Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPermit File 2215 Minnesota Avenue it 1 11110111111011113 005 Z Auditor Skagit County 4I712005 Page040701.26 1 of 311:27AM 200i503240i19411O Skagit County Auditor 3/24/2005 Page 1 of 3 3:35PM CHICAGO TITLE IQB2628 ACCOMODATION RECORDING Chicago Title Company has placed this document for recording as a customer courtesy and accepts no liability for its accuracy or validity. When recorded return to: Rerecord to remove a City of Anacortes name that shouldn't P.O. Box 547 be a part of .is Anacortes, WA 98221 agreement. 3809-323-029-0100 (P114155) ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the City of Anacortes, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Jacqueline Van Vliet and, hereinafter referred to as "OWNER". �Whereas, OWNER, Jacqueline Van Vliet 'the owner of the following described real estate located within the City of Anacortes, Skagit County, Washington, also known as 2215 Minnesota Avenue. No to Anacortes, lot 29 survey of Rock Ridge AF# 9812030124, Being a portion of blocks 1318-1323 AN Whereas, the Owner has placed certain improvements in the right of way adjacent to said property consisting of: Rockwork and landscaping that will encroach into the city right of way 9 feet by 75 feet on Minnesota Avenue. Now, therefore, parties hereby agree as follows: Whereas, the City is agreeable to allowing said encroachment on certain terms and standard conditions: Standard Conditions: , 1. The enclosed agreement must be signed and notarized by each property owner(s) and returned to Cherri Kahns;Executive Secretary. 2. The Owner(s) agree to comply with all applicable ordinances, laws and codes in constructing the encroachment and further agree to remove the said encroachment within a reasonable time upon request by the City of Anacortes or a duly franchised public utility. The Owner(s) understand and agree that all costs incurred in removing said improvements shall be at the Owner's sole expense. 3. The Owner(s) agree to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims for damages resulting from construction,maintenance or existence of those improvements encroaching into said right-of-way. 4. The Owner(s) shall not obstruct water meters or other public or private facilities except as approved in this agreement. 5. The Owner(s) shall ensure that any public or private utilities are not impacted or damaged by construction or use. 6. The Owner(s) shall leave a minimum of 48 inches of clearance between the curb or edge of street and any above grade construction. 7. The construction and use shall not create clearview obstructions at intersections or private property access. Special Conditions None ^_ DATED this 4day ofCV I UY\ 2005 OWNER: By: oc..12—/ 7�//-e Q_ acqueline Van Vliet APPROVED By: If f H. Dean M ell,Mayor WASHINGTON S REAL ESTATE EXCISE APR 0 7 2005�'y SkAmount 7Paid, Dalfubj BY 11111131111 IN II I IN NI N II 200504070126 Skagit County Auditor 4/7/2005 Page 2 of 311:27AM STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss COUNTY OF SKAGIT ) On this day personally appeared before me,Jacqueline Van Vliet to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing agreement and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. ,,.�y� �� " / Given under my hand and official seal this 1 ! 0 gdaay�{of /t t1,U[ek•- , 2005. C ?t 11 ( ignature) r ;otn��SS�Q�1%':�y�j Notary Public in and for the State of hu t • i :V N0rA9 i itlllcAr i ;. �' Y�,, ; Print Name) , y • RUC 14 i Residing in.(p t{-1.� , Washington. 0 •.9;06 a My commission expires: r,•,. (a• 60 ..toter Ill I It INII Hill III HMI III 200504070126 Skagit County Auditor 4I712005 Page 3 of 311:27AM LOT 29, OF SURVEY ROEX A • - RIDGE CITY Of'ANAC0�2TES, SKAGIT COUNTY, WA ALLEY /oo,0 4 -10 1 i` ASS' ,,re It ��IFg3 I ii Ca. > � � _ gg ' 'N'43` I .N--i -ri f3 s �-ft s ax• ,,t- it' f 1�� 'i. - s ,- ryt R h ra 4 Y ��'t— it a x e f �- o- 4),.. wet . .,,., e T `., , e �N1 JN'3 nr�i��_ Witt ,x 5� e. , _ f 4 1 v^ .F` � � �� � � I LiJ�' �� t3 � f4 d tiJ 9 Y X � svey �p+ s _ t�41,rr` .vr a.hz�v.v--f aµ "1 �.l ?�?A'r. 4^Zz• YN vo PrS '^ k .x,.,.$a ;Fw ' `._ .. PSa ice" F . y �tr ariale �A 4} / F f N 4 ` tie v 2 afi Ts -.. "rag?, "ear ' .` x' e e+x r �' ^n- , :414,,,,,t4:70,45,17,-ficit:.,.:z,74,-4, :,,,,.,;::,,:,,,,,1444..i.oh ::,,,,,_eir 4: F rll it xA.O Fb c. 11 t hA Y " ',�f isr.,,r i /i r sa 11 • I i iECEIVED tie JUL 2 3 1999 -r a3119LDm 0 DEPT 70' }/ "5 � 4 s o 5tORM �p�' y12' STREET WATER 'LYDIA£VEN P. REYNOLOS pwNERs g D. pevNoLDS 'FEB j February 8,2005 Mr. Ed Frank City of Anacortes _) Anacortes, Washington 98221 RE: Fence at alleyway between Lots 29 and 30 Dear Mr. Frank, I am writing in response to a notice hand delivered to me at my residence on 1/31/05 regarding the new fence being installed along the alleyway between lots 29 (mine) and 30 (owned by Don Campbell). In the fall of 2004, an exposed aggregate wall was installed on my property to hold back the very steep slope and to improve the drainage on that side of my property. The wall did not add to the existing grade. It is re-contoured. and stepped to keep the mass down,to provide more gradual slopes,to control drainage,and to provide planting pockets. I took care to provide a handsome wall with stone accents. In the last two weeks, a 6 foot cedar fence has been installed on my property close to the retaining wall, but not on it. It is in line with the other existing neighbor's fences. The fence provides shielding for me from the alleyway wherein the Campbell's have their primary entrance, basketball hoop,parking pad,and three-car garage. Naturally,there is a great deal of activity as this is an active,young family. The fence will be stained(when the weather permits)to match both of our houses. Members of the Rock Ridge ACC viewed the situation on Thursday and approved, again, this project as it stands. {The committee has approved my plans twice before.. in May and August 2004.} Mr. Campbell and Mrs. Chambers(the other adjoining neighbor to the east) were both present. Mrs. Chambers was told that her property was not a view property and that my fence could even have been 7 feet instead of the 6 feet.. The meeting provided airing of the issues in a very civil manner. A copy of a follow-up letter by Cynthia Richardson is enclosed. A great deal of effort and expense has gone into making a positive addition to this lovely neighborhood. My request is that this matter be laid to rest. My phone number is 588 0706. I invite site visits and/or I shall be most happy to meet with you in person. I appreciate your consideration and regret that your time has to be taken up by such matters. Sincerely, A Ja "e V 6- Cam./ oe ��{G y to Mr.Ian Munce �� Aim/ Comcast Message Center Page 1 of 2 o From: "anthony malo,jr" <amalojr@earthlink.net> To: "cynthia aanestad" <aanestad@windermere.com>, "ann green" <ddgreen@cnw.com>, "donald campbell" <dsbmhc@comcast.net>, "cynthia richardson" <richrson@cnw.com>, "bob townes" <waterbase@earthlink.net>, "Fred Abelman" <acon@fidalgo.net>, <twovee@comcast.net> Subject: Fw: fences and retaining walls Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 08:01:58 +0000 li Original Message---- From: richrson To: Measamer, Don ; Frank,_Ed Cc: Townes, Suzi ; Richard Fussell ; cynthia aanestad ; Ableman, Fred ; Munce, Ian ; Melo Tony Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:46 AM Subject: fences and retaining walls I was involved in a discussion yesterday with some folks at Rock Ridge regarding fences on retaining walls. After re-reading the current code language and looking at the illustrations I find that things which I thought at the time were clear,I now find confusing in a couple of respects. As I recall,the intent of the original code change a few years ago was: People have a right to expect that their neighbors will not alter the original grade of the lot in such a way as to circumvent the basic fence limitations of 30"/4'in the front yard and 7'in side and rear yards. Thus,if someone builds a retaining wall to raise the grade in a rear yard, where the fence limit is 7',it would not be reasonable to allow a 12'high retaining wall to overshadow the neighbor if a 12'high fence would not have been allowed in the first place. In the case where the grade is being raised,the combined height of the retaining wall plus the fence on top should be limited to the height above the original grade that would have been allowed for a simple fence. Thus,you could do a 3'retaining wall plus a 4'fence, or a 5'retaining wall plus a 2'fence,or a 2'retaining wall plus a 5' fence. It was pointed out that with a higher retaining wall,there could be a danger of falling off the edge,so the idea of permitting a guardrail to a maximum of 4'high was introduced,but somehow in the illustrations that turned into an absolute 4'limit even if the retaining wall is much lower. The confusion comes about because the illustrations say that the total height is limited to 4'above the finished grade rather than the original grade,without consideration of whether the retaining wall is 1'high or 7' high. When the retaining wall is less than the allowable fence height,in effect, the retaining wall becomes simply the base section of the fence. In some ways it is similar to where a person might build a freestanding stuccoed wall a couple of feet high as a base,with a wood fence on top of it,and the total height would have to meet the height limit. On the lot in question(Lot 29),the owner could have left the ground at the original grade and built a 7'high fence. Instead,she chose to build a http://mailcenter2.comcast.net/wmc/v/wm/420BEA53 0004D2EB000071 E522007347480A... 2/10/2005 Comncast Message Center Page 2 of 2 • retaining wall that is about i'above the original grade to level the yard,with a 6'high fence in the yard alongside the retaining wall,so that the total height is still the 7'that would have been allowed for a plain fence on original grade. Now I understand that she is being told that the fence has to be cut down to 4'because it is on top of the finished grade behind the retaining wall. This does not make sense. It penalizes a person by lowering the top limit of the fence,simply because they raised the grade on the bottom of the fence. It would apparently be legal for her to build a 7'high fence if she dug its base down to the original grade. It would also apparently be legal for her to build a 7'fence a few feet back into the yard where the original grade still exists-and is,in some places,slightly higher. I would appreciate it if you could issue an interpretation that would make it dear that a person does not have to limit the top of their fence to less than would have been allowed from original grade,simply because the grade at the bottom edge of the fence has been altered. On re-reading both the text and illustrations,I think there is need for some clarification in the code. I regret that I didn't see these inconsistencies the last time we reviewed it,and I will be happy to work with you on some revisions for the 2005 code cycle. Cynthia Richardson [ Back ] a 2004 Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.All rights reserved. http://mailcenter2.comcast.net/wmc/v/wm/420BEA530004D2EB000071 E522007347480A... 2/10/2005 ) February 8,2005 Mr.Ed Frank City of Anacortes Anacortes, Washington 98221 RE: Fence at alleyway between Lots 29 and 30 I Dear Mr. Frank, I am writing in response to a notice hand delivered to me at my residence on 1/31/05 regarding the new fence being installed along the alleyway between lots 29 (mine)and 30 (owned by Don Campbell). In the fall of 2004, an exposed aggregate wall was installed on my property to hold back the very steep slope and to improve the drainage on that side of my property. The wall did not add to the existing grade. It is re-contoured. and stepped to keep the mass down,to provide more gradual slopes,to control drainage,and to provide planting pockets. I took care to provide a handsome wall with stone accents. 1 In the last two weeks,a 6 foot cedar fence has been installed on my property close to the retaining wall,but not on it. It is in line with the other existing neighbor's fences. The fence provides shielding for me from the alleyway wherein the Campbell's have their primary entrance, basketball hoop,parking pad,and three-car garage. Naturally,there is a great deal of activity as this is an active,young family. The fence will be stained(when the weather permits)to match both of our houses. Members of the Rock Ridge ACC viewed the situation on Thursday and approved,again, this project as it stands. {The committee has approved my plans twice before.. in May and August 2004.) Mr. Campbell and Mrs. Chambers(the other adjoining neighbor to the east) were both present. Mrs. Chambers was told that her property was not a view property and that my fence could even have been 7 feet instead of the 6 feet.. The meeting provided airing of the issues in a very civil manner. A copy of a follow-up letter by Cynthia Richardson is enclosed. i A great deal of effort and expense has gone into making a positive addition to this lovely neighborhood. My request is that this matter be laid to rest. My phone number is 588 0706. I invite site visits and/or I shall be most happy to meet with you in person. I appreciate your consideration and regret that your time has to be taken up by such matters. Sincerely, Jac ' V Vliet -. y' - - 7' cop Mrµ.IIan Munce // Comc,ast Message Center `- ) 5 Page 1 or 2 From: "anthony malo,Jr" <amalojr@earthlink.net> To: "cynthia aanestad" <aanestad@windermere.com>, "ann green" <ddgreen@cnw.com>, "donald campbell" <dsbmhc@comcast.net>, "cynthia richardson" <richrson@cnw.com>, "bob townes" <waterbase@earthlink.net>, "Fred Abetrnan" <acon@fidalgo.net>, <twovee@comcast.net> Subject: Fw: fences and retaining walls Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 08:01:58 +0000 ----Original Message--- From: richrson To: Measamer, Don ; Frank, Ed Cc: Townes, Suzi ; Richard Fussell ; cynthia aanestad ; Ableman, Fred ; Munce Ian ; Maio, Tony Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 11:46 AM Subject: fences and retaining walls I was involved in a discussion yesterday with some folks at Rock Ridge regarding fences on retaining walls. After re-reading the current code language and looking at the illustrations I find that things which I thought at the time were clear,I now find confusing in a couple of respects. As I recall,the intent of the original code change a few years ago was: People have a right to expect that their neighbors will not alter the original grade of the lot in such a way as to circumvent the basic fence limitations of go"/4'in the front yard and 7'in side and rear yards. Thus,if someone builds a retaining wall to raise the grade in a rear yard, where the fence limit is 7',it would not be reasonable to allow a 12'high retaining wall to overshadow the neighbor if a 12'high fence would not have been allowed in the first place. hi the case where the grade is being raised,the combined height of the retaining wall plus the fence on top should be limited to the height above the original grade that would have been allowed for a simple fence. Thus,you could do a 3'retaining wall plus a 4'fence, or a 5'retaining wall plus a 2'fence,or a 2'retaining wall plus a 5' fence. It was pointed out that with a higher retaining wall,there could be a danger of falling off the edge,so the idea of permitting a guardrail to a maximum of 4'high was introduced,but somehow in the illustrations that turned into an absolute 4'limit even if the retaining wall is much lower. The confusion comes about because the illustrations say that the total height is limited to 4'above the finished grade rather than the original grade,without consideration of whether the retaining wall is 1'high or 7' high. When the retaining wall is less than the allowable fence height,in effect, the retaining wall becomes simply the base section of the fence. In some ways it is similar to where a person might build a freestanding stuccoed wall a couple of feet high as a base,with a wood fence on top of it,and the total height would have to meet the height limit. On the lot in question(Lot 29),the owner could have left the ground at the original grade and built a 7'high fence. Instead,she chose to build a http://mailcenter2.comcast.neUwmc/v/wm/420BEA530004D2EB000071E522007347480A... 2/10/2005 Comcast Message Center Page t or L retaining wall that is about t'above the original grade to level the yard,with a 6'high fence in the yard alongside the retaining wall,so that the total height is still the q'that would have been allowed for a plain fence on original grade. Now I understand that she is being told that the fence has to be cut down to 4'because it is on top of the finished grade behind the retaining wall. This does not make sense. It penalizes a person by lowering the top limit of the fence,simply because they raised the grade on the bottom of the fence. It would apparently be legal for her to build a 7'high fence if she dug its base down to the original grade. It would also apparently be legal for her to build a 7'fence a few feet back into the yard where the original grade still exists-and is,in some places,slightly higher. I would appreciate it if you could issue an interpretation that would make it clear that a person does not have to limit the top of their fence to less than would have been allowed from original grade,simply because the grade at the bottom edge of the fence has been altered. On re-reading both the text and illustrations,I think there is need for some clarification in the code. I regret that I didn't see these inconsistencies the last time we reviewed it,and I will be happy to work with you on some revisions for the 2005 code cycle. Cynthia Richardson [ Back ] Cc© 2004 Comcast Cable Communications, Inc"All rights reserved. http://maileenterleomcast.net/wmc/v/wm/420BEA530004D2EB000071 E522007347480A... 2/10/2005 1111111111101111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIitIIIIIIIIIIII1 200503240194 Skagit County Auditor 3/24/2005 Page 1 of 3 3:35PM CHICAGO TITLE 1QB2628 ACCOMODATION RECORDING Chicago Title Company has placed this document for recording as a customer courtesy and accepts no liability for its accuracy or validity. When recorded return to: City of Anacortes P.O. Box 547 Anacortes,WA 98221 3809-323-029-0100 (P114155) ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the City of Anacortes, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Jacqueline Van Vliet and, hereinafter referred to as"OWNER". Whereas, OWNER, Jacqueline Van Vliet and Joan Mickelson, the owner of the following described real est. - : . e. wi I '• e City of Anacortes, Skagit County, Washington, also know is 2215 Minnesota Avenue. N. to Ana . - =. • • surve of Rock Ridge AF# 9812030124, Being a portion of blocks 1318-1323 AN Whereas, the Owner has placed certain improvements in the right of way adjacent to said property consisting of: Rockwork and landscaping that will encroach into the city right of way 9 feet by 75 feet on Minnesota Avenue. Now, therefore, parties hereby agree as follows: Whereas, the City is agreeable to allowing said encroachment on certain terms and standard conditions: Standard Conditions: • 1. The enclosed agreement must be signed and notarized by each property owner(s) and returned to Cherri Kahns,Executive Secretary. 2. The Owner(s) agree to comply with all applicable ordinances, laws and codes in constructing the encroachment and further agree to remove the said encroachment within a reasonable time upon request by the City of Anacortes or a duly franchised public utility. The Owner(s)understand and agree that all costs incurred in removing said improvements shall be at the Owner's sole expense. 3. The Owner(s)agree to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims for damages resulting from construction,maintenance or existence of those improvements encroaching into said right-of-way. 4. The Owner(s) shall not obstruct water meters or other public or private facilities except as approved in this agreement. 5. The Owner(s) shall ensure that any public or private utilities are not impacted or damaged by construction or use. 6. The Owner(s) shall leave a minimum of 48 inches of clearance between the curb or edge of street and any above grade construction. 7. The construction and use shall not create clearview obstructions at intersections or private property access. Special Conditions None DATED this 34day of MCb1 CY\ , 2005 `� OWNER: $y: t1LJ t�-rc.. '/ acqueline Van Vliet APPROVED By: H. Dean Ma ell,Mayor IIIWWIHIEIIN I0IIIN11111 ti 200503240194 Skagit County Auditor 3124/2005 Page 2 of 3 3:35PM • STATE OF WASHINGTON) ss COUNTY OF SKAGIT ) On this day personally appeared before me,Jacqueline Van Vliet to me known to be the individual described in and who executed the foregoing agreement and acknowledged that he signed the same as his free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Given under my hand and official seal this if! ' • day of f, ,e,K.. , 2005. AAS _ "1 �ignatu r s K CVOS it ( re) i5310 •gad` 4+':O y.f Notary�j Public in and for the State of ((f f} i c� NOTRg 'I ti`�- 4<nu.c i i N;. A r�'n' Print Name) I. y°, Q "SUe r',1 i Residing in.' tA( t(*( , Washington. tiit p;•r?.06 , t My commission expires: q• i q• \"HING r Ii 11IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIN11 200503240194 Skagit County Auditor 312412005 Page 3 of 3 3:36PM • i V o CITY OF ANACORTES , WASHINGTON vc BUILDING DEPARTMENT ockCERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY This is to certify that the(Description of Building or Structure): ,, Single Family Residence Located At: 2215 Minnesota Avenue STREET&NUMBER Owner: Rock Ridge LLC Constructed By: Owner OWNER OR CONTRACTOR Bldg. Permit#: BLD-2002-00105 • Date Issued: 3-29-02 Occ. Group: R3 Use Zone: R2 Has Been Inspected And Occupancy Is Hereby Authorized. This t 3th Day of March PO 03 afrufYblatOr ((� AUTHORIZING OFFICIAL SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS. • /® — t . . j = -t--l- 'a � . i 4Z� 4- 1,0--d-tea 2st, —6, L a-& .c: i-/i U ' -Q- 8 G_) , af-7, AtAcd_e.. ii--2, --4,t,,,,„ ,v-e-ee ,g, 0 _ ) d__,,,Q r e., n" n " 4 . Gam. 4_ _Jz-> ba 'dz- . 4461A- 7k-ce-t- v- ' U 4 07 o ( zo Ac aLl< a_4✓ g ems. ,, -Zeir i Y-6-c ,t1-4 , y / cc_r,Q .L.c_e ‘cf‘,.0_,_;,,b4. -- 57?-a 7a, 776 - - ,J-- ?JAA:jf :af> , -av Li',1JiciP. ,pz-ii oc4Ort1/4- er �� 00-,' \D1y5' f t • 4) ,(3 \ CL. Spiic • c\ .,1/4 et. , clailte;) 7; 1 ..,,:, . , i :-. ;Crt • • a cl\s I � ;,- I ,0ALLEY } ��a :. i -• • , , o }- -viciA• C' I .-7-j.--• 1 „,.. ‘ W-TrWaa Ta-Cararir:CiaDj-- — \te. -. -.-- . -77------ - — I � � - - - - K / /> i/r////> ,i1JeA/YM yip./ /:/-//_ , Zi2.3'.% / /r . - - - - --� i-- . , je C •- ‘--lilt It % . m - 1 -- til V \" • _ / 1 a' 49 4 4 so g . __L__ . _r i ‘ _,J, ,A 0 3 ite 1 , , 1 i ). cvt, CY- . / aj 4" ,r, 4 al , . . 0 1 10 so'-o" j lo'-o" /Ti• tr. overhang I , 1 SIDE J =. 1 SIDE YARDt IN ; Y€AR I SETBACK j (m I GE•V-ATCK I\ I / i al i / =v-O 10 J / '� . .1 111 - i L It U D I II I \>✓ r2 fi �11 I w - I„ i Oy •, ` w 1 4 } C - I ! I - d I I _ - j 4 w }-- z I I ti I - 1 COURTYARD [; V �. > _I \, 1I ( W V , 0 i ,J - I =at — , ilt .1 . V U . I Q ; ic LOT23 ; Qo1 (` ` - i _ I r Q DRNELII.4Y { I ch)_ / C- 7 anP- ' • bo 04 T- - - - - - - - - - � - -'- - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - f, 0:� t'.u S \\ s��`' 6r) f� - -� - , ` SEWER HOOKUP AF \r-.'f• � ) --1Y� :.L - j.- la _i �' I _ l\ rarl , N Tir,. WEST 127N STREET -- 9 y - 2D ' SPpflflS HH,, s N 3k ,adu ► cLa : Rs SITE PLAN J LO ,+ E -n 1 E 11 D u3 SCALE: I/8" 2 I' ! ttn . J • i