250 BEACH PL.PDFIIIIIIIIIIIIII
10212
250 BEACH PL
ADDRESS:
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER:, -76 U�720b406700
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): /1?
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREASi,� DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver E] Study Required F� Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER): lq&61 NAM
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $: LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER:
LATEMP\DSrs\Fomis\Street File Checklist.doc
Chave, Rob
From:
Chave, Rob
Sent:
Friday, November 16, 2012 2:47,PM
To:
'Jessica Clawson'
Cc:
waslOO@aol.com
Subject:
RE: 250 Beach Place letter
Hello:
Thank you for forwarding the letter. The description was helpful, and ybur analysis was thorough.
Unfortunately, our interpretation of the nonconforming provisions produces a different result, namely that existing
space within the building can't be converted so as to result in additional dwelling units.
The critical section of code is in 17.40.010, Nonconforming uses, which states:
B. Continuation. A nonconforming use may continue', unless required to be abated by subsection (C) of this
section, but it may not be expanded in any way, including additional lot area, floor area, height, number of
employees, equipment, or hours of operation, except as otherwise provided in ECDC 17.40.050.
The phrase "...but may not be expanded in any way..." is not limited by the examples that follow ("area, floor area,
height, number of employees, equipment ...... ), and it seems clear that while the terms "density" or "dwelling units" are
not specifically mentioned, the "in any way" terminology is very broad and should be interpreted that way. In most
cases, multifamily dwellings are either specifically tied to a density number, or are allowed with no density cap or factor.
Given that residential uses are not permitted at all in the CW zone, it can't be inferred that there is therefore no density
cap or limit that would apply; the use was simply not intended to be permitted. Therefore, the nonconforming status of
the use — and its associated intensity — is what the nonconfo�rming status applies to, and.an intensification (aka
expansion") would be out of bounds.
The other problem is that the section regarding "residential buildings in commercial zones" (section G cited in the letter)
only addresses residential buildings, not use or density. The allowances in this section speak to the height and bulk
provisions of the zoning code but don't provide any specific relief for density or expansion of the number of dwelling
units in the building.
Given the above, we. can't interpret the nonconforming status of the building otherwise; i.e. the use of the building is
allowed, and includes four dwellings — but no more dwellings can be added, either by addition or co6version of other
.space in the building.
I appreciate the time and effort you have taken on this issue, and your patience in waiting for a reply. You put forward a
good argument, but given the history of the city's nonconforming regulations, I have to say our interpretation is
consistent with our understanding of the overall intent of the chapter.
Sincerely,
Rob Chave I Planning Manager
Acting Development Services Director
From: Jessica Clawson [mailto:lessica(a)mhseattle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:33 PM
To: Chave, Rob
� 40 ..
Cc: waslOO(�aolxom
Subject: 250 Beach Place letter
Hi Rob,
Thanks again for meeting with us yesterday. I hope you and the dogs had a nice walk in Madison Park! Attached is our
letter regarding the Washingtons' proposed remodel. We'd appreciate a quick look by you and if necessary by the City
Attorney. The Washingtons need to make a decision soon whether to purchase the property and this is a key question
for them.
Thanks again.
Jessie
Jessica M. Clawson
Afforney-at-Law
MCCULLOUGH HILL LEARY, PS
701 FiFrH AVENUE, SuiTE 7220
SEATTLE, WA 98104
TEL: 206.812.3388
DIRECT: 206.812.3378
FAx: 206.812.3389
-ICLAWSON(@MHSEATME.COM
WWW.MTISEATn,F,.COM
NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the
sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments \vithout copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
MCCULLOUGHHILLILEARY, Ps NOV 14 2012
'" ING DEP I
November 12, 2012
Rob Chave
Planning Manager
City of Edmonds
1215 h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: 250 Beach Place
Parcel No. 27032300400
Dear Rob:
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
We are writing to confirm our understanding of the nonconforming provisions contained in the
Edmonds Municipal Code. As you know, my clients Carol and Michael Washington are considering
buying the small apartment building located at 250 Beach Place (the "Property"). The apartment
building currently consists of 4 apartment units. The building contains storage space used by the
residential units. The Washingtons would like to purchase the Property and divide one of the
existing apartments into two apartments, and convert residential storage space into an apartment
The result would be,a 6 unit apartment building with all units being more than 900 s.f. and with each
unit having its own dedicated parking space. The Washingtons hope to eventually move into one of
the apartment units in the building following renovation.
The Property is located in the Commercial Waterfront ("CW") zone. As you know, new multifamily
structures are not permitted in the CW zone. Chapter 16.55 ECDC. However, the code does allow
for the continuation, remodel, and modest expansion of existing nonconforming residential
buildings in commercial zones under certain conditions. See ECDC 17.40.020.G. It is our
understanding that the Washington's plan meets the requirements of ECDC 17.40.020.G, and
therefore would be allowed:
G. Residential Buildings in Commercial Zones. Existing nonconforming buildings
in commercial zones in use solely for residential purposes, or structures attendant to
such residential use, may be remodeled or reconstructed without regard to the
firnitations of subsections (B), (E) and' (F) of this section, if, but only if, the
following conditions are met:
Reiponse: The Property is a building in a commercial zone (CW) solely in residential use. It
therefore meets the threshold criterion of EMC 17.40.020.G.
701 Fifth Avenue - Suite 7220 - Seattle, Washington 98104 - 206.812.3388 - Fax 206.812.3389 - www.mhseatde.com
't . 7
Rob Chave
November 13, 2012
Page 2 of 3
1. The remodel or reconstruction takes place within the footprint of the original
building or structure. "Footprint" shall mean an area equal to the smallest
rectangular area in a plane parallel to the ground in which the existing building
could be placed, exclusive of uncovered decks, steps, porches and similar
features; and provided, that the new footprint of the building or structure shall
not be expanded by more than 10 percent and is found by the city staff to be
substantially similar to the original style and construction after complying with
current codes.
Response: The remodel would take place entirely wid-iin the footprint of the original
building. No expansion of the building would occur as part of the Washingtons'.
remodel. The-ptoposed remodel meets this-cnitetion.-
2. All provisions of the State Building and Electrical Codes can be complied with
entirely on the site. No nonconforming residential building may be remodeled or
reconstructed if, by so doing, the full use under state law or city ordinance of a
conforming neighboring lot or building would be limited by such remodel or
reconstruction.
Re_q�onse: The remodel would comply with all applicable State Building and Electrical
Codes in effect at the time of building permlit application. No neighboring buildings
would be impacted by the Washingtons' remodel. The proposed remodel meets this
criterion.
3. These provisions shall apply only to the primary residential use on site and shall
not apply to nonconforming accessory buildings or structures.
Response: There is only one building, the primary residential structure, proposed to be
altered by the Washingtons' remodel.
4. A nonconforming residential single-family building may be rebuilt w ithin the
defined building. envelope if it is- rebuilt with materials and design which - are
substantially similar to the original style and structure after complying with
current codes. Substantial compliance shall be determined by the city as a Type
11 staff decision, except that any appeal of the staff decision shall be to the ADB
rather than to the hearing examiner. The decision of the ADB shall be final and
appealable only as provided in ECDC 20.07.006.
Res
ponse: This criterion is not apphcabl,e—this is a multifamily building, not a single-
family residential building.
The Washingtons' proposed remodel meets all of the criteria listed in ECDC 17.40.020.G and
should therefore be allowed. The proposed remodel therefore also comphes'with ECDC
17.40.020.B:
11, . ;
Rob Chave
November 13, 2012
Page 3 of 3
B. Continuation. A nonconforming building or structure may be maintained and continued,
unless required to be abated elsewhere in this chapter or section, but it may not be changed
or altered in any manner which increases the degree of nonconformity of the building except
as expressly provided in subsections (C) through (I) of this section.
(Emphasis added). In addition, the existing multifamily use could be considered to be a
nonconforming use, since it is not currently allowed in the CW zone. Similar to the nonconforming
structure portion of the code, the tionconforn-ning use portion of the code allows for the addition of
two units within the original footprint of the building. This is due to the fact that the addition of
such units would not be considered to be an expansion of a nonconforming use because the'
additional units are simply reconfiguning existing residential floor area:
B. Continuation. A nonconforming use may continue, unless required to be abated by
subsection (C) of this section, but it may ri� ot be expanded in any way, including additional
lot area, floor area, height, number of employees, equipment, or hours of operation, except
as otherwise provided in ECDC 17.40.050.
ECDC 17.40.010.B. The code here specifically st�tes that a nonconfornuing use may not expand its
floor area. The code specifically does not state that the "addition of units" expands a
nonconforming use. The plain language of the code clearly intends to regulate nonconfortruing uses
based on the addition of floor area, rather than the addition of the number of units.' The
Washingtons' remodel complies with ECDC 17.40.010.B, as it does not expand its floor area;
instead, it reconfigures existing residential space (storage and living space) *in a completely in -box
remodel.
Finally, we would note as a policy matter that the City of Edmonds appears to be attempting to
facilitate more Sounder North Link riders by �Uo,�ring commuter parking at the Waterfront Antique
Mall: http://myedmondsnews.com/2012/11/cit�-announces-sound-transit-salish-llc-agreement-to-
add- 1 03-patking-sl2aces-to-edmonds-sounder-station/ We would note that the addition of two
units in a location within walking distance to the Sounder Station also facilitates mote potential
riders on the Sounder, even if by a modest amount.
We would appreciate your confirmation that the Washingtons' remodel plan complies with the
Edmonds City Code. We welcome any questions!you may have in your review of this matter, and
thank you for your consideration.
rely,
S. lawson
I / It is a well-known rule that when considering a code, one must assume that the Council "means exactly
what it says. Plain words do not require construction." Morgan v. Johnson, 127 Wn.2d 887, 891-92, 976 P.2d 423
(1999).
RFCFIVED -5
SEp .1997
ING
ENGINEER
Paul Mar, Director Sept.15,1997
Community Sexvices.Dept.
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5th. Ave. No.
Edmonds, WA. 98020
Dear Mr. Mar:
On Saturday September 13, 1997 Edmonds experienced what
could be called a short-term downpour that flooded the
waterfront parking lot at Railroad Avenue and Beach Place.
Having experienced the flooding of January lst,197, and the
failure of City equipment to properly drain that flooding,
flood waters, again, endangered the George Matuska properties
at 250 Beach Place. Further, :having been accused by the City
Insurance Adjuster of our not notifying the City of possible
methods of avoiding the danger .... we herewith go on record of
suggesting solutions to the current problem.
We are advised that the two 1/3 hp pumps in the drainage
system on.Beach Place were replaced with two 1/2 hp pumps.
Our assumption is that the circuit breakers were not changed
to accomodate that change,of load,and when the pumps were
charged with the need of the flood, the load was too great
and the circuit was broken. Mr.Matuska, with considerable
electrical knowledge, also believes the check valve, on
Dayton Street, that controls the water in the parking lot.,
needs repair.
At 9:00 AM Monday the 15th of Sept. your office was contacted
and learning you were not available, I asked to talk to Noel
Miller, Public Works Manager. He was advised of the Saturday
problem, and further advised that'all of the lights in the
Street and Parking Lot are out ... the area is totally without
lighting. I relayed Mr. Matuskas remedial suggesti * ons to Noel
Miller, acting in behalf of Mr.Matuska as he left Edmonds very
early on the morning of the 15th on a planned trip to the East.
Mr.Matuska left the above remedial information notes with me
to pass on to the City of Edmonds personnel.
In addition, having experienced, again, this flooding problem,
it brings us to question that the City has made any revisions
in the emergency solutions to' the sever flooding problems
experienced on January lst. I refer you to your letter addressed
to Mr.Matuska and me dated July 23 1997. Please refer to the
3 items noted.
2.
Item 1. True. The City was notified through-911 at 4:30 AM,
a pump that failed to start arrived at 6:15 AM and a second
pump arrived at 7:00 AM.
Item 2 It was the standing water that started the chain of
events leading to the backup of the sever water because there
vere no backup check valves In the system,
Item3. We have had no report from City Engineer Jim Walker
regarding his study and any drainage improvements that may
impact the property at 250 Beach Place.
The occurrence on Saturday Sept.13 is Judged by us as a
warning of events that may be repeated during the winter of
1997-98 1
SnUrS tru3a.,
i�obe G. Morrison
250 Beach Pl. #102
Edmonds, WA. 98020-4149
cc: Noel Miller
George Matuska
CoEpm915
890 . 199-
W 1p IF
CITY OF EDMONDS .
250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public Works a Planning 9 Parks and Recreation e Engineering
October 6, 1993
LAURA M. HALL
MAYOR
George Matuska
250 Beach Place
Edmonds ' WA 98020
The City of Edmonds does not have any records showing the sanitary
sewer line located on Dayton Street and Admiral.Way serving your
property, nor do we'have any contracts stating the City will maintain
this line past the City right-of-way.
I have checked all easements and found no contracts that grant the City
access to put such a utility in this area which is considered private
property. If you have anything that states otherwise, please send us a
copy and we.will make corrections to our files.
Until we hear from you, we will assume this line is a private structure
and maintenance on this line is the responsibility of the association
using such a structure.
Sincerely,
Ron Holland
Water/Sower Supervisor
RH/l k
cc: Noel Miller
Superintendent of Public Works
Attachment
MATUSKA/TXTSEWER
Incorporated August 11, 1890 0
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
0
7S(
A!
A�
0
4�-
OLY?4 Pit
CA
Lri. cAp ri w
EDMONDS
SMOPP106 >
CEAOTSR
ISO
-ST-
DAYTOM ST*
AYTON
Ito 0—
WK CITY
39*^" OF
Ito
sws
Z> PLAWT
fA pie w $k Its* 00 TEL
APT.
Ill 0 130
�.ALDAA IST
sumser
714,
Arwxnc 9
123
P�IVAk 7/8
160 ISO
f Gu; 10;�s s 6,-A fw C-Lub z
wM
PLEASE INDICATE BELOW IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THE FOLLOWING ITEM:
I tem 7 HEARING ON PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL NEEDS IN CITY OF ED-
MONDS
Name
(Please print clearly)
-�e Ve /_'�c
C�
Address
Ayr, Y/
(-j
S-6 0 CD <s'o LU�INUOCKrJ
V,
0 0
0 0
9 0 C�
CITY OF EDMONDS
250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public Works 9 Planning e Parks and Recreation 9 Engineering
January 6, 1995
George Matuska
250 Beach Place
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Resident:
LAURA M. HALL
. MAYOR
I have reviewed your account and will allow a credit to your account. from July 1994 thru
November 1994 in accordance with our City policy. The policy states that the customer
will be billed at the retail rate based upon the average water consumption for the same
period during the previous.year. In addition, the excess water lost from the leak will be
billed to customer at the City's wholesale rate with a 15% surcharge added for
administrative cost. Only one leak credit will be granted in any three year period.
Should you have any additional questions after you receive your new billing, please
contact Ilene Larson, Utility Billing Clerk.
Sincerely,
em -Vda
Ron Holland
Water/Sewer Supervisor
RH/lk
cc: Ilene Larson
Utility Billing Clerk
wordata\water\# 100775
Incorporated August 11, 1890 o
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
Am� MAN,
U "D
CORP.
LOCAMG SPECKIM.
PO. BOX 5634 * BELLEVUE, WA 98006
(206) 747-8804
BILL TO -
�_950 64-51CA1 elm
ADDRESS
PHONJ�: 77,R SW-5
INVOICE 4065'..
DATE /0
REMIT, TO:
PO. BOX 5634
BELLEVUE, WA-98006
U I numv-eu tsl-
iCUSTOMEB-ACCEPIrANCE. TERMS: NET30[1 C.O.D.O'CK#
The terms and conditions set -out on the reverse side of this agreement are incorporated herein by this reference. By his signature
hereon, customer acknowledges he. has read this agreement and received a copy of It.
ArrIval
SIGN4tURE* X Time
MILEAGE START MILEAGE STOP TOTAL MILEAGE
CUSTOMER ORDER Na
��TYPE OF-JO-13: t.J/97E/?
DESCRIPTION OF WORK.
PHOTO: YEs ET NO D El GUARANTEED WAIVER
6
rio,A, ceeZE /AJ Tej
00
-A0ij-_uAir"mc V
—PLEASE PAY.%� fL9 �7-17.HIS I
. 1. 1
cuslromm COPY
PRICE/HOURS
AMOUNT
FIRST.HR.,Z
15 G
AWL HRS
MTAL LABOR
TRIP CHARGE
SQ
JAMT. NO
DEPARTuAE
TIME
,ICE
C ty of Ed?O�L!'
City Engin er's Office tl---�SiREET' FILE
COMPLAINT REPORT
Report No.
Referred to for Action Street Department Time 4:00 PrUate 11/19/69
Received By Rhonda French, Engineering Department Time 3:00 PM Date 11/14/69
Made By ___Mr. Matuska Address 250 Beach Place Tel.
How Received:
Letter
Telephone
x In Person
Nature of Complaint: Mr. Matuska complained about the condition of the access
street to the Dayton Street Park. Please see that it is kept graded.
Describe Action Completed:
Time Date Completed By
Location Sketch:
low 00"-, City of Ed^.10�
City Engineer's Office
COMPLAINT REPORT
Report No.
Referred to for Action Street Department Time 400 Mate 11/19/69
Received By Rhonda French, Engineering Department Time 3 t 00 PM Date 11/14/59
Made By Mrs Matuska Address 250 Beach Place Tel.
How Received: Letter Telephone x In Person
Nature of Complaint: Mr. Hatuska complained about the condition of the access
street to the Dayton Street Park. Please see that it is kept graded,
Describe Action Completed:
0
Time Date Completed
jitew;- g 094 .1
Location Sketch:
2
SW 3