Loading...
HE Decision V200652&53.pdfenc 1B9\) C'ITY Of": EDW)"Mil""I" 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER 11][1[mlas � I; W1,111 IN � ILI, W, I � WM111110, 51101[011t�� "PLICANT: Ron Hilliard (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). CASE NOS.: V-06-52 & V-06-53 LOCATION: 15515 — 75h Place W. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR APPLICATION: A variance to reduce the required 25 -foot street setback to 10 feet along 75th Place W. and 156th Street SW and a variance to increase the allowed height from 25 feet to 34.5 feet for a new single-family residence (see Exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4). RfWLEW PROCESS: Variance: Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20.030 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL - Site Development Standards). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.85 (VARIANCES). c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.40 and 80 (ENVIRONMENTALLY CRITICAL AREAS GENERAL PROVISIONS and GEOLOGICALLY HAZARDOUS AREAS). Staff Recommendation: Approve setback variance with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve both variances with conditions After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report, and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the Hilliard Incorporated Aul1st 11, 1890 Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 2 application. The hearing on the application was opened at 3:00 pm, July 6, 2006, in the City Council Chambers, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 3:09 pm. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. II !D1:: I��KKI7►%i► ��i►i� The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Meg Gruwell, Senior Planner, entered the staff report into the record and noted that no new information had been received since the staff report had been prepared. From the Applicant: Ron Hilliard, Applicant, said: • The only issue where staff did not agree with his request is that staff did not feel the request for a height variance was the minimum variance necessary. • His proposal would not take up as much square footage on the lot as it would if the house were to be reduced in height, but still have the same overall square footage. • The house to the south has no parking and the owners of the house now use the unopened right-of-way for parking. He said they use a small part of his property for vehicle turnaround and if he were to build a lower house with a larger footprint it would reduce the space his neighbors have for vehicle turnaround. • He and his wife are proposing a 3,400 square foot house and that is a small house compared to the other new houses in the neighborhood. • Staff has acknowledged that the proposed house would not impact any views. • The first and second stories would be the same size and the third floor would be smaller. • All of the conditions recommended by staff are acceptable. From the Community: No one from the general public attended the public hearing, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS: A. INTRODUCTION 1. History: a) Facts (1) The site is a vacant lot at the end of 75th Place W., just before the service/disabled entrance to Meadowdale Beach County Park. Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 3 (2) Between this lot and the existing house at 15605 — 75ffi Place W. is an unimproved road right-of-way that serves in part as the driveway to 15605 — 75a' Place W. (3) The right-of-way and the subject property have been used for parking of cars, trailers and other goods. (4) The height variance requested by the applicant was to have the pitch of his roof at elevation 256, with an average grade of 221.7 (see Attachment 4). This would allow the house to be 34.3 feet, instead of the allowed 25 feet. (4) Staff rounded the numbers to 34.5 feet since the proposal was not based on actual construction plans. (5) The 34.5 number was placed on the agenda, and ran with the newspaper legal notice. (6) The mailed and posted notice contained a typographical error, which stated the height variance requested was 34.15. (7) No letters of opposition to the proposed height variance were received. b) Conclusion: It does not appear that a 34.15 -foot variance was of great concern to the neighbors who received the mailed notice or read the posted notice. Though 34.5 feet would not be very much higher, staff reverted to the requested 34.3 -foot variance request, which is considerably closer to the 34.15 variance request stated in the mailed and posted notice. B. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) Size and Access: The subject property is approximately 16,553 square feet, with approximately 100 feet of frontage on 75th Place W., and approximately 150 feet of frontage on 156a' Street SW (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (2) Land Use: The site is undeveloped (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (3) Zoning: The subject property is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -20) (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject site rises up approximately ten feet from 75 Place W. to a small bench at the corner of 75th Place W. and 156a' Street SW. There is a steep slope up beyond that, which the city's LIDAR map shows having an approximately 140 -foot elevation change (see Exhibit A, Attachment 7). The vegetation on the site consists primarily of maple and alder trees on the steep slope, as seen from below. The lower bench has been mowed and has grass on it, and the drop down to 75a' Place W. primarily has blackberries growing on it (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 4 b) Neighboring Development And Zoning: a) Facts: (1) The property to the north is zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -20) and is developed with the Meadowdale Beach County Park (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). (2) The properties to the east, south and west are zoned Single -Family Residential (RS -20) and are developed with single-family residences (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) 1. Facts: a) Variances granted based on special circumstances are exempt from SEPA review (WAC 197-11-800(6)(b) and ECDC 20.15A.080). 2. Conclusion: The application complies with the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act. The following sections determine how the proposal meets the requirements of City codes. 1. Critical Areas Compliance a) Facts: (1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 23.40 (Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions). (2) The applicant submitted a Critical Areas Checklist (CA -2006-58) and a "study required" was issued to study the Landslide Hazard (slope) area (see Exhibit A, Attachment 6). This site qualifies as a Landslide Hazard area both because of the steep slopes on the site, and because it lies in the historic landslide hazard area identified in the 1979 Robert Lowe Associates report. The site is also in a mapped Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation area. (3) Landslide hazard areas are subject to Chapter 23.80 (Geologically Hazardous Areas.) (4) Section 23.80.070.A. l.a of that chapter requires a buffer from the toe of the slope that is equal to the height of the slope existing within the project area or 50 feet, whichever is greater. Subsection l.b allows the buffer to be reduced to ten feet when a qualified professional demonstrates that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses and the subject critical area. Alterations to the landslide hazard area and its buffer may be allowed if it can be certified that they meet the conditions in ECDC 23,80.070.A.2. Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 5 (5) The slope within the project area appears to be over 100 feet in height, but no survey of the site has yet been submitted. (6) Edmonds Community Development Code Section 23.40.280 requires that buildings and other structures be set back a distance of 15 feet from the edges of all critical area buffers. It does allow for building overhangs no more than 30 inches in the setback area, as well as landscaping and uncovered decks. (7) The width of the bench at the bottom of the slope within the subject property ranges from 27 feet to 75 feet. (8) The proposed house is set roughly at a five-foot setback to the toe of the slope. (9) No geotechnical report has been submitted with this application. (10) The applicants have stated that they realized they needed some relief from the street setbacks, and wanted to determine how far they could move the house away from the slope, before they worked with a geotechnical consultant. (11) A condition of development should be provide the required geotechnical report and to comply with the requirements for development in Landslide Hazard areas. (12) Since the site is within a mapped fish and wildlife habitat conservation area (subject to ECDC 23.90), the City would like to preserve as much of the native vegetation as possible. The applicant must submit a clearing/tree cutting plan with any development permit. Tree cutting and clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the footprint of development. b) Conclusion: Most of the site is steep and wooded. The bench at the bottom of the slope seems like the most logical place for a home -site, but a geotechnical engineer must be consulted to determine if the proposed location can meet the requirements of the Edmonds Community Development Code. If qualified consultants can assure that the proposal will meet the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters, then the requirements of these Chapters will be met. 2. Compliance with Single -Family Residential (RS -20) Zoning Standards a) Fact: The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in the Single -Family Residential zone are set forth in Chapter 16.20.030 and include the following for locating structures: RS -20 Street Setback: 25 feet Rear Setback: 25 feet Side Setbacks (to all other property lines): 35/10 feet* Maximum Height: 25 feet Lot Coverage: 35% * Thirty-five feet total of both sides, 10 feet minimum on either side. Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 6 b) Conclusion: The proposal requires variances to height and street setbacks to be approved before it complies with the requirements of the RS -20 zoning standards. 3. Compliance with Requirements for a Variance a) Facts: (1) Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case-by-case basis if the application of the provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship. The criteria are as follows: (a) Special Circumstances: That because of special circumstances relating to the property such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property. (b) Special Privilege: That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (c) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance, and the zoning district in which the property is located. (d) Not Detrimental: That the variance, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. (e) Minimum Variance: That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. (2) The applicant has submitted declarations with their submittal, which address the decisional criteria and they are found in Exhibit A, Attachment 3. The applicant has also submitted a site plan and aerial photograph of the site (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). (3) The applicant is requesting three variances. The two setback variances are to allow the house to be pushed closer to the streets and away from the steep slope. Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 7 The height variance is to allow the house to be built up taller, since it does not have as much room to spread out. (4) Even though 156th Street SW is not developed, a street setback is required from it. Therefore, 25 -foot street setbacks are required from both 75th Place W. and 156th Street SW. Note that 73rd Avenue W. to the east of this site has been vacated, so it does not require a street setback. (5) This site is considered to be a corner lot, and therefore the north and east property lines are side setbacks, requiring a minimum of ten feet and a total of 35 feet. Normally since the street property line setback is already required to be 25 feet, the side setbacks would only be required to be ten feet. If the applicants were to be granted a street setback variance to ten feet, then the side setback would have to be 25 feet to make the total of 35 feet. (6) The City's Engineering Division is requiring the minimum depth of the driveway from the garage to the property line to be 20 feet from the most restrictive point to allow for parking without encroaching into City right-of-way (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). (7) The city's access database shows several approved variance requests along 75th Place W. Several setback and height variances have been granted, based on topography and the location of the road compared to the site. Many of these variances are on the west side of 75th Place W. (8) Views in the area are to the west of Puget Sound and the mountains. (9) Soils as given on the Soil Conservation Service map for this site include Alderwood-Everett gravelly, sandy loams at a 25 to 70 percent slope, Alderwood gravelly, sandy loams at a 15 to 25 percent slopes, and Alderwood-Urban land complex, with 2 to 8 percent slopes. (10) The area of the proposed house is roughly 55 by 25 feet or 1,375 square feet. Two floors would provide 2,750 square feet of floor area, and three floors would provide 4,125 square feet of floor area. The elevation provided does show the house stair stepping in so that the upper levels likely would have less floor area than the lower levels. The garage area is in addition. (11) Sizes of houses vary in the neighborhood, with older homes generally being smaller, and newer homes being larger. Across the street at 15220 — 75th Place W., a home built in 1995 has a floor area of 4,985 square feet with an attached garage of 1,010 square feet, according to Snohomish County Assessor's records. Next door at 15605 — 75th Place W. is a home built in 1948, which has a finished area of 2,080 square feet, with an additional 1520 unfinished basement for a total of 3,600 square feet. (12) The city calculates height by shrinking a rectangle around the footprint of the house and taking the existing elevations at the four corners of that rectangle. As the applicant has proposed the house, and as the house may have to sit if it were to maintain a larger setback from the slope, the height rectangle has three points on Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 8 the level bench, with the fourth point down the slope towards 75"' Place W. This lowers the height allowed compared to having all the corners of the rectangle on the bench, or having one corner of the rectangle going up the slope. b) Conclusions Regarding Setback Variances: (1) Special Circumstances: Most of the site is extremely steep. Though it is a large lot and a rectangular shape, very little of the site is useable area. Though no geotechnical report has been provided yet, it seems reasonable to assume that building on the lower bench would be preferable to trying to build on the steeper hill, particularly since the soils include sand and loam. Maintaining the required 25 -foot street setbacks to both streets forces the building back into the steep slope with a triangular building pad. Though projects.in critical areas often start with the recommendation of a geotechnical engineer to maintain a certain distance from a slope, and the setbacks required from the property lines flow from that, it is not unreasonable to presume some sort of minimal setback will be required from the slope. Therefore, the site has a special circumstance which if the setbacks were strictly enforced would result in the deprivation of the property owner being able to construct a house of a size permitted to other properties in the same vicinity, or would increase the risk of construction by forcing it into the steep slope. (2) Special Privileae: Other properties on 75th Place W. have received variances to setbacks to allow them to build closer to the road due to topography issues. Therefore, the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. (3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The approval of the setback variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variances would have to be approved for the proposed residence to be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) Not Detrimental: Views in this area are to the west. With the reduced setbacks the proposed house will not block western views because the houses to the east are over 100 feet higher in elevation. The proposed house will be closer to the existing house to the south, which is already quite close to 156th Street SW. The site plan shows the garage at 15605 — 75th Place W at a ten -foot setback to 156th Street SW. Due to the steep slopes, it is not likely that 156th Street SW will be opened, so it will likely still continue to function as a turnaround and driveway area for the two houses, with its 20 feet of width providing some buffering between the two houses. Therefore the proposal should not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity. (5) Minimum Variance: The site plan has been drawn to show the house extending to the 10 -foot setback from 156th Street SW, but maintaining a 15 -foot setback to 75th Place W. The applicant has stated that he would like the 10 -foot variance to provide some flexibility depending on what the geotechnical consultant Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 9 determines the location of the house should be. Because the City doesn't have a recommendation by a geotechnical consultant, it is difficult to determine what the minimum variance should be. The house as proposed perches on the bench, and avoids not only the steep slope above, but also avoids to a large extent the ten -foot drop down to 75th Place W. It is possible that the geotechnical engineer will recommend maintaining this layout, but it seems equally likely that the geotechnical engineer may suggest a larger setback from the toe of the sloe, which would tilt the house so the northwestern corner swings closer to 75 Place W. than currently shown. In that case, the 10 -foot variance could very likely be the minimum variance. Therefore, the Examiner concludes a minimum of a ten - foot variance should be allowed from both streets, but also concludes that as large a setback from both streets as is practicable should be maintained to comply with the geotechnical study, which needs to be completed. c) Conclusions Regarding Height Variance: (1) Special Circumstances: The slope on the lot reduces the buildable area available. Though several smaller homes are within the neighborhood, most new construction here has floor area of around 4,000 square feet. Most of the lots on the street face some constraints in slope, but this lot seems to have a larger area of its site encumbered with the slope. By the same token, the slope allows the neighbors to the east to be above the top of the roof even with a proposed variance. If the home were to be restricted to the 25 -foot height limit, normally a two-story house above a garage, with a living area of 2,750 square feet would be easy to fit on the lot. Because of the height calculations required, it appears that to get two stories above a garage might not fit within the 25 -foot height limit, as shown on the elevation (see Attachment 4). It might also require digging further into the bench, which may not be recommended by the geotechnical consultant. This lot has special circumstances in the slope that makes necessary to have a variance to have rights permitted to other properties with the same zoning. (2) Special Privilege: Several variances have been granted to other homes along 75th Place W due to topography. (3) Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance: The approval of the height variance is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. If the variance was approved, the proposed residence would be in compliance with the zoning ordinance. (4) Not Detrimental: The additional height for the house will not block views due to the slope behind them. It will appear taller than most houses on the street, since the height variances are generally on the downhill side of 75th Place W., which present their shorter elevation to the street. The stair -stepping shown on the elevation is a good way to break up the bulk of the building and help it to fit into the street. The proposed height should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and the same zone. (5) Minimum Variance: The applicant is requesting to be able to construct a three- story house above a garage to be able to have a similar floor area to new houses in Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 10 the vicinity. The house is proposed in the given location in order to stay away from the steep slope, have a driveway and garage at street level, and have the rest of the house perch on the bench. No geotechnical report has been provided to require this location, but it seems a logical way to layout the house, given the constraints. The applicant appears to be using a flat roof on the house, so the variance is the minimum in that respect. The elevation shown in Exhibit A, Attachment 4 has a smaller top floor than the other floors. The site also has some very limited ground area that could be used to expand the footprint of the house. The applicant explained at the hearing that the proposed house would be smaller than most of the newer houses in the neighborhood and that he wants to keep the footprint on the site as small as is possible. He noted that if the height variance is granted he would be able to stay with the smaller footprint and that the height variance is the minimum variance needed. The Examiner concurs with the applicant's request and reasoning and concludes that the height variance as conditioned below would be the minimum necessary variance, which would allow the applicant to enjoy the rights experienced by other property owners of newer homes in the vicinity with the same zoning. 1. Review by City Departments a) Fact: The variance application has been reviewed and evaluated by the Fire Department, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, and the Parks and Recreation Department. The only comments received were from the Engineering Division (see Exhibit A, Attachment 5). b) Conclusion: The applicant should meet the requirements of the Engineering Division. F. PUBLIC COMMENTS No one from the general public attended the public hearing and no one from the general public submitted any written comments on the proposal. W. 1. Comprehensive Plan Designation a) Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family — Resource." b) Conclusion: Single-family residential development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies a) Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies, which relate to this proposal. Specific goals and policies are discussed below. Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 11 (1) Residential Development Policy B.1. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability." (2) Residential Development Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures." (3) Residential Development Policy B.6. states, "Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage." b) Conclusion: The proposed house as shown on the elevation will look different from the house across 156' Street SW and some of the other lower level pitched roof houses that were built in the 1940s or 1950s. The newer houses on the street are more eclectic and include several modern designs with flatter roofs. The new house proposes to avoid the steep slope and perch on the bench at the bottom of the slope, so it is more compatible with the natural constraints of the slopes and geology. Due to the steep slope behind it, it will minimize encroachment on view of the existing homes. Therefore, the proposal is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. DECISION: Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a; • Height Variance is approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. A height variance of 34.3 feet is approved. 2. The applicant shall stair -step the house similar to that shown in the elevation Txhibit A, Attachment 4) to help break up the bulk of the building as viewed from 75 Place W. • Setback Variances are approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. The setback variances of ten feet to 75th Place W. and ten feet to 156x' Street SW are approved. The applicant should maintain a greater than ten -foot setback to the streets if it can safely be allowed given any geotechnical considerations. 2. Side setbacks to the north and east property lines must add up to a total of 35 feet when added to the street setback opposite them. 3. Approval of this variance does not imply compliance with the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters, Edmonds Community Development Code Chapters 23.40 to 23.90. The applicants shall meet the requirements of the Environmentally Critical Areas Chapters by doing the following: a) A geotechnical report is required to demonstrate how the proposed development complies with the Landslide Hazard requirements of Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 23.80. Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 12 b) To meet the requirements of the Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area in ECDC 23.90, the applicant shall submit a tree cutting and clearing plan with any development permit. Tree cutting and clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the footprint of development. 4. Meet the Engineering Division requirements, including: a) The minimum depth of the driveway from garage to the property line must be 20 feet from the most restrictive point to allow for parking without encroaching into City right-of-way. b) The maximum driveway slope shall not exceed 14 percent. c) Install a five-foot walkway along the frontage of the property. 5. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 6. The applicant must obtain a building permit. 7. The applicant must comply with all the terms of any future permits. 8. The permit is transferable. 9. The owner must act on the approved variance within one year from the date of approval or the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration and the city approves the application. Only one one-year extension is possible. Entered this 13th day of July 2006 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. Ron McConnell, FAICP Hearing Examiner The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the Hearing Examiner Decision Case Nos. V-06-52 & V-06-53 Page 13 initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS: Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL: The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. LAPSE OF APPROVAL: Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR: The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office. 1 1� The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 7 attachments Ron Hilliard Edmonds Planning Division 2083123' Ave. W Edmonds Engineering Division Lynnwood, WA 98036