HomeMy WebLinkAboutDDR2007-00334 Hearing ADU - DDR Letters / Memos - 1/10/2008 lP
-- VjT(-ttN NOT Att_0 t,- W 0
1 Wkwom 4 WUL, OU--.-
BEFORE THE HEARING EXAMINER FOR MASON COUNTY
2
Phil Olbrechts, Hearing Examiner
3
RE: Brian J. Ames
4 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS
5 Special Use Permit OF LAW AND FINAL DECISION
#DDR2007-00334
6
7
INTRODUCTION
8
The applicants have applied for a special use permit for an accessory dwelling unit
9 ("ADU„)
10
11 ORAL TESTIMONY
12 See tape of hearing.
13 EXHIBITS
14 See "Case Index" attached to the January 10, 2008 staff report. In addition the
15 following exhibits have been entered into the record:
16 Exhibit 7: Abstract of site plan.
Exhibit 8: Revised site plan dated January 30, 2008.
17
18 FINDINGS OF FACT
19 Procedural:
20 1. Applicant. The applicant is Brian J. Ames.
21
2. Hearing. The Hearing Examiner conducted a hearing on the application
22 on January 22, 2008, at 1:00 p.m., in the Mason County Board of Commissioners
Meeting Chambers. The hearing was left open until February 6, 2008 for a revised
23 site plan, which was received on that date.
24
25 Substantive:
Ames - SUP ADU P. 1
(BFP688284.DOC;1/13009.9000001)
3. Site/Proposal Description. The property is located in an area of rural
1 residential development located near Phillips Lake. The lot is approximately 1.8
2 acres. On site development includes a 1,836 square foot single family residence and
an approximately 400 square foot well and pump house. The physical address is
3 1150 E. Phillips Lk Rd, Shelton, WA 98584. The application is for a Special Use
Permit for an accessory dwelling unit. The applicant proposes to designate
4 approximately 1000 square feet of living area on the second floor of a building
structure as an ADU. The structure consists of an agricultural garage, a residential
5 garage, storage areas, game room, bathrooms, offices, study, and possibly a kitchen.
6 The size of the structure, exclusive of garages, is more than 1,000 square feet. There
is no evidence that the portion of the structure designated as ADU is separate from
7 the remainder. Using the measurements shown in the most recent building plan,
submitted the applicant as Exhibit 8, the square footage of the structure, excluding
8 garage and storage areas, is approximately 1,277 square feet'. The distance between
9 the primary residence and proposed ADU will be approximately 135 feet.
10 4. Characteristics of the Area. The area located around the lot appears to be
a mix of developed lots and undeveloped heavily vegetated ones. Nearby developed
11 parcels are populated with moderately sized single family homes located on parcels
averaging around 3.5 acres in size. The area is zoned Rural Residential 5, and the
12 comprehensive plan designation for the site is Rural.
13 5. Adverse Impacts of Proposed Use. No adverse impacts are discernable
14 from the record for the proposed use, other than the size of the structure proposed as
ADU. The project is SEPA exempt under WAC 197-11-800(b)(i). The ADU
15 requires approval for water and septic systems. Staff concluded that there would be
no other impact to surrounding properties.
16
17 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
18 Procedural:
19 1. Authority of Hearing Examiner. MCC 15.03.050(10) provides the
20 Examiner with the authority to review and act upon special use permit applications.
21 Substantive:
22 2. Zoning Designation. The zoning designation for the site is Rural
23 Residential 5.
24
25 Exhibit 8 describes the"living area"as being only 987 square feet. No explanation is given as to how
such measurement was calculated. The first level appears to have approximately 696 square feet of
habitable area,and the second level appears to have approximately 581 square feet of the same.
Ames - SUP ADU p. 2
(BFP688284.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
3. Review Criteria and Application. MCC 1.03.029 governs ADUs in rural
1 lands. Under MCC 1.03.029(A), accessory dwelling units in rural lands shall be
2 subject to a special use permit. The criteria for special use permits are governed by
MCC 1.05.044, which are quoted below and applied to the proposal by the respective
3 conclusions of law.
4 MCC 1.05.044(A): That the proposed use is not detrimental to public health, safety
and welfare.
5
6 4. MCC 1.03.029 requires ADU not to exceed 80% of the square footage of
the habitable area of the primary residence or 1,000, whichever is smaller. 80% of
7 the primary residence is greater than 1,000 square feet; therefore, the ADU must not
exceed 1,000 square feet. As noted above, however, the subject building structure
8 exceeds 1,000 square feet. Although the applicant proposes designating less than
1,000 square feet of the structure as an ADU, he proposes no permanent separation
9 between the ADU designated areas and non designated areas of the structure. The
10 areas are connected by doors and stairs. Access to one from the outside is impossible
without invading the other. Without a clear and permanent separation to divide and
11 distinguish the different areas, merely designating a portion of the building structure
as an ADU to meet the maximum size requirement of the code would render moot
12 such requirement. All connected habitable areas of the building must be considered
as the ADU2. According to the most recent site plan submitted as Exhibit 8, the
13 square footage of the structure, excluding garage and storage areas, exceeds 1,000
14 square feet. Because the proposed ADU fails to meet the maximum size requirement
set by MCC 1.03.029(D), it is potentially detrimental to public health, safety, and
15 welfare.
16 MCC 1.05.044(B): That the proposed use is consistent and compatible with the
17 intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
18 5. As noted above, even though the Mason County Code Rural Residential 5
zoning allows for one accessory dwelling unit per parcel, the proposed ADU fails to
19 meet other requirements of the MCC. Therefore, the proposal is inconsistent with the
general intent of the Comprehensive Plan.
20
21 MCC 1.05.044(C): That the proposed use will not introduce hazardous conditions at
the site that cannot be mitigated through appropriate measures to protect adjacent
22 properties in the community at large.
23
24 2 In Stine,DDR2007-00219, although the basement of a primary residence was approved as an ADU,
there was clear and permanent separation between the basement ADU and the rest of the building
25 structure, which was the primary residence. Even though they shared "common walls"(ceiling/floor),
there was no door, stairs or other access between the basement ADU and any other part of the
structure. The ADU had its own exclusive access, which was apart from the access to the main
structure.
Ames - SUP ADU p. 3
1 BFP688284.DOC;1/13009.900000/)
6. No hazardous conditions would be expected as a result of the proposal.
1 All construction will be to County Code and will meet all required setbacks.
2 MCC 1.05.0440: That the proposed use is served by adequate public facilities
3 which are in place, or planned as a condition of approval or as an identified item in
the County's Capital Facilities Plan.
4
7. Again, water and septic systems for the ADU must still be approved.
5 According to staff, there will be no impact to surrounding properties for traffic,
6 parking or drainage.
7 MCC 1.05.044(E): That the proposed use will not have a significant impact upon
existing uses on adjacent lands.
8
8. As discussed above, the surrounding area consists of a mix of developed
9 and undeveloped residential lots. Other than the size of the ADU, the proposal does
10 not appear to pose a significant impact upon existing, adjacent land uses.
11 MCC 1.05.044(F): If located outside the urban growth area, that the proposed use
will not result in the need to extend the urban services.
12
9. The addition of an ADU will not result in a need to extend urban services.
13 As noted above, water and sewer will be provided from approved sources.
14 Furthermore, the proposed development should not affect traffic or drainage.
15 MISCELLANEOUS CRITERIA FOR ALL HEARING EXAMINER REVIEW
16 MCC 15.09.055(C): Required Review: The Hearing Examiner shall review
17 proposed development according to the following criteria:
18 1. The development does not conflict with the Comprehensive Plan and meets
the requirements and intent of the Mason County Code, especially Titles 6, 8, and 16.
19 2. Development does not impact the public health, safety and welfare and is
in the public interest.
20 3. Development does not lower the level of service of transportation and/or
21 neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards established within the
Comprehensive Plan.
22
10. The proposal conflicts with the Comprehensive Plan because it does not
23 meet the size requirements of the MCC. MCC 1.03.029(D) limits the size of
permitted ADU's in Rural Lands. As noted above, the proposal exceeds the
24 maximum required. The project is inconsistent with all applicable development
25 standards; and thus, adversely impact public health, safety and welfare, and is not in
the public interest. Lastly, the proposed ADU will not lower the level of service or
Ames - SUP ADU p. 4
{BFP688284.DOC;1113009.900000/}
transportation and/or neighborhood park facilities below the minimum standards
1 established within the Comprehensive Plan.
2 DECISION
3
The Hearing Examiner denies the requested Special Use Permit for DDR2007-00334.
4 4—
Dated this-2/ day in February, 2008.
5
6
7
�hilA.�Olbre�chts
8 Mason County Hearing Examiner
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Ames - SUP ADU p. 5
1 B FP6 8 8284.DOC;1/13009.900000/}