Laserfiche WebLink
JuNsdicNon: The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional <br />authority to hold a heariny and to issue the decision. That authority is set forth <br />in EMC 2.23.120. Based on the above Findings of Fact, the Heaing Examiner <br />enters the following Conclusions: <br />CONCLUSIONS <br />Richard Heard, 5006 Sunset Lane, Everett, Washington (Appellant) <br />requested approval from the City of Everett of a fence height modification <br />to preserve an existing six foot high fence within a front yard setback at <br />5006 Sunset Lane, Everett, Washington (subject property). The Everett <br />Planning Department Director approved the fence height modification but <br />ir�posed a condition of approval: <br />A vision triangle must be creatsd on site in order to <br />provide a safe sight distance for pedestrian and <br />vehicle operators. In order to accomplish this, a <br />portion of the existing fence must be relocated. This <br />vision triangle must be created by removing a 15-foot <br />section of fence along both the driveway and the <br />street frontage. The fence can then be connected <br />together by installing a fence on the diagonal that <br />would connect the two points at which the fence was <br />removed. (Introduction) <br />2. The City failed to demonstrate an impact to justify the vision triangle. <br />There are no incidents of traffic accidents resulting from vehicles exiting <br />the subject property. Further, the City has presented no evidence that <br />the fence caused accidents. The City also failed to show that the fence <br />causes view obstruction. The City has failed to justify the condition of <br />appmval of the fence height modification. (�ndings 7& 8) <br />3. From the testimony and evidence presented, it appears view <br />obstructions are not the result of the fence design of the Appellant but <br />from vehicles parked along Sunset Lane. (finding 8) <br />4. There have been no objections to the fence for eight years prior to the <br />complaint to the City. With lac6: of evidence to support that the fence, as <br />constructed and designed, as a dangerous condition and no history of <br />complaints, the condition of approval is not justified. (findmgs 4- 8) <br />4 <br />