5108 COLBY AVE 2018-01-02 MF Import

As was noted in the original decision, the subject property is an 8,266 square foot parcel located within the R-1 zoning district, the purpose of which is to provide for and protect certain areas of the city for detached single-family residentiai uses. Currently, a 1,092 square foot single-family residence with an attached single-car garage exists on the site. EMC 19.7.020(B) provides: "The combined total square footage of all accessory buildings, whether attached or detached, shall not be more than 15 percent of the total lot area or 1,000 square feet, whichever is less." The Applicant proposed an accessory structure of 1,352 square feet between the two stories. The proposed accessory structure's square footage is 18 percent of the site area, in excess of the City's limits on square footage by 3 percent and, in excess of the 1,000 square footage maximum by 352 square feet. In addition, the proposed "accessory" structure is approximately 260 square feet larger than the primary residence. EMC 19.7.020(K) provides that the Hearing Examiner has the authority to deny an application which exceeds a total of 1,000 square feet if it is found to be incompatible with the dwelling and/or neighborhood character. Such incompatibility is based on, but not limited to, aesthetics and scale. The February 8, 2007 Decision found that although the design of the structure would be compatible with the existing residence (roof pitch and materials), the scale of the accessory slructure was much larger than the primary residence. It was further noted that the EMC permits the Applicant to construct a structure up to 1,000 square feet in area which would exceed the standard size for a two-car garage and would adequately provide for the parking of vehicles on the upper story and in the driveway access from the aliey and a hobby shop/storage area on the lower levei. The Applicant's intent to provide for a stairway, elevator, and future wheelchair accessibility does not mandate or justify a larger structure. It is the ApplicanYs, not the Hearing Examiner's, responsibility and burden to demonstrate that his proposal complies with the EMC. The Applicant had this opportunity both during the application submittal period and at the hearing. The Applicant appears to conclude that since a detailed and specific discussion on this issue did not occur, that the Hearing Examiner could not review compliance with [MC 19.7.020(B) or, in the alternative, would simply approve the Planning DepartmenPs recommendation. This is not the role of the Hearing Examiner. It is the role of the Hearing Examiner to interpret, analyze, review, and implement the City's land use regulations and, at times, this may mean denying a pertnit despite the Planning DepartmenYs recommendation of approval. The Hearing Examiner's Decision in regard to denial of a structure greater than 1,000 square feet stands. Bo%re fhe N:.anng Examiner Pro Tem (or the City of Evorett Cobb RPIII 06-0004 Page 3 of 5