City's ordinances. C. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Compliance 1. Land Use a) facts. The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has: some goals and policies stated in the Land Use Element, under Residential Development whLch relate to the subject proposal. (1) LAND USE - Residential Development BA."'SupNort retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economicadly feasible. " (2) The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject prcoperty Single Family - Small Lot. b) Conclusions: (1) The proposed project is attempting to retain and rehabilitate existing older housing within Edmonds. (2) The proposed use is located in a Single Family - Sxnall Lot area on the Comprehensive Plan and is therefore consistent with the Land Use designation of the Comprehensive Plan for its location. 2. Housing, a) Facts: The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has some goals and policies stated in the Housing Element which relate to the subject developmeint proposal. (1) HOUSING - Goal G.2.b. "Provide for accesso?y housing in single family neighborhoods that addresses the needs of extendedfamilles and encourages housing affordability. b) Conclusions: (1) The proposal is to create an accessory dwelling unit on a developed single family lot which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for housing opportunities. III. RECONSIDERATIONS AND "PEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderati . ons and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsi der his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision . by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subjec;t of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed, B. Appeals Section 20,105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shaU 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 Direc:tor within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. C97-021.D0C/M2Y8, 1997/StafrReport Arnir Ashoori File No. CU-97�21 Page 7 of 7 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.t states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no buil din I g - is req i , u red, substantially c 0 mmences the use allowed within one year from the date of approv al, the conditional use permit shall expire and 2! be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR �V- The property owner may as 6 result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the j J valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. nAut .0 V. T APPENDICES �O LL A Attachments 1; through 7 are attached I. Vicinity, and Zoning Map LL 2.. Application C3, .3. Applicant's Declara tion 4. Site Plan z 5. Assessor Record of subject propert y z LU LU 6. Covenant for "Acc: essory Dwelling Units" M Letter from Mr. Ehlers received 4/28/97, W VII. PARTIES OF RECORD 1-- u- Amir Ashood David Ehlers Engineering Division Fire Department' 24107 76th Ave. W. �4119 76th AveW_ Planning Division Public Works Division LUUJ Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 �arks Division 0 z C97-621MM/ NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN ISAQTtCgJT _PUETQTHE.QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT. 0 09 C =r 63 4 rl ho� F, z 0 0 UJ x F_ 0 z I'V71 Q ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD El COMP PLAN AMENDMENT K CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT El HOME OCCUPATION (ZI FORMAL SUBDIVISION 0 SHORT SUBDIVISION C3 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT U PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 0 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT/ STREET VACATION EI REZONE 0 SHORELINE PERMIT El VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION EI OTHER FILE4 ZONE DATE Z/-XIAT REC-D BYC:_�) FEE -RECEIPT# 10-7 HEARING DATE I HE C3 STAFF Q PB El ADB CI CC 0,CTION TAKEN: U APPROVED 13 DENIED Q APPEALED Applicant —Phone e*72-3/261 Address 2!J.1 0 7- -7 kk 14& gA 114 q zo 2,c-: Property Address or Location Property Owner Sn 41 e Phone =Acime. --- —Phone Address TaxAcc#— QqA -00(l Sec. _ Twp. _ Rng. Legal Description (A I q 3-- =- -,) ; 7rR --tT - -1-ye, Al -? c) ip r 'Tw)r— Al IS' Pr iJ q 3 e- r- Details of Project or Proposed Use 7�_ 4-, ox+ ihe undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns,. in consideration of the Processing of the application agrees to release, indemnity, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arlsing from any action or infraclion based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or Incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posling attendant to this apyJI"W,,k ,, w%4� f3 <. I SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT '4�� A C "./ _� 47, aL IAOIJ I tww" 'ice 6.50 ry or, s S VC vr ely< j4 1r OL, up, b�-s� alw5e i'Lu 00 d csso 411 rJA ci�yl ....................................... ............... RECEIVED MAR 17 1997 PERMIT COUNTER fWAY SR W/a A911 r.YC 4eF, A 0 SEZOIVD r 74111 v- iL/ A 51Tc HAN ..... . . ... 'K F AL =wETa0SCAX PROPLPR T r P A 0 F X z z Sn6hOMIA-(WA) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION UJ Parcel,Number :41888 006 011 03 RTSQ:04E -27:N -32, -SW 5! Bldg Id Number :1 of I d Record Type :Platted Development e:Res Typ-�' Owner/Taxpayer :Asho6ri Amir 1: U) LU CoOWner Site Address :24107 76th Ave W Edmonds 98026 UYU. Mail Address 76th Av I e W Edmonds Wa.98026 !'- 0 LU Phone :Owner: Tenant: U. SALES AND tOAN:INFORXATION CA, CJL X z Recording Date -04/0V88 Loan Amount Auditors Fee # Lender 1--; Sale:Price :$74iOOO Loan Type uj W1 2MI Deed Type :Warranty,, InterestRate, 0 Owned Vesti.ngL, Type L Um 0 W X ASSESSMENT AND TAX,INFORMATION ZI Land :$52,000 Levy Code .:002225 Structure :$61,600 1997 .Taxes :$1.,387.78 Total :$113,600 Senior Tax % Improved, :54 School Dist z Excise Numbe :4829 Exemption :T PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Easement Census :Tract:509.00 Block: 2- Neighborhood Code :470 MapGrid:475 A3 Zoning :Rs-8000 Zoning Rest Actual Use Building Name Land Use :11101 Res,Sgj Family Res,Detached, I Unit Subdivision/Plat :Lake.Sallinger Land Co Subdiv 1 Legal :BLK 006 D-03 - W 93 FT OF TR 11 EXC :N 30 FT THOF TGW N 15 FT OF W 93 FT :TR 12 V01:9 Page :57 Prof ile-'Pa.ge I:of 2 The Xnforwelon Provided zsDeem6d 'Vot. G6Ua'ranteed. - R.ejj XS 5 'I� PROPER T,r P,RO,pXZE�_�. Snobomish (WA) Parcel Number:4888 006 011 03 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS U j Bedrooms 3 11 1 Ist Floor SqFt :1,2716 Lot Acres .)0 0301 Bath Full :1 2nd Floor SqFt Lo't:SqFt 1) W .1 Bath 3/4 3rd Floor SqFt, Year Built :1959 A Bath 1/2 :1 -4th,,Floor SqFt Ef f YdarB lt BathTotal :1.�o AboveGrnd SqFt.,:1,276 . Bldg Type a Flooring �.:Crpt�vinyi Bsmnt Fin SqFt Roof Type Composition Fireplace �: 1 . 1. Bsmnt UnFin SF Roof Shape :Pitched Heat Type -:Forced: Garage Bsmnt Total SF.,: Siding :Siding :Attached 'Loft SqFt Foundatiop :Concrete� x Units Building SqPt :1,276 ConstrucEn Sauna Deck SqFt ,Bldg Grade I -Avg.. z F- Spa Patio.SilFt :192 Bldg Cond :Good Stories, :1- Porch SqFt Bsnnt, Type Garage SqFt :308 BsmInt Grade a) BUILT INS UTILITIES U 0 4 ......... Range/Oven :Yes' ......... Elect Svc �Pole UJ U11 Hood/Fan :Yes Water Src :Public Dishwasher Sewer Type :Sewer U. vacuum Microwave Grbge Disp, Intercom 0 z OTHER INFORMATION ............ Elevator Waterfront Type Fire Sprinklers Waterfront Qlty Street Surface :Blacktop Street Access :Yes Lowlands Tidelands Sidewalk :Yes Topography Ground Cover :Cleared Topography Prob Right to Farm View Quality Right to Forest Profile -Page 2 of 2 The XnformCion Provided ra Deemed Rellible But,sxs� Atait,.Guarnnteed I. LU 0 z 0 0 a LU LL U1 z W paragraph 3. in t I he incorporated Exhibit A., The te approval and cond' rms Of such Itions are described in chapt er 2 0. 2.1 Of the Edmonds Community, Development., Code. as the same � exists Is I he I r'eafter amended. . Among the conditi or ' - Ons are the requirements that, the approval s Personal to the Owner and shall ,aUtomat ically expire whenever: The accessory'dwelli ng,unit has been substantially -altered and is no longer i n conformance with the dra Plans and w1ngs reviewed and approv ed by the City of:Edmonds. 2.2 The.oWner(s) ceas I es to maintain three or more off- street Parking spaces on the site for residence and the, use Of the Primary the accessory dwelling unit. 2.3, The prima ry residence and accessory dwelling un't I .are sold, rented, leased or conveyed to a Person than the undersigned Owner(s) and applicant. Other -Therefore, in the event that the residence and accessory dwelling unit sha be.jointiy,,sold, rented, leased or 0 1 therwise conveyed to a Person other than'the Owner, the approval -for the residential re I aJ estate sha 11 automatically expire. 3. Cove iants to . Notif nd Restore P In consideration Of the approval. maintain the of a conditional use permit to accessory dwelling unit permit, the Owner(s) h undersighe d, ereby covenants to notify a - the automat I ic expiiatio ny prospective Purchaser of n I Of the accessory dwelling unit -Upon the sale, rental,, lease or other conveyance. of the�!h residential parcel. erein described The Owner(s) fUrther covenant that WSS51667A -2- W closing ��such sale or, co.nveyance�. s the premise shall be test6r d e to, its original condition by� r emoval mof any kitchen facilities other than the:, h primary :kitc en insta-110-d tor the. use of the rimary residence. 'DONE this day I Of :OWNER,(S) ---------------- STAT EIOF WA SHINGTON ;'Uj �)Ss: COUNTY OF On.this il�'day of 1977 before undersigned, a me, the Notary Publi 2.b duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared gol Z) _�40or /* to me known to be the individual(s) described in and w2io executed the for ego,ing Covenant, and he/she/they acknowledged. to me on oath tat they executed the same as their free and volu.ntary act and deed. NOTARY PUBLIC My commisssion expires- e- NOTARY PUM STAN OF WAM04 MADOM MvAm&*W*a*nMAY30,1997 P us LL P z �_' 01 Lu Lui Q 0 LU U1 z W Cn 0 z CITY OF EDMONDS 250 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER 4Z S t 8 C) V BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Airjir Ashoori CASE NO.: LOCATION: APPLICATION: REVIEW PROCESS: MAJOR ISSUES: CU 97-21 24107 76th Ave. W. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). A Conditional Use Permit to allow an '�Accessory Dwelling Unit" in a new addition on the south side of the existing house. A total of five new off street parking spaces would be provided on the lot with this proposal (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2-5). Conditional Use Permit; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision, a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.010 (Single Family Residential - Uses). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.05 (Conditional Use Permits). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.21 (Accessory Dwelling Units). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions 0 Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant and his wife are proposing an -addition to their home which would allow them. to have an "Accessory Dwelling Unit". In compliance with the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit the addition has been designed to appear as part of & original building and to fit into the surrounding neighborhood. The existing house has a one car garage with space for two cars in front of the existing garage which faces 241st St. SW. The proposal would add a two car garage facing 76th Ave. W, Also, space for an additional three cars would be provided in front of the new two car garage. Incorporated August 11, 1890 EXHIBIT 6 File No. AP-97-87 �J,......... . � "t, F Z, Hearing Exan-dner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING: < After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The < LU hearing on the application was� opened at 9:43 a.m., May 15, 1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds _J Ot U ; ,, Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:22 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and (n (n the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing, is UJ L J available in the Planning Division. —0 W HEARING COMMENTS: U. The following is a summary ofthe comments -offered at the public hearing. Z I From the City: Stephen Bullock, Proje, t Planner, reviewed the staffreport He noted that Attachment 7 LU LU to Exhibit A states that he neighbors fence is 2 feet on his side of the property line and that Attachment 4 to Exhibit A shows the addition will still be 8' 1 " from the property U (n line (the zoning code adows 7' 6"). He recommended a�proval o 0— 1 f the application with conditions (See Exhibit�& From the Applicant: Z Amir Ashoori, Applicant, said Attachment 4 to Exhibit A is a rough drawing and he U X introduced his architect Who had a more complete drawing. 0 Z Phillip Sawers, Architec1t, submitted drawings into the record (Exhibit B) and said the drawings were still preliminary, but noted that he hid checked, the dimensions and the proposed addition will be 8 feet from the property line. From the Community: John Nordquist, Neighbor, said: He lives in the house to the west of the subject property. 0 He bought his house in 1949 and at that tirrie he could have had a duplex on his but the 'Codes have changed and duplexes are no longer allowed. property The Ashood house was built on what was a wetland. n" He felt this proposal will impact the neighbo ood. He Would like the -A rh neighborhood to retain a single family look. 0 The yards of four neighbors all join together at one point and the neighbors will all look at the proposed addition. The subject house contains furniture, but is very s'eldom lived in. The applicant has an apartment In another location where he resides . X �7: Eq 75F sON, . . . . . . . . . . 9 �I LU 0 a LU LL Z Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 3 The code says the dwelling shall be 4occupied by�dby the owner. That does not mean thatit is to be occupied by relatives oor by furnitLjjiiture. 0 Manufacturing has been taking place on the subjTdabject property. 0 He hopes the proposal will not be a duplex with-&hout the applicant living in it. He wants owner occupancy to be a requirement. Roger Hertrich, Resident, said: This is an area of low ramblers and the proposed aco3Lccessory dwelling unit will stick out like a sore thumb. 9 This structure will have two driveways, one off of 7*T 76"Ave. W and one off of 241s' St. W. o The second garage and driveway will make this struouructure look like I a duplex. o The intent of the'ordinance which allows accessory b V dwelling units was not to double the size of your building. Response from the Applicant: Amir Ashoori said: • His existing driveway is off of 241" and his front d000loor is off of 76 th . The existing driveway will remain and because of all of the shrub --dabs and trees you won't be able to see both driveways from either street. Sometimes he*[he has two phone books left at his house because some people now mistake it a two sepqzparate dwelling units. • The second story unit will not have that much impacti3act. While it is true that the immediate 4 houses are one story, there are 2 two sto oitory houses across 241". • His house was built on what had been a wetland, but itat the wedand had been filled before the house was built many years ago. He does have another place to live. His parents now - v#v live in the house and he has rented a place for his wife and himself until he can btvdbuild the accessory dwelling unit. The he and his wife will move back in. He wants to H o have a separate place for his parents. He still comes to the house almost daily. He has a permit to conduct home office activities. He5lHe is an inventor and hobbyist. The second unit is not going to be a factory. Phillip Sawers said: The setbacks and height all meet the zoning code. J Lz2L % 21, Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 5 4) East: This areais currently zo ned under. the RS-8.zoning designation and is developed, with single family, homes (see Exhibit A, Attachment 01 3 0, B- EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE: Lul: LU -J I. ECDC Section 16.20.010 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - USES) V) U. —0 & Facts: tow, 1) "Accessory Dwelling Units" are a permi tted use requiring a conditional Use permit in the RS-8 zone, per ECDC 16.20.010. X uh 2) "Accessory Dwelling Units" are required to comply with criteria outlined in ECDC Chapter 20.21 (Accessory Dwelling Units), See 0 section C.3 Of this report for a discussion on how this proposal meets W LU 2 51 the criteria for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. 01 U b. Conclusions: 1) A Conditional Use Permit is required to allow the'establishment of an LU LU LU Accessory Dwelling Unit in a single family zone. If a Conditional Use LL 0 Permit is granted, the use will be consistent with the Edmonds Z Community Development Code. 2. ECDC Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Development Z Standards) a. Facts: 1 A letter from 1W. David Ehlers raises a concern that the applicant is using a fence that is 2 feet onto Mr. Ehlers property as the actual location of the property line. '2) The subject property is lot a corner and as such will be required to provide a side yard setback of 7.5 feet from the property line between the applicant and Mr. Ehlers. 0 3) The applicant and his architect are aware of the property line issue and have indicated the setback reqtfirements can be complied with. b. Conclusions: 5� 1) The setback will be measured from the property line and the applicant will be responsible to located the property line accurately as�paxt of the building permit application and inspection process. It appears from the preliminary plan (Exhibit B) that the applicant will., -,have adequate room to complete the proposed addition as'well as provide the required 7.5 foot side yard setback. �t A,� �tZ�, w�. Eiearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 6 3. ECDC Chapter 20.95 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS) Cc a. Facts: X 21 1. ECDC Section 20.05 contains the review and approval criteria for ef =1 LU Ui Conditional Use Permits. According to 01 the aforementioned code section, "No Conditional Use Permit may ]be It approved unless all the US Lull LU M. findings in this section can be made." The fAndings are as follows: _j I- W LL Comprehensive PI W 0 at� - The proposed u. se is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance - That the proposecl use, and its location,. is U_ consistent with the purposes of the Z oning Ordinance and the S!) X Ld purpose of the zone district in which thc� use is to be located, and Z 1� that the proposed use will meet all the c-Applicable requirements of 01 the Zoning Ordinance. t2 Pi W UJI 2 Not Detrimental - That the use, as a-pproved or conditionally :3 --iental to the public health, U approved, will not be significantly detrin 01 Q safety and welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity. Transferability - The Hearing Examiner- shall determine whether U. ZI the conditional use permit shall run v.-jith the land or shall be personal. 2. The applicants have stated in their d6claratiorms or shown on their plans Z the following: The proposal is consistent -with the Comp: I )rehensive Plan in that the area is designated for residential use which is what they are proposing. The zoning ordinance allows for "Acces.—mory Dwelling Units" in a single family zone if a Conditional LJse Permit is approved. Assuming the proposed Conditional Usm Permit is approved, the "Accessory Dwelling Uniel will be cor7isistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Because four on -site parking'stalls will b-ee provided and the small addition will not appear to be any more thtan an addition to a . single family house the proposed "Accessory D%owelling Unit" will not be detrimental to the public health, safety man welfare, or to nearby private property or improvements (see ExElhibit A, Attachments 3 & 5). b. Conclusions: 1) A conditional use is a use that has been legisIll4tivel y determined1b,be allowed within a given zone if app'ropriate co enditions c an, be1.r.pposed,, to ensure compatibility with those uses which are permitted �is a matter. M........... y! 77 777 4 UA 0 a Uj LL Z Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 7 of right within that zone. A conditional use thus carries a fairly heavy assumption of acceptability within the zone it is located in. In consideration of any conditional use permit application, the Examiner is required to consider the degree of compatibility which would exist between the use and its particular surroundings and may impose such conditions as are necessary to ensure compatibility. If compatibility can be ensured, then the permit should be approved. 2) See Section C of this report for a discussion on how this proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edmonds. 3) See Section B. 1-3 of this report for a discussion on how this proposal is consis tent with the uses allowed in the Zoning Code of the City of Edmonds. 4) The proposed application will not have a significant negative impact to surrounding properties in that a minimum of three on -site parking stalls will be provided and the addition will not appear to be any more than an addition to a single family house. The addition will meet all of the height and setback requirements of the RS-'8 zone in which it is located. 5) The permit should not be transferable per ECDC Section 20.21.035. 4. ECDC Chapter 20.21 (ACCESSORY DWELLIN I G UN1TS) a. Facts: 1) ECDC Section 20.21 contains the review and approval criteria for Accessory Dwelling Units. According to the aforementioned code section, "No Accessory Dwelling Unit may be approved unless all the findings in this section can be made." The findings are as follows: Compliance with the Conditional Use Permit criteria set forth in ECDC 20.05.010 is required. Existing Residence. The single-family dwelling in which the proposed unit is to be built shall be owned and occupied for at least two years by the applicant or the waiver criteria established by ECDC 20.21.015 shall be satisfied. Area Used. Accessory dwelling units must be located within or attached to single-family dwelling units. - In no case shall an. accessory dwelling unit be permitted in a detached structure such as a guest house or garage. Exterior Changes. The single-family appearance and character of the residence shall be maintained when viewe& Irorn Ih e surrounding neighborhood. Whenever possible tr new, en ances 2 should be placed at the side or rear of the buildin gg" 61 p Y, one, 0- UJ UJ I­ 0 z eiectnc ancl one water, meter. shall be allowed for the entire building, serving both the . primary residence and the accessory dwelling unit. e Parking. Three off-street parking spaces shall be provided for a single-family residence with an accessory dwelling unit.. * Number of Units. Only one.accessory dwelling unit shall be approved for each primary single-family dwelling. Occupancy. The primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied by the owner of the subject site as long as the accessory dwf-ll;n i, A f- A -11, 5 . 0 �0. W IT Pu oses separate and, distinct from the primary dwelling. In no event shall the total number of occupants exceed one family as &fmed in this code. Safety, Light, Ventilation, Floor Area and Similar Factors. Accessory dwelling units shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code adopted by ECDC Title 19 and shall comply in all respects with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code No VII UOU I permit for an accessory dwelling unit shall be issued to a nonconforming structure unless that structure is brought into conformance with the current provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 2) The applicants have stated in their declarations or shown in their plans the following: o An addition will be built on the home which maintains the single family character and appearance of the residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 & 5). * Three on -site parking spaces that can be accessed at any time will be provided on the property. A proposed garage would provide two additional parking spaces (see Exhibit A., Attachments 3 & 5). * Only one Accessory Dwelling Unit is proposed (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 & 5). * Amir Ashoori will occupy one of the two units once completed (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 3) County Assessor records show the following: Amir Ashoori has owned the propert for approxim y ately 9 years (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6). 4) The proposed addition, will be reviewed by the, Building Division for compliance with the UBC upon submittal of a building. permit application. 1V Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 9 b. Conclusions: 1) See.Section B.3. of this. report for a discussion on how this p roposal is consistent with the, Conditional Use Permit criteria for the City of Edmonds. 2) The applicant has owned the house for nine years 3) The Proposed accessory dwelling unit will be attached to the existing single family house. 4) The Proposed addition will comply with all setback and height requirements of the RS-8 zone. The existing house has a hip roof and a hip roof is proposed for the -addition. Access to the livings pace in the, , addition is proposed to be located on the south side, so that it will appear to be another door to a single family residence. Therefore, it is believed the single-family appearance and character of the residence will be maintained. 5) Three vehicle spaces will be provided in garages. Additional off-street parking will be provided on the driveways in front of, the garages. 6) The proposal is for one accessory dwelling u I nit., 7) Approval of the accessory dwelling unit should be'conditioned to insure that only one of the units will be available for someone , oth I er than the applicant to reside in. 8) The proposed accessory dwelling unit must be consistent with all applicable requirements of the ECDC including the Uniform building Code. wy Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 10 2) The proposed use is located in a Single Family - Small Lot area on the Comprehensive Plan and, is therefore consistent with the Land Use designation of the Comprehensive Plan for its location. Z: 2. Housing LU & L) V) a. Facts: The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has some goals and LO LU LU X! policies stated in the Housing Element which relate 'to the subject -J �-, development proposal. LO LL 0 UJ 1) HOUSING - Goal G.2.b. "Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods that addresses the needs of extended families U- (n and encourages housing affordability. Ld b. Conclusions: Z ;7 1) The proposal is to create an accessory dwelling unit on a developed Z LU LUI single family lot which is consistent with the Cornprehensive Plan for M housing opportun ities. 0 : DECISION: a t=�JW UJ Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a conditional use permit to �L- 0 Z allow an accessory dwelling unit is approved, subject to the following conditions: uy! 1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds 0 Z Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 2. The covenant concerning "Accessory Dwelling Units" signed be Mr. Amir Ashoori shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditors Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7). 3. The proposed accessory dwelling unit shall be constructed in 6. substantially accordance with the plans shown on Exhibit B. The Current Planning Supervisor is authorized to approve minor modifications as working drawings are prepared for the proposal. Any 0 major modification of the plans (i.e.: exterior appearance: including increased height, reduced setbacks, relocation of the entry to living spaces, or modification of the style of roof) shall be brought back to the Hearing Examiner for review prior to the issuance of a building permit. 4. One of the two dwelling units shall be occupied by Mr. Amir Ashood as long as the accessory dwelling unit is used for dwelling purposes separate and distinct from the primary dwelling. If Mr. Amir Ashood chooses to continue to have a separate dwelling, then one of the two units must be unoccupied and shall not be rented to any other individual. 5. In no event shall the total number of occupants exceed one "family" as defined by t he Edmonds Community Development Code Section 21.30.010. The subject permit shall expire immediately upon any of the following circumstances: ;TZ", 7MT,;. O� E. z M 0 Q LU LL ai Y 0 z RECONSMEIRATION AND APPEALS: I The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding. an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recomrnendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewecl. APPEALS: 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. Jt, 4 ' ;Z!,�; -A. ��:jI �.O UJI LU June 12, 1997 01 (n wx� To: Ron McConnell 'Hearing Examiner (n UJ 0 City of Edmonds From: John Nordquist U. < M 7516- 241st. S.W. Edmonds, Washington 98026 z Subject: Case No. CU 97-21 ;7- 0i z fill Request for Reconsideration 0 C3 The Findings, Conclusions and Decision by the Hearing Examiner wui is silent in the area of relief to the impacted neighborhood. U- 0 Z� 1 draw your attention to page 10 - the Decision itself and specifically to al items 4 ( occupancy 5 "family ", 6 a b c and 7. ( There are two 6's but no 7 1 believe the second 6" should be 7 and I will address it as such. To which department and or person in the City of Edmonds do the persons of concern report violations and in what format? It is my opinion that in fairness the applicant should be made aware of the fact that there is a format of reporting the violations and from whom he will receive notification. Item 2 reference is made to the filing of a Covenant with the Snohomish County Auditor. The paragraph is silent as to who shall do the filing and who will be charged with the filing fee. 0 Throughout the record there is an interplay between the words occupy" and or "live". MY testimony concerned the fact that warehousing of furniture could be used as the definition of Occupy. Because this is a special benefit and an impact on homogenous neighborhood the intent of the benefit should be more specific. My preference would be lives because we the � WSAAA ng an" impacted neighbors "live" in our homes meaning day and night occupancy. Resepctf-Vlly submitted EXHIBIT T: File NoAP.97-87 I U1 0 a U61 U. U1 0 Z ,CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY 250 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR HEARING. EXAMINER. 4Z-St. 18ou 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 76" Ave, W. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. John Nordquist, a neighbor of the applicant and a party of record, filed a request for reconsiderati I on dated June 1 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: RmgLaph J.- ne Findings, Conclusions and Decision by the Hearing Examiner is silent in the area of relief to the impacted neighborhood. Resp onse. 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 significant impact the proposed accessory dwelling unit mav have on the neiAhorhnnd C, ji, P7 %, Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 (Reconsideration) Page 2 Parap-raph 2: (Second Part)- z LUI To which department and or person in the City of Edmonds do the persons of concern cc 2 MI report violations and in whatformat 2 0; Response: LLJ� _j I— Staff responded in Reconsideration Exhibit B that: (n LL Since a Conditional Use Permit is a permit that is administered through the Planning Division, any complaints or potential code violations would be submitted to the Planning LL. Division. 7he Planning Division has afonn on which to submit these concerns. If the Ln X Uj Planning Division can confirm that there indeed is a code violation, the City will noti fy -F, z F-I the property owner of the violation and the measures needed to correct it. Z Ui UJI Parag grg2h 3: MI Item 2 reference is made to thefiling of a Covenant with the Snohomishr County Auditor. 0 The paragraph is silent as to who shall do thefiling and to who will be charged with the UJ LU filingfee. 0 z Response: Staff responded in Reconsideration Exhibit B that: 0 z In all cases where a permit requires documents to he recorded, the applicant is required to submit the recordingfees, to the City and we, the City Clerks Of flce, record the documents. Paragraph 4: Throughout the record there is an interplay between the words "occupy and Itlive to. my testimony concerned thefact that warehousing offumiture uldbe used as definition of co occupy. Because this is a special benefit and an impact on homogenous neighborhood the intent of the benefit should be more specific. My preference would be live because we the surrounding and impacted neighbors "live in our homes meaning day and night occupancy. Response: 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" at all. Therefore, the Examiner believes the words "occ u*pant, 9ccupy 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. Hearing Examiner Decisior, Case No. CU 97-21 (Reconsideration' Page 2 F; RECONSIDERATION DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the Hearing Examiner Report dated May 30, ot M i 1997 is modified so that the last condition will be number 7 and otherwise, the report will remain LW :Cz 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 McConneli&-=(F69-�� Hearing Examiner �-�4 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 01 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 Office. eo. �.r- A 0 7M Hearing Examiner Decision Case -No. CU 97-21 (Reconsideration) Page 4 RECONSIDERATIONEXHIBITS: The following reconsideration exhibits were offered and entered'into the record. A. 'Request for reconsideration submi'tted by John Nordquist, dated .6/12/97. B. Staff memorandum dated 6/23/97. LU, I LL PARTIES oF RECORD: John Nordquist Edrnoi.ids Planning Division �7516 241s'sw Edmonds Public Works Division Edmonds, WA 9800 Edmonds Engineering Division Edmonds Parks & Recreation Division Edmonds Fire Department J LUI ;E MI J, Amir Ashoori David Ehlers M 24107 76" Ave. W. 24119 76dAve. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Roger Hertrich Thilip Sawers 1020 Puget Drive 3316 NE 125"' U Edmonds, WA 98020 S eattle, WA 98125,1 LU X LL UA 0 z �tp C. 1 so%3 CITY OP EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 121 STH AVENUE NORTH - LIDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works # Planning/Building * Parks and Recreation Engineering Wastewater Treatment Plant 4 July 29, 1997 Mr. John Nordquist 7516 241st SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: ASSIGNMENT OF HEARING DATE Dear Mr. Nordquist: Your appeal file is complete and has been S cheduled for closed record appeal heari ng at the time and place listed below. Action: Apt)eal of Hearing Examiner Decision File No. Assigned: AP-97-87 Date of Hearing: AUGUST 5,1997 Time: 7:00 P.M. or as soon thereafter as possible. Place: Plaza Room, Edmonds Library 650 Main Street Hearing Body: - -City Council Please be aware that your presence at the hearing is highly advisable. If an applicant or his representative is not present, the item may be moved to the end ofthe agenda. Items not reached by the end of the hearing will be continued to the following montws agenda. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 771-0220. Sincerely, ,�unity Services Department - Planning Division "—�es- n, AICP Current Planning Supervisor pc: File No. AP-97-87 Sandy Chase, City Clerk Mr. Amir Ashoori, 24107 76th Avenue West, Edmonds, WA 98026 974MR.D= Incorporated August 11, 1890 07rA"C0RHSWRNoncs Q-1— r4— f—+--+; --- I 1.� z LU Z. M U 0 0 U.1 LL 0 -j 0 Z �- LU W 0- a �-! LIJ LUI C-1 LL 0 z LU (1) z N T ���.:,:I'��APPLICATION.:ROUTING'FORM AND CHECKLIST OM: PLANNING,�, ROUTED TO: :,:RETURNE Engineering 6/26/97 Fire- 6/26/97, PubllcVo 6/97 rks 6/2 Public.WOrks Parks ex Rec. 6/26/97 Parks kO�,'o Staff Comments* -77 *OER WHAT StCTIQN:OF' iTHE CODEZ ERE;'!"-:��'!"'�'! *COMMENT& WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT, At CONSIb' D ,*Additio nal Infbinnation Required f0FCdMD10te ApEllication . . . . . .. ..... . *Additio nal Studies Required to, Complete Riiviewi Owner 1OHN NORDQUIST I Property Address 24107 76TH "E. W., 9 Date of Application 6/25/97 Z Type APPFALING CU-97-21 Hearing Required: YesLX No— Date:.of Hear1lnj:(lt"6wn)- --2�—Applicafion -LLL�.Ate Plan for Short SubdiVision,(6.6'01): X Fee Plan (I I x 17)' X APO List stingA.Proposed), -----Tiue Report rivirionrfienial Asseisinent. Vicinity Map of?- -Petition (Official Street Map) nvironmen t' -4 a is -----2cdfical Areas Determination 77777�; 101 IM z F_!, 0! UJ uj� 0 C3 W W11 X g -15 z LU 0) y 0 z E June 24, 1997 To: Planning Department City of Edmonds From: John Nordquist 7516 - 241st S.W. Edmonds, Washington!!�026 Subject: 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 occupy" 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" because we the surrounding and impacted neighbors "live"An our homes meaning day and night. The Hearing Examiner in his response states that the word "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. My appeal is based on several concerns with this "comment": 1. Why then wasn't the Hearing Examiner consistent with 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 floccupy,etc.") be used. If his responsibility is to award a special benefit and specific guidelines are 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. AM JZZ EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER MAY 15, 1997 Plaza Room - Edmonds Library Z < 650 Main Street Lul Verbatim Transcript -J L C)� Public Hear!M LU� LU b. FILE NO. CU-97-21; Application by Amir Ashoorl for a Conditional Use Permit for W U. 0 an "Accessory Dwelling Unit" in an existing single-family residence located at UJ 24107 76th Avenue West. The proposed "accessory dwelling unit" will be housed In a now addition to the existing residence. The subject property is zoned RS-8. U. Ln 0 Z 1..!!! Steve Bullock, Assistant Planner: Thank you Mr. Examiner, yes. I still don't see the OR applicant for this application. Z LU Ronald McConnell, Hearing Examiner: All right. Do you want to just wait then? 0 C3 Architect: I am the architect; I am not overly familiar with this, but I will do the best I can. W LU X Hearing Examiner: Okay. U. Architect: I brought some drawings here that ... in fact, I just started to read this. 0 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 read the staff report and maybe the applicant might show within that period of time. 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. Ashood shows up. And then, sir, you can take a look at the staff report and be a little bit prepared, Architect: I am reading it now. Hearing Examiner: Okay. Here we go; here is Mr. Wilson. We'll put him on deck then we'll 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 15, 1997, Item 2 b. Page I Hearing Examiner: Mr. BuUmoh go ahead. < � Mr. Bullock: Thank you, Mr. Exsminer. Just for the recnrd, my name is Steve Bullock. | will be representing the City on this dom. And. K4: Examiner, | have given you an exhibits list for this one, and right now. it just ...Uhn only thing it has on it is the aobuo| abuff report admitted into .0 the record ms Exhibit A. And, this again, |soConditional Use Permit Application byMr. Ayhood �^~ to o||mw on accessory dwelling unit to be part ofa new addition that he is building on his n i prope�ylocated at241O776thAvenue VVeot.And, | know that you are pne�yhamiUarwith the ��-U. application. You have read through the staff repodso|think |o,ngoing hopre�ymuch confine � 0 my comments to o letter that was submitted by [Nc Ehlers and also the Conditional Use Permit odbade for the accessory dwelling units. First cfall, in response to K8: Ehlers' letter which is g ni U. < attachment 7 for the staff report, his major concern that he stated in the letter was that it rn appeared by site plan that was submitted by Mr. Aahooh. that Mr. Aahooh was using o brick fence that he constructed on his property as the indication ofwhan�the property line was for � batwa�ntheirmopropeie. And,he�uatwnedomoeitc!eerapo ofhis |eMerthat that ' fonoa�osa��un|k/|ocs��dbwofeetonhiaaideofthe prope�yline. That was something that ho ~- did when heput the fence in; the choice he made to make sure that the fence would be entirely D. — on his property. Mr. Aohood has shown in his site p|an, which is attachment 4 of the appUca�on,adimension of34feet between the south side ofhis house and what howas oaU|ng u— the property line. Assuming that hewas using the face ofthe fence for that property line, ho would ot|U have 32feet there according towhat Mr. Ehlers' is saying. And. since that property �- is m corner lot, m seven and one-half foot setback would be all that is required on the south U.�� pnope�yUne. |tappaanathpdK4cAshoodmmu|daUUhaveodoqumt�roomtopu�thatodd0onnn — there. c, Hearing Examiner: Wait ominute. Looking sdthis, the driveway isshowing here ... and ldon't — know |fthe driveway ia27feet orthe structure |o27feet. Mr. Bullock: The driveway |a27feet |nwidth. Hearing Examiner: [)hay, aothe structure haproposed tobawhat about 2Ofeet then? '- Mr. Bullock: Probably 24|think. . Hearing Examiner: 24? Qkov because ifyou take the 34-.. � 0 Architect: 23 is what it is now. It is 10fexet 1, 10faot 3from the fence. 8feet 1 from the � property line now boh|ng /n the 2 fbcd consideration. | changed those things wovxaxm�u|dn� UU a. nnoroauhnnthooatbocho. Mr. Bullock: That problem appears to have been addressed. �� � Hearing Examiner: Okay. Mr. Bullock: With that, ! guess |would like to call your attention to Page Sof then�report which is the section of the nbdf report where we Qp over the criteria that are met up for accessory dwelling unite and what things the applicant has to comply with as part of their application before the city will approve this type ofConditional Use Permit. First criteria imthat Hearing Examiner Meeting vwrbemn Item b. Page 2 ` 0'� ujl� .0 C-) J JO V) a UJ_ Ln - 0 LU L1. Dal z �_ 0 Z �- Ui LU, L) U) 0- 5 01 U_ 0 z LU Cl) U y 81, z 1*1 H1 0 the application, or excuse me, the accessory dwelling unit needs to be owned and occupied by the applicant for at least two years or a waiver of criteria they need to apply. A waiver of criteria 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, which is attachment 3 of the staff report, that their parents are going to be using the accessory ... their going to be using one of the two units 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 1988. The second criteria is the area used needs to be located within or attached to an existing single-family dwelling unit. And, again the applicant has proposed an addition to their current house. It is not going to be a separate structure. It will not be a detached guest house or a detached garage with another unit in it. It will be part of an existing house and, therefore, it appears to meet that criteria. The next criteria is very similar and it deals with extra changes of the house, and its focused on the fact that the ultimate design and character of the building still 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 or the rear of the building, things like that. And, the applicant has shown on their site plan, attachment 4 again, has an entryway to the accessory unit located on the side of their house. There is many houses in the City of Edmonds that have second floor additions added on to one end. So, again I think that they are complying with this criteria. The next one has to do with parking. Our Code requires that for accessory dwelling units, at least three on -site parking spaces need to be provided. Hearing Examiner: For the entire structure? Mr. Bullock: For both units, that's corrdct. And, those three stalls have to be able to be accessed at any time. They can't be tandem or, you know, back-to-back. The stalls have to be 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, so, 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 I guess that we just need to clarify is that ... the occupancy of both dwelling units needs to comply with the city's definition of a family which is "any number of people related by blood or heredity or up to 5 unrelated people" so the applicant just needs to be aware of the fact that if it is going to be a family member living there, 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 to be 5. 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, I think, is condition number 2 which is the covenant concerning accessory dwelling units. The applicant has already signed this and has included it in your packet as attachment 6, indicating that they are willing to sign and have this covenant recorded with the property. And, this covenant basically states that the applicant is aware of the fact 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 a single family property. And, they have indicated by their already signing this document, that they are willing to comply with that condition. Hearing Examiner Meeting Verbatim Transcript - May 15,1997; Item 2 b. Page 3 Hearing Examiner: Okay, so the recommendation says "see attachment 7", should be "attachment 6", correct? Mr. Bullock: That's correct. I had that wrong. I apologize. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have from staff. Hearing Examiner: I would like clarified where the .... how far away it is going to be from the property line; get the attachments right. We'll hear from the applicant. Mr. Bullock: Exactly. 2 r-1 Hearing Examiner: Mr. Ashoori, you weren't here when everybody else was swom in, so on 3 g -J U- this matter, do you swear totell the truth? cn Mr. Ashoori: I do. F-1 X; Z �-, Hearing Examiner: Okay. Go ahead. Mr. Ashoori: Well, thank �ou for giving me this opportunity to be here today. Basically, what Mr. (word not clear) upset about, my report, everything is right there. And, I have Mr. 0 E I Sewars, my architect, doing the drawings. In regard to the letter that my neighbor on the south U L LU X property sent, and the fact that she referred back to that exhibit or attachment... 0 Zi Architect: 7, 1 believe it is. LU L Mr. Ashoori: 4, yeah. He's referred to attachment 7, but he's referring to attachment 4 1 0 Z believe. In regards to that 34 feet dimension that I mentioned. Well, just want to clarify something here. That that drawing was a preliminary drawing that I did myself and I just went up to the fence and not knowing any better I just measured from there. After that measure, I talked to Phil here and he has supplied the drawings and he has looked up the records and he's the expert in this. Hearing Examiner: Could I get your name arid address for the record sir? Architect: Philip Sawers.."S..A..W..E.R.S", 3316 Northeast 125th, Seattle, that's my office. 0 Hearing Examiner: Okay, and the zip code there? Mr. Sawers: 98125. Hearing Examiner: All right. Go ahead. 0 Mr. Sawers: Well, anyway, I checked everything again. And, I'm 15 feet 7 or something from the neighbor's on the south building. 10 feet 3 from the fence. And, if he has 2 feet, that leaves us 8 feet 1 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 losing that with adverse possession. But that is not a problem With us because we can make this work fine the way it is. Hearing Examiner Meeting Verbatim Transcript - May 15, 1997; Item 2 b. Page 4 0 Hearing Examiner: Doyou want to enter the copy ofthe drawings? KUn Sawxmrm: Iffact, yes. Yeah, these can ... and itshows how the buildings are connected and possibly kitchen. Yeah, just one. Gee, wegofrom one right through the other so its all � Hearing Examiner: Okay, so we'll enter the... �X Mr. Gaxvers:Those are just preliminary drawings. 80... �� Hearing Examiner: Ohoy. | will enter the preliminary drawings as ExhibbEi Dwill give unn pretty good indication ifwmare dealing with correct measurements. � oil K0cSmwemm: That's right. VVefigure weare 8'1from the property line and mmonly need tobo 7-6. That's 7inches room for error. Lotnoftime there |a... — Hearing Examiner: All right. Ooyou have anything further you want bosay then? M. Mr. Ssmm'rm:Nothing from me. 0 Hearing Examiner: |sthere anybody from the audience who wants tnspeak? Yes, sir. Can LUU1get you otthe podium there? 01 Z John Nmm±qmiat Thank you K4c Examiner, My name is John Nondquist. | |km at751G 241ot GVV, Edmonds. Abutting this property to the east. Just little bit ofhistory on this particular site. This was a four lot p|sd in 1959. Three of the homes were developed at that time in o Z rambler appearance. The house bothe south which is the one that has the fence, was a custom built home. The residents inthe other three homes have lived there over 30years. i have lived there 37years. Bought |tnew for $18.2SO. The applicant's home has probably had Gor7owners and |tiebuilt onowetland. Really, alot that wouldn't bedeveloped 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 eventuo||y, the zoning was taken off. Anyvwsy, but we didn't exercise it while we had the opportunity. | have reviewed the application which has been submitted bythe applicant, and 0 the drawing. It is unfortunate that there was some humor thrown out this morning that, well it's all preliminary. However, yWc Examiner, | 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 family took, these four homes. But, | draw your attention bothe drawing. There ieanindication 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 io... contains humnitura, but very seldom |kmd in. In fact, this goes back to the first ofthe year when it is \�*�p obvious that the driveway is omp*, there is no one there. And. so looking into that o |h±|m 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 238th SW. And, according to the city records, itie Apartment R201, and #len» is m Hearing Examiner Meeting vorbomnna,m'mpt - May 1s.1997;Item ub. pwo m 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 LU� LU there was a drum parked outside of the building. And I asked the Fire Department to look at it. _J (n Lul There was assurance that nothing was being manufactured on the site. And, I would hope that Ui oil 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 LL < DI manufacturing facility. We would hope that the architect would have in sincerity the ability to make it took similar to the rest of the buildings in this four building complex. And, with rn 01 particular LLO those comments, I think I would refrain and see if there is anything .... I do want to declare that I z 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 LU Lu�� this particular item. Thank you. Hearing Examiner: Thank you. W Lui X U 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 Z buildings at a second story level are in this general area. And, when I saw the drawings on this, LU (n., I thought to myself, that this add -on, this double story, kind of sticks out like a sore thumb. And, rc�. in fact, you end up with two driveways. Kind of it has the appearance of two separate 0 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 look 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 0 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. Ashoori: 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. Page 6 0 ZI.- 0 LU LU U 01 0 ;7- a LU UJ X 0 U. Z LU (n 0 Z X: 1-1--1-- ........ 0 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. Ashood. 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. Ashoori: 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. I I ., I . , . Hearing Examiner: So, your entry is in the recessed area. Mr. Ashoori: 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 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 houses. The other day I just turned the second phone book ... I am getting two of them. So, the point I am trying to make is that the Hearing Examiner Meeting Verbaft Transcript - May 15, 1997; Item 2 b. Page7 0 Ln a I LLi Z I-- 1.- 0 Z I­ LU LU, U 0; LU LU L) �L_ 0 Z LU Cn 0 Z Ef F% 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 impact to the neighborhood through what the first person mentioned, he just focused on four houses in that neighborhood. He talked about his house, my house, the person that wrote to the city on attachment 7, and another person on the comer. He's just focusing on those four. But if you move on 241st which is the north end of my house, there are two 2-story houses right there. So, having me, which live on the corner lot, having another second story there, that's not going to impact the neighborhood. Because there are already houses on 241st, the immediate north corner lot, and the one adjacent to it, they're two story houses. And, the fact that, you know, a few people have lived there more than I have, thafs, I don't know, I don't want to swy its understandable for lack of words, but the fact that my house was a wetland has been brought up to me a number of times. During the past eleven years that I have lived in that house, I have only talked to my neighbor which sits on the City Council for only three times. And two of those times was the fact that my house was built on that wetland. And that it was all filled in with rocks and dirt and how they built the house. So, I don't think what the first person mentioned is very friendly and neighborly, and the fact that he hasn't talked to me, and treated me as a neighbor, and as a human being, for the last eleven years that I lived there, I may be going off the .... what I am saying is that building, and the fact that I do have another trade that's for, I think thafs a personal issue to be able to present another place, or have a problem...The fact that I want to build this thing is economical reasons. I am paying two rents. I am paying this rent; my parents are living there. The fact that my neighbor has seen that lot being empty because they don't drive. I drive. So, when I am not there, the parking, the driveway is empty obviously. Hearing Examiner: So, what you say is your parents are now living in the house? 9 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 this second unit so I move back in there. Hearing Examiner: The driveway separation will be enough for your wife and your mom? Mr. Ashoori: 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 woman says, well, don't put that there ... that's what I went through. Aid, 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, thats all. It didn't work out. So, ended up moving her out. Because I felt that my parents deserved that place more than my wife does. Hearing Examiner Meefing VerbaUrn Transcript - May 15,1997; Item 2 b. Page 8 0 �71 Hearing Examiner: Okay. Now, let me ask you a question. You say you have a business there? What is your business? _W_ Lul Mr. Ashoorl: 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 �) 0! am working in the garage and making samples. I am an inventor. I have recently developed a 0; : to 4 product and in the garage I am testing this product. I have made this product. It is a small Cn UJ. LU size. It is nothing like a production line, or anything that I make, I sell, I make money. It's like a _J hobbyist, if you want to put it, I am a hobbyist right now at this point. When I go into production, Ln LL LU 0 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 U. <1 unfriendly. I do not have a factory in that house and that second unit is not going to be turned (n :) of into a factory. That is a residential area and I honor that, and I realize that. And, I honor that it T is not feasible to do anything. Someone may want to work on his car, someone may want to Z 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 LU LU! that I've got unfriendly neighbors. I am not doing anything that another neighbor wouldn't do. I 2 =) am just staying within my limits, within my boundaries. I am a good citizen. I have been a L citizen for 18 years. I have worked in this country for 18 years. I have bought that house for 11 0 years. I have lived here for 11 years. It is just the last 6 months I have rented an apartment for W'I 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 Z5 existing structure, is being used by my parents. They are in and out. They go off to L i n, 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 0 Z 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. 0 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. Page 9 Z LLI LLI! 0 a LU LLj LL 0 Z Lu (n 0 Z uv� n Mr. Sawers: lVs just not really a final drawing. Its not a working drawing for application purposes. 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 tall, 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 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. Because, we need something besides what you have heard today. Thank you. Hearing Examiner: Mr. Hertrich, anything further from you? No? Anything further Mr. Ashooei 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 live in my house. That I am going 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 Mr. Sawers: lVs just not really a final drawing. Its not a working drawing for application purposes. 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 tall, 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 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. Because, we need something besides what you have heard today. Thank you. Hearing Examiner: Mr. Hertrich, anything further from you? No? Anything further Mr. Ashooei 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 live in my house. That I am going 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 v:,: _4 be policed if I want to go out on vacation? Should I call my neighbors and ask pe ission? rm With that, everything I said, I conclude. Hearing Examiner Mr. Bullock? Kc Mr. Bullock: Yeah, the one thing that I wanted to add on parking was ... I thought about this later after I got the staff report out ... in looking at attachment 4, and the driveway that is proposed on the south side of the property, they kind of just centered it on their proposed LUi LU X addition where there is going to be a new garage. And, it appears from the detail of the actual V) LL floor plan that they showed on there too, in the lower part of the page, the garage is actually —0 LU going to be shoved more to the north side of that addition. I don't know if this is making any sense, this description. But, I was thinking it might be more logical if the driveway then was LL < positioned in such a manner that the two stalls that are part of the new double car garage, Cn could be accessed at any time. And, the third parking stall on the driveway would be... Ul X z 1--;� Mr. Sewars: That would be done. 6 LU UX Hearing Examiner: I think the issue is that they already have parking. So, they do not need three more; they need a total of three. 0 L C3 Mr. Bullock: Right. And, I just want to clarify that if they move the driveway a little bit, then W they can use the garage for two of those three stalls rather than not. �i- 0 z Mr. Sewars: That would be done and actually extended a little bit to the south possibly for a LU 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 I renting out both of those two units to somebody else, we wouldn't .... thars the main concern is that an applicant would get a permit for an accessory dwelling unit and then rent both of those, or lease both of those spaces out to other people. That would be our major concern. And, as r 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 satisfied that they will meet the terms of the accessory dwelling unit permit. With that ... I will 0 close with that. c, s� 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. In 11 J, This verbatim transcript was prepared by: Sandra S. Chase, CMC tiated Edmonds City Clerk Hearing Examiner Mealing Verbatim Transcript - May 15,1997; Item 2 b. Page I I T7 r7A Wilfredo.,& Divina Zabala 102 NW 125th St 1011 ECI I 22 IN, "Y 99 #109 %(S MA F Glanville Niall PO Box 720 Seattle, WA 98177 s E e 98026 Seattle, WA 98111 Clarence Ttee Coffelt 23928 74th Ave W Dewie Sandlin Darrell &,Sheila Greer 24005 76th Ave W 7409 241st St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, wA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 LU!, :Z� �-j Ky Karlton Yao & Sidarei Saphon Ty U. 0 7511 241st St SW 7515 241st St SW �j Edmonds, WA 98026. Edmonds, WA 98026 LU 0 0 LU U- LU 0 z John Nordquist H L Symer 7516 241st St SW. 7430 241st St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Esther Sellers 7514 241st St sw Edmohds,,.WA 98026 CRYSTALWOOD HOMES INC PO Box 1296 Snohomish, WA 98291 J J Klekotka 24111 Beeson Pl Edmonds, WA 98026 Earl & Betty Mershon 24122 76th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 rim & Merrill Brousseau 24020 76th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Brian & Lynda Holden 7624 240th Pl SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Aleene McConkey 7519 241st St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 ,David & Mary Ehlers 24119 76th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Ron Miller BAYVIEW HOMES INC 24126 Beeson Pl PO Box 2702 Edmonds, WA 98026 Lynnwood, WA 98036 Eunice Murray Geoffrey Baris 24025 74th Ave W 24103 74th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Anh Kha Tang Ngoc My Christine Gerald Mee 24123 Beeson Pl 24034 76th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Khadija Hundiye John Betrozoff Mohamed Abdulle 11818 156th Ave NE, 24016 76th Ave W Redmond, WA 98052 Edmonds, WA 98026 Gr yson Richard Alsterberg ve W 24106 76th Ave W 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Fong Yu Chan K E Green 2200 S Hanford St 7625 242nd St1SW Seattle, WA 98144 Edmonds,.WA 98026 011 Glen, A Deborah Bratt. Janet -Morton L6well.Eveit 7619 242nd St SW �4118 76th Ave W 76th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026, Edmonds, WA 98026 Doyle & Gladys Kinman Gladys Kinman Kevin &'Marjorie Schmidt, Allene Strumbeta 24002 76th AVe.W 7610 239th " P1, PW 7610.239th Pl*SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 J n U1, Tong 11 ak g 11 *' -P' _J n W William & Eileen Gould >' 4AO W, 0 S Vn ITra Jack, Sherwood 0 7531 242nd Pi.SW a e -M e It race, wA' .7,511 242nd Pl SW .0 Edmonds, WA 98026 8 3 3 Edmonds, WA 98026. LL. FamilyLLovingLFleming Everts,Swanson Amir Ashoori z t'� 7501 242ndL Pl SW i4L2ndLLP1, SW 24107 76ih Ave. W. 11-+- Edmonds, WA,�,, 98,026 Edmonds, WA 98626 :Edmonds, WAI,98026 0 Ui X Ui (b 0 0 = :1 LU U. 0 Z 10 CITY OF EDMONDS, BARBARA FAHEY 250 STH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 7'71-0221 MAYOR HEARING -EXAMINER t C) C3 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECONSIDERATION DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Arnir Ashood RECONSIDERATION REQUESTED BY: John Nordquist CASE NO.: CU 97-21 LOCATION: 24107 76" Ave. W. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. John NordqWst, 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: ParaUaph 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 significant impact the proposed accessory dwelling unit may have on the neighborhood. Paragrnh 2 (First Part): Mr. Nordquist pointed out that in the Examiner's Decision there were two 6's but no 7. Response: Mr. Nordquist is correct. The last condition should be condition number 7., a Incorporated August:1 1, 11890, w Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 (Reconsideration) Page 2 Paragraph 2: (Second Part): r To which department and or person in the City of Edmonds do the persons of concern UJI report violations and in whatformat? .0 U; J01 Oi Response: LUj -U Staff responded in Reconsideration Exhibit B that: Ou- Uj Since a Conditional Use Permit is a permit that is administered through the Planning Division, any complaints orpotential code violations would be submitted to the Planning U. Division. The Planning Division has a form on which to submit these concerns. Ifthe X U1 Planning Division can confirm that there indeed is a code violation, the City will notify z t.!.;; the property owner of the violation and the measures needed to correct it. LU UJI Paragraph 3: U Item 2 reference is made to thefiling of a Covenant with the Snohomish County Auditor. 00 L- Yhe paragraph is silent as to who shall do thefiling and to who will be charged with the LU j T Un filingfee- U. M 0 Response: LU ca Staff responded in Reconsideration Exhibit B that: z In all cases where a permit requires documents to be recorded, the applicant is required to submit the recordingfees to the City and we, the City Clerks Offlce, record the documents. r-7: Paragmh 4: 7hroughout the record there is an interplay between the words occupy" and "live". My 0 testimony concerned thefact that warehousing offurniture could be used a s definition of occupy. Because this is a special beneflt and an impact on homogenous neighborhood the intent of the benefit should be more specific. My preference would be live because we the surrounding and impacted neighbors "live in our homes meaning day and night occupancy. Reggonse: 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' at all. Therefore, the Examiner believes the words "occupant, 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. 0 0 C1 W U- Lii Y 0 z 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. Ta Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner 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 0 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 0 conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for 10 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 Office. 0 I U, I N� J", DO 4�, - 3� , 40 MEMORANDUM z -J & Date: Monday, June 23, 1997 to U) UJ To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner J t- U) U. LU 0 From: Steve Bullock, Planner Subject: U. Comments on Reconsideration Letter submitted by Mr. Nordquist First a question is raised by Mr. Nordquist regarding who in the City is notified of potential code X z I.- violations and in what format. Since a Conditional Use Permit is a permit that is administered i� through the Planning Division, any complaints or potential code violations would be submitted to the Planning Division. The Planning Division has a form on which to submit these concerns. If the Planning Division can confirm that there indeed is a code violation, the City will notify the property owner of the violation and the measures needed to correct it. Uj 0 The second question was who will file and pay for the filing of the Acc6ssory Dwelling Unit LU UJ X Covenant with the County. In all cases where a pernuit requires documents to be recorded, the U. applicant is required to submit the recording fees to the City and we, the City Clerks Office, z record the documents. LU I hope that helps clarify some of the concerns. Let me know if I can be of any additional help. 0 z 0 d D' i i City of Edmonds CQ Planning Division rn z z M U 0 a LU U- W 0 z W. June 12, 1997 To: Ron McConnell Hearing Examiner City of Edmonds From: John Nordquist 7516 - 241st. S.W. Edmonds, Washington 98026 SubJect: Case No. CU 97-21 Request for Reconsideration The Findings, Conclusions and Decision by the Hearing Examiner is silent in the area of relief to the impacted neighborhood. I draw your attention to page 10 - the Decision itself and specifically to items 4 ( occupancy 5 "family ",*6 a b c and 7. ( There are two 6's but no 7 1 believe the second "6" should be 7 and I will address it as such. ) I To which department and or person in the City of Edmonds do the persons of concern report violations and in what format? It is my opinion that in fairness the applicant should be made aware of the fact that there is a format of reporting the violations*and from whom he will receive notification. Item 2 reference is made to the filing of a Covenant with the Snohomish County Auditor. The paragraph is silent as to who shall do the filing and who will be charged with the filing fee. Throughout the record there is an interplay between the words It occupy" and or "live". My testimony concerned the fact that warehousing of furniture could be used as the definition of Occupy. Because this is a special benefit and an impact on homogenous neighborhood the intent of the benefit should be more specific. My preference would be lives because we the surrounding and impacted neighbors "live" in our homes meaning day and night occupancy. ResepctfVlly submitted P z I L; 1 LU 1 Ui 0 0 LU LU U z Mr.Ron McConnell City of Edmonds 250 - 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. McConnell For the records, I would like to inform you that W Roger Hertrich whom appeared on May 15, 1997 hearing examination in relation to the application for a MIL addition to my house, and whom is a resident of 1020 Puget Drive, in Edmonds was apparently informed and invited to the hearing exam by W Nordquist (my neighbor). Mr. Hertrich was observed driving a light brown car and looking at the "City of Edmonds" posted notification board by my house for a few minutes. He then proceeded by making a right turn into 241 " street and into W Nordquist driveway days prior to the scheduled hearing exam. For the records I would like to also reiterate the fact that the neighborhood does not consist solely of rambler style houses as stated by the above listed people. There are numerous number of houses in two story configuration and even duplexes. The three houses on 241 ' street immediately across from Mr. Northquist's and my house are two story houses in addition to a forth one across and North of my house on 76 th Ave W. The addresses are as follows; 7519 241 st St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 7515 24 1 st St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 7511241 st St SW Edmonds, WA 98026 24016 7e Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Your professional manner in handling this letter is greatly appreciated Sincere /� Z;ec,�� Applicant Amir Ashoori 24107 - 76 th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 CC. Stephen F. Bullock z Z Uj ul! 0 uj Uj (n 0 z N 4�' S t . 189' a CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 771-0220 FAX (2061771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: CASE NO.: LOCATION: APPLICATION: REVIEW PROCESS: MAJOR ISSUES: Amir Ashoori CU 97-21 24107 76th Ave. W. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). A Conditional Use Permit to allow an "Accessory Dwelling Unit" in a new addition on the south side of the existing house. A total of five new off street parking spaces would be provided on the lot with this proposal (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2-5). Conditional Use Permit; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.010 (Single Family Residential - Uses). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.05 (Conditional Use Permits). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.21 (Accessory Dwelling Units). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: The applicant and his wife are proposing an'addition to their home which would allow them to have an "Accessory Dwelling Unit". In compliance with the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit the addition has been designed to appear as part of the original building and to fit into the surrounding neighborhood. The existing house has a one car garage with space for two cars in front of the existing garage which faces 241st St. SW. The proposal would add a two car garage facing 76ffi Ave. W. Also, space for an additional threecars would be provided in front of the new two car garage. Incorporated August 11, 1890 e J7 pill LU U. ti; 0 Z 0 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing onthe application was opened at 9:43 a.m., May 15,1997, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:22 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Stephen Bullock, Project Planner, reviewed the staff report He noted that Attachment 7 to Exhibit A states that the neighbors fence is 2 feet on his side of the property line and that Attachment 4 to Exhibit A shows the addition will still be 8' 1 " from the property line (the zoning code allows 7' 6"). He recommended approval of the application with conditions (See Exhibit A). From the Applicant: Amir Ashoori, Applicant, said Attachment 4 to Exhibit A is a rough drawing and he introduced his architect who had a more complete drawing. Phillip Sawers, Architect, submitted drawings into the record (Exhibit B) and said the drawings were still preliminary, but noted that he had checked the dimensions and the proposed addition will be 8 feet from the property line. From the Community: John Nordquist, Neighbor, said: He lives in the house to the west of the subject property. 0 He bought his house in 1949 and at that time he could have had a duplex on his property, but the codes have changed and duplexes are no longer allowed. 0 The Ashoori house was built on what was a wetland. 0 He felt this proposal will impact the neighborhood. He would like the neighborhood to retain a single family look. 0 The yards of four neighbors all join together at one point and the neighbors will all look at the proposed addition. The subject house contains furniture, but is very seldom lived in. The Applicant has an apartment in another location where he resides., LU 0! n� 0 Ii 1, LU L) 0 a UJ U- 0 Z Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 3 • The code says the dwelling shall be occupied by the owner. That does not mean that it is to be occupied by relatives 4or by furniture. I • Manufacturing has been taking place on the subject property. • He hopes the proposal will not be a duplex without the applicant living in it. He wants owner occupancy to be a requirement. Roger Hertrich, Resident, said: • This is an area of low ramblers and the proposed accessory dwelling unit will stick out like a sore thumb. • This structure will have two driveways, one off of 7e Ave. W and one off of 241r" St. W. • The second garage and driveway will make this structure look like a duplex. • The intent of the ordinance which allows accessory dwelling units was not to double the size of your building. Response from the Applicant: Amir Ashood said: • His existing driveway is off of 241" and his front door is off of 70h. The existing driveway will remain and because of all of the shrubs and trees you won't be able to see both driveways from either street. Sometimes he has two phone books left at his house because some people now mistake it a two separate dwelling units. • The second story unit will not have that much impact. While it is true that the immediate 4 houses are one story, there are 2 two story houses across 241". • His house was built on what had been a wetland, but the wetland had been filled before the house was built many years aZo. • He does have another place to live. His parents now live in the house and he has rented a place for his wife and himself until. he can build the accessory dwelling unit. The he and his wife will move back in. , He wants to have a separate place for his parents. He still comes to the house almost daily., • He has a permit to conduct home office activities. He is an inventor and hobbyist. The second unit is not going to be a factory. Phillip Sawers said: The setbacks and height all meet the zoning code. �z 0 Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 4 The only issue is the second kitchen, because everything else could be done without a conditional use permit. Response from the City: 0i Steve Bullock said the applicant has signed a covenant saying he will reside in one of the uj� .0 X! two units (See Attachment 6 to Exhibit A). -J 4 U. CORRESPONDENCE: U. One letter was received from members of the general public on this application (See Attachment D, 7 to Exhibit A). Z P; LU W FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: 5 A. SITE DESCRIPTION: La 1. Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning: LU X a. Facts: LL 0 Z 1) Size: The subject property is rectangular in shape and has LU W approximately 11,600 square feet (see Exhibit A,. Attachments I & 3). 2) Land Use: The property is currently developed with a single family Z detached house. 3) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property. is Single -Family - Residential (RS-8) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). 4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property. is flat with limited ornamental landscaping and a couple of evergreen trees along the south side of the property. 2. Surrounding Development and Zoning: W, a. Facts: 1) North: This area is currently zoned under the RS-8 zoning designation and is developed with single family homes (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2) South: This area is currently zoned under the RS-8 zoning designation and is developed with single family homes (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3) West: This area is currently zoned under the RS-8 zoning designation and is developed with single family homes (see, Exhibit A, Attachment Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 5 4) East: This area is currently zoned under the RS-8 zoning designation and is developed with single family homes (see Exhibit A, Attachment B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE: 1. ECDC Section 16.20.010 (SINGLE-FAMILYRESIDENTLAL- USES) a. Facts: 1), "Accessory Dwelling Units" are a permitted use requiring a conditional use permit in the RS-8 zone, per ECDC 16.20.010. 2) "Accessory Dwelling Units" are required to comply with criteria outlined in ECDC Chapter 20.21 (Accessory Dwelling Units). See section C.3 of this report for a discussion on how this proposal meets the criteria for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. b. Conclusions: 1) A Conditional Use Permit is required to allow the establishment of an Accessory Dwelling Unit in a single family zone. If a Conditional Use Pem-dt is granted, the use will be consistent with the Edmonds Community Development Code. 2. ECDC Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTLAL - Development Standards), a. Facts: 1) A letter from Mr. David Ehlers raises a concern that the applicant is using a fence that is 2 feet onto Mr. Ehlers property as the actual location of the property line. 2) The subject property is a comer lot and as such will be required to provide a side yard setback of 7.5 feet from the property line between the applicant and Mr. Ehlers. 3) The applicant and his architeci are aware of the property line issue and have indicated the setback requirements can be complied with. b. Conclusions: 1) The setback will be measured from the property line and the applicant will be responsible to located the property line accurately as part of the building permit application and inspection process. It appears from the preliminary plan (Exhibit B) that the applicant will have adequate room to complete the proposed addition as well as provide the required 7.5 foot side yard setback. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 6 3. ECDC Chapter 20.05 (CONDMONAL USE PERMITS) a. Facts: 1. ECDC Section 20.05 contains the review and approval criteria for 10I Conditional Use Permits. According to the aforementioned code section, "No Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless all the LU .j I—, findings in this section can be made." The findings are as follows: LO U. —0 Comprehensive Plan - The proposed use is compatible with the LU Comprehensive Plan. LL. < Zoning Ordinance - That the proposed use, and its location, is CI consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the zone district in which the use is to be located, and Z I. -I that the proposed use will meet all the applicable requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. LU t"! Not Detrimental - That the use, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, 0 safety and welfare, and to nearby private property or improvements UJ X unless the use is a public necessity. Transferability - The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether LU the conditional use permit shall run with the land or shall be LJ personal. Z 2. The applicants have stated in their declarations or shown on their plans the following: The proposal is consistent -with the Comprehensive Plan in that the area is designated for residential use which is what they are rop p osing. "Accessory 9 The zoning ordinance allows for Dwelling Units" in a single family zone if a Conditional Use Permit is approved. Assuming the proposed Conditional Use Permit is approved, the "Accessory Dwelling Unif' will be consistent with the Zoning 0 Ordinance. e Because four on -site parking stalls will be provided and the small V addition will not appear to be any more than an addition to a single family house the proposed "Accessory Dwelling Unit" will not be detrimental to the public health, safety an welfare, or to nearby private property or improvements (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 & 5). b. Conclusions: 1) A conditional use is a use that has been legislatively determined. to be allowed within a given zone if appropriate conditions�can e imp b osed '' to ensure compatibility with those uses which are permitted as, a t ma ter ON , -ATW��V M M �.s b Hearing Examiner Decision T: Case No. CU 97-21 Page 7 A of right within that zone. A conditional use thus carries a fairly heavy assumption of acceptability within the zone it is located in. In < consideration of any conditional use permit application, the Examiner LU _j 0, is required to consider the degree of compatibility which would exist U between the use and its particular surroundings and may impose such Wn conditions as are necessary to ensure compatibility. If compatibility U. can be ensured, then the permit should be approved. 2) See Section C of this report for a discussion on how this proposal is U. consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edmonds. ub 3) See Section B. 1-3 of this report for a discussion on how this proposal Z 01 is consistent with the uses allowed in the Zoning Code of the City of LU lul Edmonds. M 4) The proposed application will not have a significant negative impact to 0 C3 surrounding properties in that a minimum of three on -site parking UJ X stalls will be provided and the addition will not appear to be any more than an addition to a single family house. The addition will meet all of d; the height and setback requirements of the RS* -8 zone in which it is located. Z 5) The permit should not be transferable per ECDC Section 20.21.035. 4. ECDC Chapter 20.21 (ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS) a. Facts: . 1) ECDC Section 20.21 contains the review and approval criteria for . . . . . . . . . . . Accessory Dwelling Units. According to the aforementioned code section, "No Accessory Dwelling Unit may be approved unless all the findings in this section can be made." The findings are as follows: 0 Compliance with the Conditional Use Permit criteria set forth in ECDC 20.05.010 is required. Existing Residence. The single-family dwelling in which the proposed unit is to be built shall be owned and occupied for at least two years by the applicant or the waiver criteria established by ECDC 20,21.015 shall be satisfied. Area Used. Accessory dwelling units must be located within or attached to single-family dwelling units. -In no case shall an p accessory dwelling unit be permitted in a detached structure such . . . . . . . . . . as a guest house or garage. I Exterior Changes. The single-family appearance and character of the residence shall be maintained when viewed from the,� K, surrounding neighborhood. Whenever possible, new:. entrances. should be placed at the side or rear of the building.. Only one 9" -77, -71 F7, . .............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _7 77777 1, i LU 2 M U 0 a LU LL Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 8 electric and one water meter shall be allowed for the entire building, serving both the primary residence and the accessory dwelling unit. tc, Parking. Three off-street parking spaces shall be provided for a single-family residence with an accessory dwelling unit. Number of Units. Only one accessory dwelling unit shall be approved for each primary single-family dwelling. Occupancy. The primary dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied by the owner of the subject site as long as the accessory dwelling unit is used for dwelling purposes separate and distinct from the primary dwelling. In no event shall the total number of occupants exceed one family as defined in this code. Safety, Light, Ventilation, Floor Area and Similar Factors. Accessory dwelling units shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code adopted by ECDC Title 19 and shall comply in all respects with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. No conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit shall be issued to a nonconforming structure unless that structure is brought into conformance with the current provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. 2) The applicants have stated in their declarations or shown in their plans the following: zo • An addition will be Wilton the hornewhich maintains the single family character and appearance of the residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 & 5). • Three on -site parking spaces that can be accessed at any time will be provided on the property. A proposed garage would provide two additional parking spaces (see Exhibit A, Attachments 3 & 5). • Only one Accessory Dwelling Unit is proposed (see Exhibit A, �j: Attachments 3 & 5). • Amir Ashood will occupy one of the two units once completed (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 3) County Assessor records show the following: Amir Ashoori has owned the property for approximately 9 years (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6). 4) The proposed addition will be reviewed by the Building Division for compliance with the UBC upon submittal of a building permit application. Vi� ��' M, Y,4 -7f X�� Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 9 W1 b. Conclusions: 1) See Section B.3 of this for discussion how this is report a on proposal =r consistent with the Conditional Use Permit criteria for the City of d 01 Edmonds. U) LU f 2) The applicant has owned the house for nine years -J Ln IL 3) The proposed accessory dwelling unit will be attached to the existing LU 0 single family house. 4) The proposed addition will comply with all setback and height U- requirements of the RS-8 zone. The existing house has a hip roof and a hip roof is proposed for the addition. Access to the living space in Z the addition is proposed to be located on the south side, so that it will 01 appear to be another door to a single family residence. Therefore, it is Z LU LU believed the single-family appearance and character of the residence will be maintained. 0( ;7- 5) Three vehicle spaces will be provided in garages. Additional off-street LU W parking will be provided on the driveways in front of the garages. X U U. 6) rfbe proposal is for one accessory dwelling unit. U�J W!E, 7) Approval of the accessory dwelling unit should be conditioned to insure that only one of the units will be available for someone other 0 Z than the applicant to reside in. 8) The proposed accessory dwelling unit must be consistent with all applicable requirements of the ECDC including the Uniform Building Code. C. EDMONDS COMPREHENSWE PLAN COMPLIANCE: 1. Land Use a. Facts: The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has some goals and 0 policies stated in the Land Use Element, under Residential Development which relate to the subject proposal. 1) LAND USE - Residential Development B.4. "Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economicallyfeasible. 2) The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property Single Family Small Lot. b. Conclusions: g 1 The proposed project is attempting to retain and rehabilitate existin g . . . . . . . . . . . ........... A older housing within Edmonds. �P* 92 fv R@ A LILL �j � LIJ 0 a UJ LL 0 Z E Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 10 2) The proposed use is located in a Single Family - Small Lot area on the Comprehensive Plan and is therefore consistent with the Land Use designation of the Comprehensive Plan for its location. 2. Housing a. Facts: The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has some goals and policies stated in the Housing Element which relate to the subject development proposal. 1) HOUSING - Goal G.2.b. "Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods that addresses the needs of extended families and encourages housing affordability. b. Conclusions: 1) The proposal is to create an accessory dwelling unit on a developed single family lot which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for housing opportunities. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a conditional use permit to allow an accessory dwelling unit is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 2. The covenant conceming "Accessory Dwelling Units" signed be Mr. Amir Ashoori shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditors Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7). 3. The proposed accessory dwelling unit shall be constructed substantially in accordance with the plans shown on Exhibit B. The Current Planning Supervisor is authorized to approve minor modifications as working drawings are prepared for the proposal. Any major modification of the plans (i.e.: exterior appearance: including increased height, reduced setbacks, relocation of the entry to living spaces, or modification of the style of roof) shall be brought back to the Hearing Examiner for review prior to the issuance of a building permit. j', 4. One of the two dwelling units shall be occupied by Mr. Amir Ashoori as long as the accessory dwelling unit is used for dwelling purposes separate and distinct from the 0 primary dwelling. If Mr. Amir Ashoori chooses to continue to have a separate dwelling, then one of the two units must be unoccupied and shall not be rented to any other individual. 5. In no event shall the total number of occupants exceed one "family" as defined by the Edmonds Community Development Code Section 21.30.010. 6. The subject permit shall expire immediately upon any of the following circumstances:, Case No. CU 97-21 Page I I a) The accessory dwelling unit is substantially altered and is no longer in conformance with the preliminary plans and drawings reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner in this application (Exhibit B). Ly b) The subject site ceases to maintain three or more off-street parking spaces which 0! comply with the standards set forth in the ECDC, 8.5' x 18'. LU; c) Mr. Amir Ashoori ceases to own the property or live in one of the two residences on 0, the subject property. �- 11 6. The permit shall not be transferable to any other property owners. Entered this 301h day of May, 1997, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner z under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. �- z LU W (n, 0 4 0 ;— Ron McConnell LU LU R1 Hearing Examiner X L)" F- a bl Z11 RECONSMERATION AND APPFALS: z The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Exan-dner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holdin& an ownership interest in a tract of land 0 which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS: 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. 0 r; , - W., Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. CU 97-21 Page 12 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 milland void, unless the owner files an LU); application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' LU -j NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR: Lo U6 LU 0 The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request gm a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. U. < M (n EXHMITS: z Uj UJI The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report U ca 0— B. Preliminary Drawings L" Uj X, zi PARTIES OF RECORD: z Amir Ashoori David Ehlers John Nordquist 24107 76di Ave. W. 24119 76th Ave. W. 7516 241" SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98016 Roger Hertrich Phillip Sawers Edmonds Planning Divisi on 1020 Puget Drive 3316 N.E. 125h Edmonds Public Works Division Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98125 Edmonds Engineering Division Edmonds Parks, & Recreation Division Edmonds Fire Department .......... . 17 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 < PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS LU ot Lul To: LLI Ron onnel�l, �Heg E arnmer to U. 0 From: Lu Siepi4en Bullock Assistant Planner Date: May 5,1997 Z �-i File: CU-97-21 Z Hearing Date, Time, And Place: Mgy 15,1996, At 9:00 AM.' us UJI Plaza Room - Edmonds Library 650 Main Street. uJ UJ TABLE OF CONTENTS �!L-: 0 Section Page Z us U) 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. ............................................ ............................................... 2 85 A. APPLICATION ............................................................................................................... I .......................................... 2 Z B. DESCRIPTION of PROPOSAL .............................................................. I ......... I .................................. ........................ 2 C. RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... ............... I ...... ................................................................. 2 H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS.. .............................................................................................................. 3 A. SITE DESCRIPTION ................................................................................ ; ................................................................. 3 B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE ............ ........... 3 C. EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE .................................................................................................... 6 111. RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS ..................................................... ............................................................... 6 A. MUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION ..................................................... *** ...... 6 B. APPEALS ......................................................................................... .................................. ..................................... 6 0 IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL ............................................................................... . ................................................................ 7 V. NOTICE TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR ..................... ................................................................... ............................. 7 V1. APPENDICES .......................................... ........................................................................................................................ 7 N, VH. PARTIES OF RECORD ........................................................... ..................................................................................... 7 Z- '2 MOAN ...,Monn C97-02I.DOC/May 494ii taffReport S Z. Alle -LOCatlOn: 24 1 U/ 76th Ave. W. (see Attachment 1). 3. RNg� A Conditional Use Permit to allow an "Accessory Dwelling Unie' in a new addition on the south side of the existing house. A total of at least three off street parking stalls would be provided on the lot with this proposal (see Attachments 2-5). 4. Review Process: Conditional Use Permit; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 5. M r Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.010 (Single Family Residential - Uses). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.05 (Conditional Use Permits). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.21 (Accessory Dwelling Units). B. Description of Proposal The applicant is proposing an addition to their home which would allow them to have an "Accessory Dwelling Unit!'. In compliance with the criteria for a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Dwelling Unit the addition has been designed to appear as part of the original building and therefore fit into the surrounding neighborhood. Three parking stalls would be provided on site in front of a proposed garage which would provide two additional parking spaces. C. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend approval of this Conditional Use Permit subject to the following conditions: 1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 2. The covenant concerning "Accessory Dwelling Units" signed be Mr. Amir Ashoori shall be recorded with the Snohomish County Auditors Offices (see Attachment 7). 3. One of the two dwelling units shall be occupied by Mr. Amir Ashoori as long as the accessory dwelling unit is used for dwelling purposes separate and distinct from the primary dwelling. 4. In no event shall the total number of occupants exceed one "family" as defined by the Edmonds Community Development Code Section 21.30.010. 5. The subject permit shall expire immediately upon any of the following circumstances: a. The accessory dwelling unit is substantially altered and is no longer in conformance with the plans and drawings reviewed and approved by the Hearing Examiner in this application. b. The subject site ceases to maintain three or more off-street parking spaces which comply with the standards set forth in the ECDC, 8.5' x 18'. c. Mr. Amir Ashoori ceases to own the property or live in one of the two residences on the subject property. 6. The permit shall not be transferable to any other property owners. 07-021DOC /May 8,1997 /Staff Report J:", imams AmirAshood File No. CU-97-21 Page 3 of 8 H. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. Site Description 1. Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning: a) Facts. Lul &_e- The subject property is rectangular in shape and has approximately 11,600 square fee (see Attachments 1 & 3). 01 Lu� (2) Land Use The property is currently developed with a single family detached house. UJ J (3) Zoning The zoning of the subject property is Single -Family -Residential (RS-8) (see V) Attachment 1). U —0 J (4) Terrain -and Vegetation: The subject property is flat with limited ornamental landscapinj and a couple of evergreen trees along the south side of the property. U_ 0 2. Surrounding Development and Zoning: Z �_i a) Facts: 01 (1) No_rth-. This area is currently zoned under the RS-8 zoning, designation and is developet Lu" 1 with single family homes (see Attachment 1). (2) &_uAh- This area is currently zoned under the RS-8 zoning des ignation and is developec with single family homes (see Attachment 1). 0;7_� at UJ LL, (3) MLeLt. This area is currently zoned under the RS-8 zoning designation and is developed will Oil single family homes (see Attachment 1). Z (4) East- This area is currently zoned under the RS-8 zoning designation and is developed witt LU single family homes (see Attachment 1). U 0 B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance Z 1. ECDC Section 16.20.010 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESEDENTIAL - USES) a) Eacts- (1) "Accessory Dwelling Units" are a permitted use requiring a conditional use permit in the RS-8 zone, per ECDC 16.20.010. (2) "Accessory Dwelling Units" are required to comply with criteria outlined in ECDC Chaptei 20.21 (Accessory Dwelling Units). See section H.C.3 for a discussion on how this proposal meets the criteria for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. 0 b) Conclusions: (1) A Conditional Use Permit is required to allow the establishment of an Accessory Dwelling Unit in a single family zone. If a Conditional Use Perntit is granted, the use will be consistent with the Edmonds Community Development Code. t 2. ECDC Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Development Standards) a) Facts: (1) A letter from Mr. David Ehlers raises a concern that the applicant is using a fence that is 2 feet onto Mr. Ehlers property as the actual location of the property line. (2) The subject property is a comer lot and as such will be required to provide a side yard setback of 7.5 feet from the property line between the applicant and Mr. Ehlers. C97-021.DOC May 8, 19971 Staff Report Amir Ashoori File No. CU-97-21 Page 4 of 7 h) Conclusions: (1) The setback will be measured from the property line and the'applicant will be responsible to located the property line accurately as part of their building permit application and inspection process. It appears from the submitted site plan that the applicant will have adequate room to complete the proposed addition as well as provide the required 7.5 foot LU side yard setback. 3. ECDC Chapter 20.05 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS) UJI a) Facts: (1) ECDC Section 20.05 contains the review and approval criteria for Conditional Use Permits. (n U. W 0 According to the aforementioned code section, "No Conditional Use Permit may be approved unless all the findings in this section can be made." The findings are as follows: LL Comprehensive Plan - The proposed use is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. g Zoning Ordinance - That the proposed use, and its location, is consistent with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the purpose of the zone district in which the use Z F-i is to be located, and that the proposed use will meet all the applicable requirements of 1--0i the Zoning Ordinance. Z LU Lu! 0 Eat _Detrimenial - That the use, as approved, or conditionally approved, will not be 2 ni significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and to nearby private �u Lai property or improvements unless the use is a public necessity. Q L_ 0 Transferability - The Hearing Examiner shall determine whether the conditional use LU L" permit shalf—run with the land or shall be personal. LL 6 (2) The applicants have stated in their declarations or shown on their plans the following: Z a The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the area is designated Uj 0 L) for residential use which is what they are proposing. 0 The zoning ordinance allows for "Accessory Dwelling Units" in a single family zone if a Conditional Use Permit is approved. Assuming the proposed Conditional Use Permit is approved, the "Accessory Dwelling Unit" will be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. a Because four on -site parking stalls will be provided and the small addition will not appear to be any more than an addition to a single family house the proposed "Accessory Dwelling Unie' will not be detrimental to the public health, safety an welfare, or to nearby private property or improvements (see Attachments 3 & 5). b) Conclusions (1) See Section H.C.4 (page 5) of this report for a discussion on how this propo I sal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Edmonds. (2) See Section II.B.1-3 (pages 3-5) of this report for a discussion on how this proposal is consistent with the uses allowed in the Zoning Code of the City of Edmonds. (3) The proposed application will not have any significant negative impact to surrounding properties in that a minimum of three on -site parking stalls will be provided and the small addition will not appear to be any more than an addition to a single family house. (4) The permit should not be transferable. LA. 0 FEN UJ 0 0 Lu u_ z U] �v 0 AmirAshoori File No. CU-97-21 Page 5 of 7 4. ECDC Chapter 20.21 (ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS) a) Lacts- (1) ECDC Section 20.21 contains the review and approval criteria for Accessory Dwelling Units. According to the aforementioned code section, "No Accessory Dwelling Unit may be approved unless all the findings in this section can be made." The findings are as follows: * Compliance with the Conditional Use Permit criteria set forth in ECDC 20.05.010. 0 Existing Residence. The single-family dwelling in which the proposed unit is to be built shall be owned and occupied for at least two years by the applicant or the waiver criteria established by ECDC 20.21.015 shall be satisfied. 0 Area Used. Accessory dwelling units must be located within or attached to single- family dwelling units. In no case shall an accessory dwelling unit be permitted in a detached structure such as a guest house or garage. * Exterior Changes. The single-family appearance and character of the residence shall be maintained when Yiewed from the surrounding neighborhood, Whenever possible, new entrances should be placed at the side or rear of the building. Only one electric and one water meter shall be allowed for the entire building, serving both the primary residence and the accessory dwelling unit. 0 Parking. Three off-street parking spaces shall be provided for a single-family residence with an accessory dwelling unit. 0 Number of Units. Only one accessory dwelling unit shall be approved for each primary single-family dwelling. 0 Occupancy. The primary.dwelling or the accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied by the owner of the subject site as long as the accessory dwelling unit is used for dwelling purposes separate and distinct from the primary dwelling. In no event shall the total number of occupants exceed one family as defined in this code. 0 Safety, Light, Ventilation, Floor Area and SimilarFactors. Accessory dwelling units shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Uniform Building Code adopted by ECDC Title 19 and shall comply in all respects with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. No conditional use permit for an accessory dwelling unit shall be issued to a nonconforming structure unless that structure is brought into conformance with the current provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. (2) The applicants have stated in their declarations or shown in their plans the following: • An addition will be built on the home which maintains the single family character and appearance of the residence (see Attachments 3 & 5). • Three on -site parking spaces that can be accessed at any time will be provided on the property. A proposed - garage would provide two additional parking spaces (see Attachments 3 & 5). • Only one Accessory Dwelling Unit is proposed (see Attachments 3 & 5). • Amir Ashoori will occupy one of the two units once completed (see Attachment 4). (3) County Assessor records show the following: a Amir Ashoori has owned the property for approximately 9 years (see Attachment 6). (4) The proposed addition will be reviewed by the Building Division for compliance with the UBC upon submittal of a building permit application. b) Conclusions: (1) See Section H.B.2 (pages 3-4) of this report for a discussion on how this proposalAs consistent with the Conditional Use Permit criteria for the City of Edmonds. C97-021.DOC/May8,1997 Staff Report 0 F. z W 0 a LU X I-- LL 0 z C. Amir Ashoori File No. CU-97-21 Page 6 of 7 (2) Based on the documents submitted by the applicant, both plans and declarations, indicate that the proposed accessory dwelling unit will be done consistent with the City's ordinances, Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Compliance 1. Land Use a) Ea_cts- The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has some goals and policies stated in the Land Use Element, under Residential Development which relate to the subject proposal. (1) LAND USE - Residential Development B.4. "Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is economicallyfeasible. (2) The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property Single Family - Small Lot. b) Conclusions: (1) The proposed project is attempting to retain and rehabilitate existing older housing within Edmonds. (2) The proposed use is located in a Single Family - Small Lot area on the Comprehensive Plan and is therefore consistent with the Land Use designation of the Comprehensive Plan for its location. 2. Housing a) Facts: The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has some goals and policies stated in the Housing Element which relate to the subject development proposal. (1) HOUSING - Goal G.2.b. "Provide for accessory housing in single family neighborhoods that addresses the needs of extendedfamilies and encourages housing affordability. b) Conclusions: (1) The proposal is to create an accessory dwelling unit on a developed single family lot which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for housing opportunities. M- RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations and appeals, Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. Request for Reconsideration Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision'by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. B. Appeals Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. Ile 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. C97-02 IMOC May S. 1997 Staff Report `7 7 Y�V';�'Y-; M 1A 51 Lu F, R, "M "1 -3, "r Ashood FileNo.CU-97-21 Page 7 of 7 IV. 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 kj be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' V. NOTICE TO TBE 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 Office, VI. -."PENDICES Attachments I through 7 are attached I Vicinity and Zoning Map I Application 3. Applicant's Declaration site Plan �5. Assessor Record of subject property U1, 6. Covenant for "Accessory Dwelling Units" 7., Letter from Mr. Ehlers received 4/28/97 V11. 'PARTIES OF RECORD 31 Amir Ashoori 1= David Ehlers Engineering Division Fire Department 24 IM 76th Ave. W. 24119 76th Ave W. Planning Division Public Works Division Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026 Parks Division z z �- �- 0 Z I-- LU W: 0-1 a �- LIJ LU z LU cn 0 z Ef L r 41 41 Affachment 1 CU-97-21 0 z I -- La W. LL1 LU L) U- z UJ (n L) 0 2 IV] L Cel city of edi.. onds gas= "I land use application 1:to 0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD CI COMP PLAN AMENDMENT K CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT C3 HOME OCCUPATION L3 FORMAL SUBDIVISION 0 SHORT SUBDIVISION L3 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT E3 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT E3 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT STREET VACATION 0 REZONE 13 SHORELINE PERMIT E3 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION El OTHER FILE # ULA-1 ZA ZONE DATE Z jalf&-) REC'D FEE Jr— RECEIPT# ZZ4-1-7 HEARING DATE SL HE Q STAFF 13 PB L3 AD13 Q CC ACTION TAKEN: L3 APPROVED C3 DENIED C3 APPEALED APPEAL# Applicant Phone e72-312e) Address 2-!J 10'Z- 7 "� 11V& Lil, &Iz4 !q W24� Property Address or Location IS er "'ne Property Owner Phone -=$cArne. Phone Tax Acc #. qqd -00K -C-11 -034)0 — Sec. _ Twp. _ Rng. Legal Description iA , q 3 o -rp al Exc Ai -:t-Q--Fx --Twae =4 Details of Project or Proposed Use qLct ihe undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application agrees to release, indemnity, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information fumished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents or employees. The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this *3 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER1 AGENJ 0 Ah- RECEIVED MAR 17.1997 PERMIT COUNTER V",4 Ll la& (Z.)c­ W/U e4AfKr.R7-,*lV A 111-No, see r 45 IZIC #j ­mvb 7T-,4v.iL/ '51 TIC PZ14N p�, PROPERTY, P�R 0 r X z Sn (WA) OWNERSHIP INFORMATION Parcel.Number 1:4888 006 011 03 RTSQ:04E -27N �-32 Bldg Id Number :1 of 1 SW Record Type �:Platted Development Type -Res Owner/Taxpayer I.Ashoori Amir CoOwner Site Address :24107 7 th 6 Ave W Edmonds 98026 Mail Address :24107 76th Ave W Edmonds Wa'98026. 'Phone :Owner: Tenant: SALES AND LOAN INFOR14ATION Recording Date �.04/00 1 /88 Loan A I m I ount �Auditors Fee.# Lender Sale Price ''.-$74,000 Loan Type Deed Type 96 Owned Interest Rate Vesting Type ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION Land 1$52,000 Levy Code 00225 Structure :$61,600 1997 .1 Taxes,:$1,387.78 Total 1$113,600 Senior Tax 96 Improved -'54 School Dist Excise Number :4829 Exemption T PROPERTY DESCRIPTION Easement Census :Tract:509.00, Block:2 Neighborhood�Code :470 MapGrid:475 A3 Zoning I :Rs-8000 Zoning Rest 1 Actual Use Building Namel Land Use :11101 Res,Sgl Family Res,Detached,1 Unit Subdivision/pllat :Lake Ballinger Land Co Subdiv I Legal :BLK 006 D-03 - W 93 FT OF TR 1.1 EXC :N 30 �FT THOF TGW,N 15 FT OF W 93 FT :TR 12 Vol:9 P ge :57 Profile -Page I of 2 0-72 ttachmentb The zilfOrMtl6n Provided .,.rS Deamed Reliable, But Xs Xot.cuarAnteed. 0 V, it 0S CA X� P.1t o p Z a, T r PIR �O X-z W SJ20h=jah, (WA), Parcel Numbe r..4888 00.6 0111 03 PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Bedrooms ::3 �Bath Full lst Floor SqFt :1,276 Lot Acres :.l Bath 3/4 2nd Floor-SqFt t�Sqft : Bath 112 :1 3rd Floor SqFt 4th Floor SqFt Year'Built :1959 BathTo ' tal, :,l.. So AboveGind,SqFt :1,276 Ef f YearBIt Bldg Type Flooring :CrPt\Viilyl 'Fireplace -1 Bsmnt Fin SqFt : Roof Type :Composition .,V, Heat Type :Forced. Bsmnt UnFin SF : Bsmnt Total SF : Roof Shape :Pitched Siding, Garage :Attached Units Loft SqFt :Siding Foundation Concrete Sauna Building sqFt :1, 2 7 61 Con' struc tn Spa Deck SqFt Patio sqFt ' Bldg Grade Avg Stori es :192 Porch SqPt Bldg Cond :Good Garage SqFt :308 'Bsmn I t Grade Bsimt Type BUILT INS UTILITIES Range/Oven :Yes Hood/Fan :Yes .......... Elect Svc :Pole Dishwasher Water-Src .:Public Vacuum Sewer Type, Sewer. Microwave Grbge Disp Intercom OTHER INFORMATION ........... Elevator Fire Sprinklers Waterfront Type Street Surface :Blacktop Waterfront Qlty Lowlands Street Access :Yes Tidelands Sidewalk :Yes Topography • Ground cover :Cleared Topography Prob Right to Farm • Right to Forest View Quality. Pr6file-Page 2 of 2 The Znformejon provided rs Deemd Reliable': But zi:W66 ft"an tie&, 0006-150.052 08/25/89 z WSS/kit LU COVENANT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT 01 0 WHEREAS, the undersigned owner of property has been granted Lui CD Ui a conditional use permit by the city of Edmonds to mai U. ntain an 0 accessory dwelling unit n the hereinafter described residential 0 U. realty, and a WHEREAS, such approval.is subject to certain conditions and Z 1.-!! 0i will automatically expire in the event that such conditions are z M 2 no longer met, and 0 WHEREAS, among those conditions is, the pro -vision that the X lu, permit is personal to the a F- pplicant and will, expire in the event IL 0 21 that the primary residence and accesso ry dwelling. unit are rented, leased, sold o r otherwise conveyed to a person other than 0 z the applicant and undersigned owner,, NOW.- THEREFORE, (hereina fter "Owner(s)") does hereby covenant, stipulate and.�promise as herein set forth: I. Touch and CQ-ncern the�Land. This covenant touches and concerns a tract of residential real property (her einafter "site") with, a street address of 21116-7- U-14111 C/ Edmonds, -e A Washington, and legally described on the attached Exhibit A, incorporated by this reference as fully as if herein set forth. "M ,Mg 2. Existence and E i aijnim —F -Dwelling ILnit & APZKo--va 1. On the application of the Owner(s), the City of V0 Edmonds has approved a conditional use permit to install an . accessory dwelling unit at the s6ject, tract.,described in WgS51667A -Att Ch M-- ent 6, paragraph 1 in the incorporated Exhibit A. The terms of such approval and conditions are described in Cha ter 20.21 of the P, Edmonds Commun ity Development Code as the same Lui 1". exists or is �hereafter amended. Among the conditions are the requirements L) Oi that the approval is personal to the, UJI owner and shall LU automatically expi .j re whenever: En U_ - 0 Ui 2.1 The accessory dwelling unit has been -substantially 9 :3 1 altered and is no LL < longer , in confo rmance with . the plans and X drawings reviewed and approved by,the City of Edmonds. ZP 01 2.2' The Owner(s) ceases to maintain three or nore off-, LU Lul street parking spaces on the site for the 'use' of the primary L) residence and the accessory dwelling unit-. 0 W LU X 1 2.3 The primary residence' and accessory. d,�relli ng-unit U_ 0 are z sold, rented, leased or'otherwise conveyed,to a person other LU than the undersigned Owner(s) and applicant. z -Therefore, in the event that the residence and accessory dwelling unit shall be jointly sold, rented, , leased or otherwise conveyed to a person other than the owner the approval JI 'for the residential real estate shall automatically expire. 3. Cove and Restore Property. In consideration of the approval- of a conditipnal� use permit to maintain the accessory dwelling unit permit, the undersigned Owner(s) hereby covenants to n notify any prospective purchaser of the automatic expiration of the accessory dwelling -unit -upon the sale, rental, lease or other conveyance of the herein described residential parcel. The Owner(s) further covenant that,.prior to WSS51667A .-2' 7 7 W Uj 1j. W 0 z closing, such sale' or conveyance, the premises shall be restored its original condition by,, removal of any kitchen facilities other than the primary kitchen installed for the use of the primary residence. DONE this day of ii 1917 OWNER (S) STATE 'OF WASHINGTON )ss: COUNTY OF On this dav of 3.97-7, before me, undersigned, a No the ta. Publi duly commissioned and sworn, Personally appeared ;e Stl COP to me known to be the individual(s) described in and who execiit—ed the foregoing Covenant, and he/she/they acknowledged to -me on oath tat they executed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed. ez, ZZ AttaChment-Z.,