1717 BAKER AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

David P. Guadalupe Appeal 4-90 Page -2- The following e�ibita were aubmltted and admitted ae part of the official record of these proceedings at the January 17, 1991, luari¢g: 1. Appeel Letter from David Guadalupe 2. Application for Cercification of Nonconforming Building/Use 3. Aeseaeor's Record 4. Photocopy from 1956 Polk Directory 5. Photocopy from 1982 Polk Directory 6. Copy of 1983 City Elec[rical Permlt 01518 and Inepection Report 7. Snohomlah Caunty PUD O1 Meter Hietory Information 8. Undated Statement S7gned by Shirley and Robert M. Jelvik 9. Letter Dated 3/9/90 from City of Everett Denying Certification of Noncoaforming Uae 10. Petition SSgned by Five Opponente to the Appeal 11. Letter dated 7-14-90 to James Drlecoll from Mr. & Mre. 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 Lundetrom 14. Letter dated 7-16-90 to James Driecoll from Mrs. Albert Radke 15. Letter dated 7-19-90 to Jemes Driecoll from Viola Oureler 16. Snohomiah County Aeeeeeor pocumentation 17. Ttro Page F�ccerpt from Ordlnance 3572 (adopted in 1956) aad Excerpt from Zoning Code (Non-Conforming Usee), pagee 924-2 and 924-3, effective ae of June, 1980 18. Letter Received 7-26-90 from Candace Young and David Guadalupe 19. Staff Report Dated April 23, 1990 20. Photo Sllde Looking North on Fulton 21. Photo Sl1de Looking South on Fulton The Ezaminer, having Weighed the evidence prc�sented and heard the t?etimony of the parties, makea the folloaing: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Guadnlupe, one-half owner of Lots 9 and 10, Block 356, Division X, in the Plat of Everett (hereinnfter referred to as the "aubject property") filed a tSmely appeal in the epring of 1990 from an adminiatrative decieion of the Planning Department denying certlfication as a non-conforming dxelling unit of a etructure on the subjec[ property commonly known at 1717-1/2 Baker Avenue. Cuadalupe'e appeal came on for hearing before the City's Nearing Exeminer in ehe apring and su�er of 1990. At nome time subsequent to ehe lseuance of the Examiner's decision, the City diecovered that the recording system had not worked properly during at leaet a portion of [he Examiner's hearing and that there r+as no tecord of the teetimony of that hearing. Therefore, the CSty determined that a de novo re-hearing would be neceseary and the undereigned Ezeminer Pro Tem wae called upon to conduct the new hearing. The underaigned has not aeen, revieved, been adviaed of, or in any other way eought to learn the content of [he Examiner'e origioal decision. The underaigned hae not heard nor been adviaed of any portion of the origioal hearing tranecript. All written evidence from the original hearing wae entered iato the undereigned's January 17, 1991, hearing record.