The URL can be used to link to this page

421 SPRAGUE ST.PDF13241 421 SPRAGUE ST ADDRESS: I :�d iv - TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBI BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRU( COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS: DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:— V# � 9 "1 DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver [] ;tudy Required E] Waiver PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: -1117112�7e SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: - SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: 42 2:1 OTHER: LID #: BLOCK: LATEMP\DSrs\Fonns\Street File Checklist.doc 0 PLANNING DATA New Commercial I Multi -Family Projects I =FILE Name: M�Cyns M__ - � A "C- " . I Date: 0 /—C) g , Site Address: Plan Check #: BLD - Q1 0 GA� \6y Project Description: -� % ',-JAdol Use(s) Proposed: I I Allowed Use: tit NO) CUP File Number: q To Allow What Uses* I/A Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES Reduced Site Plan Provided:0 I NO) Zoning: ?"R Map Page: Comp Plan Designation: Corner Lot: (YES IFOT Flag Lot: (YES ADO File Number (date waived): N /A Lot Area: Plans Match ADB Approved: (YES NO) Shoreline Required: (YES Critical Areas Determination #: El Study Required Waiver SEPA Determination: EE'>ce_4%V-, Exempt El Needed (for sites with 500 cubic yards of grading or within 200 feet of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger. Requires: (1) Fee, (2) Environmental Checklist, and (3) APO List with notarized form)- Re4uiribd'S&tbacks Street: Sid Sid Rea Attual "acks Street: Side: Side: Lot Coverage/FAR Required: Lot Coverage/FAR Provided: Lot Coverage/FAR Calculations: Building Height Datum Point: Datum Elevation: Maximum Height: Actual Height: Subdivision: Lot Aggregation Required: Landscaping Landscaping Matches ADB Approve& __TLandscaping Bid Provided: (YES i NO) Bond Amount (100% Bid): 0 Plan Review By: PLANNIN G DATA =,FILE New Commercial I Multi -Family Projects dommercia, Parking Analys�is Business Name Type/Use Parking Tenant Required Ratio Area Parking oz Total Parking Required.- rotal Parking Provided Multi -Family Parking A 99*_S#S # Bedrooms per Dwelling Unit Parking Ratio # Units Required Parking Studio 1.2/D.U. I Bedroom 1.5/D.U- 2 Bedrooms 1.8/().U� 3 + Bedrooms 2.01D.U. T \b�lng Required: o See, le�,ekxz Ot6er 10 Ac/. L.Oltzz' CIC-14ed LA r, A_r Feerm..� \0 111 C(.. C\ ncA-Az� cQ Ae.- �O �be_ re--\cwe_o( .4 �ke_ s"� �) 4e� "�,o%ed ce,\odel, 'A CAk 4M ��e_ c>,,k ly 0 c,� cee�zrcd Plan Review By: 81.1-11 DING DEPARTMENT -7 PERMIT APPLICATION NAJAIE (OR NAME OYBUSINESS) A. 7 w:e Ald"LING "DRESS P, - c) C) 1, 2 QITT TTLEPHONE N—UM13M NAME w A.ODILESS TELEPHONE NUMBOF— tz_ ADDRESS - - I T� - E T�Tyl TELEPHONE NUMVZ= STATE LICENSE NUMBER C!T1 LICENSE :I, Lcgw Desc"PLIOP. Of 11-Nr'Y (Sb-, Bel— or AUach Four Capi) r i Y Z, r- —' C, TS z PI, F H C" c 1; -Y o r r nI ? j4 r -AS LINE NON-PXSIDENT A El 0.ADD 0 RETAINING DEMOLISH WALL FALTrR CAVATE FENCE El OERx FILL Ft. I I PRE-NIOVE �EPAIR [] SWIM INSTI. POOL NUMBER OF. DWELLING z UNITS R-k—TURE 01 POST'D UIN KROLL MAP NO PERUrrmv pPlicant Fill NUMBER a Me Lines JOH ADDRESS A USE ZONE LIT 11 NT SITE VACAS F,2.,5 L9 [3 NO z HEIGHT BUILDING AMA VARIANCE NUM3ER IWT PLANAPPROVED STREET R/W EXISTING STREET R/W,/�*��217T. DEFICIENCY THIS PROPERTY COMP. PLAIT 87. R/W FT. REY-ARKS BY Z M.ETxR Slz,'� SERVICE SIZE C CHECKED BY _k_ % TYPE CONNECTION VEIUFlKDY Rwir�NUMBER J.P REMARKS FIRE.ZONE BTRUC'11 STIR T111 11 CON :��IMPROVED j i%7N YES 0 go SPECIAL INSPEUTUR REQUIRED OCC UPANCY GROUP, C, YES I PLAN CHECKED BY Dra�pa,gc of storm wAter, to. be' 16d. V lt� 6prague Str�st. Alley adjac=t.to ovuers.. ' pronerty 'paved to City specifi�aticma.' �21 t Val..tjon� Fee plan ch"k N, . ............ E PiI.P.... USE A PA r, 1- T- ma PLOT PLAN (Indicate Building 5acks. ftbuFt_1ngstr�e_Ts) PLUMBING . . I :� - IM ITEAT & GAS LINE PENCE 'AiTAINING �IAW,*,, SwrMM]Nj l,001, DEMOLITIOIA PRE -MOVE INSPFCTION EXCAVATION OR FILL I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application;,thit the In- form:Uon n Is correct: that TOTAL AMOUNT DUE 5'?o giv and Itant the,owner, or tho duly Author. IzLd gent of I owhir. I Irrj. to comply,'O,ith city and late In— k gu. lating ccrutrubtlod;'��d In dOin�g'thb)�v6ik..&6thorized-tbemh�. to' peri ATTEDNTION APPLICATIOR'AP PROVA �111 be emplOyed lfl�%10lation of the,labor Code of the Sta a of Washington, rslaij�g.to, Worknien'. ln�� —Co.- ! . , I THIS PERMIT "j. I . , This app)lcaticr.�Js not a" . pern�i. tlil AUTHORIZES signed by.theffiu!�hfing Offl�IaLor hiq-Dep- NOTE: Permit Limit,One Yea? iF-crtu nEmTn.i+,oIvS �hwh ONLY WORK,NOTED uty; rind fiq,�.relpmiil..nj�d�ricelpt In ac. be'��Omplated In Monty )days: MOVL--1N BUILDINGS PhIll.be Om. know Aged ir�s �' provid4"IJ IS 11�ce pIcted in "Is month?.) 211 . 1 7"', �, 1, " (OWNER pit'AGID ATE, 7 INSPECTION 111111T I 75—InEvr5ff WTIoNATURMV, 1110 CITY OF EDMOINDS NOTE: Applicant Subject to Plan Check Fee Prt 6.1107 s, Thf. Pe —It uk 1. be done on pllt. P,.,rty ONLY. 4. Ary truMI—,o. lh� p.h runt.'( ... b., .1de-1k., d,loy, �. , ) O.::c runm, qui, pt� pl—IWOn. INSPECTOR I .4. t+ 4 t 0 Im The City of Edmonds APPLICATION for SIDE SEWIM PMNW NEW CONSTRucTION 0 REPAIRS r-1 EASETA[ENT No - ----- .................................. PERWaT N OWWER M . ........ . CONTRACTOR ......... V, -------------------------------------------------- ADDRESS --- #."-, ......... J;,O.A-s�tl ..... . . ................................ LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . .............................................. BLOCK No . ................................ ........... NAMEOF ADDITION ........ ------ ....................................................................... LU ..i ftonuft LL LU L" cc co -2- A P P MAR 14 W66 Approved: DATE----- --------------- By ....... Sjtlti� ....... — ............................. CITY C,0MONDS Call PRospect 6-1107 when- work OVIC CENTER — WATER -SEWER DEPARTMENT Is ready for Inspection. (No Inspec- tions Saturday. Sunday or holidays.) N 0-: 2816 SIDE SEWER PERMIT ADDRESS........... 4ZI ... $.Prag.Ue ... $tX;.e.tt ............................................................................................................................................ ...OWNER ............... Kal ........ ................................................. CONTRACTOR ............ M......Cons-truction ............... Permission Is granted March .......... 1.41 19.A?., for ........................ days to REPAIR or CONNECT a side sewer .......... **-**'** .......... with City Sewers In accordance With application on file and governing ordinances. ATTENTION IS CALLED TO THE FOLLOWING: NOTE No. I —The owners of the property may obtain.a-permit to construct sewer inside property line. A licensed Side Sewer Contractor must be employed to construct side sewer In street area. Do not cover any portion of sewer before it has been Inspected. Ne To. 2—Obtain full information regarding Ordinance 11.16.030 and Regulations governing side sewers -when you get permit. 'N0'1,_..4o. 3—Top, of side sewer must have at least 30 Inches coverage at property line and 12 Inches Inside property line; minimum grade of 2%. No bends In grade sharper than % will be permitted. NOTE No. 4—Trenches In street must be water settled and surface of street restored to original condition. Contractors shall be responsible for failure due to Improper work which may develop within one year of completion. NOTE No. 5--It Is unlawful to alter or do any.other work than is provided for In the permit, or to do any work on the main sewer or Its appur- tenances except to insert the pipe into the wye. 2,1 2 1-7-7 36 C_ —z' 1E GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT 14 C. Planning - Building - Engineering Olympic Vista LLC James Malsch, Registered Agent 682424 1h Avenue Northeast Seattle, Washington 98115 RE: 421 Sprague Street, Edmonds Dear Mr. MaIsch, December 20, 2007 As a follow-up to City Plan Review Comments dated December 18, 2007, City records indicate the original building construction and occupancy approval for the 421 Sprague Apartment was for five (5) total units (please refer to building permit #670535 and the Certificate of Occupancy dated May 15, 1968 enclosed). Your plans submitted under permit application BLD20071210 show six units. The City Planning Division has confirmed that a maximum of five total units is permitted based on the zoning district of RM1.5. Please note that RM1.5 is the highest density zoning within the City. In preparing this letter my office discovered the following information; the City initiated code enforcement on the sixth unit against a former building owner in 1975 (see City letter dated 7/3 1/75 copy enclosed). In response an application was filed with the Board of Adjustments (enclosed please find Board minutes from March and April of 1979 regarding this matter). Note that at the April 1979 meeting the Board voted to amortize the sixth unit for a period of three years after which time the building would become a five unit building. The maximum number of units permitted is five and the sixth unit must be removed. Therefore, the following actions are required by you: • If the illegal unit is currently occupied you shall immediately notify the tenant of the noted code violation and demand termination of vacancy as permitted by State RCW 59.18. The City shall require inspection of the area within 45 days date of this letter to verify that the unit is not used or occupied. • You shall alter the current permit application on file with the City by no later than January 21, 2008 indicating removal of the illegal dwelling unit by changing all spaces to a common use (i.e., storage, laundry room, mechanical room, etc.). The City will review for code compliance and issue the permit in a timely manner. Removal of dwelling unit spaces shall occur within 60 days of pen -nit issuance. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 extension 1226 during City business hours. Sincerely, aop� Jeannine L. Graf Building Official .'.,',--9-EET FILE Incorporated August 11, 1890 !Q'iefor i-ihi - Wolzin;%n -1:%";%n �P "0 Pr IT NUMBER r;&U-1 LD I NG -,,D EPA R-TME,,H-T . Applic"CM AD !WEBS) RE R NAMr OF BU ACK Al Y, NAME 10 RD SETBACK SIDE ,A �. —,WT V C-1 MAILING z USE ZONE �j I YES ze: P�o w 2 'e TELEPHONE UblEER, NUMBEA BUILDING A�U[ItA 111A111 NAME 3LOi P ....... 1�5 vo, Rl� ST. ET It - 'ET DrFICIEVCT THIS PROPERTY EMBIING STIR X TELEPHONE NU ZILAN ST h,- PT. 2 lyz _Y�C..P ____ EMA,', C "I ; , , 6, z I-C-7 w L I, ADDIUESB A RAN C E SIV�. 11 CLE HE KED By AETFI. It CITY L'Z�'K'g NUMBER ATE CENIIE NUMUK VERIFIE )3y� TM 131-eul -1 P (8b.- ok- 01 A"-. E PERMIT-� ... r T Af.i ZAT :4 (ar r x ci.-y o'r-- zo _JtEM�RKS iZ. Pr r L, I N FoRE-Z,.. ITYPIDOFCVNdTHc STR NO 11 T INCY SPECIAL w- -"No YES 0� PLAN CHI�C!�ED by GAS TIAL N. t-7 REsIDEN REM""' NEW I to of atorm watter to. be!,tilec SSIDENTIAL El SIGN No— ITAIIM.IN. 4;pra troll. _A111-y .213--ext to owlaars'. WALL ADD El FENCE A LTER EXC*AVATE OR FILL, !LFP.TR N.F. POOL PRE."OvE 10 am ES NUMBER OF HER OF OTO x DWELLING UNITS 3 I TURE or WOM TO BE DONE R-w Din. 4 "a' opos;D USE BUILDING T fj PLU PLOT ?"N HEAT & GAS LIKE PENCE moN 'Ai�TJJXINQ ;WkLL�1;, �OOL'- 2A-L SWIMMING . . . . . . . . . . DEMOLITION PRE -MOVE INSPECTION EXCAVATION OR FILL TOTAL AjHU.NT DUE is SpplImHon; tb%t U,. In- _kjolledl* tft&t I h -Ad th ., th, d.17 ..U, U,. I... 1. and tb&t I � M* n-ner- f0m �_,i4 W _q, wItb cit �d tltO 14 mgu- MON AMON APPROVAL 't"t f me 0 7 F. " wlon ATTEN f a permit until U_ I M. L,,nn. C�. H� S.0 of W-bl,ig.. .tlon Is not M., I. ..I JHIS PFRMIT ThIs �11 n,o .=Iw� 19:,!� AUTHORIZER Sig by ILa tuildin'g offidal or his Dep- C-nH. I ONLY THE Ioty�.,�d . S, arj paid. and.receipt i3 Be- H,1., hkh $01IM: NOTED NOTE: Permit Limit,0ne Year .(E .. pt DE.NIQLAT L�owljge,_ jo�-.pace provided. ED-IN BUILDINGS IMII c�nnpf�d In ,��d 1. .1. INSPECTION p:,i-g-CTOR'�,SIGNA:�66i�*4 OW�-E`R QW_ AGENT), "E SLONE DEPARTMENT C[Ty OF EDr,10,413S 4: NOTE: Appl\j,,j So,bjecl to Pl-- Check Fee 1-11 . 6-01 O.—V lx�%,.CTOR CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, Sec. 306 At 421 SPRAGUE -STIEET Occupancy established by this certificate: 5 UNITS Floor Load signs Building Permit Number Fire Zone III Type Const, V—N No. Stories Ii in place (per Sec. 23o8 U.B.C.) — Capacity signs — posted (per Sec. .3301 (i) U.B.C.) Floor load and room capacity signs, whc-n required, -Inust remain posted a�' all .4imes. 4TIMNll BUILDIW, THE —APART HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED AS COMPLYING WITH PROVISIONS OF THE EDMONDS BUILDING CODE AND WITH UNIFORM BUILDING CODES. Issued this. MAY 15th --day of —1068 CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL By This certificate shall be posted'in a conspicuous public area and shall not be removed, mutilated or obscured and shall be main- tain6d in legible condition -at all times. Any change of occupancy rc4uires a new certificate. 9 0 STRE'ET FILE STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE, AND THAT THE VARIANCE BE DENIED BECAUSE IT IS NOT A MINIMUM VARIANCE NOR A HARDSHIP. On question by Mr. Roy to the City Attorney, Mr. Tanaka said that since the motion was to deny, it would be best to omit the reference to the second accessory building and leave it to the City Staff to see that it is removed. MRS. MEDINA AME14DED HER MOTION TO DELETE THAT PORTION REGARDING THE STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE. MRS. DERLETH SECONDED THE MOTION AS AMENDED. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH MRS. MEDINA, MRS. DERLETH, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING YES, WITH MR. BYRD AND MR. LERAAS VOTING NO, AND WITH MR. ROY ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT FOR THE PREVIOUS HEARING ON THIS ITEM. THE MOTION CARRIED. AGENDA NCU-3-78 JOHN LaRUE_- Nonconforming Use Permit to maintain a nonconforming unit at'd' . pra ue,St�.�..';,-(RMH,!) .9" Ms. Luster distributed copies of an Earnest Money Agreement executed by the applicant at the time this property was purchased. The Agreement indicated the property had a Building Permit for.five units only and that income for five units only was considered in the agreement. The structure currently was leasing six units, one of which was nonconforming. Ms. Luster said the applicant had the options of acquiring sufficient property to make up the square footage required for the sixth unit or to reduce the number of units to comply with the Code. She read aloud 12.15.180(e) of the Code, regarding the issuance of a Nonconforming Unit Permit. There are three requirements for sucha permit, and Ms. Luster indicated the applicant met the first two but he did not meet the third. That states that the owner must have purchased the multi -family dwelling on good faith with no knowledge of the nonconforming unit. Because the Earnest Money Agreement stated there were only five units, he was aware that there were five legal units and that the other unit was not a legal unit. Ms. Luster recommended denial of the application because the applicant was aware of the nonconfor1ring status of one unit as indicated by the Earnest Money Agreement and the escrow papers, the.applicant could reduce the number of units to the total allowed, and the innocent purchaser clause in the Code does not apply in this case. She showed a slide of the property, saying she believed the storage area in the building was converted to an additional unit which has one bedroom. They are not paying utilities individually on that unit. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Chet Bennett, attorney representing the applicant, said the building was constructed in 1967 as a five -unit structure. He submitted to Chairman Stole a rental agreement on the structure from 1969. He said the two storage units under the stairs were combined in 1969 to make one rental .unit and three owners prior to the LaRues had rented this building out as six units. He noted that all of the information regarding this building had been provided by the LaRues and he asked Ms. Luster if there would be a serious environmental impact if the sixth unit were to continue. She responded there would not. Mr. Bennett suggested that the applicants covenant with the City to phase out the sixth unit and remove the kitchen facilities at the conclusion of five years, giving them an opportunity to amortize their investment. He said they would put up a bond to that effect and the ordinance required they would have to pay the back utilities. Mrs. LaRue stated that they were novices in negotiating for income property and had taken the word of their real estate agent that there would not be any problem with the extra unit and that all they would have to do was ask for a variance and a new ordinance coming on the books would grandfather it in. Mrs. Derleth asked her if they had inquired of the City regarding that ordinance or a permit and they had not. This matter had come to the attention of the City as the result of a Fire Department inspection. The public portion of the hearing was closed. The applicants were asked questions regarding the units. They stated the rent amounts for each of the units and said five have individual utility .meters and the sixth meter is for the house lights and laundry and the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Pdge 4 - March 21, 1979 sixth unit is wired to that meter. They have seven parking spaces but at the time the building was constructed they met the parking requirements for five units. In order to legalize the sixth unit they would have to acquire additional square footage, provide additional parking, take care of the utility,billing.requirements, and meet the Uniform Building Code requirements. Mr. Byrd asked if the phase -out suggested by Mr. Bennett would be an appropriate remedy and whether the Board had the authority to do that. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka advised that the only authority the Board had was to issue the Nonconforming Use Permit. He said the phase -out of the nonconforming unit was not*at issue'because the Board was not empowered by the Code to do that. Chairinan Stole suggested offering the unit as storage space and raising the apartment rentals accordingly, but Mrs. LaRue said there already was adequate storage provided.. Mr. Tanaka then said he did not believe anything would prohibit the Board from imposing a limited time permit if the criteria were met. Mr. Leraas noted that the LaRues had been open and above board and this building had been -in existence this way since 1969. . He felt the Board should be able to give the LaRues some kind of relief. Mr. Roy agreed, commenting that the type of rental units the LaRues had were needed and there was nothing to be gained by removing the,sixth unit. Mrs. Derleth was troubled by the Earnest Money Agreement, and ' yet she said she understood that in the enthusiasm to sell such comments could be made regarding the ease of getting a permit. She felt, however, that if such comments were'made to her, she would contact the City to verify them. MR. ROY THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, TO APPROVE NCU-3-78 BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT.BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BECAUSE HE FELT THERE WAS NOT MUCH TO GAIN BY ELIMINATING THE SIXTH UNIT.� A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MR. ROY AND MR. LERAAS VOTING YES, AND MRS. MEDINA, MR. BYRD, MRS. DERLETH, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING NO. THE MOTION FAILED. Mr. Byrd stated that he could not vote for the motion because he felt that would exceed the authority of the Board, and Mrs. Derleth agreed. CHAIRMAN STOLE THEN MOVED THAT THIS BE AMORTIZED OUT IN THREE YEARS AT WHICH TIME THE BUILDING WOULD BECOME A FIVE -UNIT BUILDING, BECAUSE SHE DID NOT FEEL IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. She added that she felt they should pay their utility bills. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mrs. Derleth said she was looking at the criteria and at the Earnest Money Agreement, and that Agreement definitely stated that there was knowledge. Mr. Byrd added that there may have been some fraud imposed on the LaRues but the *knowledae was there and the Board has certain criteria to follow. MR. BYRD THEN MOVED, IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS, THAT NCU-3-78 BE DENIED. MRS. MEDINA SECONDED THE MOTION. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MR. BYRD, MRS. .MEDINA, AND MRS. DERLETH VOTING YES, AND WITH MR. ROY, MR. LERAAS, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING NO, RESULTING IN A TIE VOTE. THE MOTION FAILED. MR. BYRD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MRS. MEDINA, TO CONTINUE NCU-3-78 UNTIL THE APRIL MEETING BECAUSE A DEADLOCK HAD BEEN REACHED AND IN ORDER TO HAVE THE SEVENTH MEMBER OF THE BOARD PRESENT. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. ROY VOTING NO. V-16-79 FRED R. BROWN Variance from required front yard setback at 24322 74th Ave. W. RS-8) This application was for reduction of the required front yard set back from 25' to 10' for a length of approximately 14'. This would not result in a rezone. The property fronts on 74th Ave. W. which is an easement the City has over the old Traction Right -of -Way, and it never will be widened. The existing house invades the setback and the applicant wished to enclose the porch area of his home. He would be building along the existing line of the house so he would not intrude into the setback more than the existing house does. It was not possible to increase the size of the home in any other way, and the house is very small, approximately 600 sq. ft. The Staff felt this was a reasonable request because of the location. Ms. Luster recommended.approval because it.was a roasonable variance to make the maximum use of the property, it would not obstruct views or interfere with the traffic in the area, it appeared to be the best location for this type of addition, and because 74th W. will not be.improved. The public portion of the hearing was opened. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 5 - March 21, 1979 OF*.,ADJ�1STM�NT:...: z.,j0A_ D�L April 18, 1979 The regular metting of the Edmonds Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chairwoman Alice Stole at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. PRE-SE14T ASSENT STAFF PRESENT Alice Stole, Chairwoman Ann Derleth Nancy Luster, Associate Planner fluryl Medina Jo Ann Fischer, Recording Sec'y. Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney 'Paul Poy Jack Byrd Bill Leraas ..Harold Hatzenbuhler n Al - ice Stole we Chairwom, Icomed:the audience and explained the functions of the for handling of the h a Board-. the proceditre. e rings, and the method of appealing deAsions of the Board. c .:APPROVAL OF MINUTES d been distributed. MR. JACK BYRD MOVED, Motiolf:" u Min tes:,o.f the�March 21_1979 meeting ha MOTION SECONDED MMR. BILL'LERAAS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 1979. CARRIED. N Ph' B U S 1 N S S, Selection of Vice Chairman of the Board Pis. Nancy Luster stated -J as the Co -Chairperson, but Fr. Hatzenbuhler had been selecte some ne else willhave to be selected as Mr. Hatzenbuhler could 0 not-actept the -position. Chairwoman Alice Stole requested nomina tions..for this position. Mr. Bill Leraas nominated Mr. Jack Byrd: have to miss at leasttwo, howeve'r, Mr. Byrd stated that he wou three me tings.during the summer months. Ms. Luster stated if not, e that the Board should select someone who could attend all of the AIRWOMAN ALICE STOLE MOVED TO NOMINATE M PAUL ROY 1,OT I ON: meetings. CH 'ON' CARRIED. Mr. Paul Roy is SECONDED BY MR.,BILL,LERAAS. MOT, the new3y.selected Vice Chairman of the Board of Adjustment. CONTINUED AGENDA NCU-3-78 JOHN LARUE - Non -conforming use permit to maintain a non -conforming. unit -at M Sprague Street. (RMH) Ms. Stole stated that this was a continuance from the March 21, 1979 meeting. Ms. Luster stated.that this is a request to maintain a non- conforming unit in an existing apartment building. The structure was originally approved to allow five units, and there are six units at this time. Ms. Luster referred to the minutes of the March 21, 1979 .ne e ti n o. She further stated that the code appears to be ouite clear on this matter and she read the portion of the code pertinent to this situation. Ms. Luster expressed the opinion of the staff in that , the applicant did make an attempt to acquire additional property, but he was unable to. However ' the staff felt that the applicant does have the option of eliminating one unit in order to bring this complex into compliance and the escrow papers, a; well as the earnest money agree- meni, state that there are only five legal units. Ms. Luster stated that the staff recommends denial of this permit for the following rea- sons: the applicant was aware of the non -conforming status of one unit as indicated by the earnest money agreement and the escrow papers; the applicant can reduce.the number of units to the total allowed; and the innocent purchase clause in the Code does not apply in this particu� lar case. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. Chet Bennett attorney representing the applicant, stated that he wanted to thank the Board members for their efforts in his client's behalf. Mr. Bennettsaid that he was in disagreement with Ms. Luster regarding the last qualification under that ordinance per- tinent to this case because he and his applicant did not feel that this would be detrimental in any way. He asked the Board to con- sider the motion made during the March 21, 1979 meeting by Chair- woman Stole which failed for lack of a second wherein she moved, THAT THIS BE AMORTIZED OUT IN THREE YEARS AT WHICH TIME THE BUILDING WOULD BECOME A FIVE -UNIT BUILDINro, BECAUSE I DO NOT FEEL IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD". The hearing was closed to the public. Mr. Harold Hatzenbuhler stated that he was in agreement with the motion made by Ms..Stole at the March 21, 1979 meeting as it appear- ed to be the answer to the Lar-je's problem with the additional unit. MOTION: MS. STOLE MOVED THAT THIS UNIT WOULD BE AMORTIZED OUT IN THREE -UNIT BUILDING, YEARS AT WHICH TIME.THE BUILDING WOULD BECOME A FIVE BECAUSE I D 0 NOT FEEL THIS ADDITIONAL STUDIO APARTMENT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE OR SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORS; 1TY BILLS ON THIS HOWEVER I DO FEEL THAT'THEY �HOULD PAY THE UTIL UNIT. MS. MEDINA AMENDED THE MOTION TO STATE THAT THE ABATEMENT GO I.NTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON THE SALE OF THE UNIT. THE MOTJON WAS SECONDED BY MR * PAUL ROY. As clarification, 11ir. Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney, stated that in order to potect the potential owners, it should be recorded that this unit will be eliminated for three years, or upon salE of the property, whichever occurred first. Ms. Stole called for a roll call vote and the vote was as follows: Ms. Stole, yes; Ms. Medina, no; Mr. Roy, yes; Mr. Jack Byrd, no; Mr. Bill Leraas, yes; and Mr. Harold Hatzenbuhler, yes. MOTION CARRIED. V-.19-79 MARK MCNAUGHTON Variance from required side yard setback at 21723 96th Avenue West. (RS Ms. Nancy Luster stated that this was a variance request for a side yard setback and the applicant is asking for a 6" variance. She stated that this variance is in conjunction with a subdivision of the property and -did not amount to a rezone. Ms. Luster showed slides of the location of the house on the property noting that the house will be sitting seven feet from the driveway line that leads to Lot No. 2. "he said that there are no.unique features of this property and that both lots exceed the square footage requirements of the RS-8 Zone. This variance is the only way the applicant can have access to Lot 2. She went on to say that the access if 15 feet wide. The applicant does . meet the lot width requirements as far as the zone is concerned. and there will be adequate open area. Ms. Luster stated that the staff recommends apDroval of this request as it will not be detri- mental to the health, welfare or safety of neighbors in the surrounding area, it is a minimum variance, and the open area will be adequately main- tained. Ms. Luster stated that she should mane note of tlie petition in the file which had been signed by several o . f the neighbors. The petition was turned in in conjunction with the subdivision on the pro- perty and the.petitioners requested that it be placed in the file. The petition requested that the subdivision and any subsequent vari- ances on that property should be denied. The public portion of the hearing was.opened. Ms. Ann Wilkinson, property owner on the other side of McNaughton's spoke stating that 80% of the people who are property owners in the area are against this variance as noted in the petition which is on file. She said that a road would present traffic zind noise problitims as well as a loss of privacy for all of the people. Ms. Judith Nelson, also a neighbor in,the area, stated that there would be a light shin- ing in their home all of the time if a driveway is put in and she questioned the safety of a driveway going.passed the garage. Owner cr' the property, Mark McNaughton,spoke stating that he purchased the property about seven years ago at which time it was subdivided along with several other homoes in the area and, therefore, the subdividing BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page -2- April 18, 1979 4 FQ CITY OF EDMONDS A 121 51h Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 - Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICEs DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVISION ,ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW - STAFF DEasioN - BLD-2007-1210. An application by James MaIsch for an interior remodel of an existing multi -family building to remove an illegal unit as well as exterior modifications to the existing building (Attachment 1). The subject property is located at 421 Sprague Street in the Multiple -Residential (RM-1.5) zone. Property Owner. James MaIsch 6824-24 1h Ave. NE Seattle, WA 98115 Site Location: Applicant. Wilson & Wilson Construction 16015 Inglewood Rd. NE Kenmore, WA 98028 421 Sprague Street, located within the Multiple -Residential (RM-1.5) zone. ProjectProposal. The applicant is proposing an interior remodel to remove an illegal unit as well as exterior modifications, including replacing the existing windows, repairing and painting the existing siding (change in color from brown to sage grey), replacement of existing marble-crete material with cedar shingles, and replacement of existing deck railings. Refer to Attachment 2 for a photo of the existing building. Refer to Attachments 3 and 4 for building elevations showing the proposed exterior modifications and Attachment 5 for paint samples of the proposed siding and trim colors. The applicant has applied for a building permit for the proposed remodel under File No. BLD-2007-12 10 (Attachment 1). Design ReviewProcess: The proposed project requires General Design Review. Projects that remain under the SEPA threshold are reviewed by staff with the building permit, and the design review is considered an administrative Staff Decision subject to the requirements of ECDC 20.11 (General Design Review) and 20.95.040 (Staff Decision — No Notice Required). Analysis: The proposed modifications to the exterior of the building are generally consistent with the design of the existing building. The siding of the building currently alternates between vertical sections of brown painted siding and marble-crete siding (Attachment 2). The proposal includes repairing the existing brown painted siding and painting it a sage grey as well as replacing the marble-crete siding with cedar shingles. The walls of the building will continue to be broken up by these vertical sections of alternating types of siding (sage grey painted siding and cedar shingles). The proposed sage grey color avoids excessive brilliance and brightness. The update to the existing windows and deck railings is a very minor change and will be consistent with the existing building design. Page I of2 Administrative Design Review Olympic Vista — James MaIsch Building Permit No. BLD-2007-121 0 The subject proposal is consistent with the design of the existing structure and is consistent with the design review criteria of ECDC 20.11.030. A building permit for the proposed improvements will need to be approved prior to construction. Technical Review: The Building Division and Fire Department have reviewed the building permit application (File No. BLD-2007-121 0) for this project. Any comments from these departments will be provided as part of their review of the building permit application. Public Comments: Projects that remain under the SEPA threshold are reviewed by staff with the building permit, and the design review is considered an administrative Staff Decision subject to the requirements of ECDC 20.11 (General Design Review) and 20.95.040 (Staff Decision — No Notice Required). Therefore, no public notice was required for the subject application. The City has not received any comment letters for this project. Decision: Based on the facts, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff finds that the design review for this project (File No. BLD-2007-12 10) is APPROVIED with the following condition: 1. The applicant must obtain a building permit for the proposed work, and individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes. Attachments. 1. Building Permit Application (File No. BLD-2007-1210) 2. Photo of Existing Building 3. Proposed West and South Elevations 4. Proposed East and North Elevations 5. Proposed Paint Colors I have reviewed the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code. Appeals: The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing appeals, pursuant to ECDC 20.105.010.A, which describes how appeals of a Staff Decision shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project applicant and the date of the decision, the name and address of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong, and the fee.' The appeal must be filed with the Development Services Director within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed. Appeals are presented to the Hearing Examiner. Page 2 of 2 City of Edmonds Permit Application, Form Form A 9 - W� Brief Description: 6sill- - Site Address: �1-2_ / � - pka Q e- (; 71--, Suite # Sno County Tax Account Parcel #: 6� 413 q 7-c g&o Business/Tenant Name (if applicable): Ui,�L 6t".�010 PROPER-TyrOWNER: 'j Mailing Address: City:_ (262 State: zip:—.9TH�_ , "--P % 7 Phone: FAX: (Sw= 144 E-Mail: "5 4 coutik%Ac TOR: 0Same,-as,Prb-PertV;0,Wn6r I Mailing Address: Z/_0 t"aa.-1 jv- City: State: Iel zip: Phone: FAX: (t6 �5) E-Mail:Ao tsoof, .200 State License Number: W/ Exp: Datejg:�,,7_ 76 � City Business License No-IVR I PC? APPMUMM718ONTACT: OShiwex Fill out the following information if "Other". r Name & Mailing Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: (_) FAX: (_) E-Ma L:kTEMP\BUILDING\WEBchecklists\SFR.COMM.APP.doc5i24/2007 Attachment Page 2 of 2 7- Close Window Attachment 2 http://web5.co.snohomish.wa.us/propsys/asr-tr-propinq/PropinfoO5-StructData.asp?parcel--... ago, 0 0 RAIL'G DTL5, TYP �JARDRAILS PER.Z]3,,, RAIL'G PER $EC 1013 1 CHAPTER �-ICVANSI 4111.1: 36: MN CL!'UJOT 34 MN-36 IA)l HEIG47 A5V ll� ft-w�� mx 6— RAMP SURFACE M� W L � kH% 4 31- DIA CONTNOUS - FULL LEW.714 OF EA. RUN. GRPIG %RFACE CONT. �Fg T T� �TY a�M 7�ld ./OUT N1 R5!UPTICN "% t 1/4' MIR . 2" MAX DIA. I E 6 � V. 06— CIRCULAR CROSS-SECTION OR MCN-CiROULA" CRO56 $ECTION-4' MIN, b VA* MAX PERIMETER DIMN CROSS-5EC"C' 7 tm; MA), EXTEND 12' EEYOND OP 4 BOTT. OF RUN. RETUFN TO WALL. GUARD OR FLOM TYP EAST G LAP SIDIW, TO F REMAN, PATCH I REPAIR AS REDD . NEW PANT SEE GUARDRAIL NOTE, TYP ;rl II I 3b" RAIL'G EXIST)C, Vd* 5CREEND VINT - - - - SOUTH ELEVATION 1/4'-V-G" WEST ELEVATION 114"- V,0" NOTE, C40NTRACTOR TO REIIEW AND CC -PLY WITH WATER-PROOF'G DETAILS AS NOTED ON SHEETS EWV TWRU EN�05 FOR EXTERIOR DETAILS By SOUND BUtLON5 C04OULTANTS LLC. TYP NOTE: PATCH AND REPAIR EXI5T'G 51011465 AS RE12-D, NEW PAINT COLOR TO BE "SAGE". REMOVE EXISTING MARBLE-CRETE MATL AS REOD. PATCH AND SEPAIR AS REDD, INSTALL MEW CEDAR 5WW51LES, CLEAR COAT FINISH KEW CEDAR 5wWXE SIDIW,. REMOVE MAZE-CRETE MATL, PATCH 4 REPAIR AS REDO, TYP co 0 -cn uj CC I.- X 3 C3 z 0 0 z ce UJI ui x 9 002 � ME - z z 0 2 > Lu -i Lu LU U) uJ 0 3: w Z M z T 0 0 0 SEE PANT CHIPS Z 0 z W > Z CL 0 j 0 -it w 3-21-08 ASSHOWN SO AIC ITECT F"7 SHEETI: A-6 -2 - -0 4 '2 -0 v OF 12 9 �IXISVG IRIDOFG TO REMAIN FIELD VERIFY- APE 31111.1LE 51111113, IATCH I REPAIR AS RE= REMC`A MARBLE-CRETT MAIL, ��W CID PATCW I REPAIR AS REQ'D, TYP EXIV'r 5100,10 TO REMA N, PATCW REPA�R AS REOD SIDIt,iG OMOR-'5AGE GRAY' TRIM OLOR-'POWDERE0 F 51" SEE PAtNT CWIPS EAST ELEVATION 114"-1-4' NOTE; CONTRACTOR TO PREVIEW 40 COMPLY LLITW WATER-PROOF'r DETAILS AS NOTED ON SWEETS ENVOI TWW ENVIES FOR EXTERIOR DETAILS BY 5OLtV BUILDING C0,15LILTANTS I.I.C. TYP NOTE! PATCW AND REPAIR EXIST-G SIDING AS REGV, NEW PAINT COLOR TO BE *SAOEI. REMOVE EXISTING MARBLE -CRETE MAIL AS REQV. PATCW AND REPAIR AS REQ'D, INSTALL SEW CEDAR 5WINGLES. CLEAR COAT FNISW m 36* RAIL'r ��RAII.5 PER 013 .�� WW.o--M-- q—P W4W AEV GRADE I �N ElAi.CONPES "IeD Kom EAST'r GRADE — 0`NG � W� — wl�w� P"E.""MRAILSOR�� a— 10 �L. P� � I' INA �w NORTH ELEVATION EKEPT� 11 Im - — - MNEK rft� I RAL � � 0—� .- A —RE C~ PAS5 I� 114-1'�O' 51 � ft. — . ux M ST- TREADS 1541.1. 40T ALLM 4 3W DIA E-E., �� a�K H RALW ME- —, �L W GMEI� GIAZNG 711U —Y — 11 D, ik � W, LISTED 0, D—TEV A, �Ti Z; add STUART CLIFT 627 125TH AVE NE LAKE STEVENS, WASHINGTON 98258 TOTAL DESIGN 425-377-8760 STUCLIFT@AOL.COM Me o TO. Jennifer Machuga — Planner City of Edmonds From: STUART Clift CC: Date: 4121/2008 Re: ProjecM 2007-1210 Address: 421 Sprague ST Jennifer Machuga City of Edmonds — Planner Jennifer, attached are the paint chips for this project. If you have any questions please call me of George Wilson. Thank you, '14- Stuart Clift 0 0 W-D-700 u Powdered Snow RESUB APR 2 2 2003 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS Attachment 5 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering Olympic Vista LLC James Malsch, Registered Agent 682424 1h Avenue Northeast Seattle, Washington 98115 RE: 421 Sprague Street, Edmonds Dear Mr. Maisch, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR December 20, 2007 As a follow-up to City Plan Review Comments dated December 18, 2007, City records indicate the original building construction and occupancy approval for the 421 Sprague Apartment was for five (5) total units (please refer to building permit #670535 and the Certificate of Occupancy dated May 15, 1968 enclosed). Your plans submitted under permit application BLD20071210 show six units. The City Planning Division has confirmed that a maximum of five total units is permitted based on the zoning districtof RMI.5. Please note that RMI.5 is the highest density zoning within the City. In preparing this letter my office discovered the following information; the City initiated code enforcement on the sixth unit against a former building owner in 1975 (see City letter dated 7/3 1/75 copy enclosed). In response an application was filed with the Board of Adjustments (enclosed please find Board minutes from March and April of 1979 regarding this matter). Note that at the April 1979 meeting the Board voted to amortize the sixth unit for a period of three years after which time the building would become a five unit building. The maximum number of units permitted is five and the sixth unit must be removed. Therefore, the following actions are required by you: • If the illegal unit is currently occupied you shall immediately notify the tenant of the noted code violation and demand termination of vacancy as pennitted by State RCW 59.18. The City shall require inspection of the area within 45 days date of this letter to verify that the unit is not used or occupied. - • You shall alter the current permit application on file with the City by no later than January 21, 2008 indicating removal of the illegal dwelling unit by changing all spaces to a common use (i.e., storage, laundry room, mechanical room, etc.). The City will review for code compliance and issue the permit in a timely manner. Removal of dwelling unit spaces shall occur within 60 days of permit issuance. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 extension 1226 during City business hours. Sincerely, a~4T Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Incorporated August 11, 1890 qkfor (-;fir - PalrinAn _T;i-An ,OST�o L,N KROLL MA NUMB U.ILDINGt:DEPARTME"T-"j,',,l;t�l)uwt,tnu� POWT-.40PLICATION TRACK SETBACK YARI, sE SIDE Y�-v SET.."K 'Y"" MAILING VACAXT 91— USE ZONE LOT EK LEPHONE UMEER. 0 NM Crrr SUILDIN HE GHT 111AN1 LA I NAME LOT N PPROVED A vo AD RX8S THKET -1W FT. DEFICIENCY THIS PROPERTY E�Sjj�,'G STREET H/IV T11116— _Rji-m— e� FT Fr. 'OMP -7� -ff_E�IIKS W NAMX zx. BY Z L I—' r-z— /4 r A3DR& 8 CLEAR�NCX TKED BY METEF q 5 v CITY M-9 NUMB 1! 3A 9E N murit CITY CXI19 STATE LICEN, PY C' TYPW CONNECTIO P,O1,,y is... DO— O� I pZ!H;. EST T 61 L(:r 1; AIJ r7 7 C1,Y 1; F REMARKs -1p, 7, STR!�4MPR VED r P Ill. VIRE_ZONE T'YPZ OF qq.VdTRUCT NO AT 1.. 1, t —'.COUP, NC� GROUP SPEC"' "C'_ NO 0' 0 YES ;)'k; L�N CHECKED Y a I)ENTIAL E RrMAjLK R..I ED IS NEW torn w.tar to be.tiled to 11.11-RE'SIDENTIAL ED SIGN _,)raiAaF.t t to vituarS. ED RETAJ adjacez A.. �LL 111�0 p r a DE;.O' ism -.)avefl t'-, city sDacificaticiza. ED FF. VAjE .-E ALTER EX A' I OR FILL, ffwI !unp,sIR ED POOL Nap MBER OF STO Ell NUMBER OF, DWELLING 'z UNITS NATURE O� WORK TO BE DONE -BUILDING PLUMSING b.lH HE�T & GAS LINE FENCE Ri:TA�nNG WiLL,�, 7A-L SWIMMING POOL' DEMOLITION 7 V. MOVE INSPECTION EXCAVATION OR FILL 'L Cf if e t� TOTAL %.MOUNT DUE C/ itl—relid this f—U.", 9111. is _Ct: s_, ,&t I- U,.. ,rr. Or th, d.ly ..th-- Ui. Ov4&,. �Htj City �d slats Is.. g.. ArrENTION APP.1L1.CAT'j.0'N APPROVAL Oil OOl,,tM%,,iIon: dOICIS'. "'ply Ati f Of Q S.. Or W.Oii'.� MS PERMIT Tbjs�gopll.ratlon _is not a perinit Until ,in t,t AUTHORIZES signed by thr� BuIlding Official or his Dep uisb ONLY TH rC paid. and.receipt is ac- E uty; cmd 'teS:a Permit Limit.0ne Year DE11013TIO.— -hich WORB Norro N BUILDING NOTE. S '"li � COM- knowle,,%wed in space provided. I Oj�"�fozd [a W0#7�days2AOVED-1 INSPECTION 1_�.AECTOR'S SIGNATYRE�' ,Wed In IT8 �IQNE� 71ON TURK (OWNER 01 G . T. DEPARTUEZrr CITY OF FDMONEOS TE: At, hccP Fee plicant SubjeCt to P14" C 0.1107 INSPECTOR All C.1 T Y'.-.O F E D M.0..N -D S DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY UNIFORM BUILDING. CODE, Sec. 306 L t Occupancy established by this certificate: -5 UNITS Building Permit Number-670535 ___ Type Const. V-14 Basement NO floor Load signs in place (per Sec. 23o8 U.B.C.) — Capacity signs posted (per Sec. 3301 (i) U.B.C.) F loor load and room capacity signs, whcn required, must remain posted a.' all imes. THE APARIMM BUILDINC, HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED AS COMPLYING WITH PROVISIONS OF THE, EDMONDS BUILDING CODE AND WITH UNIFORM BUILDING CODES. Issued this 1-5til May 58 —day of CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL By This certificate shall be posted, In a conspicuous public area and shall not be removed, mutilated or obscured and shall'be main - a tained in legible condition at all times. Any change of occupancy rc4uires a new certificate. STREET FILE STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE, AND THAT THE VARIANCE BE'DENIED BECAUSE IT IS NOT A MINIMUM VARIANCE NOR A HARDSHIP. On question by Mr. Roy to the City Attorney, Mr. Tanaka said that since the motion was to deny, it would be best to omit the reference to the second accessory building and leave it to the City Staff to see that it is removed. MRS. MEDINA AMENDED HER MOTION TO DELETE THAT PORTION REGARDING THE STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE. MRS. DERLETH SECONDED THE MOTION AS AMENDED. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH MRS. MEDINA, MRS. DERLETH, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING YES WITH MR. BYRD AND MR. LERAAS VOTING NO, AND WITH MR. ROY ABSTAINING BECAUSi HE HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT FOR THE PREVIOUS HEARING ON THIS ITEM. THE MOTION CARRIED. AGENDA NCU-3-78 JOHN LaRUE - Nonconformin? Use Permit to maintain a nonconforming unit at 421 Spra.gue St. '. RMH) Ms. Luster distributed copies of an Earnest Money Agreement executed by the applicant at the time this property was purchased. The Agreement indicated the property had a Building Permit for.five units only and that income for five units only was considered in the agreement. The structure currently was leasing six units, one of which was nonconforming. Ms. Luster said the applicant had the options of acquiring sufficient property to make up the square footage required for the sixth unit or to reduce the number of units to comply with the Code. She read aloud 12.15.180(e) of the Code, regarding the issuance of a Nonconforming Unit Permit. There are three requirements for such a permit, and Ms. Luster indicated the applicant met the first two but he did not meet the third. That states that the owner must have purchased the multi -family dwelling on good faith with no knowledge of the nonconforming unit. Because the Earnest Mon6y Agreement stated there were only five units, he was aware that there were five legal units and that the other unit was not a legal unit. Ms. Luster recommended denial of the application because the applicant was aware of the nonconfonring status of one unit as indicated by the Earnest Money Agreement and the escrow papers, the applicant could reduce the number of units to the total allowed, and the innocent purchaser clause in the Code does not apply in this case. She showed a slide of the property, saying she believed the storage area in the building was converted to an additional unit which has one bedroom. They are not paying utilities individually on that unit. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Chet Bennett, attorney representing the applicant, said the building was constructed in 1967 as a five -unit structure. He submitted to Chairman Stole a rental agreement on the structure from 1969. He said the two storage units under the stairs were combined in 1969 to make one rental unit and three owners prior to the LaRues had rented this building out as six units. He noted that all of the information regarding this building. had been provided by the LaRues and he asked Ms. Luster if there would be a serious environmental impact if the sixth unit were to continue. She responded there would not. Mr. Bennett suggested that the applicants covenant with the City to phase out the sixth unit and remove the kitchen facilities at the conclusion of five years, giving them an opportunity to amortize their investment. He said they would put up a bond to that effect and the ordinance required they would have to pay the back utilities. Mrs. LaRue stated that they were novices in negotiating for income property and had taken the word of their real estate agent that there would not be any problem with the extra unit and that all they would have to do was ask for a variance and a new ordinance coming on the books would grandfather it in. Mrs. Derleth asked her if they had inquired of the City regarding that ordinance or a permit and they had not. This matter had come to the attention of the City as the result of a Fire Department inspection. The public portion of the hearing was closed. The applicants were asked questions regarding the units. They stated the rent amounts for each of the units and said five have individual utility meters and the sixth meter is for the house lights and laundry and the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Pdge 4 - March 21, 1979 sixth unit is wired to that meter. They have seven parking spaces but at the time the building was constructed they met the parking requirements for five units. In order to legalize the sixth unit they would have to acquire additional square footage, provide additional parking, take care of the utility.billing.requirements, and meet the Uniform Building Code requirements. Mr. Byrd asked if the phase -out suggested by Mr. Bennett would be an appropriate remedy and whether the Board had the authority to do that. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka advised that the only authority the Board had was to issue the Nonconforming Use Permit. He said the phase -out of the nonconforming unit was not at issue'because the Board was not empowered by the Code to do that. Chairman Stole suggested offering the unit as storage space and raising the apartment rentals accordingly, but Mrs. LaRue said there already was adequate storage provided. Mr..Tanaka then said he did not believe anything would prohibit the Board from imposing a limited time permit if the c*riteria were met. Mr. Leraas noted that the LaRues had been open and above board and this building had been in existence this way since 1969. He felt the Board should be able to give the LaRues some kind of relief. Mr. Roy agreed, commenting that the type of rental units the LaRues had were needed and there was nothing to be gained by removing the.sixth unit. Mrs. Derleth was troubled by the Earnest Money Agreement, and yet she said she understood that in the enthusiasm to sell such comments could be made regarding the ease of getting a permit. She felt, however, that if such comments were made to her, she would contact the City to verify them. MR. ROY THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, TO APPROVE NCU-3-78 BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT.BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BECAUSE HE FELT THERE WAS NOT MUCH TO GAIN BY ELIMINATING THE SIXTH UN IT. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MR. ROY AND MR. LERAAS VOTING YES, AND MRS. MEDINA, MR. BYRD, MRS. DERLETH, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING NO. THE MOTION FAILED. Mr. Byrd stated that he could not vote for the motion because he felt that would exceed the authority of the Board, and Mrs. Derleth agreed. CHAIRMAN STOLE THEN MOVED THAT THIS BE AMORTIZED OUT IN THREE YEARS AT WHICH TIME THE BUILDING WOULD BECOME A FIVE -UNIT BUILDING, BECAUSE SHE DID NOT FEEL IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. She added that she felt they should pay their utility bills. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mr.s. Derleth said she was looking at the criteria and at the Earnest Money Agreement, and that Agreement definitely stated that there was knowledge. Mr. Byrd added that there may have been some fraud imposed on the LaRues but the knowledoe was there and the Board has certain criteria to follow. MR. BYRD THEN M6ED, IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS, THAT NCU-3-78 BE DENIED. MRS. MEDINA. SECONDED THE MOT ION. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MR. BYRD, MRS. MEDINA, AND MRS. DERLETH VOTING YES, AND WITH MR. ROY, MR. LERAAS, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING NO, RESULTING IN A TIE VOTE. THE MOTION FAILED. MR. BYRD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MRS. MEDINA, TO CONTINUE NCU-3-78 UNTIL THE APRIL MEETING BECAUSE A DEADLOCK HAD BEEN REACHED AND IN ORDER TO HAVE THE SEVENTH MEMBER OF THE BOARD PRESENT. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. ROY VOTING NO. V-16-79 FRED R. BROWN - Variance from required front yard setback at 24322 74th Ave. W. (RT-8) This application was for reduction of the required front yard set back from 25' to 10' for a length of approximately 14'. This would not result in a rezone. The property fronts on 74th Ave. W. which is an easement the City has over the old Traction Right -of -Way, and it never will be widened. The existing house invades the setback and the applicant wished to enclose the porch area of his home. He would be building along the existing line of the house so he would not intrude into the setback more than the existing house does. It was not possible to increase the size of the home in any other way, and the house is yery small, approximately 600 sq. ft. The Staff felt this was a reasonable request because of the location. Ms. Luster recommended approval because it.was a rL�asonable-variance to make the maximum use of the property, it would not obstruct views or interfere with the traffic in the area, it appeared to be the best location for this type of addition, and because 74th W. will not be.improved. The public portion of the hearing was opened. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 5 - March 21, 1979 jw "'jB0 -`ADJUSTMENT-'� L April 18, 1979 The regular metting of the Edmonds Board of Adjustment was called to orde, by Chairwoman Alice Stole at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic.Center. PRESENT ASSENT STAFF PRESENT Alice -Stole, Chairwoman Ann Derleth Nancy Luster, Associate Planner fluryl Me.dina Jo Ann Fischer, Recording Sec'y. Paul -Roy Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Jack Byrd Bill Leraas Harold Ha tzenbuhl er he functions of the Al -ice Stole welcomed the audience and explained t _Chairwomin Board the procedure for handling of the hearings, and the method of appealing dec"isions of the Board. -%APPROVAL OF MINUTES f - the-M rch 21, 1979 meeting had been distributed. MR. JACK BYRD MOVED, MOTI ON:.� Mi nutes..-,ci a SECO.I.IDED BY MR. BILL LERAAS' TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 1979. MOTION CARRIED. NE'n B S 1.14 Selection of Vice Chairman of the Board Ms. Nancy Luster stated Fr. Hatzenbuhler had been selecteo as the Co -Chairperson, but someone else will have'to-be selected as Mr. Hatzenbuhler could rwoman Alice Stole requested nomina- not:actept the position. Chai tions:for this position. Mr.,Bill Leraas nominated Mr. Jack Byrd. how stated th at he would have to miss at leasttwo, ever, Mr. Byrd if not,thr.ee meetings during the summer months. Is. Lusta, stated could attend all of the that the Board should select someone who STOLE MOVED TO NOMINATE MR. PAUL ROY, 1"OTIO"":. meetings.. CHAIRWOMAN ALICE SECONDED BY MR. BILL LERAAS. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Paul Roy is the new3y selected Vice Chairman of the Board.of Adjustment. CONTINUED AGENDA NCU-3-78 JOHN LARUE - Non -conforming use permit to maintain a non -conforming unit at-421 Sprague Street. (RMH) Ms. Stole stated that this was a continuance from the March 21, 1979 meeting. Ms. Luster stated that this is a reouest to maintain a non- conforming unit in an exis ' ting apartment building. The structure was originally approved to allow five units, and.there are six units at this time. Ms. Luster referred to the minutes of the March 21, 1979 meetina. She further stated that the code appears to be quite clear on this matter and she read the portion of the code pertinent to this situation. Ms. Luster expressed the ooinion.of the staff in that the appl'icant did make an attempt to acquire additional property, but he was unable to. However, the staff felt that the applicant does have the option of eliminating one unit in order to bring this complex into comDliance and the escrow ' papers. a; well as the earnest money agree- meni, st ' ate that there are only five legal units. Ms. Luster stated that the staff recommends denial of this permit for theJollowing rea- sons: the applicant was aware of the non -conforming status of one unit as indicated by the earnest money agreement and the escrow papers, the applicant can reduce the number of units to the total allowed; and the innocent purchase clause in the Code does not apply in this particu- lar case. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. Chet Bennett attorney representing the applicant, stated that he wanted to thank the Board members for their efforts in his client's behalf. Mr. Bennettsaid that he was in disagreement with Ms. Luster regarding the last qualification under that ordinance per- tinent to this case because he and his applicant did not feel that this would be detrimental in any way. He asked the Board to con- siu'er the motion made during the March 21, 1979 meeting by Chair- woman Stole which failed for lack of a second wherein she moved, THAT THIS BE AMORTIZED OUT IN THREE YEARS AT WHICH TIME THE BUILDING WOULD BECOME A FIVE -UNIT BUILDING, BECAUSE I DO NOT FEEL IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD". The hearing was closed to the public. Mr. Harold Hatzenbuhler stated that he was.in agreement with the motion made by Ms. Stole at the March 21, 1979 meeting as it appear -je's problem with the additional unit. ed to be the answer to the Lar MOTION: MS. STOLE MOVED THAT THIS UNIT WOULD BE AMORTIZED OUT IN THREE DING WOULD BECOME A FIVE -UNIT BUILDING, YEARS AT WHICH TIME THE BUIL BECAUSE I DO NOT FEEL THIS ADDITIONAL STUDIO APARTMENT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO.THE HEALTH, WELFARE OR SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORS; UTIL!TY BILLS ON THIS HOWEVER� I DO FEEL THAT'THEY 1�"nU[.D PAY THE UNIT. MS. MEDINA AMENDED THE MOTION TO STATE THAT THE ABATEMENT GO INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON THE SALE -OF THE UNIT. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MP. PAUL ROY. As clarification, llir. Wayne Tanaka, City. Attorney, stated that in order to protect the potential owners, it should.be recorded that this unit will be eliminated for three years, or upon sale of the property, whichever occurred first. f1s. Stole called for a roll call vote and the vote was as follows: Ms. Stole,, yes; Ms. Medina, no; Mr. Roy, yes; Mr. Jack Byrd, no; Mr. Bill Leraas, yes; and Mr. Harold Hatzenbuhler, yes. MOTION CARRIED. V-19-79 MARK MCNAUGHTON'- Variance from required side yard setback at 21723 90;th Avenue West. (RS-8) Ms. Nancy Luster.stated that this was a variance request for a side yard setback and the applicant is asking for a 6" variance. She stated that this variance is in conjunction with a subdivision of the property and-d.id not amuunt to a rezone. Ms. Luster showed slides of the location of the house on the property noting that the house will be sitting seven feet from the driveway line that leads to Lot No. 2. '�'he said that there are no.unique features of this property and that both lots exceed the square footage requirements of the RS-8 Zone. This variance is the only way the applicant can have access to Lot 2. She went on to say that the access if 15 feet wide. The applicant does meet the lot width requirements as far as the zone is concerned and there will be adequate openarea * . Ms. Luster stated that the staff recommends approval of this request as it will not be detri- mental to the hea ' Ith, welfare or safety of neighbors in the surrounding area, it is a minimum variance, and the open area will be adequately main- .�tained. -Ms. Luster stated that she should make note of tfite petition in the -file whi.ch had been signed by several of the neighbors. The petition was turned in in conjunction with the subdivision on the pro- perty and the petitioners requested that it be placed in the file. The petition reauested that the subdivision and any subsequent vari- ,ances on that property should be denied. The public portion of the hearing was.opened. Ms. Ann Wilkinson, property owner on the other side of McNaughton's spoke stating that 80% of the people who are property owners in the area are against this variance as noted in the petition which is on file. She sai , d-that a road would present traffic and noise probiLims as well as a loss of privacy for all of the people. Ms. Judith Nelson, also a neighbor in.the area, stated that there would be a light shin- ing in their home all of the time if a driveway is put in and she questioned the safety of a driveway going passed the garage. Owner cF the property, Mark McNaughton,spoke stating that he purchased the property about seven years ago at which time it Was subdivided along with several other homes in the area and, therefore, the subdividing BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page -2.- April 18, 1979 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.dedmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT III C. Planning - Building - Engineering Olympic Vista LLC James MaIsch, Registered Agent 6824 24h Avenue Northeast Seattle, Washington 98115 RE: 421 Sprague Street, Edmonds Dear Mr. MaIsch, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR December 20, 2007 As a follow-up to City Plan Review Comments dated December 18, 2007, City records indicate the original building construction and occupancy approval for the 421 Sprague Apartment was for five (5) total units (please refer to building permit #670535 and the Certificate of Occupancy dated May 15, 1968 enclosed). Your plans submitted under permit application BLD20071210 show six units. The City Planning Division has confirmed that a maximum of five total units is permitted based on the zoning district of RMI.5. Please note that RM1.5 is the highest density zoning within the City. In preparing this letter my office discovered the following information; the City initiated code enforcement on the sixth unit against a former building owner in 1975 (see City letter dated 7/31/75 copy enclosed). In response an application was filed with the Board of Adjustments (enclosed please find Board minutes from March and April of 1979 regarding this matter). Note that at the April 1979 meeting the Board voted to amortize the sixth unit for a period of three years after which time the building would become a five unit building. The maximum number of units permitted is five and the sixth unit must be removed. Therefore, the following actions are required by you: • If the illegal unit is currently occupied you shall immediately notify the tenant of the noted code violation and demand termination of vacancy as permitted by State RCW 59.18. The City shall require inspection of the area within 45 days date of this letter to verify that the unit is not used or occupied. • You shall alter the current permit application on file with the City by no later than January 21, 2008 indicating removal of the illegal dwelling unit by changing all spaces to a common use (i.e., storage, laundry room, mechanical room, etc.). The City will review for code compliance and issue the permit in a timely manner. Removal of dwelling unit spaces shall occur within 60 days of pen -nit issuance. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 extension 1226 during City business hours. Sincerely, a~4T Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 —ictor ritti - PolrinAn _1;%�:%n 7 vl�; Ilk �:�"4:- p nu Appu t B U-1 L RTMENT ION frittide flen"Y Line$ L Y IRMIT, APPLICAT 4. / /..� C ..--! gtg4'..T.n� m ..: I., . , NAMM (OR NAME I BE SETBACK 8!DE YIID_ 7_77nn- A.. -D-- �C;NT SITE LOT AR71A USE ZONE A -0 N, EVARLARS 76-M—an -.1 t: 'crry TELEPHONE N Hit GHT A, RUH" NAME PLOT PLA�,APPROVED AD REBS I.T"E'T I/W DrrIcIENcT THIS 9P`RTY a E)CISTING STREET 11/" A TE ST. I - PT 7( CON -'I BY Z NAAM MLE I(A L f,-i r� NCE xLTEk. SIZE HVI E SIZE CLEARA: CKE KED By f r TELEPHO149 NUMBER CITY -rt C E NUMBER STATE CITY 'C"7"� TV P� CON 4ECTION 11-h F..' C.I.) D'ae,lptlol Of P—R, ts— T PERIIIT,N 0 C. i'y r REMARK8 20 :e' t �K r 0 I.Q. k:� fmt,'t.' Lis S AMPRO -Z TYPE OF CVI gONE No A T _j - r —JOCCUPANCY GROUP 10 0 YES L -F"—NCHECKED BY r,,., at CA RFiH'.NTi.1 REMAt�. ad U �K NEW atorn water to b-till DraiAaF-e of SpraEllf' St. RETAINING A" �ALL _,,aved te.Cit.*l SDOcificatinzgl.; wone-I ALTER D EXCAVATE FENCE Jj 9'4�. OR FILL h. w pnr-MOVE - 'W"M REPAIR TNSP POOL En or -.7M-,FE-R OF BTO-Eff"_ UNITS NATURE WORK TO BE Fee R-1pt Pl. Cheek _F_ROPOS�D USI... BUILDING BEAT & CAS LINE d FENCE 'RiTAINING '2A Po DEMOLITION PRE -MOVE INSPECTION EXCAVATION OR FILL q- cry e L AMOUNT DUE TOT j Mi. -Pilcatio.: 'h't the I. - I —by ..k.n.l.dg. I -A' I bav- I thl d,17 &Utbm- APPLI�AVbN APPROVAL IOMSUO, given is co,eel: and lb.1 I a. 0' ,, City w,d tata 1— MKu' Al-Ft"TION 'gant ov4e�- I �4 t + 0 ene""r -.d iii-ey- -n N"' ::-wid in dol- �4'�-iik�&ulhnit ThiS'��pj,., tating ennatt�. tu state Of w-bletc. IRIS PERMIT 'atjoIV6iS not a pernitilt Until I.:'!eI'B= at tjiv� LawT C�e Of tu Stu of w AUTFIOILIZVS 1. r 5 Dep. C�t6n Rilb THE Signed by the, lEluilding OMCIR 0 hi ONLY lee, ire paid, arid,receip� 13 Be- B uty: end . . ne Year .�Eet --ol. T10.1.1 -hie- WORK NOTE -�ged i� - NOTE: Permit Limit 0 ull'"ING, 'hall t'e knowP Space provided . j_d M '.;z hAI b -P " ' "-d wa. INSPECTION r:,jyCTOW8 SIGNA7 ONATURE D Al K 'STG —NED VNER 0 DEPARTME, CITY OF FDAIOIJDS ct 10 P!a" ChcCk Fee PH 0-110, NOTE: APPlic-ni S-bil I.,.P.CTOR CITY. OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, Sec. 306 v, L�21 SPRAGUE ST.r�FL At Occupancy established by this certificate: -5 UNITS Building ,, Permit Number—�M-535IL—_ Basement NO Type Const, V-14 Floor Load signs in place (per Sec 23o8 U.B.C.) — Capacity signs posted (per Sec. 3301 (i) U B.C.) Ploor load and room capacity. signs, whon required, "nist remain P t a' all .1imes. os ed THE APAR0 =- BUILDING HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND APPROVED AS COMPLYING WITH PROVISIONS OF THE. EDMONDS BUILDING CODE AND WITH UNIFORM BUILDING CODES. Issued this.— 15th day of May CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL By This certificate sha]d be posted In a conspicuous public area and shall not be removed, mutilated or obscured and sha 11 be main tained in legible condition -at all.times. Any change of occupancy rc4uires a.new certificate. STRE'ET FILE STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE, AND THAT THE VARIANCE BE'DENIED BECAUSE IT IS NOT A MINIMUM VARIANCE NOR A HARDSHIP. On question by Mr. Roy to the City Attorney, Mr. Tanaka said that since the motion was to deny, it would be best to omit the reference to the second accessory building and leave it to'the City Staff to see that it is removed. MRS. MEDINA AMENDED HER MOT1014 TO DELETE THAT PORTION REGARDING THE STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE. MRS. DERLETH SECONDED THE MOTION AS AMENDED. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH MRS. MEDINA, MRS. DERLETH, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING YES, WITH MR. BYRD AND MR. LERAAS VOTING NO, AND WITH MR. ROY ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT FOR THE PREVIOUS HEARING ON THIS ITEM. THE MOTION CARRIED. AGENDA NCU-3-78 JOHN LaRUE - Nonconforming Use Permit to maintain a nonconforming unit at AD Spra ' Si` �;(RMHI) _gue Ms. Luster distributed copies of an Earnest Money Agreement executed by the applicant at the time this property was purchased. The Agreement indicated the property had a Building Permit for five units only'and that income for five units only was considered in the agreement. The structure currently was leasing six units, one of which was nonconforming. Ms. Luster said the applicant had the options of acquiring sufficient property to make up the square footage required for the sixth unit or to reduce the number of units to comply with the Code. She read aloud 12.15.180(e) of the Code, regarding the issuance of a Nonconforming Unit Permit. There are three �equirements for such a permit, and Ms. Luster indicated the applicant met the first two but he did not meet the third. That states that the owner must have purchased the multi -family dwelling on good faith with no knowledge of the nonconforTning unit.. Because the Earnest Money Agreement stated there were only five units, he was aware that there were five legal un.its and that the other unit was not a legal unit. Ms. Luster recommended denial of the application because the applicant was aware of the nonconforming status of one unit as indicated by the Earnest Money Agreement and the escrow papers, the.applicant could reduce the number of units to the total allowed, and the innocent purchaser clause in the Code does not apply in this case. She showed a slide of the property, saying she believed the storage area in the building was converted to an additi ' onal unit which has one bedroom. They are not paying utilities individually on that unit. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Chet Bennett, attorney representing the applicant, said the building was constructed'in 1967 as a five -unit structure. He submitted to Chairman Stole a rental agreement on the structure from 1969. He said the two storage units under the stairs were combined in 1969 to make one rental unit and three owners prior to the LaRues had rented this building out as six units. He noted that all of the information regarding this building, had been provided by the LaRues and he asked Ms. Luster if there would be a serious environmental impact if the sixth unit were to continue. She responded there would not. Mr. Bennett suggested that the applicants covenant with the City to phase out the sixth unit and remove the kitchen facilities at the conclusion of five years, giving them an opportunity to amortize their investment. He said they would put up a bond to that effect and the ordinance required they would have to pay the back utilities. Mrs. LaRue stated that they were novices in negotiating for income property and had taken the word of their real estate agent that there would not be any problem with the extra unit and that all they would have to do was ask for a variance and a new ordinance coming on the books would grandfather it'in. Mrs. Derleth asked her if they had inquired of the City regarding that ordinance or a permit and they had not. This matter had come to the attention of the City as the result of a Fire Department inspection. The public portion of the hearing was closed. The applicants were asked questions regarding the units. They stated the rent amounts for each of the units and said five have individual utility meters and the sixth meter is for the house lights and laundry and the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Pdge 4 - March 21, 1979 0 0 sixth unit is wired to that meter. They have seven parking spaces but at the time the building was constructed they met the parking requirements for five units. In order to legalize the sixth unit they would have to acquire additional square footage, provide additional parking, take care of the utilitybillingrequirements, and meet the Uniform Building Code requirements. Mr. Byrd asked if the phase -out suggested by Mr. Bennett would be an appropriate remedy and whether the -Board had the authority to do that. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka advised that the only authority the Board had was to issue the Nonconforming Use Permit. He said the phase -out of the nonconforming unit was not at issue because the Board was not empowered by the Code to do that. Chairman Stole suggested offering the unit as storage space and raising the apartment rentals accordingly, but Mrs. LaRue said there already was adequate storage provided. Mr..Tanaka then said he did not believe anything would prohibit the Board from imposing a limited time permit if the criteria were met. Mr. Leraas noted that the LaRues had been open and Above board and this building had been in existence this way since 1969. He felt the Board should be able to give the LaRues some kind of relief. Mr. Roy agreed, commenting that the type of rental units the LaRues had were needed and there was nothing to be gained by removing the.sixth unit. Mrs. Derleth was troubled by the Earnest Money Agreement, and yet she said she understood that in the enthusiasm to sell such comments could be made regarding the ease of getting a permit. She felt, however, that if such comments were made to her, she would contact the City to verify them. MR. ROY THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, TO APPROVE NCU-3-78 BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT.BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BECAUSE HE FELT THERE WAS NOT MUCH TO GAIN BY ELIMINATING THE SIXTH UNIT. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MR. ROY AND MR. LERAAS VOT114G YES, AND MRS. MEDINA, MR. BYRD, MRS. DERLETH, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING NO. THE MOTION FAILED. Mr. Byrd stated that he could not vote for the motion because he felt that would exceed the authority of the Board, and Mrs. Derleth agreed. CHAIRMAN STOLE THEN MOVED THAT THIS BE AMORTIZED OUT IN THREE YEARS AT WHICH TIME THE BUILDING WOULD BECOME A FIVE -UNIT BUILDING, BECAUSE SHE DID NOT FEEL IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. She added that she felt they should pay their utility bills. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mrs. Derleth said she was looking at the criteria and at the Earnest Money Agreement, and that Agreement definitely stated that there was knowledge. Mr. Byrd added that there may have been some fraud imposed on the LaRues but the knowledqe was there and the Board has certain criteria to follow. MR. BYRD THEN MOVED, IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS, THAT NCU-3-78 BE DENIED. MRS. MEDINA SECONDED THE MOTION. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MR. BYRD, MRS. ,MEDINA, AND MRS. DERLETH VOTING YES, AND WITH MR. ROY, MR. LERAAS, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING NO, RESULTING IN A TIE VOTE. THE MOTION FAILED. MR. BYRD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MRS. MEDINA, TO CONTINUE NCU-3-78 UNTIL THE APRIL MEETING BECAUSE A DEADLOCK HAD BEEN REACHED AND IN ORDER TO HAVE THE SEVENTH MEMBER OF THE BOARD PRESENT.' MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. ROY VOTING NO. V-16-79 FRED R. BROWN - Variance from required front yard setback at 24322 74th Ave. W.. (RS-8) This application was for reduction of the required front yard set back from 25' to 10' for a length of approximately 14'. This would not result in a rezone. The property fronts on 74th Ave. W. which is an easement the City has over the old Traction Right -of -Way, and it never will be widened. The existing house invades the setback and the applicant wished to enclose the porch area of his home. He would be building along the existing line of the house so he would not intrude into the setback more than the existing house does. It was not possible to increase the size of the home in any other way, and the house is yery small, approximately 600 sq. ft. The Staff felt this was a reasonable request because of the location. Ms. Luster recommended approval because it. was a reasonable variance to make the maximum use of the property, it would not obstruct views or interfere with the traffic in the area, it appeared to be the best location for this type of addition, and because 74th W. will not beimproved. The public portion of the hearing was opened. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 5 - March� 21, 1979 April 18, 1979 The regular mestino of the Edmonds Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chairwoman Alice Stole at 7:35 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. Ann Derleth Nancy Luster, Associate Planner Alice Stole, Chairv.,cman huryl Medina Jo Ann Fischer, Recording Sec'y. Paul Poy Wayne Tanaka, CitY:Attorney Jack Byrd .8111-Leraas Harold Hatzenbuhler '.Chairworl,%n Alice Stole welcomed:the audience and explained the functions of the B rd.' the procedi.ire for handling of the hearings, and the method of appealing oa A. decisions of the Boar -CIF MINUTES APPROVAL ed. MR. JACK BYRD MOVED, -TION: Minutes,of the.March 21_1979 meeting had been distribut %.MC MOTION SECON'DED BY,MR. BILL LERAAS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 1979. CARRIED'. __SS NEI I B LI'S 1 114 Selection of Vice Cha;rman of the Board Ms. Nancy Luster stated Mr. Hatzenbuhler had been selecteo as the Co -Chairperson, but Hatzenbuhler could someone else will have to be,selected as Mr not'accept the position. Chairwoman Alice Stolerequested nomina tions for this position. Mr. Bill Leraas nominated Mr. Jack Byrd however, Mr. Byrd stated that he would have to miss at leasttwo, onths. Ms. Luster stated if not,three meetings. during the summer m that the Board should select someone who could attend all of the -.MOT I OIN: meetings. CHAIRWOMAN ALICE STOLE MOVED TO NOMINATE MR. PAUL ROY. Anni rrN U D. I Ro is SECONDED BY MIR. BILL LtK,1%AZl. Flu I L UN L u j the new.y.selected Vice Chairman of the Board of Adjustment. CONTINUED AGENDA NCU-3-78 JOHN LARUE - Non -conforming use permit to maintain a non -conforming unit at 421 Sprague Street. (RMH) Ms. Stole stated that this was a continuance from the March 21, 1979 meeting. Ms. Luster stated that this is a'reauest to maintain a non- conforming unit in an existing apartment building ' The structure was originally approved to allow five units, and there are six units at this time. Ms. Luster referred to the minutes of the Marc h 21, 1979 .neetina. She further stated that the code appears to be quite clear on this matter and she read the portion of the code pertinent to this situation. Ms. Luster expressed the oDinion of the staff in that the applicant did make an attempt to acquire additional property, but he was unable to. However, the staff felt that the applicant does have the option of eliminating one unit in order to bring this complex into comoliance and the escrow papers, a; well as the earnest money agree- meni, state that there are only five legal units. Ms. Luster stated that the staff recommends denial of this permit for theJollowing rea- sons: the applicant was aware of the non -conforming status of one unit as indicated by the earnest money agreement and the escrow papers; the applicant can reduce the number of units to the total allowed; and the innocent purchase clause in the Code does not apply in this particu- lar case. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Ar. Chet Bennett attorney representing the applicant, stated that he wanted to thank the Board members for their efforts in his client's behalf. Mr. Bennettsaid that he was in disagreement with Ms. Luster regarding the last qualification under that ordinance per- tinent to this case because he and his applicant did not feel that this would be detrimental in any way. He asked the Board to con- siu'er the motion made during the March 21, 1979 meeting by Chair- woman Stole which failed for lack of a second wherein she moved, " THAT THIS BE AMORTIZED OUT IN THREE YEARS AT WHICH TIME THE BUILDING WOULD BECOME A FIVE -UNIT BUILDDNG, BECAUSE I DO NOT FEEL IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD". The hearing was closed to the public. Mr. Harold Hatzenbuhler stated that he was in agreement with the motion made by Ms. Stole at the March 21, 1979 meeting as it appear- ed to be the answer to the Larve's problem with the additional unit. MOTION: MS. STOLE MOVED THAT THIS UNIT WOULD BE AMORTIZED OUT IN THREE YEARS AT WHICH TIME THE BUILDING WOULD BECOME A FIVE -UNIT BUILDING, BECAUSE I DO NOT FEEL THIS ADDITIONAL STUDIO APARTMENT WOULD.BE DETRIME14TAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE OR SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORS; HOWEVER I DO FEEL THAT'THEY I�HnUI�D PAY THE UTILITY BILLS ON THIS UNIT. MS. MEDINA AMENDED THE MOTION TO STATE THAT THE ABATEMENT THE MOTION GO INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON.TK SALE OF THE UNIT. WAS SECbNDtD BY MR. PAUL ROY. As cl.arification, Mr. Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney, stated that in order to 1rotect the potential owners, it should be recorded that this unit will be eliminated for three years, or upon sale of the property, whichever occurred first. 11s. Stole called for a roll call vote and the vote was as follows: Ms. Stole, yes; Ms. Medina, no; Mr. Roy, yes; Mr. Jack Byrd, no; Mr. Bill Leraas, yes; and Mr. Harold Hatzenbuhler, yes. MOTION CARRIED. V-19-79 MARK MCNAUGHTON - Variance from required side yard setback at 21723 99th Avenue West. (RS-8) Ms. Nancy Luster stated that this was a variance request for a side vard setback and the applicant is asking for.a 6".variance. She stated that this variance is in conjunction with a subdivision of the property and did not amount to a rezone. Ms. Luster showed slides of the location of the house on the property noting that the house w. be sitting seven feet from the driveway line that leads to Lot No. 2. She said that there are no unique features of this property and that both lots exceed the square footage requirements of the RS-8 Zone. This variance is the only way the applicant can have access to Lot 2. She went on to say that the access if 15 feet wide. The applicant does meet the lot width requirements as far as the zone is concerned and -there will be adequate open area.. Ms. Luster stated that the staff recommends apDroval of this request as it will not be detri- mental to the health, welfare or safety of neighbors in the surrounding area, it is a minimum variance, and the open area will be adequately main- tained. Ms. Luster stated that she should make note of tile petition in the file which had been signed by several o . f the neighbors. The petition was turned in in conjunction with the subdivision on the pro- perty and the petitioners requested that it be placed in the file. The petition reauested that the subdivision and any subsequent vari- ances on that property should be denied. The public portion of the hearing was opened. - Ms. Ann Wilkinson, property owner on the other side of McNaughton's spoke stating that 80% of the people who are property owners in the area are against this variance as noted in the petition which is on file. She said that a road would present traffic and noise probitims as well as a loss of privacy for all of the people. Ms. Judith Nelson, also a neighbor in 'the area, stated that there would be a light shin- ing in their home all of the time if a driveway is put in and she questioned the safety of a driveway going passed the garage. Owner of the property, Mark McNaughton,spoke stating that he purchased the property about seven years ago at which time it was subdivided along with several other homes in the area and, therefore, the subdividing BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page -2- April 18, 1979 CITY OF EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT - 7110 — 210TH ST. S.W. EDMONDS, WA 98026 (425) 771-0235 - FAX (425) 744-6057 - E-MAIL: k1ein&i.edmondsma.us WEB SITE: www.d.edmondsma.us February 23, 1999 STREET 4 Roy Ghazimorad 421 Sprague St Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Water Leak Credit Dear Mr. Ghazimorad: BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR I have reviewed your account and will allow a credit for the billing period between December 3, 1998 and January 8, 1999 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 cusfomer 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 rec ' eive your new billing, please contact Denise Burke, Utility Billing Clerk, at 771-0241. Sincerely, Jim Waite Water/Sewer Supervisor JW/lk cc: Denise Burke Utility Billing Clerk wordata\water\crcdit99\#602725 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 0 RECEIvED JAN 2 7 1999 PUBLIC January 18, 1999 Dear Nft. Waite: I am writing at the recommendation of one the staff of City of Edmonds Utility Department. Last month during the hard freeze our shut off valve, outside of 421 Spargue street, cracked and we did not discover the crack for several days. Since the break in die pipe was outside of the building and the water ran under the house for several days, it took us a while to discover it and fix it. At the end we pumped about 15,000 gallons of water out of the crawl space under the house. Since then, we have not only fixed the crack, we have also installed the proper Ball Valve and new Pressure Valve. We are also planning to change all the galvanized pipes and replace them With copper pipes. I would like to request adjustment of my water bill for the month of January; I appreciate your assistance in this matter. cerely, I M-11 ' 0I . 'A.'4 Roy Ghaiimorad )of Edmonds Combined Utility PO Box 2008 "Ok �"; 4, kssw�'['t Sr -F RS-T-c-L-) E '4 U.S. POSTAGE PAID Edmonds WA 98020-2008 FORWARDING SERVICE REQU EDMONDS, WA -0241 (425)771 PERMI _ 3 _j 3NQ JAX 114'9 9 -C c . 1 '6 , il SANITARY SEWER RATES WILL INCREASE BY 15'-P4ERC7t:N-t0737 City of Edmonds EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1999. THIS RATE TINICREASE WAS REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH FEDERAL AND STATE CLEAN Edmonds Combined Utility WATER MANDATES. I THERE IS NO INCREASE IN STORMWATER WATER - WASTEWATER RATES. ****MULTI -FAMILY PROPERTY OWNERS & MANAGERS _ST0RMW4TEF,?jDRA1NA COLLECTION AVAILABLE TO YOUR TENANTS? IS RECYCLING IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS, CLEAN PAPER, CARDBOARD, TIN AICL,'� Fe- & ALUM. CANS, AND PLASTIC POP BOTTLES & MILK JUGS 1\�16111 Iq CAN BE PLACED IN ONE COLLECTION CONTAINER, AT NO '.,,�'.LEXTRA CHARGE. CALL YOUR HAULER - SOUND DISPOSAL SERVICE ADDRESS: i 421 SPRAGUE ST Z� ot 01 ��AETEF4 R, E,4 D.I�dSVb 2 2753 2865 112 12/03/98 1/08/99 ACCOUNT NUMBER 6-02725 SERVICE ADDRESS 421 SPRAGUE ST 1 178.81 2 10.28 3 92.34 4 9.18 ACCOUNT NUMBER: PAST DUE AFTER: 1/26/99 AMOUNT DUE: 290.61 GHAZIMORAD ROY 5121 NE 201ST RETURN THIS z 0� KEEP THIS WOODINVILLE, WA ?8072 PORTION 0 PORTION WITH YOUR FORYOUR PAYMENT < w RECORDS AUTO 290.61 PAST DUE AFTER 1/26/99 UMMASMNT Ci to Edmonds PAGE 2 02/19/99 10:33 Print Master File Account Details Account: 6-02725 History ---------------------------- 1) Water Surcharge Sewer Misc Fees DEP: Unapp Total 2) Penalty StrmDrain DEP: Balance Read Date Sery Days Read 1 Read 2 Read 3 Consumptio Avg/Day (memo] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 02/16/99 Water 02/05/99 28 2887 0 0 .22 0.785 B 1 61.81 3.55 105.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.44 Balance: 471.05 01/15/99 M-C 1/15 WRITING TO JIM ABOUT LEAK 01/14/99 Water OR/ 68/99 36 2865 0 0 112 3.111 B 1 178.81 10.28 92.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 290.61 Balance: 290.61 12/28/98 R 1 61.81- 3.55- 92.34- 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18- 0.00 0.00 0.00 166.88- Balance: 0.00 12/16/98 Water 12/03/98 28 2753 0 0 22 0.785 B 1 61.81 3.55 92.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 166.88 Balance: 166.88 11/30/98 R 1 60.51- 3.48- 92.34- 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18- 0.00 0.00 0.00 165.51- Balance: 0.00 11/17/98 Water 11/05/98 28 2731 0 0 21 0.750 B 1 60.51 3.48 92.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 165.51 Balance: 165.51 10/21/98 R 1 67.01- 3.85- 92.34- 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18- 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.38- Balance: 0.00 10/14/98 Water 10/08/98 34 2710 0 0 26 0.764 B 1 67.01 3.85 92.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.38 Balance: 172.38 09/21/98 R 1 61.81- 3.55- 92.34- 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18- 0.00 0.00 0.00 166.88- Balance; 0.00 09/16/98 Water 09/04/98 29 2684 0 0 22 0.758 B 1 61.81 3.55 92.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 166.88 Balance: 166.88 08/24/98 R 1 76.11- 4.38- 92.34- 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18- 0.00 0.00 0.00 182.01- UMMASMNT Cito Edmonds PAGE 30 02/19/99 10:33 Print Master File Account Details Account: 6-02725 a History 1) Water Surcharge Sewer Misc Fees DEP: Unapp Total 2) Penalty StrmDrain DEP: Balance Read Date Sery Days Read I Read 2 Read 3 Consumptic, Avg/Day (Memo] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Balance: 0.00 08/18/98 Water 08/06/98 31 2662 0 0 33 1.064 B 1 76.11 4.38 92.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 182.01 Balance: 182.01 07/23/98 R 1 64.41- 3.70- 92.34- 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18- 0.00 0.00 0.00 169.63- Balance: 0.00 07/15/98 Water 07/06/98 32 2629 0 0 24 0.750 B 1 64.41 3.70 92.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00. 9.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 169.63 Balance: 169.63 06/18/98 R 1 64.41- 3.70- 92.34- 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18- 0.00 0.00 0.00 169.63- Balance: 0.00 06/12/98 Water 06/04/98 30 2605 0 0 24 0.800 B 1 64.41 3.70 92.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 169.63 Balance: 169.63 06/03/98 R 1 67.01- 3.85- 92.34- 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18- 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.38- Balance; 0.00 05/12/98 Water 05/05/98 33 2581 0 0 26 0.787 B 1 67.01 3.85 92.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 0.00 9.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.38 Balance: 172.38 04/20/98 R 1 61.81- 3.55- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.96- Balance; 0.00 04/15/98 Water 04/02/98 28 2555' 0 0 22 0.785. B 1 61.81 3.55 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.96 Balance: 173.96 03/24/98 R 1 61.81- 3.55- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.96- Balance: 0.00 03/17/98 Water 03/05/98 27 2533 0 0 22 0.814 B 1 61.81 3.55 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.96 Balance: 173 .96 02/17/98 R 1 57.91- 3.33- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 169.84- Balance: 0.00 02/12/98 Water 02/06/98 28 2511 0 0 19 0.678 UMMASMNT Cito Edmonds PAGE 4 02/19/99 10:33 Print Master File Account Details Account: 6-02725 History 1) Water Surcharge Sewer Misc Fees DEP: Tinapp Total 2) Penalty StrmDrain DEP: Balance Read Date Sery Days Read 1 . Read 2 Read 3 Consumptio Avg/Day [Memo] --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- B 1 57.91 3.33 108.60 0.00 0.00 169.84 Balance: 169.84 01/27/98 R 1 64.41- 3.70- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 176.71- Balance: 0.00 01/15/98 Water 01/09/98 '32 2492 0 0 24 0.750 B 1 64.41 3.70 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.60 176.71 Balance: 176.71 12/29/97 R 1 55.31- 3.18- 108.60- .0.00 0.00 0.00 167.09- Balance: 0.00 12/18/97 Water 12/08/97 32 2468 0 0 17 0.531 B 1 55.31 3.18 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 167.09 Balance: 167.09 12/02/97 R 1 57.91- 3.33- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 169.84- Balance: 0.00 11/20/97 Water 11/06/97 30 2451 0 0 19 0.633 B 1 57.91 3.33 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 169.84 Balance: 169.84 11/05/97 R 1 60.51- 3.48- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.59- Balance: 0.00 10/20/97 Water 10/07/97 32 2432 0 0 21, 0.656 B 1 60.51 3�48 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.59 Balance: 172.59 09/23/97 R 1 68.31- 3.93- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.84- Balance: 0.00 09/18/97 Water 09/05/97 30' 2411 0 0 27 0.900 B 1 68.31 3.93 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.84 Balance: 180.84 08/25/97 R 1 61.81- 3.55- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.96- Balance; 0.00 08/18/97 .Water 08/06/97 29' 2384 0 0 22 0.758 B 1 61.81 3.55 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.96 Balance: 173.96 07/29/97 R 1 61.81- 3.55- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.96- Balance: .0.00 07/�5/97 Water 07/08j97 34 2362 0 0 .22 0.647 B 1 61.81 3.55 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.96 Balance: 173.96 07/01/97 UMMASMNT Cito Edmonds PAGE 5 02/19/99 10:33 Print Master File Account Details Account: 6-02725 History 1) Water Surcharge Sewer Misc Fees DEP: Unapp Total 2) Penalty StrmDrain DEP: Balance Read Date Sery Days Read 1 Read 2 Read 3 Consumptio Avg/Day (Memo) ------------------------ ------------------------------------------------- R 1 57.91- 3.33- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 169.84- Balance: 0.00 06/18/97 Water 06/04/97 29 2340 0 0 19 0.655 B 1 57.91 3.33 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 169.84 Balance: 169.84 06/11/97 R 1 61.81- 3.55- 108.60- 0.00 0.00, 0.00 173.96- Balance: 0.00 05/19/97 Water 05/06/97 33 2321 0 0 22 0.666 B 1 61.81 3.55 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.96. Balance: 173.96 04/29/97 R 1 59.21- 3.40- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 171.21- Balance: 0.00 04/17/97 Water 04/03/97 27 2299 0 0 20 0.740 B 1 59.21 3.40 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 171.21 Balance: 171.21 03/25/97 R 1 72.21- 4.15- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 184.96- Balance: 0.00 03/14/97 Water 03/07/97 28 2279 0 0 30 1.071 B 1 72.21 4.15 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 184.96 Balance: 184.96 02/28/97 R 1 61.81- 3.55- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.96- Balance: 0.00 02/20/97 Water 02/07/97 31 2249 0 0 22 0.709 B 1 61.81 3.55 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.96 Balance: 173.96 01/28/97 R 1 68.31- 3.93- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.84- Balance: 0.00 01/16/97 Water 01/07/97 32 2227 0 0 i7 0.843 B 1 68.31 3.93 108.60 0.00. 0.00 0.00 180.84 Balance: 180.84 01/02/97 R 1 68.31- 3.93- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.84- Balance: 0.00 12/17/96 Water 12/06/96 32 2200 0 0 27 0.843 B 1 68.31 3.93 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.84 Balance: 180.84 12/02/96 R . 1 61.81- 3.55- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 .0.00 173.96- Balance: 0.00 11/18/96 UMMASMNT iO Edmonds PAGE '6 02/19/99 10:33 Print Master File Account Details Account: 6-02725 History 1) Water Surcharge Sewer Misc Fees DEP: Unapp Total 2) Penalty StrmDrain DEP: Balance Read Date Sery Days Read I Read 2 Read 3 _Consumptio Avg/Day (Memo] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Water 11/04/96 32 2173 0 0 .22 0.687 B 1 61.81 3.55 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 173.96 Balance: 173.96 10/29/96 R 1 65.71- 3.78- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.09- Balance: 0.00 10/17/96 Water 10/03/96 29 2151 0 0 25 0.862 B 1 65.71 3.78 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.09 Balance: 178.09 09/24/96 R 1 72.21- 4.15- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 184.96- Balance: 0.00 09/19/96 Water 09/04/96 34 2126 0 0 30 0.882 B 1 72.21 4.15 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 184.96 Balance: 184.96 08/30/96 R 1 64.41- 3.70- 108.60- 6.00 0.00 0.00 176.71- Balance: 0.00 08/19/96 Water 08/01/96 30 2096 0 0 24 0.800 B 1 64.41 3.70 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 176.71 Balance: 176.71 07/30/96 R 1 63.11- 3.63- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.34- Balance: 0.00 07/17/96 Water 07/02/96 28 2072 0 0 23 0.821 B 1 63.11 3.63 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.34 Balance: 175.34 07/02/96 R 1 63.11- 3.63- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.34- Balance: 0.00 06/18/96 Water 06/04/96 32 2049 0 0 23 0.718 B 1 63.11 3.63 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.34 Balance: 175.34 05/28/96 R 1 67.01- 3.85- 108.60- 0.00 0. 00 0.00 179.46- Balance: 0.00 05/16/96 Water 05/03/96 31 2026 0 0 26 0.838 B 1 67.01 3.85 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 179.46 Balance: 179.46 04/25/96 R 1 67.01- 3.85- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 179.46- Balance: 0.00 04/17/96 Water 04/02/96 28 2000 0 0 26 0.928 B 1 67.01 3.85 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 179.46 balance: 179.46 UMMASMNT Ci to Edmonds PAGE 'o 02/19/99 10:33 Print Master File Account Details Account: 6-02725 History 1) Water Surcharge Sewer Misc Fees DEP: Unapp Total 2) Penalty StrmDrain DEP: Balance Read Date Sery Days Read I Read 2 Read 3 Consumptic, Avg/Day [memo] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 03/26/96 R 1 60.51- 3.48- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.59- Balance: 0.00 03/19/96 water 03/05/96 29 1974 0 0 21 0.724 B 1 60.51 3.48 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.59 Balance: 172.59 03/01/96 R 1 60.51- 3.48- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.59- Balance: 0.00 02/16/96 Water 02/05/96 28 1953 0 0 21 0.750 B 1 60.51 3.48 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 172.59 Balance: 172.59 01/24/96 R 1 68.31- 3.93- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.84- Balance: 0.00 01/18/96 Water 01/08�96 34 1932 0 0 27 0.794 B 1 68.31 3.93 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.84 Balance: 180.84 01/03/96 R 1 68.31- 3.93- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.84- Balance: 0.00 12/18/95 Water 12/05/95 32 1905 0 0 27 0.843 B 1 68.31 3.93 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.84 Balance: 180.84 11/27/95 R 1 63.11- 3.63- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.34- Balance: 0.00 If/16/95 Water 11/03/95 31 i878 0 0 23 0.741 B 1 63.11 3.63 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.34 Balance: 175.34 10/26/95 R 1 68.31- 3.93- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.84- Balance: 0.00 10/18/95 Water 10/03/95 32 1855 0 0 27 0.843 B 1 68.31 3.93 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.84 Balance: 180.84 09/26/95 R 1 63.11- 3.63- 108.60- 0. 00 0.00 0.00 175.34- Balance: 0.00 09/18/95 Water 09/01/95 30 1828 0 0 23 0.766 B 1 63.11 3.63 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.34 Balance: 175.34 08/28/95 R 1 63.11- 3.63- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.34- Balance: 0.00 UMMASMNT citoEdmonds PAGE 8 02/19/99 10:33 Print Master File Account,Details Account: 6-02725 History --------------- 1) Water Surcharge Sewer Misc Fees DEP: Unapp 9�otal 2) Penalty StrmDrain DEP: Balance Read Date Sery Days Read 1 R . ead 2 Read 3 Consumptio Avg/Day. [Memo] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 08/18/95 Water 08/02/95 30 1805 0 0 23 0.766 B 1 63.11 3.63 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.34 Balance: 175.34 07/29/95 R 1 68.31- 3.93- 108.60- 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.84- Balance: 0.00 07/18/95 Water, 07/03/95 17 1782 0 0 27 1.588 B 1 68.31 3.93 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 180.84 Balance: 180.84 06/19/95 Water 06/16/95 44 1755 0 0 23 0.522_ B 1 63;11 3.63 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.34 Balance: 0.00 06/29/95 R 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.34- 175.34- Balance: 175.34- 05/18/95 Water 05/03/95 29 1732 0 0 24 0.827 B .1 64.41 3.70 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 176.71 Balance: 0.00 05/24/95 R 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 176.71- 176.71- Balance: 176.71- 04/17/95 Water 04/.04/95 28 1708 0. �O 25 0.892 B 1 65.71 3.78 108.60 0.-00 0.00 0.00 178.09 Balance: 0.00 04/21/95 R 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.09- 178.09- Balance: 178.09- 03/27/95 R 1 176.71- 0.00 O�00 0.00 0.00 0.00 176.71- Balance: 0.00 03/16/95 Water 00/00/00 31 1683 0 0 24 0.774 B 1 64.41 3.70 108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 176.71 Balance: 0.00 02/28/95 R 1 171.21- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 171.21- Balance: 0.00 02/18/95 Water 00/00/00 26 1659 0 0 20 0.769 B 1 59.21 3.40 .108.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 171.21 Balance: 0.00 01/26/95 R 1 175.34- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.34- Balance: 0.00 01/18/95 Water 00/06/00 33 1639 0 0 �j3_ 0.696 B 1 63.11 3.63 108.�O 0.00 0.00 0.00 175.34 UMMASMNT Ci* Edmonds PAGE 9 02/19/99 10:33 Print master File Account Details Account: 6-02725 History 1) Water Surcharge Sewer Misc Fees DEP: Unapp Total 2) Penalty StrmDrain DEP: Balance Read Date Sery Days Read 1 Read 2 Read 3 Consumptio Avg/Day (Memo) --------- I ----------------------- I ------- ------------------------------ Balance: 0.00 01/03/95 R 1 178.09- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 178.09- Balance: 0.00 UMMASMNT io Edmonds 02/19/99 10:33 Print Master File Account Details Account: 6-02725 Screen I I -** Tenant Information 01 Name ' GRAZIMORAD ROY 02 Care of 03 Addr 1 421 SPRAGUE ST 04 Addr 2 05 City EDMONDS. 06 State WA 07 Zip 98020-3154 08 Phone (000) 000-0000 PAGE Owner Information 10 Name GRAZIMORAD ROY 11 Care of 12 Addr 1 5121 NE 201ST 13 Addr 2 14 City WOODINVILLE 15 State WA 16 Zip 98072 17 Phone (206) 483-8863 09 Status A 19 Water 240.62 ===M6ter Reading Information== 20 Surcharge 13.83 18 Location 421 SPRAGUE ST 21 Sewe r 198.24 Current Previous 22 StrmDrain 18.36 26 Curr 22 27 Date 02/05/99 28 01/08/99 23 Previous Due 290.61 29 YTD 13.4 30 Rdng 2887 31 2865 24 Current Due 180.44 34 LTD 1228 32 Rdng 0 33 0 25 Balance 471.05 35 Meter #: 8758 .36 Location 37 Extension Dt 00/00/00 VILLAGE APTS IN US 38 Acct Setup. 00/00/00 39 Last Pay 12/28/98 40 Last Bill 02/16/99 41 Due Date 03/01/99 Screen 2 Misc Codes Rate Codes Units ***Meter Info*** 01 Status A 14 Water 652 1 1/2 15 6.00 26 Meter BrndSR 02 Type 01 16 SurchargeOO1 TAX 17 1.00 27 Meter #: 8758 03 Cycle 01 18 Sewer . 650 APTS 19 6.00 28 ID Meter 04 In/Out 1 20 StrmDrain005 STDRN 21 2.48 29 Type M C 05 Sort Cd 0000 22 Misc 000 NOCHG 23 0.00 30 # Readings 1 06 Est Flag N 24 Penalty 25 0.00 31 Meas Code HCF 07 #Tenant 32 Install Dt 06/21/88 08 #Owner 1 33 Shutoff Dt 00/00/00 09 Respon? 0 34 Route 601 35 Sequ 10900 10 Penalty N 36 Codes SE52E 11 Past Note B 37 ADDR CODE 1 00 12 Shut Note B 38 ADDR CODE 2 00 13 Account Info 39 Hist Memol 40 Hist Memo2 J-7 ,.,LTY 0 e', 'BU ESS LICENSE APPLICATION DA#3?� ' �le ICENSE NO. CITY of EDMONDS Civic �enter Edmonds, Washington 98020 City Clerk Phone 775-2525 PENALTY AFTER FEB. 15 ION 0 HOW OCCUPAT 1KICT0Hf'TInKIC CLA�S I YEAR. LIC. EFFEC. DATE REASG. LIC. NO. SPEC. $1NQ ADDITIONAL15M 0 (A) All items must be completed 0 SMALL BI or application will not be ac- RECEIPT NO. DATE PAID PRINT 'XI A- $15.00 ,'I N 13OX cepted. I _-:� -1/W) �� EC. C3 Business - "' -- .1 Sign and return application L FEE PAID PENALTY PAID CORRECTED LICENSE WITH with fee. Renewals received 'LC' ACTION. after February 15 iflust pay penalty in addition to fee. NEW BUSINESSES AFTER JULY 31, 1/2 FEE. (PLEASE MAKE ANY NECESSARY CHANG NAME OF FIRM BUSINESS PHONE NO. OF EMPLOYEES T-jj-,C--V/j-1-M7'E j,9-PARTh1jFA/T-5 -77&e-o��,F MAILING ADDRESS NATURE OF BUSINESS �2 o 3 a �4- R-7`�- 14viE: LV ,ET)MC-9AID�5'i Wtq <7 �?o *2-0 DITIONAL $7.50 0 � v or j� j oyees ADDI AL $25.00 0 00 (C) -1�1 ';< NEW APPLICATION (LA) • RENEWAL (LB) • CHANGE (LC) • DELETE (LD) BUSINESS ADDRESS \occlmtou C?,q62-,0 INDIVIDUAL PARTNERSHIP CORPORATION 4-1-21 -!E�PADWLAF tAIA Ij (S) (P) P OWNERS NAME. Joi-flv HOME ADDRI�-Ss WA q6'0 2 C, HOM PHO§., �AT -EjOF BIRTH P. A 09WO;2 SECURITJ NUMBER I SOCIAL, z/ — �":2 e-�k9 7.- EMERGENCY NOTIFICATIO14: (1) NAI�`IE & TELEP'OONE x (PLEASE LIST TWO) (2) NAME & TELEPHONE 4 4-E& 8 14 4-75*—Ir- 6 1 WASHINGTON STATE TAX NO. APPLICANT'S SIGNATURE STAFF REVIEW: DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE FILL IN LAND USE CODE, UFIR NUMBERS, ZONING, ETC. CHECK APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL, DATE, AND SIGN. IF DISAPPROVAL, PLEASE COMPLETE "COMMENT" SECTION. ROUTE TO NEXT DEPARTMENT ON LIST. I PLANNING DEPARTMENT 3 DATE 1�'6-'kl LAND USE CODE ZONING CODE APPROVE 0 DISAPPROVE f 13 SIGNATURE P (/ // COND'ITIONAL USE PERMIT COMMENTS STRE&.T FILE BUJkDING DEPARTMENT DATE Building E) Hotel/Motel Ef APPROVE 0 DISAPPROVE SIGNATURE Permit 0 Apt. Bldg. (L) (A) I I I I I I ED Office Bldg. (0) Occupancy 13 Restaurant (R) COMMENTS: Group 0 Hosp/Nurs Home (H) CAPACITY: (NO. UNITS, APTS., OFFICES, SEATS, BEDS, STUDENTS) 0 School (S) FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE 3/- 9/ U.F.I.R. A� APPROVE 0 DISAPPROVE SIGNATURE COMMENTS �PO��IE DEPARTMENT DATE Z =�Z SIGNATURE 'Ei-APPROVE 0 DISAPPROVE COMMENTS: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 0 APPROVE 0 DISAPPROVE DATE SIGNATURE -- COM-MENTS-: REGARDING: (File Title) R E C 0 R D OF C 0 N T A C T S DATE NAME: PHONE NO COMMENTS ACTION TAKEN INITIALS' - & ADDRESS OF CALLER 1�i 1-96.-f7P �iT 0 STRE,ET FILE STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE, AND THAT THE VARIANCE*BE DENJED BECAUSE IT IS NOT A MINIMUM VARIANCE NOR A HARDSHIP. On question by Mr ' Roy to the City Attorney, Mr. Tanaka said that since the motion was to deny, it would be best to omit the reference to the second accessory bu'ilding and leave it to the'City Staff to see that it is removed. MRS. MEDINA AMENDED HER MOTION TO DELETE THAT PORTION REGARDING THE STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE. MRS. DERLETH SECONDED THE HOTIOt.� AS AMENDED.� A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH MRS. MEDINA, MRS. DERLETH,� AND MRS. STOLE VOTING YES, WITH MR. BYRD AND MR. L.ERAAS VOTING NO, AND WITH MR. ROY ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT FOR THE PREVIOUS HEARING ON THIS ITEM. THE MOT10N CARRIED. AGENDA NCU-3-78 JOHN LaRUE - Nonconforming Use Permit to maintain a nonconforming unit a *SpT.4 4pjt�kS�,t�. M H�) Ms. Luster distributed copies �f an Earnest Moiney Agreement executed by the applicant at the time this property was purchased. The Agreement indicated the property had a Building Permit for.five units only*and that income,�for five units only was considered in the agreement. The structure currently was leasing six units, one of which was nonconforming. Ms. Luster said the applicant had the options of acquiring sufficient property to make up the square footage required for the sixth unit or to reduce the number of units to comply with the Code. She read aloud 12.15.180(e) 6f the Code, regarding the issuance of a Nonconforming Unit Permit. There are three requirements for such.a permit, and Ms. Luster indicated the applicant met the first two but he did not meet the third. That states that the owner must have purchased the multi -family dwelling on good faith with no knowledge of the nonconforming unit. Because the Earnest Money Agreement stated.* there were only five units, he was aware that there were five legal un.its and that*the other unit was not a legal unit. Ms. Luster recommended denial of the application because the applicant was aware of the nonconforming status of one unit as indicated by the Earnest Money Agreement and the escrow papers, the.applicant could reduce the number of units to the t6tal allowed, and the innocent purchaser clause in the Code does not apply in this case. She showed a slide of the property, saying she believed th� storage area in the building was converted to an additional unit which has one bedroom. They are not paying utilities individually on that unit. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Chet Bennett, attorney repres'enting the applicant, said the building was constructed in 1967 as a five -unit structure. He submitted to Chairman Stole a rental agreement on the structure from 1969. He said the two storage units under the stairs were combined in 1969 to make one rental unit and three owners prior to the LaRues had rented this building 6ut'as six units. He noted that all of the information regarding this building. had been provided by the LaRues and he asked Ms. Luster if there would be a serious environmental impact if the sixth unit were to continue. She responded there would not. Mr. Bennett suggested that the applicants covenant with the City to phase out the sixth unit and remove the kitchen facilities at the conclusion of five years, giving them an opportunity to amortize their investment. He said they would put up a bond to that effect and the ordinance required they would have to pay the back utilities. Mrs. LaRue stated that they were novices in negotiating for income property and had taken the word of their real estate agent that there would not be any problem with the extra unit and that all they would have to do was ask for a Variance and a new ordinance coming on the books would grandfather it in. Mrs. Derleth asked her if they had inquired of the City regarding that ordinance or.a permit.and they had not. This matter had come to the attention of the City as the result of a Fire Department inspection. The public' portion of the hearing was closed. The applicants were asked questions regarding the units. They stated the rent amounts for each of the units and said five have individual utility meters and the sixth meter is for the house lights and laundry and the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Pdge 4 - March 21, 1979 sixth unit is wired to that meter; They have seven parking spaces but at the time the building was constructed they met the parking requirements for five units. In order to legalize the sixth unit they would have to acquire additional square footage, provide additional parking, take care of the utilitybillingrequirements, and meet the Uniform Building Code requirements. Mr. Byrd asked if the phase -out suggested by Mr. Bennett would be an appropriate remedy and whether the Board had the authority to do that. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka advised that the only authority the Board had was to issue the Nonconforming Use Permit. He said the phase -out of the nonconforming unit was not at issue because the Board was not empowered by the Code to do that. Chairman Stole suggested offering the unit as storage space and raising the apartment rentals accordingly, but Mrs. LaRue said there already was adequate storage provided., Mr. Tanaka then said he did not believe anything would prohibit the Board from imposing a limited time permit if the criteria were met. Mr. Leraas noted that the LaRues had been open and above board and this building had been in existence this way since 1969. He felt the Board should be able to give the LaRues some kind of relief. Mr. Roy agreed, commenting that the type of rental units the LaRues had were needed and there was nothing to be gained by removing the sixth unit. Mrs. Derleth was troubled by the Earnest Money Agreement, and yet she said she understood that in the enthusiasm to sell such comments could be made regarding the ease of getting a permit. She felt, however, that if such comments were made to her, she would contact the City to verify them. MR. ROY THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, TO APPROVE NCU-3-78 BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT.BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE9 AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BECAUSE HE FELT THERE WAS NOT MUCH TO GAIN BY ELIMINATING THE SIXTH UNIT. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MR. ROY AND MR. LERAAS VOTING YES, AND MRS. MEDINA, MR. BYRD, MRS. DERLETH, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING NO. THE MOTION FAILED. Mr. Byrd stated that he could not vote for the motion because he felt that would exceed the authority of the Board, and Mrs. Derleth agreed. CHAIRMAN STOLE THEN MOVED THAT THIS BE AMORTIZED OUT IN THREE YEARS AT WHICH TIME THE BUILDING WOULD BECOME A FIVE -UNIT BUILDING, BECAUSE SHE DID NOT FEEL IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. She added that she felt they should pay their utility bills. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mrs. Derleth said she was looking at the criteria and at the Earnest Money Agreement, and that Agreement definitely stated that there was knowledge. Mr. Byrd added that there may have been some fraud imposed on the LaRues but the knowledoe was there and the Board has certain criteria to follow. MR. BYRD THEN M6ED, IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS, THAT NCU-3-78 BE DENIED. MRS. MEDINA SECONDED THE MOTION. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MR. BYRD, MRS. .MEDINA, AND MRS. DERLETH VOTING YES, AND WITH MR. ROY, MR. LERAAS, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING NO, RESULTING IN A TIE VOTE. THE MOTION FAILED ' MR. BYRD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MRS. MEDINA, TO CONTINUE NCU-3-78 UNTIL THE APRIL MEETING BECAUSE A DEADLOCK HAD BEEN REACHED AND IN ORDER TO HAVE THE SEVENTH MEMBER OF THE BOARD PRESENT. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. ROY VOTING NO. V-16-79 FRED R. BROWN Variance from required front yard setback at 24322 74th . Ave. W. _��_S-8) This application was for reduction of the required front yard set back from 25' to 10' for a length of approximately 14'. This would not result in a rezone. The property fronts on 74th Ave. W. which is an easement the City has over the old Traction Right -of -Way, and it never will be widened. The existing house invades the setback and the applicant wished to enclose the porch area of his home. He would be building along the existing line of the house so he would not intrude into the setback more than the existing house does. It was not possible to increase the size of the home in any other way, and the house is very small, approximately 600 sq. ft. The Staff felt this was a reasonable request because of the location. Ms. Luster recommended.approval because it was a reasonable variance to make the maximum use of the property, it would not obstruct views or interfere with the traffic in the area, it appeared to be the best location for this type of addition, and because 74th W. will not beimproved. The public portion of the hearing was opened. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 5 - March 21, 1979 F__ 0 0 AGENDA NCU-3 8��O _�O.Lti -7 H � Nonconformin Use Permit to maintain �—nit a ti�15,'�,�._.S-p rag u emSt-'� �RMH) �onforming Ms. Luster distributed copies of an Earnest Money Agreement executed by the applicant at the time this property was purchased. The Agreement indicated the property had a Building Permit for five units only and that income for five units only was considered in the agreement. The structure currently was leasing six units, one of which was nonconforming. Ms. Luster said the applicant had the options of acquiring sufficient property to make up the square footage required for the sixth unit or to reduce the number of units to comply with the Code. She read aloud 12.15.180(e) of the Code, regarding the issuance of a Nonconforming Unit Permit. There are three requirements for such a permit, and Ms. Luster indicated the applicant met the first two but he did not meet the third. That states that the owner must have purchased the multi -family dwelling on good faith with no knowledge of the nonconforming unit. Because the Earnest Money Agreement stated there were only five units, he Was aware that there were five legal units and that the other unit was not a legal unit. Ms. Luster recommended denial of the application because the applicant was aware of the nonconforming status of one unit as indicated by the Earnest Money Agreement and the escrow papers, the applicant could reduce the number of units to the total allowed, and the innocent purchaser clause in the Code does not apply in this case. She showed a slide of the property, saying she believed the storage area in the building was converted to an additional unit which has one bedroom. They are not paying utilities individually on that unit. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Chet Bennett, attorney representing the applicant, said the building was constructed in 1967 as a five -unit structure. He submitted to Chairman Stole a rental agreement on the structure from 1969. He said the two storage units under the stairs were combined in 1969 to make one rental unit and three owners prior to the LaRues had rented this building out as six units. He noted that all of the information regarding this building had been provided by the LaRues and he asked Ms. Luster if there would be a serious environmental impact if the sixth unit were to continue. She responded there would not. Mr. Bennett suggested that the applicants covenant with the City to phase out the sixth unit and remove the kitchen facilities at the conclusion of five years, giving them an opportunity to amortize their investment. He said they would put up a bond to that effect and the ordinance required they would have to pay the back utilities. Mrs. LaRue stated that they were novices in negotiating for income property and had taken the word of their real estate agent that there would not be any problem with the extra unit and that all they would have to do was ask for a variance and a new ordinance coming on the books would grandfather it in. Mrs. Derleth asked her if they had inquired of the City regarding that ordinance or a permit and they had not. This matter had come to the attention of the City as the result of a Fire Department inspection. The public portion of the hearing was closed. The applicants were asked questions regarding the units. They stated the rent amounts for each of the units and said five have individual utility meters and the sixth meter is for the house lights and laundry and the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Pdge 4 - March 21, 1979 sixth unit is wired to that meter. They have seven parking spaces but at the time the building was constructed they met the parking requirements for five units. In order to legalize the sixth unit they would have to acquire additional square footage, provide additional parking, take care of the utility billing requirements, and meet the Uniform Building Code requirements. Mr. Byrd asked if the phase -out suggested by Mr. Bennett would be an appropriate remedy and whether the Board had the authority to do that. City Attorney Wayne Tanaka advised that the only authority the Board had was to issue the Nonconforming Use Permit. He said the phase -out of the nonconforming unit was not at issue because the Board was not empowered by the Code to do that. Chairman Stole suggested offering the unit as storage space and raising the apartment rentals accordingly, but Mrs. LaRue said there already was adequate storage provided. Mr. Tanaka then said he did not believe anything would prohibit the Board from imposing a limited time permit if the criteria were met. Mr. Leraas noted that the LaRues had been open and above board and this building had been in existence this way since 1969. He felt the Board should be able to give the LaRues some kind of relief. Mr. Roy agreed, commenting that the type of rental units the LaRues had were needed and there was nothing to be gained by removing the sixth unit. Mrs. Derleth was troubled by the Earnest Money Agreement, and yet she said she understood that in the enthusiasm to sell such comments could be made regarding the ease of getting a permit. She felt, however, that if such comments were made to her, she would contact the City to verify them. MR. ROY THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, TO APPROVE NCU-3-78 BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BECAUSE HE FELT THERE WAS NOT MUCH TO GAIN BY ELIMINATING THE SIXTH UNIT. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MR. ROY AND MR. LERAAS VOTING YES, AND MRS. MEDINA, MR. BYRD, MRS. DERLETH, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING NO. THE MOTION FAILED. Mr. Byrd stated that he could not vote for the motion because he felt that would exceed the authority of the Board, and Mrs. Derleth agreed. CHAIRMAN STOLE THEN MOVED THAT THIS BE AMORTIZED OUT IN THREE YEARS AT WHICH TIME THE BUILDING WOULD BECOME A FIVE -UNIT BUILDING, BECAUSE SHE DID NOT FEEL IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. She added that she felt they should pay their utility bills. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mrs. Derleth said she was looking at the criteria and at the Earnest Money Agreement, and that Agreement definitely stated that there was knowledge. Mr. Byrd added that there may have been some fraud imposed on the LaRues but the knowledge was there and the Board has certain criteria to follow. MR. BYRD THEN MOVED, IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS, THAT NCU-3-78 BE DENIED. MRS. MEDINA SECONDED THE MOTION. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MR. BYRD, MRS. MEDINA, AND MRS. DERLETH VOTING YES, AND WITH MR. ROY, MR. LERAAS, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING NO, RESULTING IN A TIE VOTE. THE MOTION FAILED. MR. BYRD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MRS. MEDINA, TO CONTINUE NCU-3-78 UNTIL THE APRIL MEETING BECAUSE A DEADLOCK HAD BEEN REACHED AND IN ORDER TO HAVE THE SEVENTH MEMBER OF THE BOARD PRESENT. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. ROY VOTING NO. V-16-79 FRED R. BROWN - Variance from required front yard setback at 24322 74th Ave. W. (RS-8) This application was for reduction of the required front yard set back from 25' to 10' for a length of approximately 14'. This would not result in a rezone. The property fronts on 74th Ave. W. which is an easement the City has over the old Traction Right -of -Way, and it never will be widened. The existing house invades the setback and the applicant wished to enclose the porch area of his home. He would be building along the existing line of the house so he would not intrude into the setback more than the existing house does. It was not possible to increase the size of the home in any other way, and the house is very small, approximately 600 sq. ft. The Staff felt this was a reasonable request because of the location. Ms. Luster recommended approval because it was a rnsonable variance to make the maximum use of the property, it would not obstruct views or interfere with the traffic in the area, it appeared to be the best location for this type of addition, and because 74th W. will not be improved. The public portion of the hearing was opened. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 5 - March 21, 1979 CHESTER 1R. ]BENNETT AWT0QWEV AT LAW ]LESLIE 13UILDING t15 P017UTI# AvxNuz Sox,wn E—N-4, WAS.MG—N 98020 Pn..FE� 6-0189 January 8, 1979 Mr. John LaRue 20324 - 87th Avenue West Edmonds, Wa 98020 In re: Non -conforming use - application V1D,ea,r,#N,%J0VW'a LR�I,ie:, , In compliance with the request of the Building Department, per your instructions, I have re -instituted your request, with the Planning Staff, to have your matter heard at the Board of Adjustment at 7:30 P. M. on Wednesday, March 21, 1979. You might review this matter with me prior to that date by making an appointment in early March. c r b:wbh cc: Mr. Harry Whitcutt Building Official City of Edmonds a ft CITY OF EDMONDS CIVIC CENTER - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 775-2525 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT December 28, 1978 John M. LaRue . 20324-87th Ave. W. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 NON -CONFORMING APART14ENT UNIT-421 SPRAGUE ST. HARVIE H. HARRISON MAYOR Application NCU-3-78 to the Board of Adjustment was never approved by that body. I therefore. intend to refer the matter to the office ' of the City Attorney on January.8, 1979 to initiate legal means to effect compliance. Harry M. Tghitcutt Building Official HMW/ae CITY OF EDIVIONDS HARV� H. HARRISON MAYOR CIVIC C�NTER - GDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 775-2525 COMMUNITY DEV�LOPMENT DEPARTMENT January 16, 1978 Mr. John M. LaRue 20324-87th Avenue West Edmonds, Washington 98020 NON -CONFORMING APARTMENT UNITS - 421 SPRAGUE STREET It is my understanding that you have withdrawn your application NCU-1-78 to the Board of Adjustment. Please indicate, in writing, what alternative means you intend to come into compliance with City Codes. A reply will be expected prior to January 20, 1978. Harry M. itcU4 Building Official HMW/ae RECEIVEP A N 1 978 - City of Edmonds Community Dev4pe-L. p 1 14, � ',� Z, lq 7 Y A MEMO TO: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FROM: Harry M. Whitcutt Building Official SUBJECT: NCU-1-78 - 421,Sprague Street Hearing date of January 18, 1978 The attached data applies to this matter. CITY of EDMONDS Civic Center - Edmonds, Washington 98020 Telephone (206) 775-2525 Building Department November 22, 1977 John M. LaRue 20324-87th Avenue West Edmonds., Washington 98020 NON -CONFORMING APARTMENT UNITS - 421 SPRAGUE STREET It has been brought to our attention that the structure at the above address has been found to contain a greater number of dwelling units than is permitted under the terms of the present Zoning Code. The City has now enacted an ordinance establishing requirements and procedures for abating non -conforming units in duplex and multi-fam.ily dwellings. A copy of the ordinance is enclosed for your information. The ordinance indicates the manner of obtaining compliance with the Code. You should take immediate action to bring your property into compliance. We shall expect a reply, in writing, expressing your intentions, within the'next ten (10) days, or prior to December 5, 1977. 4Q Harry M. Whitcutt, Acting Director Community Development Department HMW/ae Enclosure cc: City Attorney CITY of EDMONDS Civic Center - Edmonds, Washington 98020 - Telephone (206) 775-2525 �f Building Department CERTIFIED MAIL November 14, 1977 Mr. Herbert K. Bohmann .20507-86th Place West Edmonds, Washington 98020 NON -CONFORMING APARTMENT UNITS - 421 SPRAGUE STREET It has been previously brought to your attention that the structure -at the above address has been found to contain a greater number.of dwelling units -than is permitted under the terms of the present Zoning Code. The City has now enacted an ordinance establishing require- ments and procedures for abating non -conforming units in duplex and multi -family dwellings. A copy of the ordinance is enclosed for your information. The ordinance indicates the manner of obtaining compliance with the Code. You should take immediate action to bring your property into compliance. We shall expect a rep.1y, in writing, expressing your intentions, within the next ten (10) days, or prior to November 25, 1977. E. Joseph Wallis, Director Community Development Department HMW/ae Enclosure cc: City Attorney Bldg. Off. Dt. CITY of EDMONDS Civic Center - Edmonds, Washington 98020 - Telephone (206) 775-2525 Building Department CERTIFIED MAIL November 10, 1977 Mr. Herbert K. Bohmann 421 Sprague Edmonds, Wa. 98020 NON -CONFORMING APARTMENT UNITS - 421 SPRAGUE STREET By letter dated October 27, 1977, you were advised of the necessary procedures to follow in order to abate the non- conforming apartment unit on the above subject property. We refer to the provisions of Ordinance #1946, Section 12.15.180 Edmonds City Code, a copy of which you received. We requested a reply, indicating your intentions, prior to November 7, 1977. To this date no reply has been received. The matter is therefore being referred, this date, to the City Attorney's office, to pursue complaince through the legal means contained in the Ordinance. too t it E. Joseph Wallis*/"Diirector Community Development Department HMW/ae cc: City Attorney Tidg. Off. D:F. CITY of EDMONDS Civic Center - Edmonds, Washington 98020 - Telephone (206) 775-2525 October 27, 1977 Mr. Herbert K. Bohmann 421 Sprague Edmonds, WA 98020 NON -CONFORMING APARTMENT UNITS - 421 SPRAGUE STREET It has been previously brought to your attention that the structures at the above addresses have been found to contain a greater number of dwelling units than is permitted under the terms of the present Zoning Code. The City has now enacted an ordinance establishing require- ments and procedures for abating non -conforming units in duplex and multi -family dwellings. A copy of the ordinance is enclosed for your information. The ordinance indicates the manner of obtaining compliance with the Code. You should take immediate action to bring your property into compliance. We shall expect a reply, in writing, expressing your intentions, within the next ten (10) days, or pr or to November 7, 1977. S' 4 or pr 0 r, E. JOSEPH WALLI Dire Ator Community Development Department HMW/asd Enclosure cc: City Attorney Herbert K. Bohmann 421 Sprague Edmonds, Washington Dear Sir: July 31, 1975 Re: 5 Unit Apartment (RMH) 421 Sprague Street It Is our understanding that you are the owner of the above apartment. It has come to the attention of this department that a violation of the city zoning code exists on the above property, specifically that six rental units are occupied. Our records Indicate the following: 1. Building permit #670535, Issued November 16, 1967, authorized construction of a five (5) unit apartment building. 2. No permits have since been issued to add an additional unit. 3. The lot area will not permit an additional unit. 4. The city utility billing department is billing the property for five (5) units. You are advised to take action to come Into compliance with city codes. Please contact this office at your earliest convenience. Very truly yours, EDMONDS BUILDING DEPARTMENT Harry M. WhItcutt Building Official HMW/ae llp� K- - R 4-: 4r 44- -) - -- <�/,/-- C-7'/Ze —H-74- 4-7---- - Z- 57-4co P26 OX6 57 no 7-7 13 06 .,,-;.LV1C'CENTER 250 FIFITH AVLr. N. �4" City Supervisor D. C. Lawson CITY OF EDMONDS Snohomish County, Washington November 6, 1967 Mr. A. T. Nygard Box 28 Sequim 9: Washington 98382 Dear Mr. Nygard: Answering , your letter requesting permission to put a trailer on your building site in the 500 block upon Sprague Street, you should know the following requirements. The City of Edmonds only permits trailers to be used (other then in trailer parks) for two basic reasons. One of these is that the persons must have extra help in taking care of the sick and needs.-:�*. the trailer for temporary quarters. The other reason is to permit a. party to build their own home, and in a sense, you qualify under this second. reason. In any case, the permit is only for a period of six months, and the requirements are that the trailer be.placed ast'in-con- spicuous as possible and that it be hooked to the sewer system axid th6: water system. This letter is your permit to use your trailer provided the City requirements, as stated, are followed. Yours very truly, D. C. Lawson City Supprvisor V - a, 4 � � 71 � 'Q 'Wlj� -a-4- ee - eo�- Oct. 31, 1967 Yayo,c Grorelon hlu-, n", I'Vash . De,or In Ln tiae of. to b�tild �a 5-Plex on riy I.,ot J. ri h(I�ionds o,rL K �i 1 rn -T- 1:1 e.r v; s r!y cl,).ntr�ictor Cotlid 1 "'. I- to J?CIrjII].s-J.,)n to pi.it my, T.-c a v, [�Ile site j:, Y-'-;f�lf only' d ur irig, t h ,: J?U--r d r--*,�o ? Tt is, lr? foot Srortscr�aft eou;pp(-.,d YLith and I-L 1-lailer, t (IC) arn V( .1-Y traly T.) t I r IS Bx 28 9 8�2 40- -)-'77— A000e opq -no a e- 4*.OLP d /VC Al000v 4;.-!e a:ole Z/ �'2 a''Poo -t IF a okt- 7-f 1000 to 46 e-a o" i d -ro� 4p G-�e or so � 0,/ P 44.0�' -fw "I C- 1411000, '00eco lip co�� ,6,e c, m i - 7L A-42.dp f fA?*v 0 -P W 4.0 . — OOVIp 1'��,owj, LRD 'Ile- d.�-elf ^2 e. 4w f, 4;0 7 ll� 4;;- 017 40 W 0 F- /4049 g!!�ccp oor &e 0-7 cp 40 "4 07 telel 4v 0 C ew; e7 ov,07 C6,ee G, t1l e "o. c &;r 'r 4 7 -,o-p ( �� - - �17- A . *OIPO-P 70,- Oe 42- 14 *04,10114 0.74- 40, 4.0? LA."* 0100/5 a*!:ko ere 0,�Q 6V xo::ro c C. 40e- da 007 0-- 60 -7 4b P�p f.10 tP lie C-- �C�- Co P? o7 e c A —W a 11 I . a?