1717 BAKER AVE B 2016-01-01 MF Import

__-< - _ David P. Gue�dalupe Appeal 4-90 Page -2- The following eshibite were aubmitted aad admitted ae part of the officlal record of theae proceedinge at thf: January 17, 1991, hearing: 1. Appeal Letter from David Gusdalupe 2. Application for Certificatlon oE Noncoaforming Building/Use 3. Aeeeseor's Record 4. Photocopy from 1956 Polk Directory 5. Photocopy from 1982 Polk Directorq 6. Copy of 1983 Citq Flectrical Permit (/1518 and Inspection Report 7. Snohomieh County PUD 91 Meter Hiatory Information 8. Undated Statement Signed by Shirley and Robert M. Jelvik 9. Letter Dated 3/9/90 from City of Lhrerett Denying Certificatioa of Nonconforminp, Uae 10. Petition Signed by Five Opponents to the Appeal 11. Letter dated 7-14-90 to James Driecoll from Mr. 6 Mra. Cleater 12. Letter dated 7-13-90 to Jamea Driscoll from T. C. Swan 13. Letter dated 7-18-90 to Gerry Ervine from Donald Lu¢detrom 14. Letter dated 7-16-90 to Jaciee Driecoll from Mre. Albert Radke 15. I.etter dated 7-19-90 to Jamea Driecoll frum Viola Cursler l6. Snohomlah County Aaseseor pocumencation 17. Ttro Page E�ccerpt from Ordinance 3572 (adopted !n 19561 and Excerpt from Zoaing Code (Non-Conforming Uaes), pages 924-2 and 924-3, effective ae of June, 1980 1B. Letter Received 7-26-90 from Candace Young and David Guadalups 19. Staff Report Dated April 23, 1990 20. Photo Slide Looking North on Fulton 21. Photo Slide Looking South on Fulton The E:aminer, having weighed the evidence presented and heard the teaeimony of I the parties, makea the following: PINDII�S OF FACT 1. Guadelupe, one-half oxner of Lots 9 and 10, Hlock 356, Division X, in the Plat of L�erett (hereinafter referred to as the "aubject property") filed a timely appeal in the epring of 1990 from an adminietrative decision of the Planning Departmenc deaying certification as a aon-conforming drrelling unit of a etructure on the sub�ect prop�_!y commooly knocm a[ 1717-1/2 Baker Avenue. Guadalupe's appeal came on for hearing before the City's Hearing Exeminer Sn the apring and eu�er of 1990. At some time subsequent to the Saeuance of the Esaminer's decieion, the City discovered [hat the recording syetem �ad not woiked properly during at least a partiou of the Ezeminer's hearing and that there waa no record of the teetlaony of that hearing. Therefore, the City determined that a de novo re-hearing ti+ould be neceeeary and the undersigned Ezaminer Pro Tem wae �alled upon to conduct the new heariag. The underaigned hae not seen, reviesred, been advised of, or in any other way nought to learn the content of the Examiner'e original decieion. 7he undereigned has not heard nor been adviaed of any portlon of the original hearing tranecript. All crritten evidence from the urlglnal hearing was entered into the underelgned`s January 17, 1991, hearing record.