 |
| The brown building is the "mother-in-law apartment" Photo by Carrie Kovacevich |
Carrie Kovacevich lives next door to an "Accessory Dwelling Unit" that took advantage of the loopholes in the regulations.
By Carrie Kovacevich, Briarcrest
The Shoreline City Council is currently considering a change to the Shoreline Municipal Code relating to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) that would allow two houses to be built on lots in single-family residential neighborhoods throughout Shoreline, as long as lot coverage requirements are met.
An ADU is commonly called a mother-in-law or rental unit and can be located within the primary residence or in a detached structure. Shoreline Municipal Code 20.40.210D states that “accessory dwelling units shall not be larger than 50 percent of the living area of the primary residence.” Right now, if a house contains 1,500 square feet of living space, an accessory dwelling unit (whether located within the existing house or in a detached structure) cannot be larger than 50% of that, or 750 square feet.
The Council is now considering the addition of this language to the Code: “Attached accessory dwelling units where building square footage will not be increased by more than 10% may be larger than 50 percent of the primary residence.”
An attached accessory dwelling unit can be located in the upper or lower level of an existing two-story house, within a converted attached garage, in an addition to the original structure, or, as in the photographs provided, an entirely new house attached by a short wall to the existing house.
 |
| The original home with the ADU to the right. This is legal construction under current rules. Photo by Carrie Kovacevich |
In our neighborhood, a new 3-bedroom house was built behind the original 3-bedroom house on the lot. It passed inspection as an “addition.” Under the new ordinance, the owners can now receive an ADU permit and rent out either the original house (1,100 square feet) or the new house that was recently built (2,400 square feet).
Why should we care?
- Two Houses Per Lot are Possible. The proposed language allows an owner/investor to get a permit for an addition and build a second house on their lot which is attached to the original structure. After the “addition” is completed, they can apply for an ADU permit. They are not increasing the square footage by more than 10% because that was accomplished previously. Essentially, they are seeking a permit for an ADU that already exists!
- Density and Parking. Shoreline allows up to 8 adults (with no limit on the number of minors) in every residence in Shoreline, regardless of the number of bedrooms. An ADU is considered a residence. That means as many as 16 adults and an unlimited number of children can live next door to you in the primary residence and its accessory dwelling unit.
- Owner occupation. The ordinance does require that the owner or a close family member occupy either the primary residence or the ADU. An owner is more inclined to maintain the property and monitor their tenants’ activities. However, Shoreline Code Enforcement personnel indicate that it is extremely difficult to actually enforce owner occupation, particularly when it is a close family member, so this safeguard does not actually exist.
- Decreased Quality of Single-Family Neighborhoods. Our neighborhood and most of Shoreline is zoned single-family residential. Yet this ordinance would allow two houses, attached by a short wall, to be built on single-family lots, in spite of this zoning.
This proposed ordinance can have significantly negative impacts on homeowners and residents of Shoreline due to increased density and damage to the quality of single-family residential neighborhoods. It can also have a negative impact on our property values,
I urge residents in Shoreline to write the Shoreline City Council as soon as possible and express their concerns about this ordinance and the new language being proposed.
Please ask the Council to:
- limit the size of attached ADUs to 800 square feet
- require exterior alterations containing an accessory dwelling unit to be a design consistent with the primary building
- limit the number of people who can occupy the primary residence and accessory dwelling unit to no more than eight adults
- design a mechanism that ensures an owner resides there
The Shoreline City Council’s email contact information, or regular mail to 17500 Midvale Avenue N, Shoreline, WA 98133-4905.
Corrected 3-15-2012 12:28am
OMG I just saw this and can't believe there are no comments here. How would you like this next door to you? I feel so bad for the surrounding neighbors. There is certainly no pride of ownership here.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but you haven't made a very compelling argument here...
ReplyDelete1. A size limit of 800 feet is completely arbitrary. Are we going to restrict owners in The Highlands from building a 2000 square foot apartment for their live in mother? If so, prepare for the lawsuits now. It seems to me that the City is correct in basing size limits on the size of the existing residence with property coverage limits.
2. Aside from The Highlands, we don't live in a gated community. So don't you dare tell me how my home or addition has to "look." I will paint it chartreuse with lime green accents if that's what I like. And if you don't care for that, well you know where you can go.
3. Again, limiting the number of occupants to 8 is arbitrary. The number of occupants should be based upon the size of the structure and it's accommodations (bedrooms / bathrooms.)
4. I do agree that requiring owner occupancy can reduce problems, but I think it's problematic to enforce.
I'm sorry you got stuck in a situation that you don't like. But this is the real world, so suck it up and live with it. Or get angry and depressed every time you look over at the neighbors house, I really don't care. What I do care about is ensuring that property owners rights are not infringed by every nuisance NIMBY complaint that comes along.
@5:55 pm - bitter much, do you drink venom with your coffee in the morning?
ReplyDeleteHere is an example using a large lot size: if you have a 21,000 square foot lot (which means Innis Arden, the Highlands), you can build on 35% of that area, or over 7,000 square feet, and under this code a 2-story structure (using the basement, a daylight basement, or a complete 2nd story) can be added for however many bedrooms you care to design. Essentially, it is a duplex and no additional parking is required nor is there any requirement to ensure water availability, construct one hour firewalls, etc. so it is also a matter of public safety, but I guess you don't care about anyone but yourself.
You must have forgot how forgiving Innis Arden was about cottage housing or how a dispute over an alleged ADU in Richmond Beach has kept the city in court for years now, wasting the public's money.
Yes, I am bitter when it comes to legislating away private property rights. If you picked up bitterness in my post, then I guess I did my job.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your example above, I would counter that...
A. Forgive me for not knowing the exact boundaries of the Innis Arden neighborhood. But it appears to me that most residential land is zoned either R-4 or R-6. So it is expected that there will be either 4 or 6 dwelling units per acre. A 21,000 square foot lot is half an acre, and so it would seem quite logical to permit two dwelling units to occupy 21,000 sq ft.
B. Both R-4 and R-6 zones allow 35% coverage as you indicated. Someone could conceivably cover up to 11,025 square feet of a 21,000 square foot lot, if they built the maximum sized home plus ADU. However, this is not realistic, given other requirements in the building code such as setbacks, hardscape limits, critical areas, etc. I think it would be quite rare to find a primary residence + ADU that covers over 50% of a buildable lot in Shoreline. Fifty percent seems perfectly reasonable to me.
C. Section 20.40.210 of the Shoreline Municipal Code clearly requires an additional off-street parking space for an accessory dwelling unit.
D. The International Residential Code requires firewalls between all attached dwelling units (of any type.) The State of Washington has adopted the International Residential Code and the City of Shoreline is subject to this code or one that offers more stringent protections. The above referenced section 20.40.210 clearly states that ADU's must follow all applicable codes. Why do you believe the ADU you referenced above would be exempt from the firewall requirement?
E. The City of Shoreline will not grant a building permit without a Certificate of Water Availability, regardless of the type of residential structure if over 2500 square feet. Why do you believe the ADU you reference above would be exempt from the water availbility requirement?
Dear David - I am so glad I'm not your neighbor, and I guess you did not do enough reading about ADUs vs. duplex construction; the SMC development code states that a one-hour firewall must be built in a duplex whereas an ADU does not have this requirement, you need to keep reading.
ReplyDeleteAs for how many lots of the size I just described, there is one near Paramount Park, that is how easy they are to find -- and the lots are larger in the Innis Arden & Richmond Beach neighborhoods.
As for the Certificate of Water Availability, the ADU that is subject of this op-ed piece was built without any permits and any certificate from Ronald Wastewater or Shoreline Water District, which is the entire point of the editorial. Too bad you don't keep up better with development code amendments as they proceed through the planning commission and the city council, otherwise you would have known.
I'm with you, David in Shoreline. I'm getting a little tired of being told I can't cut down a tree in my own yard, I don't like that color of paint, etc., etc. What has happened to the rights of property owners?
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying this project was built without following the rules that the City of Shoreline already has in place....
ReplyDeleteIf that is the case, we obviously need to start firing folks at City Hall. We certainly don't need more arbitrary rules.
The SMC and / or Shoreline planning officials cannot waive the requirement for a firewall between dwellings. PERIOD. Once the State of Washington has adopted the International Residential Code then all jurisdictions within the State must abide by it (or more stringent protections.)
Rather than start changing law, why aren't you suing the builder and the City for violating existing laws?
BTW - it was built appropriate to current codes and passed inspection with the City. Her article says nothing about this dwelling being "illegal". If there is an issue with water or wastewater you need to turn your legal eagle to Ronald Wastewater and Shoreline Water. As special purpose districts they are responsible for themselves and their own screw-ups.
ReplyDeleteWhat is being missed in the conversation is that a totally new detached structure twice the size of the current home can be constructed on a lot. The original home becomes the detached dwelling unit. The new home becomes the primary dwelling unit. This is far from a mother in law apartment. When you have limited ownership arrangements where people own a small portion of many properties how do you determine who is a family member. Another example of poorly worded language that is completely unenforceable in court. How many more law suits does the city plan on spending city finances on to litigate against its own citizens!
ReplyDeleteWow! Wish i had seen this sooner. Have actually run into that gentleman and he was cool with giving me a tour. This is what you get when no one pushes back on oppresive regulations EVER. This guy is a friggen geniuos and doesn't roll over for Shoreline City Thugs. I own a shack that I can't do anything with. If I want to add even a 9x11 bedroom they will say the cost is more than 50% of the tiny shack so then you get to pay for Drainage, Sidewalks, Fire Sprinklers, Blower Door testing and on and on and on........so basically better off to bulldoze and MAX out the lot IF you can afford that. What about all the two story massive garages all over? Maybe thats the way to get around all this BS!?
ReplyDelete