5108 COLBY AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

permitted under EMC 19.7.020(B), was presented it appeared to be a non-issued since the City Planning Department had recommended approval of the project and no question was asked as to why the request was for the proposed size. The Applicant stated that he intends to design the garage to "allow for an interior stairway, space for an elevator, and ro�m to maneuver a wheelchair, if needed in the future." In addition to ihe issue of maximum square footage, the Applicant stated that Finding Number 7 makes reference to a 20-foot setback from the rear property line and that EMC 19.7.020(E) provides that an accessory building requires a minimum rear s�!b�ck of five feet, unless abutting an alley, in which case fhere shall be no required rsar set6ack. Discussion EMC 15.16.230 provides that any aggrieved party of record who has actively participated in the hearing before the Hearing Examiner may file a written request for reconsideration within 10 working days aRer the wriKen decision has been rende�d. The Decision in this matter was issued of February 8, 2007 and the Applicant's correspondence, which the Hearing F�caminer is assuming is a Request for Reconsideration, was dated February 23, 2007 and received by the Hearing Examiner on February 26, 2007. EMC 15.16.230 dces not state whether the request must be physically received within 10 working days or whether it is sufficient for the request to be dated within the 10 day period. In this regard, the Applicant shall be given the benefit of the doubt and it will be presumed that the request was timely filed. Notice of Public Hearinq [Supplementai Exhibit 2j The Applicant appears to allege that the Notice of Public Hearing issued in this matter was inadequate because it failed to identify that the proposed structure would exceed the maximum square footage for detached accessory structures provided under EMC 19.7.020(B). Although this is true, the reason for issuing a Notice of Public Hearing is not to inform the Applicant of the proposed project, but to notify adjacent property owners and interested members of the public of the pending land use action.' The ApplicanYs concern in regard to Public Notice is noted. Square Footaqe - EMC 19.7.020{g) The Applicant further appears to allege that despite the fact testimony was presented at the January 25, 2007 hearing in regard to the square footage of the structure and the inclusion of almost a full page within the Staff Report (Exhibit 1, Page 2) being dedicated to a discussion of square footage, that the proposed size of the structure "appeared to be a non-issue" because there was no question asked as to why the request was for the proposed size. ' The remedy for inadequale notice is generally lo issue a corcected notice and to hold another public hearing on the matter. Before fhe Hearing Examiner P� Tom for fhe City of Everett Cobb RPlll 06-0004 Page 2 of 5