StaffReport_APL20100002.pdf
CITY OF EDMONDS
th
121 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 ¤ Fax: 425.771.0221 ¤ Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT ¤ PLANNING DIVISION
PLANNING DIVISION
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER
Project: Open Record Appeal Hearing regarding the Arsvold ADU
File Number: APL20100002
Date of Report: July 27, 2010
From: ____________________________
Gina Coccia, Associate Planner
Public Hearing: August 5, 2010 at 3:00 P.M.
Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers
th
250 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION AND BACKGROUND:
An accessory dwelling unit is defined in Section 21.05.015 ECDC as:
… a structure attached to or constructed within a single-family dwelling which has living
facilities for one individual or family separate from the primary single-family dwelling
including at least, but not limited to, a kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping quarters. An
ADU shall not have its own mailbox, water meter, gas meter, and all garbage must be
kept within a screened area in common to the single-family home.
Torstein and Irene Arsvold (ÐOwnersÑ), with the help of their son Al Tomson (ÐApplicantÑ) applied for
an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) permit to construct a 299 square foot studio unit over their garage so
that their daughter could help care for them \[File PLN20090053, ATTACHMENT 5\]. The property is
thth
located at 416 9 Avenue North in the RS-6 zone on the SE corner of 9 and Daley. One public comment
letter was received during the course of the comment period by the neighbor to the south, Ms. Drake
th
(ÐAppellantÑ), who resides at 412 9 Avenue North. There are three parties of record to date: the
Owners, the Applicant, and the Appellant. Concerns were raised about the design of the ADU, so the
ArsvoldÓs revised their application so that the stairs to the above-garage unit were moved around to the
back of the house to reduce their visibility from the street. Planning approved the revised ADU
application (an administrative conditional use permit) on May 7, 2010 and the staff decision was appealed
exactly two weeks later (in a timely manner) by Ms. Drake on May 21, 2010 \[ATTACHMENTS 1 and 5\].
Staff provided notice to the parties of record that the approval had been appealed \[ATTACHMENT 3\]
and also coordinated and provided a Ðnotice of hearingÑ to the parties of record \[ATTACHMENT 4\].
Appeals of staff decisions are presented to the Hearing Examiner as an open record appeal hearing
\[ECDC 20.07.004\]. The Hearing Examiner is provided with the following documentation for review:
Appeal of Arsvold ADU
File APL20100002
Letter of appeal by Jo Drake, received May 21, 2010 \[ATTACHMENT 1\].
AppellantÓs statement of accuracy \[ATTACHMENT 2\].
Notice of appeal, mailed May 24, 2010 \[ATTACHMENT 3\].
Notice of Hearing \[ATTACHMENT 4\].
Arsvold ADU staff report and attachments Î file PLN20090053 \[ATTACHMENT 5\].
The Appellant has outlined several reasons why they feel the proposal is in violation of city codes and has
suggested alternatives. The Code Enforcement Officer has been working with the Owners on some
outstanding issues. The issue at hand is deciding whether or not the ADU, as proposed, meets the ADU
approval criteria and whether or not it should be approved, denied, or re-designed.
The proposal must comply with the following areas of the Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC):
Chapter 16.20 ECDC \[RS Î Single-Family Residential\].
Chapter 20.21 ECDC \[Accessory Dwelling Units\].
Section 21.05.015 ECDC \[Definition of accessory dwelling unit\].
The appeal must comply with the following:
Section 20.07.004 ECDC \[Appeals of recommendations and decisions\].
Chapter 20.06 ECDC \[Open record public hearings\].
I.FINDINGS:
1.Section 20.21.030 ECDC provides seven criteria which must be met in order to approve an
ADU. Staff found that file PLN20090053 met each of the criteria \[ATTACHMENT 5\].
2.The Appellant asserts that the project does not comply with the Ðlocation and appearanceÑ
criteria \[ATTACHMENT 1\]. Section 20.21.030.D states,
Location and Appearance. The single-family appearance and character of the
residence shall be maintained when viewed from the surrounding neighborhood. The
design of the accessory dwelling unit shall be incorporated into the design of the
principal dwelling unit and shall be designed to maintain the architectural design,
style, appearance and character of the main building as a single-family residence
using matching materials, colors, window style, and roof design. The primary
entrance to the accessory dwelling unit shall be located in such a manner as to be
unobtrusive when viewed from the street. 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. Accessory dwelling units must be located within or attached
to single-family dwelling units.
3.The project was revised based on the initial comment letter from Ms. Drake
(ATTACHMENT 8 of PLN20090053) and new plans were submitted showing that the new
entrance stairs were moved to the back of the house. Also, a new site plan was submitted
showing setback compliance.
4.Code Enforcement has been working with the Arsvolds on other compliance issues, which
are separate matters from the ADU appeal.
Page 2 of 4
Appeal of Arsvold ADU
File APL20100002
5.The Appellant offers two recommendations for design change:
a.If the ADU is approved, it should be moved to the north side of the building where it
does not impact personal privacy of any neighborÓs personal space.
b.If the ADU is approved, a ground floor entrance should be provided facing the ArsvoldÓs
property in order to retain privacy.
6.The Arsvolds applied for a concurrent building permit on April 20, 2010 \[BLD20100279\]
which is Ðon holdÑ until the land use appeal is resolved.
7.Because the requested building permit shows compliance with all other single-family
development standards, the Arsvolds may at any time choose to revise their building permit
application so that the ADU is removed from the plans (no kitchen facilities, no closet Î
simply a Ðbonus roomÑ) and the permit may be issued so that the second story garage
addition may be constructed. There are no single-family design criteria, so as long as the
building permit meets the development standards (height, lot coverage, setbacks, etc.) then
the Planning Division could approve the addition. The Arsvolds would need to coordinate
any proposed modifications or revisions with the Building Division.
8.The site is part of the original ÐCity of EdmondsÑ plat (block 64, lots 1-2) and represents the
oldest part of Edmonds (incorporated in 1890). Throughout the City of Edmonds plat, there
has been infill and additions over the years to the point that the neighborhood represents an
eclectic mix of housing styles.
9.Staff finds that ADU additions have been approved over garages. Locating and ADU over a
garage is not expressly prohibited.
10.Staff finds that the size of the proposed addition at 299 square feet is modest, whereas most
requests are for ADUs of the maximum size permitted.
11.The originally submitted plans were revised by the applicant after the public comment letter
was received. The ADU entrance was, in turn, relocated more towards the back of the home,
Whenever possible, new
because, according to the location and appearance criteria: Ð
entrances should be placed at the side or rear of the building.”
Note that the language
ÐshouldÑ differs from Ðshall.Ñ
II.CONCLUSIONS:
1.A complete appeal was submitted in a timely manner.
2.Through the public comment process, the Applicant made an attempt to satisfy the Appellant
by revising the plans to move the ADU entrance towards the back of the home.
3.Staff believes that the ADU proposed meets the requirements of the ADU chapter, including
the Ðlocation and appearanceÑ criteria.
Page 3 of 4
Appeal of Arsvold ADU
File APL20100002
III.RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the information in the staff report for file PLN20100053 and from the appeal letter for
file APL20100002, staff recommends DENIAL of the requested appeal, because it will still
appear to function as one single-family residence.
If the Hearing Examiner finds it appropriate to approve the appeal (thereby denying the ADU),
staff recommends that the Hearing Examiner provide design guidance to both staff and the
Arsvolds should they wish to re-design their plans and re-apply for an ADU permit.
IV.PARTIES OF RECORD:
th
Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020.
1.Jo Drake \[APPELLANT\] Î 412 9
th
2.Torstein & Irene Arsvold \[OWNERS\] Î 416 9
Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020.
3.Al Tomson \[APPLICANT\] Î 3670 Shorewood Avenue, Greenbank WA 98253.
th
4.City of Edmonds: Development Services Î 121 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020.
Page 4 of 4