4717 GARDNER AVE 2016-01-01 MF Import

height. As a means of legalizing this structure, the Applicant filed for the Review Process I, fence height modification'. (exhibit 1, Fauver testimony) 4. The City, in issuing the determination, used the Review Process I to make the administrative determination. (exhibit 5) Pursuant to EMC, appeals of Review Process I determinations are heard by the Everett Hearing Examiner. (EMC 15.16.110(1]) On August 5, 2003, the Appellsnt filed an appeal of the City's determination. The contention of the Appellant was that the fence should not be permitted as constructed or applied for. (Gosser testimony, exhibit 3) 5. The subject property, zoned R-S, is an approximate 20,000 square foot parcel that is developed with a single-family residence in which the Applicant resides. The Applicant has constructed a fence approximately nine feet in height within the front and south setbacks. Subsequent to the fence being constructed, the City received an application from the Applicant for a Review Process I for a fence height modification which requested retaining the existing fence located north of the driveway, as well as the fence located south of the driveway. This request was the basis of the City's July 23, 2003, detetmination. (Fauver testimony, exhibit 1) 6. Admitted at the public hearing as exhibit 6 was a site plan depicting the subject property. At the hearing, the fences were highlighted: the fence on the northem portion of the site was highlighted in "pink"; and, the fence on the southwestem portion of the site was highlighted in "blue". These two fences were the subject of the fence modifiqtion request. Both fences include a fence and trellis that in total exceed six feet in height. The fence on the south side of the subject property was highlighted in "yellow" and is not the subject of this proceeding. (exhibit 6) 7. The City, in its July 23, 2003, determination, allowed the fence on the northem portion of the driveway to remain at the height of approximately nine feei with the fence and trellis. The City also allowed the fence on the southem portion of the driveway to remain as nine feet, including the fence as well as the trellis. The City determined that the fence along the southem portion of the site (highlighted in "yellow" on exhibit 6) must be reduced to six feet in height. (exhibit 5, Fauver testimony) 8. It was the determination of the City that the increased fence and trellis height was warranted along the southem property line for privacy purposes. The City submitted that the only view blockage would be from the south, and the view would be directly into the ApplicanYs property. Su�cient views of the sound to the east of the ApplicanYs and AppellanYs residences are still provided. The City ' The Applicant in his application submitted the request for a variance, as well as marking a seaion called "otheP in which he printed the word "fence". (e.rhibit 4) The City's review and the review of the appeal are based on the fence modification as allowed in EMC 19.39.070.A.1. 3 `