The URL can be used to link to this page

642 MAPLE ST.PDF11111111111111 12143 642 MAPLE ST Y— * TAX A(--'COUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: BUILDING PERMIT (NEW COVENANTS (RECORDEE CRITICAL AREAS: DISCRETIONARY PERMIT //'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED PERMITS(OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE S: SHORT PLAT FI SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S),#: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: DETERMINATION: 0 Conditional Waiver E] Stud Required [] Waiver 1�1'77A.-wwelt-A.Jk,� 31217v-� /61, STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: / �As LTD #: LOT: BLOCK: LATEMP\DSrs\Forzw\Street File Checklist-doc 0 Pyr PLA &*. MAP" ^410f-e FILE jo. uo q�Dol.jol PPS� . I 'S. Iq :31ON .!"SaNOW(13 -40 ,00000:*v4- CAk775 OKAY /5 4624 A I 10 T L N N N N tA (A (4 (4 N % ll� IN \N --l"I 6 S-. Q1 I blT 'fl; 4 14 is 44 to 114, Im A L�j Is i nN-lVM -�j tP6 -jN t4 8 31GIV N at C5*11 U&I ji,z 04 : 4�1-411 1411 �11-,Tr ll"''�� OiAvG I c I — 'OUOO D) IZ 0 . TZ t7' IN I v W lo6eq) (9969) is N Q, V; 3HI \T7 14 VV n lo, W Q3 0) 'A 4, C.41 ��l- �0. ab 4 kN Nlkitolkl, A� At LF m fEE, V b, W D4 t �,* oul 2 - k p4'l 4z m -T 0. t% I %M 1 (4 1 w 1(41141 f� % Q " fm �. A kh -,I -� I,- 1q. LY-0% I 0 APPUCA110N (""BUILDING PERMIT CITY OF EDMONDS Building Department f Appl. No. ............ Permit limit, one ycar APPUCATION is hereby made for a permit to construct the. folJowing work, in acrordance with the accom- panying plans and specifications. Two sets are submitted herewith 'or approval. new alter Off -St. repair ............ ... . ........... VVork addn 4.1 ........ ... ................ ..... Parking ...... Occupancy ............... .......... Const. type .. .......................... Use , Z1, Fire zone ............................ Address.............. t ........................ Blk ......... A Addn ...................................... Lot frontage. ................... Area ... .. .. ........... .... ... Septic t,-nk ............ 2� .................................... I Bldg. set -backs — front ............ r. side .......... .......... 1. side .......... ............. rear ................................ ...... 1_ez�,�I�� .. Address ... 14-xV r_ Tel. Nc��.-:� Builder .............. ....... .............. Address. .............................................. Tel. No ............................. . ................................ Plansby ............ ............................................ Address .................................................... Tel. No .............................. Remarks..................................... .............................................. ............................................................... ............................ . The above is a correct statement, and I agree to comply with all applicable Codes and State laws regulating. this work. Signed Owner/Agent ......... ..................................................... Addrcss.'..A4.!Z.7 ...... PERMIT for the above work is hereby approved, subject to the above conditions, and to compliance, with. the ap" proved plans and specifications, and Building Department notations thereon. 4 -.P.a ........ .... . ... ......... V? luxtion ....... ...... ................ Permit fee .................. ............. Recd. by BuildingDepartment, By ...... ........................ ...................... ............... ... Date .......................... ......................................... INSPECTION RECORD Fdn, OK ............................................ Frame, OK ........................ ...... ............... Final, OK ..................................... `4'his Permit does not cover Plumbing,. Sewer or Electrical insta�iatic,ls. A DEPARTMEN(1�,jF BUILDINGS CITY OF EDMO4--,, WASHINGTON — BUILDfNG PERMIT Applicant hereby certifies that a plot, P)an, drawings, and sufficient details to indicate intention to fu!fill all requiremen chcd hereto. is of th's code are atta Application is hereby made for permit to do the following work: ........ -------------- - .... ................ . . .... ............. ...... 1� .. ................... ............................... .................................................. a- 0 "a z PLI ..................... .. ................................ ......... ........................................ ............ .. ................... .......... : ...................................................................................................................... ... ......... ..... i�— ...................... .......... R.A... — .......... . ... .. .............. ....................... * ........... /, ............................................... ill ....... ...... .......... Ile ..................... ............................... .............................. ........................... ................... ............................. aL ........ /1Stz;-r n2be/l ict..d block;�Ornbrcs) I. Bufldinc, dimensions are --/ ....................... x ..... zv�—Ltl .... ......... 0 2. Lot dimensions are ...... .................. )c ....... //..L ............................ 3. Building will be ........................ / .... storiesin �eight. 4. Numb--r of basements .............. ................. 5. Occupancy of building will be ------- .......... .... ....... 6. Bufldig will;[,�b I ... ... f �e:t cm.. ar oining lot line. 7. Owner... - 'ILI) .... . .. .. ... . ............................ -4.2 .. ... . .. .. ........................................ 8. Owner's Addrm .... 9. Builder -------------------------- ................................... .................................................... --------- 10. Builder's Address ........................................................ 11. Ar5�i�t or engineer ................................................................................................... Date.. /C? ........ ........ App!-.cart's Signature ... 0,4.1.qfj� ..................... (G.ne, - his agent) 0 r -=:Z� 0 4 Q 0 W > 5 0 g 00 Sc 4 .0 M zu CL C: 04 Cn o-j V3 D 0 z &V Estimated cost $1a.1501 ................... GroupNo . ................................................. Life of permit. .. ............. ............ gcld� 6 Y� Plans filed: Yes 2-1 No 0 Permission is hereby granted to do the work described hereon, according to the approved plans and specifications pertafi,-,ing hereto, subject to compliance. with &-e ordinances of th� City of Edmonds. _Ihis copy is your receipt for --he following fees: 1. Buading'-�crmit fm .......................................... ........ $ . . ............................... 2. Sewer -ermit fee ............................................................ S ...................................... 3. inspection and supmision fee ........................................ $ ........ ............................. 4. 7ota! ....... Department of Buildings PERMIT N? 501 City of Edmonds 1. n. building permit I,. which applicant Pay, when permit is ;ssued shall be based on estimated cost of the proposed structurt. at the rate of $1.00 for each $1 000.00 Of Cost. If the actual cost of the structure. when fin2lly determined, .!:, —,;.—ed cost by more than 5%, applicant agrees to pay an additional fee ef $2.00 for each $1000.00 of such excess cost. In such event no use permit shall be iFsu-d unti! s-h "discrepancy fee" is paid. 2. Whenever a contract for construction is estted for any structure casting more than $100.00 for, which a licensed architect or en,:'etr is not required by (be Bu ilding Cod, of the Cit: of Edmonds, the application for a building permit &[is[[ be accompanied by a copy of the contract and a copy of the detailed 'pecificarl.sts. 3. Prior to employing any labor or commencing w:-;k. notify the Industrial Insurance Division of the Department of Labor and Industries. givini; an estimate of ,he P. yroll and take monthly ,p.,. of pay.[!,. Full instructions should be b,,:ued f-m he rua,ca, fr— of hi 13p.nment of L,b'f and industries. M., final payment, she owner �h.uld Obtain . release from the general contractors who in turn should obtain release from all sub ............ Th. rel—es should be auested by the Department of Labor and Industries. ne above procedures are requircruents of the state It,dustrial Insurance Act. i6 0 ow w wm=wl - 6-t b-by amle- 1-4- Nw .3 b.AW _& f.; m d. fonoa�le -4 v X t2 N'Aa a b.� 4 &&;imu wm Im thr, - ------------ B06�'. Ad& - La' af Pmi PA -it. 196 ph� fikd: Y, to d. dx �k dewrAled bm=M. ---Mdu'Q 0 Ibc IMO'd Of F� Wck I ai d� C" a P+-,& Th. WT -6;c (- d. f�a_y'- f- W a,=;A� -kh tw F-:2!2 L_'.' _d _P� — — _ ___ . . _2.'� cu 2"I'M- P M M, car w OLIMMI: Pcwlt Emil, :e yc= p..* t. tb e-- MAL C_� tyg--- 44 Fi. &-ok C%h' L T& 'Q�L 121 . ........ TCL no Ta N Ti. -pl- Itb .11 ppL-zbk Cod. -d Smm 1-- 1r; ths - '4y AY' vj V_- -6 13-ioc D�Pn_t b.- .1c. p —� ; � Or" ix. a a, L , A P. V1, -9 1pa� �'o Ok� t 4 '3 v '_7 o A APPLICATION for The City of Edmonds SIDE SEWER PERNaT NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS E] EASEMENT No . .......................................... 103-08700 OWNER .................. Fred 14. Bri d_qgA .................................................... ................................ CONTRACTOR ............... .................................................................................. PERMIT No . ...................... ADDRESS .............. 6.42.11ap.le ... Street ................................................. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . .............. ............................... BL4DCK No . ............................................ NAMEOF ADDITION ......................................................................................................................................... 0 lei DYE TESTED 01'1 SEWER JULY, 1972 Approved: DATE.... ........................................... By ...................................... ............................... 0 onohormsh County, WA Assessor Parcel Data Page I of 2 SnohomishOnline Government Information & Services County W Washington * R E A L * Property Information County Home Assessor Home Treasurer Home Infon-nation on which Department to contact Please view Disclaimer If you have questions, comments or suggestions, please Contact Us. Date/Time:7/27/2007 2:23:42 PM Answers to Freauentiv Asked Questions about Parcel Data (opens as new window) Return to Property Information Entry.pagg Parcel Number 00434209501200 Prev Parcel Reference 43420950120005 View Map of this parcel (opens as new window)11 General Information Taxpayer Name 11 Address (contact the Treasurer if you have questions) BOITANO LOUIS 113602 30TH WEST --- SEATTLE, WA 98199 If the above mailing address is incorrect and you want to make a change, see the information on Name and Address Changes Owner Name 11 Address (contact the Assessor if you have questions) BOITANO LOUIS 11 UNKNOWN - - - If the above name and address is incorrect due to a recent sale, please see the information on Name -and Address Changes After a Sale Street (Situs) Address (contact the Assessor if you have questions) 642 MAPLE ST - - - EDMONDS, WA 98020-3472 Parcel Legal Description CITY OF EDN40NDS BLK 095 D-00 - LOTS 12 & 13 Go to top -of page Treasurer's Tax Information Taxes For answers to questions about Taxes, please contact the Treasurer's office (opens as ne w window) 2007 Taxes for this parcel $5,722.27 (Taxes may include Surface Water Management and/or State Forest Fire Patrol fees. LID charges, if any, are not included.) To obtain a duplicate tax statement. either download our Tax Statement Request form or call 425-388-3366 to request it by phone. Go to top of page Assessor's Property Data Characteristics and Value Data below are for 2007 tax year. Please contact the Treasurer's office for answers to questions about Taxes (opens as new window) For questions ONLY about property characteristics or property values (NOT taxes), please contact the Assessor's Office Property Values do not reflect a4justments made due to an exemption, such as a senior or disabled persons Values exemption. Reductions for exemptions are made on the property tax bill. http://web5.co.snohom1sh.wa.us/propsys/asr-tr-propinq/Prpinq02-ParcelData.asp?PN=004... 7/27/2007 Snohomish County, WA Assessor Parcel Data Page 2 of 2 Tax Year 2007 Market Land $265,000 Pending Property Values Tax Year 2008 Market Land $490,000 aq tp_top_qf page Valuation and Property Tax History View History (opens as new window) Go to top of page Market Improvement Market Improvement $373,000 Market Total $638,000] $213,0001 Market Total $703,0001 Property Characteristics Tax Code Area (TCA) 00210 View Taxing Districts for this Parcel (opens as new window) Use Code 130 Multiple Family 5 - 99 Units SizeBasis ACRE Size 0-15 (Size may include undivided interest in common tracts and road parcels) Go to.top of page Property Structures Type Yr.Built Structure Description Commercial 1959 4-plex View Structure Data (opens as new window) D,welling 1930 1 Story View Structure Data (opens as new window) Goto-top-of page Property Sales since 7/31/1999 Explanation of Sa-les-Infarmation (opens as new windoxv) Sales data is based solely upon excise affidavits processed by the Assessor. No sales for this parcel have been recorded since 7/31/1999 Go to top of page Property Maps Township/Range/Section/Quarter, links to maps Neighborhood 5601000 Explanation of Neighborhood Code (opens as new window) Township 27 Range 03 Section 24 Quarter SW Find parcel_ma,ps for this. Towns h i p/Range/Secfion ji View Map of this parcel (opens as new windol:V11) http://web5.co.snohomish.wa.us/propsys/asr-tr-propinq/Prpinq02-ParcelData.asp?PN=004... 7/27/2007 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 6 U110 ING C. 1 S911 SO 4 - 2001 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER CITY OF EDMONDS APPELLANTS: Scot Simpson and Ralph Mathews (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 2). CASE NO.: AP-2001-88 LOCATION: 640 and 642 Maple Street (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 1). APPEAL: Appeal of a Building Official determination regarding an alleged dangerous building (see Exhibit 1). Appeal of Planning Staff decision regarding a nuisance building (see Exhibit 1, Attachment 2). REVIEW PROCESS: Hearing Examiner, acting as Board of Appeals pursuant to ECDC .19.00.060 for Building Official deten-nination, conducts public hearing and makes final decision. Hearing Examiner, conducts public hearing for Planning Division staff decision, and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous. Buildings; Section 302, Dangerous Building definitions b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 17.40, Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, Signs, and Lots c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 19, Building Codes d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.95, staff review requirements. e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.105, appeals and court review. incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Citv - Hekinan. Jar)an Waring Examiner Decision Case No.: AP-2001-88 Page 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Hearing Examiner Decision PUBLIC HEARING: Deny the appeal Deny the appeal, however require broken window to be boarded up or replaced. After reviewing the official file, which included the Building Official's Advisory Report, and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the appeal. The hearing on the appeal was opened at 9:36 a.m., August 16, 2001, in the City Hall, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 10:18 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. HEARING TESTIMONY: The following. is a summary of the testimony offered at the public hearing. From the City: Jeanine Graf, Building Official, reviewed the staff advisory report and entered it into the record (Exhibit 1). She said the building is not dangerous, but noted that the broken window should be boarded up or repaired. Steve Bullock, Senior Planner, said when the City Council issued a decision on the building some years ago they said the cost of repairs could not exceed 50% of replacement value of the building. However, the owner can make repairs to the building. From the Appellants: Scot Simpson, Appellant reviewed the last fifteen -year history of the subject building and gave six reasons why he believed the building is dangerous and a nuisance and should be torn down. He submitted Exhibit 3 as a summary of his hearing arguments. . From the Building Owner: Carol Boitano submitted Exhibit 2 and said she and her husband want to keep the building and would like to use it for storage. She said they plan to improve it at a later date and will pursue the necessary pen -nits then. Waring Examiner Decision Case No.: AP-2001-88 Page 3 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. HISTORY 1. Background Summary In March of 1993 Richard and Ana Swing applied to the City for a building permit to restore a vacant existing dwelling structure located on a lot with an existing 4-plex within an RS-6 zone (Single Family residential — 6,000 square foot minimum lot size). (Exhibit 1, Attachment 3) The Planning Division determined the dwelling structure to be non -conforming with respect to setback(s) and density. The Planning Division determined that the proposed restoration and use of the dwelling would expand the non -conformity of the existing building as well as exceed 50% of its replacement cost, and therefore denied the issuance of the building pen -nit application. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 4) The staff determination to deny the building permit was appealed by the Swing's (Exhibit 1, Attachment 5) and heard before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner approved the appeal by Mr. & Mrs. Swing. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 6) Scot Simpson and other neighbors appealed this decision to City Council. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 7) The City Council reversed the decision of the Hearing Examiner and ruled to deny the building permit to restore the dwelling structure. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 8) On April 25, 2001 Scot Simpson and other neighbors submitted a complaint requesting that the building be declared a nuisance and be demolished. A copy of the original complaint is attached to the appeal documents in Exhibit 1, Attachment 2. A building or structure may be detennined to be a dangerous building by the Building Official if criteria of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings are proven. The City Building Inspector c onducted an exterior inspection of the building on May 11, 2001 (Exhibit 1, Attachment 9); no provision of the code was found in violation since the building was vacant. The Building Official testified at the hearing that no authority was received from the owner to enter the building, and testified further that the Building Inspector could determine from his inspection. of the outside of the building that the building was not a dangerous vacant building. Therefore, the Building Official determined that the building was not considered a dangerous building. Regarding the ECDC nuisance complaint, the Planning Division determined that the non- confonning structure was not considered a nuisance, and although the building remains vacant, the legal non -conforming use may continue (Exhibit 1, Attachment 10). The complainants as well as the current property owners, Louis' and Carol Boitano, were notified of these determinations (Exhibit 1, Attachments 11, 12, 13). Scot Simpson and Ralph Mathews appealed these staff decisions to the Hearing Examiner (Exhibit 1, Attachment 2). Waring Examiner Decision Case No.: AP-2001-88 Page 4 1. Chronology of Events a. Facts: (1) March 24, 1993: Ana Swing, property owner at that time, applies for a permit to construct a new foundation and new floor system for the subject single-family dwelling. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 3) (2) March 29, 1993: After review of ECDC 17.40, the Planning Division denies building permit application #93-24. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 4) (3) April 5, 1993: City receives appeal from Thomas Sorenson, attorney representing Richard and Ana Swing, regarding the Planning Division decision to deny the building permit application to repair the subject structure. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 5) (4) June 14, 1993: Public hearing before the Hearing Examiner on the appeal by the Swings of the denial of their building permit application. (5) July 2, 1993: Hearing Examiner issues a determination approving the appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Swing. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 6) (6) July 12, 1993: Scot Simpson and neighbors appeal the Hearing Examiner decision to City Council. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 7) (7) September 9, 1993: City Council reverses recommendation of the Hearing Examiner denies issuance of the building permit for the non -conforming structure. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 8) (8) April 25, 2001: Complaint submitted by Scot Simpson and other neighbors requesting that the building be declared a nuisance and be demolished. (Included in Exhibit 1, Attachment 2) (9) May 14, 2001: City Building Inspector inspects the building from the exterior, finds the structure locked, inaccessible to the public, and not in danger of dilapidation, nor a public nuisance. Reports findings to Building Official. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 9) (10)May 14, 2001: Building Official determines that the subject structure is not a dangerous building pursuant to the 1997 Uniforin Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. (I I)June 20, 2001: Building Official receives written determination from the Planning Division that the subject building is not considered and nuisance and the legal non -conforming use may continue. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 10) (12)June 22, 2001: Building Official sends letter to complainants and owners notifying them of the Building Official and Planning Division decisions. (Exhibit 1, Attachment I I — representative letter sent to all complainants) 0 Waring Examiner Decision Case No.: AP-2001-88 Page 5 (13)July 9, 2001: Letter sent to Mr. & Mrs. Boitano informing them of the City Council's decision dated September 9, 1993 of which they may not have been aware. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 12) (14)July 16, 2001: Letter sent to Mr. & Mrs. Boitano with copies of both previously sent letters to their Seattle address. (Exhibit 1, Attachment 13) (15) August 16, 200 1. Hearing Examiner conducts Public Hearing on the appeal. B. APPEAL ISSUES I. Issues raised by the Appellant: a. Summan, of Statements by the Appellant: (See Exhibit 1, Attachment 2 and Exhibit 3 for specific comments) (1) The appellants state in their letter that the Building Inspector conducted an exterior inspection only, not an interior inspection. The Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code has provisions defining a dangerous building that concern the interior of the building. Since no inspection was conducted on the inside of the building the Building Official cannot say it is safe. (2) The appellants state that the condition of this building is defined very well by the "Findings Conclusions of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds" File N. AP-93-61 . ...... The appellant's own testimony and pictures presented by the neighbors establish that the repairs have been necessitated due to the action of the dry rot brought by the substandardfoundation. Testimony indicated that the flooring has been completely destroyed by dry rot causing walls to swingftee. In order to ascertain the damage, the appellant has been forced to remove or open major portions of the subject building. At the current time photographs clearly reveal a structure which is a shell resting upon an inadequate concrete block foundation. " (3) The appellants state that there are 17 items used to define a Dangerous Building in the Code and most of them define this building, of which the appellants listed four. a) (2) Whenever the walking surface of any aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is so warped, wom, loose, torn or otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic. b) (7) Whenever any portion thereof has wracked, warped, buckled or settled to such an extent that walls or other structural portions have materially less resistance to winds or earthquakes than is required in the case of similar new construction. c) (12) Whenever the building or structure has been so damaged by fire, wind, earthquake or flood, or has become so dilapidated or deteriorated as to become (1) and attractive nuisance to children: ..... The appellant testified at the hearing Waring Examiner Decision Case No.: AP-2001-88 Page 6 about the existence of a broken window in the building and the potential danger associated with that broken window. d) (17) Whenever any building or structure is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance known to the common law or in equity jurisprudence. The appellants also listed #4, 5, 6, 8 and 14 in Exhibit 1. (4) The appellants state that the building has been occupied at times because they can see through the window that additional floor joists have been taken out and gravel has been added in the space under the floor that used to exist. Every time it was used it was a danger to those who used it and very possibly to those walking or playing around it, or to the little kids running into it with their bikes, or the big kids climbing on its roof just for ftin. (5) The appellants state that the second part of the Building Inspectors [Building Official's] decision had to deal with ECDC 17.40.000. In the original letter to the Building Inspector [Building Official], the 12 surrounding neighbors that signed the letter stated that the building was a nuisance and asked that it be declared a nuisance so it would have to be tom down. The Building Inspector [Building Official] did not address that issue however and quoted an issue not raised about it being a non -conforming building. 2. Building Official & Planning Division Written Response: a. Facts: (1) The Building Inspector concluded that the building is not occupied (Exhibit 1, Attachment 9). This is supported by the appellants' statement in the letter dated July 3, 2001 that it has not been used for more than eight years. (2) The Building Official has determined that the subject building is not a danger to the public since it is vacated (Exhibit 1, Attachment 15 photographs showing general condition of exterior of building) and no provision of Section 302 of the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code applies. (3) ECDC 17.40.000 allows certain nonconforming uses and buildings to continue while requiring other nonconforming uses and buildings, which are declared to be nuisances to be eliminated. b. General Response to ADpellants. Statements Above: (1) As stated above, the building is unoccupied; therefore the items in the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code that concern the building interior are not applicable. An inspection of the exterior of the building revealed no immediate danger to the public or violation of the provisions of the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code. See photographs taken of the exterior of the building by the City on July 27, 2001 (Exhibit 1, Attachment 15). The current owners, Louis and Carol Waring Examiner Decision Case No.: AP-2001-88 Page 7 Boitano, are aware of the nonconforming condition of the structure, of the City Council's 1993 decision, and that any no work may be done to the structure unless it is first approved and permitted by the City (Exhibit 1, Attachments 12 and 13). (2) As a matter of clarification for the record, the appellants refer to the Building Inspector in the last paragraph of their letter of appeal. There are two issues being appealed by Scot Simpson and Ralph Mathews. The Building Official composed and signed the letter dated June 22, 2001 (Exhibit 1, Attachment 11), however the Building Official only made a determination that the building was not considered a dangerous building per the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code. The Planning Division made the determination that the building was not a nuisance per ECDC 17.40.000. (3) Summary of Planning Division memos (Exhibit 1, Attachments 10 and 14): ECDC 17.40.000 states that, "The purpose of this chapter is to allow certain nonconforming uses, buildings, and lots to continue while prohibiting further nonconformity. Other nonconforming uses, buildings, signs, and lots, which are declared to be nuisances, are required to be eliminated " ECDC 20.110.030 Nuisance Section, does not define 'a nuisance, but provides a list of described items that shall not be allowed on properties within the City. The City Planner determined that the non -conforming building in question couldn't be considered as any of the items listed. Furthermore, the section states that none of these things shall be allowed, "...except as may be allowed by any other city ordinance... " Since ECDC 17.40.020 specifically allows for the continuation of nonconforming buildings, the building cannot be declared a nuisance, therefore cannot be required to be abated for being a nuisance, and shall be allowed to continue. c. Conclusions: (1) Because the building remains unoccupied it "...does not constitute an immediate danger to the life, limb property or safety of the public, it may be vacated, secured, and maintained against entry " as supported by Section 403 of the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code. (2) The Planning Division has determined the building is not a nuisance; therefore abatement of the building is not required for it being a nuisance. (3) The Examiner concurs with the Appellants that the broken window should be repaired. DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the appeal is denied, however, the broken window shall either be boarded up or replaced within 14 days of the date of this decision. Waring Examiner Decision Case No.: AP-2001-88 Page 8 Entered this 28'h day of August 2001 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. aao�� Ron McConnell, FAII�p Hearing Examiner RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Building Department for further procedural information. The decision of the Hearing Examiner on appeals of Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code shall be final and shall not be appealable to the City Council per ECDC Section 19.00.060B. An appeal of this final decision may be made to the Superior Court of Snohomish County as detailed in ECDC Section 19.00.060B.. Any such action shall be filed within 21 calendar days from the final decision of the Hearing Examiner. The decision of the Hearing Examiner on appeals of Planning Staff decisions not involving a project pen -nit application shall be appealable to the City Council per ECDC 20.105.030D. Such an appeal shall be filed with the Development Services Director within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed as required in ECDC 20.105.020. EXHIBITS: eearing Examiner Decision Case No.: AP-2001-88 Page 9 The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record. 1. Building Official's Advisory Report, with 15 attachments 2. Letter from Louis and Carol Boitano 3. Appeal Presentation from Scott Simpson PARTIES OF RECORD: Scot Simpson 632 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Louis and Carol Boitano 36023 01h Avenue West Seattle, WA 98199 Ralph Mathews 644 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds Planning Division Edmonds Building Division 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 BUILDING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner From: I/ Jeannine L. Grae" L-/ Building Official Date: AUGUST 9, 2001 File: AP-2001-88 SCOT SIMPSON AND RALPH MATHEWS Hearing Date, Time, And Place: August 16, 200 1, At 9:3 0 AM, Third Floor, Room 304 Edmonds City Hall 121 — 5th Avenue N. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ I A. Appellant/Appeal Information ................................................................................................................... I B. Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 2 11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................... 2 A. History .............................................................................................................................................. ....... 2 B. Appeal Issues ............................................................................................................................................. 4 III. APPEALS ............................................................................................................................ 6 A. Appeals ...................................................................................................................................................... 6 IV. ATTACHMENTS ................................................................................................................ 6 V. PARTIES OF RECORD ...................................................................................................... 6 1. INTRODUCTION A. Appellant/Appeal Information 1. Appellan : Scot Simpson and Ralph Mathews (see Attachment 2). 2. Site Location: 640 and 642 Maple Street (see Attachment 1). 3. Reques: Appeal of a Building Official determination regarding an alleged dangerous building. Appeal of Planning Staff decision regarding a nuisance building (see Attachment 2). 4. Review Process: Hearing Examiner, acting as Board of Appeals pursuant to ECDC 19.00.060 for Building Official determination, conducts public hearing and makes final decision. AP-2001-88.doc / August 9, 2001 / Staff Report 0 Maior Issues: Scot Simpson & Ralph Mathews File No. AP-2001-88 Page 2 of 7 Hearing Examiner, conducts public hearing for Planning Division staff decision, and makes final decision. a. Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings; Section 302, Dangerous Building definitions b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 17.40, Nonconforming Uses, Buildings, Signs, and Lots c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Title 19, Building Codes d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.95, staff review requirements. e. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.105, appeals and court review. B. Recommendations Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend DENIAL of this appeal. If the Hearing Examiner finds in favor of the appeal, it is recommend that the Hearing Examiner prepare findings and an order specifying: i. The specifics of the violation ii. The method of abatement or repair To include all required permits and approvals as required in the Edmonds Community Development Code and adopted Uniform Codes, such as a Critical Areas Determination, demolition permit, building permit, plumbing permit, mechanical permit, Architecture Design Board approval, etc. iii. The time by which repair or abatement is to be completed. 11. . FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. History 1. Background Summary In March of 1993 Richard and Ana Swing applied to the City for a building permit to restore a vacant existing dwelling structure located on a lot with an existing 4-plex within an RS-6 zone (Single Farnily residential — 6,000 square foot minimum lot size). (Attachment 3) The Planning Division determined the dwelling structure to be non -conforming with respect to setback(s) and density. The Planning Division determined that the restoration and use of the dwelling would expand the non-conforn-�ty of the existing building as well as exceed 50% of its replacement cost, and therefore denied the issuance of the building permit application. (Attachment 4) The staff determination to deny the building permit was appealed by the Swing's (Attachment 5) and heard before the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner approved the appeal by Mr. & Mrs. Swing. (Attachment 6) This decision was then appealed to City Council by Scot Simpson and other neighbors (Attachment 7). City Council reversed the decision of the Hearing Examiner and ruled to deny the building permit to restore the dwelling structure. (Attachment 8) AP-2001-88.doc / August 9, 2001 / Staff Report Scot Simpson & Ralph Mathews File No. AP-2001-88 Page 3 of 7 On April 25, 2001 Scot Simpson and other neighbors submitted a complaint requesting that the building be declared a nuisance and be demolished. A copy of the original complaint is attached to the appeal documents in Attachment 2. A building or structure may be determined to be'a dangerous building by the Building Official if criteria of the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings are proven. An exterior inspection of the building was conducted by the City Building Inspector on May 11, 2001 (Attachment 9); no provision of the code was found in violation since the building was vacant. Therefore, the Building Official determined that the building was not considered a dangerous building. Regarding the ECDC nuisance complaint, the Planning Division determined that the non- conforming structure was not considered a nuisance, and although the building remains vacant, the legal non-confornting use may continue (Attachment 10). The complainants as well as the current property owners, Louis and Carol Boitano, were notified of these detenninations (Attachments It, 12, 13). Scot Simpson and Ralph Mathews are appealing these staff decisions to the Hearing Examiner (Attachment 2). 2. Chronology of Events a. Facts: (1) March 24, 1993: Ana Swing, property owner at that time, applies for a permit to construct a new foundation and new floor system for the subject single-family dwelling. (Attachment 3) (2) March 29, 1993: After review of ECDC 17.40, the Planning Division denies building permit application #93-24. (Attachment 4) (3) April 5, 1993: City receives appeal from Thomas Sorenson, attorney representing Richard and Ana Swing, regarding the Planning Division decision to deny the building permit application to repair the subject structure. (Attachment 5) (4) June 14, 1993: Public hearing before the Hearing Examiner on the appeal by the Swings of the denial of their building permit application. (5) July 2, 1993: Hearing Examiner issues a determination approving the appeal by Mr. and Mrs. Swing. (Attachment 6) (6) July 12, 1993: Scot Simpson and neighbors appeal the Hearing Examiner decision to City Council. (Attachment 7) (7) September 9, 1993: City Council reverses recommendation of the Hearing Examiner denies issuance of the building pem-iit for the non -conforming structure. (Attachment 8) (8) April 25, 2001: Complaint submitted by Scot Simpson and other neighbors requesting that the building be declared a nuisance and be demolished. (Included in Attachment 2) (9) May 14, 2001: City Building Inspector inspects the building from the exterior, finds the structure locked, inaccessible to the public, and not in danger of dilapidation, nor a public nuisance. Reports findings to Building Official. (Attachment 9) (10)May 14, 2001: Building Official determines that the subject structure is not a dangerous building pursuant to the 1997 Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. (11) June 20, 200 1: Building Official receives written determination from the Planning Division that the subject building is not considered and nuisance and the legal non- conforming use may continue. (Attachment 10) A,P-2001-88.doc / August 9, 2001 / Staff Report 0 Scot Simpson & Ralph Mathews File No. AP-2001-88 Page 4 of 7 (12)June 22, 2001: Building Official sends letter to complainants and owners notif�ting them of the Building Official and Planning Division decisions. (Attachment I I — representative letter sent to all complainants) (13)July 9, 2001: Letter sent to Mr. & Mrs. Boitano informing them of the City Council's decision dated September 9, 1993 of which they may not have been aware. (Attachment 12) (14)July 16, 2001: Letter sent to Mr. & Mrs. Boitano with copies of both previously sent letters to their Seattle address. (Attachment 13) Appeal Issues 1. Issues raised by the Appellant: a. Summary of Statements by the Appellant: (See Attachment 2 for specific comments) (1) The appellants state in their letter that the Building Inspector conducted an exterior inspection only, not an interior inspection. The Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code has provisions defining a dangerous building that concern the interior of the building. Since no inspection was conducted on the inside of the building the Building Official cannot say it is safe. (2) The appellants state that the condition of this building is defined very well by the "Findings Conclusions of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds" File N. AP- 93-61 . ...... The appellant's own testimony and pictures presented by the neighbors establish that the repairs have been necessitated due to the action of the dry rot brought by the substandard foundation. Testimony indicated that theflooring has been completely destroyed by dryrot causing walls to swing free. In order to ascertain the damage, the appellant has been forced to remove or open major portions of the subject building. At the current time photographs clearly reveal a structure which is a shell resting upon an inadequate concrete blockfoundation. " (3) The appellants state that there are 17 items used to define a Dangerous Building in the Code and most of them define this building, of which the appellants listed four. a) (2) Whenever the walking surface of any aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is so warped, wom, loose, torn or otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic. b) (7) Whenever any portion thereof has wracked, warped, buckled or settled to such an extent that walls or other structural portions have materially less resistance to winds or earthquakes than is required in the case of similar new construction. c) (12) VvIbenever the building or structure has been so damaged by fire, wind, earthquake or flood, or has become so dilapidated or deteriorated as to become (i) and attractive nuisance to childrew..... d) (17) Whenever any building or structure is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance known to the common law or in equity jurisprudence. (4) The appellants state that the building has been occupied at times because they can see through the window that additional floor joists have been taken out and gravel has been added in the space under the floor that used to exist. Everytime it was used it was a danger to those who used it and very possibly to those walking or playing around it, or to the little kids running into it with their bikes, or the big kids climbing on its roof just for fun. AP-2001-88.doc / August 9, 2001 / Staff Report Scot Simpson & Ralph Mathews File No. AP-2001-88 Page 5 of 7 (5) The appellants state that the second part of the Building Inspectors [Building Official's] decision had to deal with ECDC 17.40.000. In the original letter to the Building Inspector [Building Official], the 12 surrounding neighbors that signed the letter stated that the building was a nuisance and asked that it be declared a nuisance so it would have to be tom down. The Building Inspector [Building Official] did not address that issue however and quoted an issue not raised about it being a non- conforming building. 2. Building Official & Planning Division Comments: a. Facts: (1) The Building Inspector concluded that the building is not occupied (Attachment 9). This is supported by the appellants' statement in the letter dated July 3, 2001 that it has not been used for more than eight years. (2) The Building Official has determined that the subject building is not a danger to the public since it is vacated (Attachment 15 photographs showing general condition of exterior of building) and no provision of Section 302 of the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code applies. (3) ECDC 17.40.000 allows certain nonconforming uses and buildings to continue while requiring other nonconforming uses and buildings which are declared to be nuisances to be eliminated. b. General Response to Appellants Statements Above: (1) As stated above, the building is unoccupied, therefore the items in the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code that concern the building interior are not applicable. An inspection of the exterior of the building revealed no immediate danger to the public nor violation of theprovisions of the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code. See photographs taken of the exterior of the building by the City on July 27, 2001 (Attachment 15). The current owners, Louis and Carol Boitano, are aware of the nonconforming condition of the structure, of the City Council's 1993 decision, and that any no work may be done to the structure unless it is first approved and pem-litted by the City (Attachments 12 and 13). (2) As a matter of clarification for the record, the appellants refer to the Building Inspector in the last paragraph of their letter of appeal. There are two issues being appealed by Scot Simpson and Ralph Mathews. The Building Official composed and signed the letter dated June 22, 2001 (Attachment 11), however the Building Official only made a determination that the building was not considered a dangerous building per the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code. The Planning Division made the determination that the building was not a nuisance per ECDC 17.40.000. (3) Summary of Planning Division memos (Attachments 10 and 14): ECDC 17.40.000 states that, "The purpose of this chapter is to allow certain nonconforming uses, buildings, and lots to continue while prohibiting further nonconformity. Other nonconforming uses, buildings, signs, and lots, which are declared to be nuisances, are required to be eliminated." ECDC 20.110.030 Nuisance Section, does not define a nuisance, but provides 'a list of described items that shall not be allowed on properties within the City. The City Planner determined that the non-conforrning building in question cannot be considered as any of the items listed. Furthermore, the section states that none of these things shall be allowed, "...except as may be allowed by any other city ordinance..." Since ECDC 17.40.020 specifically allows for the continuation of nonconforming buildings, the building cannot be declared a nuisance, A.P-2001-88.doc / August 9, 2001 / Staff Report Scot Simpson & Ralph Mathews File No. AP-2001-88 Page 6 of 7 therefore cannot be required to be abated for being a nuisance, and shall be allowed to continue. c. Conclusion: (1) Because the building remains unoccupied it "...does not constitute an immediate danger to the life, limb property or safety of the public, it may be vacated, secured, and maintained against entry" as supported by Section 403 of the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code. (2) The Planning Division has determined the building is not a nuisance, therefore abatement of the building is not required for it being a nuisance. 111. APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Building Department for further procedural infori-nation. A. Appeals The decision of the Hearing Examiner on appeals of Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code shall be final and shall not be appealable to the City Council per ECDC Section 19.00.060B. An appeal of this final decision may be made to the Superior Court of Snohomish County as detailed in ECDC Section 19.00.060B. Any such action shall be filed within 21 calendar days from the final decision of the Hearing Examiner. The decision of the Hearing Examiner on appeals of Planning Staff decisions not involving a project permit application shall be appealable to the City Council per ECDC 20.105.030D. Such an appeal shall be filed with the Development Services Director within 14 calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed as required in ECDC 20.105.020. IV. ATTACHMENTS I . Zoning and Vicinity Map 2. Letter of Appeal from Scot Simpson and Ralph Mathews, including attached documents 3. 1993 Building Permit Application (Swings owners at that time) 4. 1993 Planning Division decision to deny permit application #93-24 5. 1993 Appeal letter from Thomas Sorenson, attorney representing Swings 6. 1993 Hearing Examiner Decision approving the appeal by Swings 7. 1993 Letter of Appeal from Scot Simpson, appealing Hearing Examiner Decision 8. 1993 City Council Decision reversing the Hearing Examiner decision and denying the building permit application 9. Inspection Record from City Building Inspector 10. Planning Division determination that the building is not a nuisance Letter from Building Official to complainants regarding Building Official and Planning Division determinations. 12. Letter to current owners informing them of 1993 City Council decision. 13. Letter to current owners at their Seattle address with copies of previous correspondence to them 14. Planning Division memo in response to letter of appeal 15. Copies of photographs taken of the exterior of the building by the City June 27, 2001 AP-2001-88.doc / August 9, 2001 / Staff Report 0 V. PARTIES OF RECORD Scot Simpson & Ralph Mathews File No. AP-2001-88 Page 7 of 7 Scot Simpson Edmonds Planning Division Ralph Mathews 632 Maple Street 644 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds Building Division Edmonds, WA 98020 Louis and Carol Boitano 3602 30'h Avenue West Seattle, WA 98199 AP-2001-88.doc / August 9, 2001 / Staff Report Zoning and Vicinity Map Attachment I File No. AP-2001-88 Building Official Interpretation City of Edmonds 121 — 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 771-0220 k RE: 642 Maple St. Letter dated June 22, 2001 'REC61VED JUL - 9 2001 PERMIT COUNTEP 0 632 Maple St. Edmonds, WA 98020 July 9, 2001 P111LD11VG 'Jul 2001 This is a letter of appeal of the decision regarding 642 Maple St. as addressed in the letter from Jeannine L. Graf, Building Official dated June 22,2001. The fillne fee of $300.00 enclosed. 14�1 -# /�Z tlFW The Adjacent Property Owners List is enclosed The Adjacent Property Owners List notarized declaration is enclosed. The Reasons the Decision is Wrong List is enclosed Pictures of dangerous building is enclosed. Copy of original letter from neighbors is enclosed Sincerel Sc6t Simpson & Ralph Mathews ATTACHMENT 2 File No. AP-2001-88 0 Reasons the Decision- is Wrong Letter of Appeal To the Decision presented in the letter dated June 22, 2001 from Jeannine L. Graf, Building Official. The Building inspector conducted an exterior inspection. The inspector did not conduct an interior inspection. Section 302 of the "1997 Uniform Code For The Abatement of Dangerous Buildings" has 17 provisions that define a dangerous building. Any one of these provisions by itself can determine a dangerous building. 16 of the 17 provisions can or do deal with the interior of the building. The Building Inspector did not inspect the Interior and therefore they can not say that this building is safe. In fact at one time about ten years ago wire mess and stucco was illegally placed around the exterior of the foundation to hid the deterioration on the exterior. The actual condition of this building is defined very well by the "Findings Conclusions of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds" File No. AP-93-61 on September 1993, when it was said "3. The appellant's own testimony and the pictures presented by the neighbors establish that the repairs have been necessitated due to the action of dry rot brought by the substandard foundation. Testimony indicated that the flooring has been completely destroyed by dry rot causing walls to swing free. In order to ascertain the damage, the appellant has been forced to remove or open major portions of the subject building. At the current time the photographs clearly reveal a structure which is a shell resting upon an inadequate concrete block foundation." This statement was made eight years ago. There are 17 items used to define a Dangerous Building in the Code. Most of them define this building. I am listing four. 2. Whenever the walking surface of any aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is so warped, wom, loose, torn or otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic. 7. Whenever any portion thereof has wracked, warped, buckled or settled to such an extent that walls or other structural portions have materially less resistance to winds or earthquakes than is required in the case of similar new construction. 12 Whenever the building or structure has been so damaged by fire, wind, earthquake or floor or has become so dilapidated or deteriorated as to become (i) an attractive nuisance to children: ..... 17. Whenever any building or structure is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance known to the common law or in equity jurisprudence. The building has been occupied at times because we can see through the window that additional floor joists have been taken out and gravel has been added in the space under the floor that used to exist. Every time it was used it was a danger to those who use it and very possible to those walking or playing around it, or to the little kids running into it with their bikes, or the big kids climbing on its roof just for tun, The second part of the Building Inspectors decision had to deal with ECDC 17.40.000. in the original letter to the Building Inspector the 12 surrounding neighbors that signed the letter stated that the building was a nuisances and ask that the building department declare it a nuisances so that it would have to be torn down according to the code. The building inspector did not address that issue however and quoted an issue not raised about it being a non -conforming building. lamp. ".o Yt Z�, 7N. i 4k 14 April 10, 2001 City of Edmonds Community Services Department Plannim Division 250 — 5 Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 425.771.0220 This is a request that the detached single family residence behind the four-plex multi- family dwelling at 642 Maple St be declared a nuisances and be required to be - eliminated. This is pursuit to Section 17.40.000 of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code. This building has been vacant since the Edmonds City Council decided at it's August 17, 1993 meeting to deny the building permit to remodel the nonconforming. building. The following are some quotes that describe the building as it was 8 years ago from the "Findings Conclusions of Ae Hearing Examiner of Ae City Of Edmonds, File No. AP- 93-61 are as follows; 1) "The existing single family residence is a nonconforming structure due to its intrusion into the setback area and density." 2) "5. Due to the substandard foundation, dry rot has destroyed the flooring materials on the ground floor of the subject building. The owners removed the ground floor along with a variety of other components and fixtures from the subject building. Photographs admitted at the hearing before the City Council indicated the subject building is basically a shell with doors, floors, windows and other fixtures having been removed and other portions of the structure removed or opened in order to inspect the structure." 3) "Testimony indicated that the flooring has been completely destroyed by dry rot causing walls to swing free. In order to ascertain the damage, the appellant has been forced to remove or open major portions of the subject building. At the current time the photographs clearly reveal a structure which is a shell resting upon an inadequate concrete block foundation." 11 F, I L The building is a fire hazard and a safety hazard. Broken windows and young boys don't mix. Currently two Eve on the property. Nothing can be done to the building and the dry rot just gets worse. Not enough parking is provided for the four-plex and the sidewalk is frequently blocked by parked cars forcing pedestrians to walk in the street. If the building was eliminated it would make additional parking available. As neighbors we want to build a good neighborly relation. When an effort was made by volunteering to assist in tearing the budding down the effort was rejected. The stated plan was to make a laundry out of the building. Pictures are attached. Respectfully submitted, Neighbof's Name Neighbor's Address P Le 3t. Gqq Cno*1aS+. Magic: wl -3 -3 A4 ae& -IOLMI k al 0041 ---- 457 S 7-, e, — CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION 0 NJ T' U S USE PERMIT Zo ZONE - x-s 0 NUMBER , '08 SUITE7 ADORE ADDRESS 6-41?11 ?,� I)" Y Pox (5WNER NAME 'NAME OF BUSINESS alry�-Q- \/\A. rk-k3%^A LEG AL LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECKISUODIVISION NO MAILING ADDRESS r; 3,3 N PU PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. E:ISTING 81OUIREO 011"CA P OPOSE TIO. _ PROPO TESCP App,d,.d 0 RW Pinnuil Roqu-0 a Street U.0 PSIM-1 Reqd 13 In Pfttion Required 0 4 Sidewalk Required 0 0 ZIP CA �PHONE NU118ER Tlil.r 0 .ER NAME #4a Sw ;T,) C, REMARKS ADDRESS a-�3-3 /y, CITY ZIP S?74 -7-7-Li OA ITELEP"ONE NUMBER 36.5 -0y 3 NAME !�Sev 6-/v OINEERING MEMO DATED R VIEW.8 ADDRESS 600,i a37,�, N 5 �j SO kleff- iZE BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES CITY Zip TELEPHONE NUMBER Hk7-. l &)CA LOOM STATE LICENSE NIIUBER EXPIRATIONOATE J;-A) Alp SION AREA SEFTPA REVIE7 0=1 NO E PRO 0 OMPL E r :.PT Legal Description of Property - include all easements Z Z-,(g 7- + OREL VARIANCE OR NIAG RkVIE L,TE 0 lb A"r- /tu V� SETBACKS - FEET LOT COVERAGE FRON SID REAR 'Rro 'raipedy Acodunt i /- III, A — )arcel No._ 4�01 Y, lot- dj EEL deg W - 5 NEW RESIDENTIAL UMBING ADDITION COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL REMODEL APT. SLOG. SION FENCE GRADING 0 REPAIR EI I L DEMOLISH E] S .0 -PA ARAGE RET !N.AL CK R CARPORT 1:1 OF ::�TION CODE "EIG T 47 2:51 ,CTOR j[REA �%A 3 OCCUPANT 13 YES LOAD IS INSPECTIONS PER LIBC 305 74-1`AQf9-1A-)1 DWELLING 24t T; VFIPINSPECTIONREOUIREO AKTO BE DONE (ATTACR PLOY PLAN) ION FEE PLAN CHECK FEE 164, 40 A),rta) /�/kv/z BUILDING CIO MEAT SOURCE: GLAZING ele I PLUMBING Plan Chieck No. 91� V MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private Property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL Any construction on the public domain (Curts. sidewelks. STATE SURCHARGE driveways. marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. Permit Application: 190 Days Permit Limit: I Year - Provided Work Is Started withtin iso Days . STORM DRAINAGE FEE 15n -Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENO. INSPECTION FEE w Successors in interest. agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Edmonds. Washington. Its officials, I 5 or employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of whatever nature. arising directly or Indirectly from the Issuance of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance provision." PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT TOTAL AMOUNT DUE I hereby acknowledge that I have read lh�s application; that the information given is correct; and that I am Ithe owner, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL duly .9 authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PEAMiT State laws regulating construction; and In doing the work authoriz. AUTHORIZES This application Is not a permit until ed I hereby. no person will be employed In violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa. WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid. and receipt is tion Insurance. INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. ��TURE 40 ER OR AGENY1 DATE SIONE�O DEPARTMENT OFF)r.11- I SiGtIATUAE DATE CITY OF 13 -22 y TACHMtNT 3 EDMONDS CALL FOR .�EASE, OAJTE ATTENTION INSPECTION !T S UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A ILDING OR STRUCTURE 1711. A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN M4,DE AND APPROVAL OR p IN 'tEFITIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC 771-0220 ORIGINAL - File YELLOW - inspector File No. AP-2001-88 R 3. PINK - Owner GOLD - Assess or 890 - ()9 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 0 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works * Planning * Parks and Recreation * Engineering LAURA M. HALL MAYOR March 29, 1993 Mr. & Mrs. Swing 2333 N. 193rd St. 'COP Seattle, WA 98133 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Swing: I have had the opportunity to review your application for a building permit to replace the foundation of an existing building at 640 Maple Street, Edmonds. Last week Mr. Swing contacted me and asked me if the nonconforming use of the subject property would prohibit the proposed foundation repair. During the conversation, Mr. Swing stated that there is a four unit apartment in the front of the property and a one unit house in the rear of the property. I told Mr. Swing that the property was zoned for single family use, but that the buildings on the property were placed there prior to the enactment of the single family zoning for that area. Section 17.40 of the zoning ordinance contains several different types of legal nonconformities. Two of these are legal nonconforming uses and legal nonconforming buildings. A legal nonconforming use is one where the use of the property was previously allowed, but has become prohibited since the time the use began. A legal nonconforming building is one which does not conform to size. setback, height or other bulk standard requirements, but did conform to such standards when the building was constructed. Considering that the property had five units, and has continuously had those five units since the time it was legal to have five units on the property, the property is determined to have a legal nonconforming use. A legal nonconforming use cannot be expanded in any way. Maintenance and repair, is allowed for a nonconforming use. Therefore, if the building to be repaired is only nonconforming due to the number of dwelling units, the repair would be allowed. As you may recall, this is what we discussed on the telephone. Unfortunately, during our phone conversation I was not informed of the nonconforming rear setback. The RS-6 zone district requires a 15 foot rear setback. Though your site plan does not state the specific rear sctback,'it is apparent that at least a portion of the subject building is in the rear setback area. Considering this, your building is not only a legal nonconforming use, but it is also a legal nonconforming building due to the protrusion into the rear setback. The height of a nonconforming building cannot be increased, and no restoration or repair exceeding 50% of the value of the building may be performed. Your proposal will increase the height of the foundation, therefore it will increase the height of the building and, as previously. stated, an increase in height will not be allowed. In addition, your permit application states that the value of the proposed work is $30,000 The Snohomish County Assessor values all buildings on your property at $180,600. That works out to $36,120 per unit. Therefore, with no better information, the City must assume that the subject building valuation is $36,120. $30,000 is over 50% of $36,000. Dud to this information, the Planning Division finds that the project as proposed cannot be approved for issuance. The application for foundation repair as submitted is denied. Sincerely, John Bissell, AICP Planning Division cc. Pern-dit Coordinator ATTACHMENT 4 File No. AP-2001-88' a Incorporated August 11, 1890 a Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 0 1* RECEiVED THOMAS C. SORENSON J U N 1 7 1993 Attorney at Law 320 Dayton St., Suite 106 PERMIT COUNTER Edmonds, WA 98020 (206) 771-5206 (Telephone and Fax) TO: JIM DRISCOLL, HEARING EXAMINER FROM: THOMAS C. SORENSON, Attorney for Appellants Richard and Ana Swing DATE: JUNE 17,1993 FILE: AP-93-61 HEARING DATE, TIME AND PLACE: JUNE 17, 1993 at 9:00 A.M. Community Services Conference Room, Community Services Building, 250 5th Ave. N. FACTS The facts stated in the City's Findings and Conclusions are essentially correct. The building in question is a legal nonconforming building. It is a nonconforming building solely because it violates currrent setback requirements. See the letter to Mr. & Mrs. Swing of March 29, 1993, from John Bissell, AICP, City of Edmonds Planning Division, submitted with the City's materials. The Swings applied to a building permit to replace the foundation under the house (except under the kitchen, where the foundation had been replaced earlier by a former owner). The City denied the Swings' building permit application apparently because it believed (incorrectly) that the height of the building (which the City has never contended is nonconforming) would be increased, not because the nonconforming setback would be reduced. Moreover, the City believed that the cost of the proposed work (incorrectly stated in the permit application to be $30,000) would exceed 50% of "the value of the building." Id. The City based this conclusion upon a value derived by dividing the total assessed value of the property on which the house in question is located by the total number of units on the property, namely, five. Moreover, appellant will show at the hearing that the. $39.000 fi2ure is ATTACHMENT 5 R16 No. AP-2001.-.88 Mr. Jim Driscoll, Examiner June 17, 1993 449 40 Page 2 inaccurate and that the total cost of the proposed work on the foundation and floor is only $15,484.00. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE A. The Proposed Work Is A Permissible Alteration The City apparently relies on Section 17.40.020 F of the ECDC, which deals with "Restoration" of damaged or destroyed nonconforming buildings. This case is, however, actually controlled by Section 17.40.020 D.2., which states: Alterations which otherwise conform to the, provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site development and bulk standards, and which to not expand any nonconforming aspect of the building, shall be permitted. The City has never contended that the proposed work to the building violates the applicable zoning, site development, or bulk standards. Rather, it apparently interpreted the prohibition in this section on expanding any nonconforming aspect of the building to mean that no aspect of the building could be materially altered. Since the City incorrectly believed that the proposed work would raise the height of the building, it denied the Swings' permit appliction. It is clear that the proposed work is permissible under this Section. The bulk of the work to be done constitutes alterations, not restoration of a damaged or destroyed building. The work contemplates altering the crawl space under the building and altering the footings and depth of the foundation wall. This work is clearly permissible under Section 17.40.020 D.2. The nonconforming aspect of the building is its setback, not its height, and the proposed work in no way decreases the setback. Indeed, it does not affect the setback at all. Therefore, the proposed work is clearly permissible under this Section. The City says this case is controlled by Section 17.40.020 F because the value of the work exceeds 50% of the construction cost of the house. As explained below, the City's factual assumption is erroneous. But in addition, there is no basis in the Code for the staff interpretation that the distinction between Section 17.40.020 D and Section 17.40.020 F turns on the cost of the work to be done. Rather, these two sections deal with separate and distinct situations. Section 17.40.020 D deals with maintenance and alteration of a building. It does not apply to damage to or Mr. Jim Dfiscoll, g Examiner June 17, 1993 Page 4 the house in question is located, namely, $180,600. It then divided this number by the total number of units on the property (5) to produce an alleged value for the house in question of $36,120. This procedure is faulty in two separate respects. First, assessed value is not necessarily the actual value of a piece of property. Thus, the City did not have a viable starting point for its value analysis. In fact, the actual value of this property is far higher than its assessed value. As the City now acknowledges. the Swings bought this property earlier this year for $330,000, nearly twice the assessed value the City used. Even if (as appears to be the case) the Swings paid more than the property is worth in its present condition, $330,000 must be taken as the market value of the property in repaired condition, that is, in the condition the Swings were led to believe it was in when they bought it. The City's method of dividing total value by the number of units gives a value of the house in question of $66,000, not $36,120, when the correct total value of the property is used. Thus, the City's analysis was faulty from the outset because it was using an incorrect and extremely low figure for the value of the property on which the house in question sits. Second, the City compounded the problem by determining the value of the house in question simply by dividing the assessed value by the total number of units on the property. This procedure assumes that each of the five units on the property contrbutes equally to the total value of the property. There is no reason to believe this is in fact true. The house in question is a separate one family dwelling. The other units are apartments in a fourplex. The only reasonable assumption is that the separate dwelling, being far more desireable as a rental unit, contributes substantially more to the value of the property than does each of the units in the fourplex. The true value of the house is clearly substantially in excess of one fifth of the total value of the property. Thus, the City used the wrong method of determining the starting point for its analysis and the wrong method of deriving the value of the unit in question from its incorrect starting point. Therefore even using the incorrect cost figure of $30,000 stated in the permit application, the City should have granted the permit. CONCLUSION: It is undeniable that the City made a mistake in denying the Swings' building permit application. The proposed alteration of the existing building is clearly permitted by Edmonds Community Development Code Section 17.40.020 D.2. And it is just as clearly not prohibited by Section 17.40.020 F. The proposed work in no way increases the nonconforming aspect of the building in question. The cost of the work (even using the exaggerated figure incorrectly V 7 Mr. Tim Driscoll, Examiner June 17,1993 Page 5 used in the permit application) does not begin to approadh, much less exceed, 50% of the value of the building in question. The City's denial of the Swings' building permit application must be reversed, and the requested building permit must be issued. Respectfully submitted this 17th day of June, 1993. Thomas C. Sorenson WSBA #11977 Attorney for Appellants hn%030615.swi 9 0 CITY OF EDMONDS,; 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL MAYOR IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEALS FILE: AP-93-61 OF THOMAS SORENSON OF Ali ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION DECISION: It is ordered that the appeals of Thomas Sorenson on behalf of Richard and Ana Swing be approved. INTRODUCTION Thomas Sorenson (hereinafter referred to as appellant) on behalf of Richard and Ana Swing, appealed the Planning Division's interpretation relating to "alterations of nonconforming buildings" pursuant to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 17.40.020, and subsequent denial by the City of a building permit for an existing single family structure located at 640 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington. At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: JEFFREY S. WILSON Planning Dept. City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 ANA SWING 2333 North 193rd Street Seattle, WA 98133 GLORIA PRIEBE 637 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 SCOT SIMPSON 632 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 THOMAS SORENSON 320 Dayton Street, Suite 106 Edmonds, WA 98020 RALPH MATHEWS 644 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 MAX PRIEBE 637 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 R.D. JENSEN 6002 - 237th Street S.W. Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 CLIFF ADAMS LEAH SIMPSON 631 Maple Street 632 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020, ATTACHMENT 6 9 Incor ' porated August 11, 11890 File No. AP-2001-88 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION RE: AP-93-61 7/2/93 Page 2 CHARLES P. VERRALL, SR. 654 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 At the hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the record for the hearing: Exhibit I - Staff Report with the following attachments Attachment 1 - Vicinity/Zoning Map of 2 - Letter of appeal (4/5/93) of 3 - Appellant's letter in response to denial of a building permit (4/6/93) of 4 - Letter from City to appellant denying building permit application (3/29/93) - Building permit application (3/24/93) 6 - ECDC Section 17.40.020 (nonconforming buildings) After due consideration of the evidence presented by the appellants, evidence elicited during the public hearing and as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding areas by the Hearing Examiner, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS OF FACTS The subject property is developed with a detached single family residence and a fourplex. The residential units on the subject property are legal nonconforming structures: the existing single iamily residence is nonconforming because the building intrudes into the setback area. The existing single family residence is the subject of the building permit and staff interpretation at issue in this appeal. 2. The subject property is zoned RS-6, which requires a 6,000 square foot lot size. 3. The properties to the north, south, east, and west are developed with detached single family residences and are zoned RS- 6. 4. On March 24, 1993 the appellant applied for a building permit to replace the foundation under the existing single family residence. The entire house, with the exception of the kitchen, is proposed to have a new foundation. HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION RE: AP-93-61 7/2/93 Page 3 5. On April 6, 1993 the Planning Division of the City of Edmonds notified the appellant that the building permit was denied. The basis for the denial included the concern that the height of the residence would be increased upon completion of the new foundation; and, that the cost of the new foundation exceeded 50% of the replacement value of the existing residence. 6. Historically, the City has used a 50% construction cost standard to define when a proposal changes from "Maintenance and Alterations" becomes "Restoration" as defined in ECDC 17.40.010(D) and 17. 4 0. 02 0 (F) . Based on the staf f I s interpretation, the cost of the proposed work exceeds 50% of the replacement cost of the residence, and the proposed work is considered to be a "restoration" as defined in ECDC 17.40.020(F). Restoration of a nonconforming structure is not permitted. 7. The appellant argued that ECDC 17.40.010(F) is not the proper ordinance to determine if the cost of the proposed work exceeds 50% of the replacement cost. According to the appellant, this ordinance applies only to destroyed or damaged nonconforming buildings. The structure at the subject property is neither destroyed nor damaged, but is being repaired. 8. Thomas Sorenson, the representative for the appellant, submitted that the height of the residence will not be increased with the replacement of the foundation wall because the area beneath the residence will be excavated for the new foundation. At the public hearing the City withdrew the height violation as a reason for denial and acknowledged that the proposal was within the code standards. In addition, Mr. Sorenson indicated that the assessed valuation used by the staff in determining the replacement value\construction ratio was inaccurate. 9. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) section 17.40.020 establishes the guidelines used to evaluate all nonconforming buildings, and when such buildings are required to be brought into conformance. 10. The building permit application submitted by the appellant stated that the value of the work to be done on the single family residence was approximately $30,000. The staff, in reviewing the assessor's records, determined that the value of the entire property was $180,000. Dividing this figure by five for each unit on site, the staff determined that the value of the single family residence was approximately $36,000 and thus the cost of work proposed to be done on the residence equaled approximately 83% of the replacement cost of the structure. HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION RE: AP-93-61 7/2/93 Page 4 11. The appellant submitted that the work proposed in the single family residence is to construct a crawl space and a new foundation. He contended that this amounts to ordinary maintenance and repair of the nonconforming building and is allowed pursuant to ECDC 17.40.020(D)(1). 12. The appellant submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the use is permitted pursuant to ECDC 17.40.020(D) (1) . The City should not have used the assessed value of the property, but should have in fact looked at the market value to determine if the improvements exceed the 50% threshold. According to the appellant, the property was recently purchased for $330,000. If this figure is divided by five for the five units on site, the total value of each unit is $66,000. With the projected $30,000 improvement, the value of the improvements is below the threshold. 13. The appellant submitted that the information on the building permit includes activity which is not necessarily required for a building permit. With the removal of items not required to be permitted, the replacement value will not exceed 50% of the value of the property. 14. The appellant submitted that by adding a new foundation and crawl space, the nonconforming use is not being expanded but in fact the structure is being brought closer to compliance. 15. At the public hearing testimony was received. A summary of the testimony is as follows: A. SCOT SIMPSON. The witness submitted that he is a general contractor. He contended that the costs of estimates of the appellant are incomplete because they do not include factors such as insulation of walls and other structural requirements that will be done for the proposed activity. With these figures, the construction amount should exceed 50%, according to the witness. The witness also provided testimony with regard to parking in the area. He contended that the property has been a problem to the neighborhood and the proposed improvements will be an expansion of the nonconforming use. He contended that the general upkeep of the building has been an issue in the past. B. CLIFF ADAMS. The witness supported the City's decision. He contended that the building on the site has already been illegally raised and that it encroaches into the alley right of way. 0 4 HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION RE: AP-93-61 7/2/93 Page 5 C. GLORIA PRIEBE. The witness submitted there is a parking problem that has been caused by residents at this illegal building. She contended that the best use of the property would be to tear down the structure and to construct one single family house on the site. D. RALPH MATHEWS. The witness submitted that he supports Scott Simpson's testimony about the insufficient information with regard to construction. The witness also contended to be concerned with parking. He submitted that renters of the properties park in the alley creating difficult passage of cars. He contended that there have been many "derelict" vehicles on site and that the renters of the properties have not been good neighbors. They have created problems with parking and animals. E. LEAH SIMPSON. The witness submitted that. the parking is a problem as well as the pets of the renters of the properties. She contended the property has no grass and is all pavement. Animal wastes have created problems on the property and other properties. F. CHARLES VERRALL. The witness submitted that the existing use of the property is a poor use. Offstreet parking should be provided and part of the property should be used for parking. CONCLUSIONS 1 . The subject property is developed with a detached single family residence and a fourplex on one lot. The property, which is located at 640 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington, includes illegal nonconforming structures, including an existing single family residence and a fourplex. 2. On March 24, 1993 the appellant applied for a building permit to replace the foundation under the existing single family residence. On April 6, 1993 the Planning Department of the City of Edmonds denied the permit, contending that the height of the single family residence would be increased upon completion of the foundation, thereby creating an expansion on the nonconforming use. The Planning Department also denied the permit based on its interpretation that the cost of the new foundation exceeds 50% of the replacement value of the existing residence. 3. The City officially withdrew its reason for the denial based on the height. The only issue before the Hearing Examiner is HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION RE: AP-93-61 7/2/93 Page 6 whether the proposed improvements are subject to the 50% improvement standard as set forth in ECDC 17.40.020(F) . The City Planning Department was in error in applying the standards of ECDC 17.40.020(F) . J 4. The nonconforming building has not been destroyed and has not been damaged. The provisions of ECDC 17.40.020(F) are not applicable to the review of the permit. 5. The provisions of ECDC 17.40.020(D) (1) apply for the review of the permit. The proposal of the appellant is for the ordinary maintenance or repair of a nonconforming building. The proposed activity is permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 6. Parking, behavior of renters, animal wastes, and other issues raised at the public hearing are relevant neighborhood concerns, but they are not considerations that can be used by the Hearing Examiner in reaching a decision of the appeal. DECISION Based upon the preceding findings of facts and conclusions, the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon the impressions of the Hearing Examiner upon review of testimony and evidence, it is hereby ordered that the City Planning Department's decision of April 6, 1993 denying the building permit was in error. The permit should be granted because the proposed activity is ordinary maintenance and repair of an existing nonconforming building. The building has not been destroyed nor damaged. The building permit should be allowed pursuant to ECDC 17.40.020(D)(1). or)MVPmrpq The City's decision has been reversed. The permit is granted because the evidence and testimony submitted at the public hearing supports the contention that the activity to be done on the property is ordinary maintenance and repair of a nonconforming building as allowed pursuant to ECDC 17.40.020. Two issues which are not determinative of the decision but which should be brought to the City's attention are: (1) how value is determined for replacement costs of nonconforming structures; and, (2) the neighborhood issues regarding this property.. 1. The Planning Department incorrectly used ECDC 17.40.020(F) in denying the permit. As noted in the Findings and Conclusions, and Decision of this matter, the HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION RE: AP _ 93-61 7/2/93 Page 7 nonconforming building on site was not destroyed nor damaged and therefore is not subject to the provisions of ECDC 17.40.020(F). However, the Planning Department raised an issue which should be addressed with regard to this ordinance even though it is not determinative of the matter. The ordinance is unclear as to what the term "replacement cost" at the time of destruction means. ECDC 17.40.020(F) states that if a nonconforming building is destroyed or is damaged in an equal amount of 50% or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, the building shall not be reconstructed. The Planning Deparmtne has used the assessed value of the properties to determine the 50% value. However, arguments that the assessed value should not be used but the market value should be used are valid. The ordinance is definitely unclear and no definition is provided in ECDC. it is suggested that this ambiguity be corrected and that the term "replacement costs" be defined to give direction to the public and to the City in future cases. 2. Testimony was presented at the public hearing on the use of the property by renters. The concerns, although not a criteria that could be used for the decision, should be considered by the City. The appellant is also encouraged to work with the neighborhood to provide more reasonable use of the properties and to control parking and other problems. Further, the appellant should take some measures to ensure that those renting the properties are compatible with the other neighbors. This should include control of pets, activities, and any other disruptive behavior. Entered this 2nd day of July, 1993, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. f �JAKES M. DRISCOLL i Hearing Examiner NOTICE OF( RIGHT TO APPEAL written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action. HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION RE: AP-93-61 7/2/93 Page 8 In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior to 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 19, 1993. AP-93-145 July 5, 1993 Planning Department RECEIVED City of Edmonds JUL 12 1993 Civic Center Edmonds, WA.. 98020 PERMIT COUNTER RE: File: AP-93-61 Fi,ndings and Recommendation of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds. Appeal : This is an appeal to the decision of James M. Driscoll, Hearing Examiner of.the City of Edmonds regarding File: AP-93-61 This appeal is based on three grounds. 1) Evidence that was brought to the attention of the Hearing Examiner at the hearing was not recorded or addressed. 2) Evidence recorded by the Hearing Examiner affecting this decision was recorded but not addressed. 3) Information needed to make the decision that was made was not addressed Each of these three items will be addressed in a numbered sequence below as they are above. 1) Regarding the testimony of Scot Simpson at the public hearing. Mr. Simpson brought to the attention of the Hearing Examiner the fact that in 1990 the property in question had been illegally remodeled to increase the height and extend the nonconforming width of the building. Mr. Simpson provided pictures to verify this fact. The Hearing Examiner did not record or address,this issue. 2) Regarding the testimony of Scot Simpson at the public hearing. The Hearing examiner recorded that " -- the proposed improvements will be an expansion of the nonconforming use." The hearing examiner in his "Findings and Recommendations"did not address this issue. ATTACHMENT.7 File No. AP-2001-88 a The proposed addition would increase the depth of the building by P6" into the ground. ECDC 17.40.020 (B) states 1. -- it may not be changed or altered in any manner which increases the degree of nonconformity of the building. ECDC 17.40.020 (D)(2) states " -- Alterations which otherwise conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site development and bulk standards, and which do not expand any nonconforming aspect of the building, shall be permitted." 3) The hearing examiner rejected the applicability of the provisions of ECDC 17.40.020(D)(1) on the grounds that the building was neither damaged nor destroyed. . He does not address the issue of damage. He does not mentioned or was not aware that the building has been so badly damaged that most of the building does not have a floor in it, one room does not have a floor or beams or any wall sheathing, and that there are holes in the exterior of the building into the inside. The Hearing Manager accepted the permit on the provisions of ECDC 17.40.020(D) (1), however he did not address the issue as to whether or not the proposed work is ordinary maintenance and repair. Webster's New Concise Dictionary defines repair as "the act of restoring to good condition that which has been broken or worn by use." Replacing an existing post and beam system with a concrete footer and foundation wall system is not a repair , but it is adding a whole new system. The Hearing Examiner stated that the City historically used a 50% construction cost standard to define when a proposal changes from "Maintenance and Alterations" to become "Restoration". Since in ECDC 17.40.020(F) Restoration only relates to being destroyed or damaged it is evident that the city historically used the 50% standard to determine if a building is destroyed or damaged. The Hearing Examiner rejected the City's historical definition without providing a definition of his own. Respectfully submit)obd, 5csf 3, Yn P, 5 Do 5-( - --- ----------- 4,44 MWIC S+ E.,ArA*-Wdq. 7/711.3 7-;7-,E -P4 1 so(;, -4 Y - 17 —F SY V-11c I e. 40 . 46 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS OF THE 11EARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE FILE NO. AP-93-61 STAFF DECISION: BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION BY THOMAS SORENSON INTRODUCTION Thomas Sorenson on behalf of Richard and Anna Swing appealed a determination of the City's Planning Division interpreting and applying development code provisions regarding alteration of nonconforming buildings to a building permit application to remodel an existing single family structure located at 640 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington (hereinafter "subject property"). This matter was first heard by the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds who issued his recommendation dated July 2, 1993, revised on July 7, 1993. The Findings and Conclusions of the Edmonds City Council are based upon the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, the hearing before the Edmonds City Council and the evidence produced at such hearings. The hearing before the Edmonds City Council was held August 17, 1993 following notice provided by the City Clerk in accordance with ordinance. No objections were received to the participation of any City Councilmember based upon the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine or any other ground. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is currently developed with a detached single family residence and a four-plex multi -family dwelling. The four-plex is a legal nonconforming structure with respect to its use and density. The existing single family residence is a nonconforming structure due to its intrusion into the setback area and density. The existing single family residence is the subject of the building permit application and the staff interpretation at issue in this appeal. 2. The subject property is zoned RS-6 (single family use) and each residential unit requires a 6,000 square foot lot. The properties to the north, south, east and west are developed with detached single family residences and are also zoned RS-6. 3. On March 24, 1993, the appellant applied for a building permit to replace the foundation under the existing single family, residence (subject building). The entire structure with the exception of the kitchen is propwkd to have a new foundation. Testimony indicated that the subject building would be supported while the present foundation of concrete blocks was SqA=b" 1, 1993 WSS55459.lXI0006.222 ATTACHMENT 8 File No. AP-2001-88 6 4 removed and a new foundation poured under the existing residence. The new foundation would be deeper, wider and of a different type than the current foundation. The foundation at the southern and eastern portions of the subject building would be located at their present location within the setback area. 4. On April 6, 1993 the Building Division of the City of Edmonds notified the applicant the building permit was denied. The basis for denial included the staff's concern that the height of the subject building would be increased upon completion of the new foundation and that the cost of the new foundation exceeded 50 percent of the replacement value of the existing residence. 5. Due to the substandard foundation, dry rot has destroyed the flooring materials on the ground floor of the subject building. The owners removed the ground floor along with a variety of other components and fixtures from the subject building. Photographs admitted at the hearing before the City Council indicated the subject building is basically a shell with doors, floors, windows and other fixtures having been removed and other portions of the structure removed or opened in order to inspect the structure. 6. The appeal before the Hearing Examiner revolved around the application of ECDC Chapter 17.40 and Section 17.40.020. The staff interpreted these code provisions to prohibit the issuance of the building permit because the proposed work exceeds 50 percent of the replacement cost of the residence. The staff therefore applied ECDC Section 17.40.020(F) which prohibits the "restoration" of a nonconforming structure following damage to 50 percent of the value of the structure. 7. When the matter reached the City Council, the City staff dropped its contention that the height of the building would be increased. Testimony indicated that the earth underneath the building would be excavated in order to place a new and enlarged foundation under the structure without increasing the height of the structure. 8. The appellant's representative Thomas Sorenson presented several arguments to the City Council: 8.1. The subject property has not been damaged within the meaning ECDC Section 17.40.010 and 17.40.020. Subsection (D) of ECDC Section 17.40.020 permits normal maintenance and repair and the appellant asserts that subparagraph (4) of this section is inapplicable because the subject property has not been damaged or destroyed due to a catastrophic event. 8.2. The enhanced foundation does not expand the nonconforming aspect of the structure. 8.3. Evidence of prior alterations are irrelevant to the current proceeding. SWxmb" 1, 1993 WSS55459.IX/0006.M -2- I a 16 9. Testimony presented by the appellant at the hearing before the City Council indicates that substantial damage to the structure occurred due to dry rot. The appellant provided testimony that the cost of materials and labor to replace the floor alone would cost approximately $1,200. Testimony of neighbors and their presentation indicated a higher value. Photographs presented by the neighbors show a structure without floors, with walls detached and with major fixtures removed from a structure which is open to the weather. Testimony indicated that the current foundation was without value and must be completely replaced. Cost of building a structure identical to the existing single family dwelling was estimated at approximately $30 per square foot or about $46,000 to $50,000 to totally replace. The building permit application submitted by the appellant stated a value for the work to be done on the residence at approximately $30,000. The entire tract according to the Snohomish County Assessor's evaluation (which is not individually allocated )is $180,000. The appellant noted before the Hearing Examiner that the information of the building permit includes activity which is not necessarily required for the building permit. CONCLUSIONS 1 . The purpose and intent of Chapter 17.40 and provisions related to nonconforming buildings, lots and uses is set forth in Section 17.40.000 which provides: The purpose of this chapter is to allow certain nonconforming uses, buildings and lots to continue while prohibiting further nonconformi . Other nonconforming uses, buildings, signs and lots, which are declared to be nuisances, are Leguired to be eliminated. Emphasis Added. The City Council strictly construes the provisions of Chapter 17.40 to prohibit expansion of nonconforming uses. 2. The construction of a new foundation which is of a broader, deeper and more sophisticated nature than the existing foundation would take place within the setback area. Such expansion is an expansion of a nonconforming building within the setback contrary to the provisions of Section 17.40.020(D)(2) which permits only: Alterations which otherwise conform to provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site development and bulk standard, and which do not expand into nonconforming g5Mts of the building. shall be pgrmitted. Emphasis Added. Further Section 17.40.020(B) provides that a nonconforming building may be maintained and continued unless the code requires abatement but: SW=bcr 1, 1993 WSS55459.IX/0006.M -3- 46 6 ... it may not be changed or altered in anyw�a which increases the degree of nonconformi1y of the building. Emphasis Added. These provisions are violated by the expansion of the foundation within the setback area. The subject building is nonconforming and its limits are defined by the existing structure in height, depth and width. The proposed expansion of the foundation represents an expansion of the nonconforming building within the setback area as surely as an extension of the height of the building upward would. The improvement and expansion of the foundation would occur within the setback area thereby expanding the bulk of the structure in the setback area by expanding the foundation downwards and adding additional bulk. No such alteration of an existing nonconforming structure is permitted. 3. The appellant's own testimony and the pictures presented by the neighbors establish that the repairs have been necessitated due to the action of dry rot brought by the substandard foundation. Testimony indicated that the flooring has been completely destroyed by dry rot causing walls to swing free. In order to ascertain the damage, the appellant has been forced to remove or open major portions of the subject building. At the current time the photographs clearly reveal a structure which is a shell resting upon an inadequate concrete block foundation. 4. The valuation figures presented by the applicant/appellant and the neighbors are inconclusive. Some figures represent replacement values, others formalize schedules of repair under the UBC and yet others assessor's records. The City Council notes that both the applicant and neighbors agree that the replacement value of the house is approximately $46,000 to $50,000 and the applicant's own building permit application indicates $30,000. The City Council therefore finds that the appellant applicant has failed to sustain its burden of proof and the record contains credible evidence to support a finding that the structure has been damaged by dry rot to 50 percent of its value when the total work necessary to rehabilitate the structure is included. Such repairs cannot be done in isolation and painting, plastering, . dry wall and other improvements to the house are necessary. The pictures shown to the City Council indicate that floors, ceilings, walls, doors and windows all need to be replaced, rebuilt or reinstalled. As such the City Council finds that more credible evidence would indicate that the structure has been damaged to 50 percent of its value. DECISION Based upon the record before it the City Council finds that the proposed new foundation would alter or change the nonconforming structures located in the setback area expanding the nonconforming nature of the structure by expanding its foundation both in type, depth and width within the setback area. Such an expansion violates the provisions of Section 17.40.020(B) which permits a nonconforming building to be maintained and continued provided that "...it may not be changed or altered in any manner which increases the degree of nonconformity to the building." Section 17.40.020(D) permits only alterations which do not expand the Septmtrcr 1, IM WSS55459.lX/0006.M -4- nonconforming aspects of the structure. Secondly, the City Council finds that dry rot has damaged the building and that repair is necessary to correct the dry rot, provide a foundation which would not foster continued rot or decay and which brings about associated repair of the structure and that the most credible evidence indicates that the total cost for repairs exceed 50 percent of the value. The City Council therefore upholds the staff decision and confirms denial of issuance of the building permit due to violation of the provisions of Chapter 17.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. The building permit shall not be issued in accordance with Section 303(a) of the Uniform Building Code requiring a finding that the proposed work be in conformance with City ordinance. DATED this - 9th day of September 2 1993. Attest: onda �JMarc , C STWmb" 1, 1993 WSS55459.IX/0006.222 -5- AP — ----I - 2, - &- i INSPECTION FIELD REPORT DATE: May 11, 2001 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 640/642 Maple Street At the request of the Building Official, I visited the subject site to determine if the building located adjacent to the alley was a Dangerous Building as described the Uniform Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code. I was given a copy of Section 302 of the code for reference. All of my observations were made from the public alley. I observed a small building behind a 4 plex located next to the alley, which may have been a house at one time, but appeared to now be unoccupied. Power was still hooked up to an electrical meter and phone or cable was also connected to the building. I did not witness any dangerous situations regarding this building. It appeared to be locked and inaccessible to the public. The building appeared to be structurally sound. A small piece of gutter had fallen off the building, but was on private property and not effecting the public way. REPORT COMPLETED BY N, DATE �5 I a-- c--)/ Lia a Ar-%'%W 0 0 8 EnT-9 File No. AP-2001-88 MEMORANDUM Date: May 23, 2001 To: Jeannine L. Graf, Building Official 81111LONG JUN 2 C 2001 From: Star Campbell, Planning Division Subject: BE-01 -54, Planning Division review for applicability to ECDC 17.40.000 A complaint was filed, signed by a number of citizens, regarding the detached single family residence behind the four-plex at 642 Maple Street. The citizens who filed the complaint point out that the building has been vacant since it was denied a building permit to remodel the nonconforming building by the City in 1993. The citizens assert that the City of Edmonds should declare the residence to be a nuisance and require it to be eliminated pursuant to Section 17.40.000 of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). I have researched the applicability of the complaint to ECDC 17.40.000 and have come up with the following: A Building Permit was submitted for repairs to the house in 1993. The permit was denied on the basis that the repairs would expand the nonconforming aspect of the building, which is prohibited by ECDC Section 17.40.020. An appeal of this staff decision was subsequently made to the hearing examiner. The Hearing Examiner upheld the original staff decision. An appeal of the Hearing Examiner decision was then filed to the City Council. The City Council decision was to uphold the previous rulings. ECDC 17.40-000 states that, "The purpose of this chapter is to allow certain nonconforming uses, buildings, and lots to continue while prohibiting further nonconformity. Other nonconforming uses, buildings, signs and lots, which are declared to be nuisances, are required to be eliminated." ATTACHMENT 10 File No. AP-2001-88 City of Edmonds c-Q Planning Division Section 20.110.030 of the ECDC addresses nuisances. The section does not define a nuisance. The section provides a list of items that shall not be allowed on properties within the city. The nonconforming building in question can not be considered to be any of the items listed. Furthermore, the section states that none of these things shall be allowed, "except as may be allowed by any other city ordinance..." Please see Attachment A, ECDC Section 20.110.030. Section 17.40.020 ECDC specifically allows for the continuation of nonconforming buildings. Please see Attachment B, ECDC Section 17.40.020. Therefor, Planning staff finds that according to the information available and pursuant to the Edmonds Community Development Code, the nonconforming single family residence at 642 Maple Street cannot be declared a nuisance and shall be allowed to continue. 4 �tp C. 1 89\3 Scott & Leah Simpson 632 Maple St Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: 642 Maple Street Dear Scott and Leah; CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 MAYOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering June 22, 2001 The purpose of this letter is to respond to a letter submitted to the City on 4/25/01, concerning the status of a vacant building at 642 Maple Street. The information and questions included in the letter prompted a two part response from the City. First, that the building is a nuisance pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code 17.40.000, and second, that the building may be a fire and safety hazard which could constitute a dangerous building. Regarding the dangerous building issue, a building or structure may only be determined to be a dangerous building if criteria of the Abatement of Dangerous Building Code are proven. The City Building Inspector has conducted an exterior inspection of the building and found no provision of the code in violation. Therefore, it is my determination as Building Official that the building is not a dangerous building. With regard to Edmonds Community Development Code provision 17.40.000, the City planning Division has researched the. past public hearing records and current codes regarding the determination of nuisance non- conforming buildings. After their research it has. been determined that although I the building is vacant it has been determined to be legal non -conforming, and may continue pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code 17.40.020. This decision is appealable by filing an appeal to Building Official Interpretation, by filing a letter of appeal, with the filing fee of $300, within 10 business days from the date of this letter. Appeal deadline July 9, 2001 5:00 PM. If there are any questions please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220. If you wish to meet in person please call me in advance for an appointment. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official, CBO ATTACHMENT 11 cc: Star Campbell, Planner, Rob Chave, Planning Manager File No. AP-2001-88 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Citv - Helkinan. Janan CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT P lanning - Building - Engineering C. 8C)", Louis & Carol Boitano July 9, 2001 642 Maple St Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Boitano GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR The purpose of this letter is to follow-up on the vacant building located at the rear of your property at 642. Maple Street, Edmonds. It has occurred to me that you may not be aware of a previous City Council decision with regard to the zoning non -conforming status of this building. For background information, on March 24, 1993 previous landowners, Richard and Ana Swing applied for a building permit to replace the foundation under the existing building. The permit application was reviewed by City staff and later denied because the existing building was nonconforming in terms of building setbacks. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) regulates existing nonconforming buildings under Chapter 17.40; the purpose of this chapter is to allow certain nonconforming uses, buildings and lots to continue while prohibiting further nonconformity. These provisions strictly prohibit the expansion of nonconforming buildings. The proposed construction of a new foundation was determined to be an expansion of the nonconforming building within the setback areas and therefore the building permit was denied. The Swings appealed this staff decision to the Hearing Examiner who concurred that the building permit should be denied. This decision was then appealed to the City Council who heard the case on August 17, 1993 and upheld the Hearing Examiner decision confirming denial of the building permit. I have enclosed a copy of the Council Decision for your information. Therefore, according to current ECDC Chapter 17.40 provisions no improvements can be made to this building unless a variance is first obtained for any work, including interior remodeling that is non- structural in nature. Also, since the previous owners are on record with the City that extensive dry rot in the floorjoists exists, minimal interior use of the building (foot traffic) should occur. Lastly, there is one broken window in the building, please repair it or board it up immediately to avoid an attractive nuisance complaint. And, in the future if you intend to demolish the building be advised a demolition permit is required. If there are any questions please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220. If you wish to meet in person please call me in advance for an appointment. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official, CBO ATTACHMENT 12 File No. AP-2001-'88 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering July 16, 2001 Louis & Carol Boitano 3602 30th Ave W Seattle, WA 98199 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Boitano, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Please note the enclosed letter's were mailed to 642 Maple St., Edmonds, WA 98020 on June 25, 2001 and July 9, 2001. They were received back in our office by July 16, 2001 "Return to Sender, Not Deliverable as Addressed". Upon further investigation of public recordswe found the address of 640 Maple St, Edmonds, WA., and the mailing address of 3602 301h Ave W, Seattle, WA 98199. 4 Sincerely, CQ-a o n d Building Department Administrative Assistant ATTACHMENT 13 File No. AP-2001-88 Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Citv - Hekinan. Jar)an 1'.7 C. is 9\) CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering July 13, 2001 Lois and Carol Boitano 642 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Appeal File #AP-2001-88 Subject Property: 642 Maple Street Dear Mr. and Mrs. Boitano: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR As you are aware, a citizen's complaint was received by the City regarding the vacant building located at the rear of your property. I determined that the building did not meet the criteria in the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code as I stated in my letter to you dated June 25, 2001. This letter is to inform you that on July 9, 2001 the City received an appeal of this decision from Scot Simpson and Ralph Mathews. A Public Hearing is scheduled before the Hearing Examiner on August 6, 2001 at 9:00 am. You will receive a formal announcement of the hearing date and a City staff report prior to the meeting date. Should you have any questions, please contact me a (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official P Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan �t "2 C. 1891, Louis & Carol Boitano 642 Maple St Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Citizens complaint 14 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering Dear Mr. & Mrs. Boitano, June 25, 2001 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR The purpose of this letter is to inform you that a citizen's complaint has been submitted to the City on 4/25/01, regarding the vacant building located at the rear of your property at 642 Maple Street, Edmonds. The infon-nation and questions included in the complaint prompted a two-part response from the City. First, that the building is a nuisance pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code 17.40.000, and second, that the building may be a fire and safety hazard which could constitute a dangerous building. The City has investigated the matter and has made the following determinations; regarding the dangerous building issue, a building or structure may only be determined to be a dangerous building if criteria of the Abatement of Dangerous Building Code are proven. The City Building Inspector has conducted an exterior inspection of the building and found no provision of the code in violation. Therefore, it is my determination as Building Official that the building is not a dangerous building. With regard to Edmonds Community Development Code provision 17.40.000, the City Planning Division has researched the past public hearing records and current codes regarding the determination of nuisance non- conforming buildings. After their research it has been determined that although the building is vacant it has been determined to be legal non -conforming, and may continue pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code 17.40.020. Be advised, this decision is appealable by the complainants by filing a formal written appeal within 10 business days from the date of the determination. Appeal deadline July 9, 20015:00 PM. If there are any questions please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220. If you wish to meet in person please call me in advance for an appointment. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official, CBO Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Date: To: From: Subject: MEMORANDUM August 2, 2001 Jeanine Graf, Building Official Star Campbell, Planning Division Request for Planning Division written response to AP-001-88 BUILDING 2 2001 I am responding to your attached request that I provide a written response to the following paragraph regarding ECDC 17.040.000 from the Scot Simpson and Ralph Mathews appeal letter: "The second part of the Building Inspectors decision had to deal with ECDC 17.40.000. In the original letter to the Building Inspector the 12 surrounding neighbors that signed the letter stated that the building was a nuisances and ask that the building department declare it a nuisances so that it would have to be torn down according to the code. The building inspector did not address that issue however and quoted an issue not raised about it being a non -conforming building." I have read the Building Official's letter. The highlighted paragraph in this attached letter refers to the Planning Division's research and determination regarding whether or not the subject building may be considered a nuisance. The following is intended to provide clarification: A non -conforming building and a nuisance are two separate things. According to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), the subject building can not be considered a nuisance; therefore it can not be required to be abated for being a nuisance under ECDC 20.110.030. 1 have come to this conclusion from my analysis of ECDC Section 20.110.030 that addresses nuisances. This section does not contain an actual definition of a nuisance. The section does provide a list of items that shall not be allowed on properties within the city and are presumed to be a nuisance. These are items that are located in any front yard, side yard, rear yard or vacant lot and include things such as potentially dangerous machinery, broken or discarded furniture, vehicle parts, and hazardous trees. City of Edmonds ce Planning Division File No. AP-2001-88 Furthermore, the ECDC states that, no nuisance shall be allowed, "except as may be allowed by any other city ordinance." (ECDC Section 17.40.020) The building in question does not appear to be comparable to anything listed as a nuisance in the Nuisance section, ECDC 20.110.030 and therefore, cannot be considered a nuisance. However, even if the building could be considered a nuisance, the above quoted ECDC Section 17.40-020 essentially states that if another section of the code allows a building or use, the building or use shall be allowed to continue. This is the case. The building, according to another section of the ECDC, does meet the definition of a non -conforming building (ECDC 17.40.000). This section also allows for the continuation of a non -conforming building. Therefore, the building cannot be required to be abated for being a nuisance under ECDC 20.110.030. North Side of Building eq 00 OF 4-0 Q 05 Qj = IRV North Side of Building ATTACHMENT 15 File No. AP-2001-88 %LFJL ""IIJILAILur, qr' Wag Fkff WON Aijw 49-A f�Z REMO MW 0 Date: To: From: Subject: BUILDING l � J i"' / 2 2001 MEMORANDUM August 2, 2001 Jeanine Graf, Building Official Star Campbell, Planning Division Request for Planning Division written response to AP-001-88 I am responding to your attached request that I provide a written response to the following paragraph regarding ECDC 17.040.000 from the Scot Simpson and Ralph Mathews appeal letter: "The second part of the Building Inspectors decision had to deal with ECDC 17.40.000. In the original letter to the Building Inspector the 12 surrounding neighbors that signed the letter stated that the building was a nuisances and ask that the building department declare it a nuisances so that it would have to be torn down according to the code. The building inspector did not address that issue however and quoted an issue not raised about it being a non -conforming building." I have read the Building Official's letter. The highlighted paragraph in this attached letter refers to the Planning Division's research and determination regarding whether or not the subject building may be considered a nuisance. The following is intended to provide clarification: A non -conforming building and a nuisance are two separate things. According to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), the subject building can not be considered a nuisance; therefore it can not be required to be abated for being a nuisance under ECDC 20.110.030. 1 have come to this conclusion from my analysis of ECDC Section 20.110.030 that addresses nuisances. This section does not contain an actual definition of a nuisance. The section does provide a list of items that shall not be allowed on properties within the city and are presumed to be a nuisance. These are items that are located in any front yard, side yard, rear yard or vacant lot and include things such as potentially dangerous machinery, broken or discarded furniture, vehicle parts, and hazardous trees. City of Edmonds cQ Planning Division 0 . 0 Furthermore, the ECDC states that, no nuisance shall be allowed, "except as may be allowed by any other city ordinance." (ECDC Section 17.40.020) The building in question does not appear to be comparable to anything listed as a nuisance in the Nuisance section, ECDC 20.110.030 and therefore, cannot be considered a nuisance. However, even if the building could be considered a nuisance, the above quoted ECDC Section 17.40.020 essentially states that if another section of the code allows a building or use, the building or use shall be allowed to continue. This is the case. The building, according to another section of the ECDC, does meet the definition of a non -conforming building (ECDC 17.40.000). This section also allows for the continuation of a non -conforming building. Therefore, the building cannot be required to be abated for being a nuisance under ECDC 20.110.030. 0 0 Reasons the Decision is Wrong Letter of Appeal To the Decision presented in the letter dated June 22, 2001 from Jeannine L. Graf, Building Official. The Building inspector conducted an exterior *inspection. The inspector did not conduct an interior inspection. Section 302 of the "1997 Uniform Code For The Abatement of Dangerous Buildings" has 17 provisions that define a dangerous building. Any one of these provisions by itself can determine a dangerous building. 16 of the 17 provisions can or do deal with the interior of the building. The Building Inspector did not inspect the interior and therefore they can not say that this building is safe. In fact at one time about ten years ago wire mess and stucco was illegally placed around the exterior of the foundation to hid the deterioration on the exterior. The actual condition of this building is defined very well by the "Findings Conclusions of the Hear ing Examiner of the City of Edmonds" File No. AP-93 )-61 on September 1993, when it was said "3. The appellant's own testimony and the pictures presented by the neighbors establish that the repairs have been necessitated due to the action of dry rot brought by the substandard foundation. Testimony indicated that the flooring has been completely destroyed by dry rot causing walls to swing free. In order to ascertain the damage, the appellant has been forced to remove or open major portions of the subject building. At the current time the photographs clearly reveal a structure which is a shell resting upon an inadequate concrete block foundation." This statement was made eight years ago. There are 17 items used to define a Dangerous Building in the Code. Most of them define this building. I am listing four. 2. Whenever the walking surface of any aisle, passageway, stairway or other means of exit is so warped, worn, loose, torn or otherwise unsafe as to not provide safe and adequate means of exit in case of fire or panic. 7, Whenever any portion thereof has wracked, warped, buckled or settled to such an extent that walls or other structural portions have materially less resistance to winds or earthquakes than is required in the case of similar new construction. 12 Whenever the building or structure has been so damaged by fire, wind, earthquake or floor or has become so dilapidated or deteriorated as to become (i) an attractive nuisance to children ...... 17. Whenever any building or structure is in such a condition as to constitute a public nuisance known to the common law or in equity jurisprudence. The building has been occupied at times because we can see through the window that additional floor Joists have been taken out and gravel has been added in the space under the floor that used to exist. Every time *it was used it was a danger to those who use it and very possible to those walking or playing around it, or to the little kids running into it with their bikes, or the big kids climbing on its roof just for fun, The second part of the Building Inspectors decision had to deal with ECDC 17.40.000. In the original letter to the Building Inspector the 12 surrounding neighbors that signed the letter stated that the building was a nuisances and ask that the building department declare it a nuisances so that it would have to be torn down according to the code. The building 'inspector did not address that issue however and quoted an 'issue not raised about it being a non -conforming building. a C1111TY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering 'tic. S19� July 13, 2001 Lois and Carol Boitano 642 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Appeal File #AP-2001-88 Subject Property: 642 Maple Street Dear Mr. and Mrs. Boitano: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR As you are aware, a citizen's complaint was received by the City regarding the vacant building located at the rear of your property. I determined that the building did not meet the criteria in the Abatement of Dangerous Building s Code as I stated in my letter to you dated June 25, 2001. This letter is to inform you that on July 9, 2001 the City received an appeal of this decision from Scot Simpson and Ralph Mathews. A Public Hearing is scheduled before the Hearing Examiner on August 6, 2001 at 9:00 am. You will receive a formal announcement of the hearing date and a City staff report prior to the meeting date. Should you have any questions, please contact me a (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan .(17 C. 18 C) \3 Scott & Leah Simpson 632 Maple St Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: 642 Maple Street Dear Scott and Leah; 0 0 CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 MAYOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering June 22, 2001 The purpose of this letter is to respond to a letter submitted to the City on 4/25/01, concerning the status of a vacant building at 642 Maple Street. The information and questions included in the letter prompted a two part response from the City. First, that the building is a nuisance pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code 17.40.000, and second, that the building may be a fire and safety hazard which could constitute a dangerous building. Regarding the dangerous building issue, a building or structure may only be determined to be a dangerous building if criteria of the Abatement of Dangerous Building Code are proven. The City Building Inspector has conducted an exterior inspection of the building and found no provision of the code in violation. Therefore, it is my determination as Building Official that the building is not a dangerous building. With regard to Edmonds Community Development Code provision 17.40.000, the. City Planming Division has researched the past public hearing records and current codes regarding the determination of nuisance non- conforming buildings. After their research it has. been determined that although the building is vacant it has been determined to be legal non -conforming, and may continue 'pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code 17.40.020. This decision is appealable by filing an appeal to Building Official Interpretation, by filing a letter of appeal, with the filing fee of $300, within 10 business days from the date of this letter. Appeal deadline July 9, 2001 5:00 PM. If there are any questions please feel free to contact meat 425-771-0220. If you wish to meet in person please call me in advance for an appointment. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official, CBO cc: Star Campbell, Planner, Rob Chave, Planning Manager . Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Citv - Hekinan. Janan . 4 . 16 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering Louis & Carol Boitano 642 Maple St Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Citizens complaint Dear Mr. & Mrs. Boitano, June 25, 2001 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR The purpose of this letter is to inform you that a citizen's complaint has been submitted to the City on 4/25/01, regarding the vacant building located at the rear of your property at 642 Maple Street, Edmonds. The information and questions included in the complaint prompted a two-part response from the City. First, that the building is a nuisance pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code 17.40.000, and second, that the building may be a fire and safety hazard which could constitute a dangerous building. The City has investigated the matter and has made the following determinations; regarding the dangerous building issue, a building or structure may only be determined to be a dangerous building if criteria of the Abatement of Dangerous Building Code are proven. The City Building Inspector has conducted an exterior inspection of the building and found no provision of the code in violation. Therefore, it is my determination as Building Official that the building is not a dangerous building. With regard to Edmonds Community Development Code provision 17.40.000, the City Planning Division has researched the past public hearing records and current codes regarding the determination of nuisance non- conforming buildings. After their research it has been determined that although the building is vacant it has been determined to be legal non -conforming, and may continue pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code 17.40.020. Be advised, this decision is appealable by the complainants by filing a formal written appeal within 10 business days from the date of the detennination. Appeal deadline July 9, 20015:00 PM. If there are any questions please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220. If you wish to meet in person please call me in advance for an appointment. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official, CBO Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 11 April 10, 2001 City of Edmonds Community Services Department Planning Division 250 — 5' Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 425.771.0220 This is a request that the detached single family residence behind the four-plex multi- family dwelling at 642 Maple St be declared a nuisances and be required to be eliminated. This *is pursuit to Section 17.40.000 of the City of Edmonds Community Development Code. This building has been vacant since the Edmonds City Council decided at it's August 17, 1993 meeting to deny the building permit to remodel the nonconforming building. The following are some quotes that describe the building as *it was 8 years ago from the "Findings C017chisions of T17e Heafing Examiner of The Ci(y Of Edmonds, File No. AP- 93-61 are as follows-, 1) "The existing single family residence 'is a nonconforming structure due to its intrusion into the setback area and density." 2) "5. Due to the substandard foundation, dry rot has destroyed the flooring materials on the ground floor of the subject building. The owners removed the ground floor along with a variety of other components and fixtures from the subject building. Photographs admitted at the hearing before the City Council indicated the subject building is basically a shell with doors, floors, windows and other fixtures having been removed and other portions of the structure removed or opened in order to inspect the structure.,, 3) "Testimony indicated that the flooring has been completely destroyed by dry rot causing walls to swing free. In order to ascertain the damage, the appellant has been forced to remove or open major portions of the subject building. At the current time the photographs clearly reveal a structure which is a shell resting upon an inadequate concrete block foundation." I The building is a fire hazard and a safety hazard. Broken windows and young boys don't mix. Currently two live on the property. Nothing can be done to the building and the dry rot just gets worse. Not enough parking is provided for the four-plex and the sidewalk is frequently blocked by puked cars forcing pedestrians to walk in the street. If the building was eliminated it would make additional parking available. As neighbors we want to build a good neighborly relation. When an effort was made by volunteering to assist in tearing the building down the effort was rejected. The stated pian was to make a laundry out of the building. Pictures are attached. Respectfully submitted, T 4eighbof's Name Neighbor's Address A�P Gq(4 fy)0*1 Q. 8+. 6-3-3 A4 ow& ---- - - ------- - ------- St C ---- — ----- I ----- ---- -------- STOEETFILE CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR. 121 5TH AVE.NUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering C �1!14__ Louis & Carol Boitano July 9, 2001 642 Maple St Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Boitano, The purpose of this letter is to follow-up on the vacant building located at the rear of your property at 642 Maple Street, Edmonds. It has occurred to me that you may not be aware of a previous City Council decision with regard to the zoning non -conforming status of this building. For background information, on March 24, 1993 previous landowners, Richard and Ana Swing applied for a building permit to replace the foundation under the existing building. The permit application was reviewed by City staff and later denied because the existing building was nonconforming in terms of building setbacks. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) regulates existing nonconforming buildings under Chapter 17.40; the purpose of this chapter is to allow certain nonconforining uses, buildings and lots to continue while prohibiting further nonconformity. These provisions strictly prohibit the expansion of nonconforming buildings. The proposed construction of a new foundation was determined to be an expansion of the nonconforming building within the setback areas and therefore the building permit was denied. The Swings appealed this staff decision to the Hearing Examiner who concurred that the building permit should be denied. This decision was then appealed to the City Council who heard the case on August 17, 1993 and upheld the Hearing Examiner decision confirming denial of the building permit. I have enclosed a copy of the Council Decision for your information. Therefore, according to current ECDC Chapter 17.40 provisions no improvements can be made to this building unless a variance is first obtained for any work, including interior remodeling that is non- structural in nature. Also, since the previous owners are on record with the City that extensive dry rot in the floor joists exists, minimal interior use of the building (foot traffic) should occur. Lastly, there is one broken window in the building, please repair it or board it up immediately to avoid an attractive nuisance complaint. And, in the future if you intend to demolish the building be advised a demolition permit is required. If there are any questions please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220. If you wish to meet in person please call me in advance for an appointment. Sincerely, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official, CBO Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS OF THE HEARING EXAMMM OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS APPEAL OF ADMIMSTRATIVE FILE NO. AP-93-61 STAFF DECISION: BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION BY THOMAS SORENSON INTRODUCTION Thomas Sorenson on behalf of Richard and Anna Swing appealed a determination of the City's Planning Division * interpreting and applying development code provisions regarding alteration of nonconforming buildings to a building permit application to remodel an existing single family structure located at 640 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington (hereinafter "subject property"). This matter was first heard by the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds who issued his recommendation dated July 2, 1993, revised on July 7, 1993. The Findings and Conclusions of the Edmonds City Council are based upon the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, the hearing before the Edmonds City Council and the evidence produced at such hearings. The hearing before the Edmonds City Council was held August 17, 1993 following notice provided by the City Clerk in accordance with ordinance. No objections were received to the participation of any City Councilmember based upon the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine or any other ground. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is currently developed with a detached single family residence and a four-plex multi -family dwelling. The four-plex is a legal nonconforming structure with respect to its use and density. The existing single family residence is a nonconforming structure due to its intrusion into the setback area and density. The existing single family residence is the subject of the building permit application and the staff interpretation at issue in this appeal. 2. The subject property is zoned RS-6 (single family use) and each residential unit requires a 6,000 square foot lot. The properties to the north, south, east and west are developed with detached single family residences and are also zoned RS-6. 3. On March 24, 1993, the appellant applied for a building permit to replace the foundation under the existing single family residence �subject building). The entire structure with the exception of the kitchen is proposed to have a new foundation. Testimony indicated that the subject building would be supported while the present foundation of concrete blocks was Scptember 1, 1"3 WSS55459.IX/0006.222 0.. 0 removed and a new foundation poured undei the existing residence. The new foundation would be deeper, wider and of a different, type than the current foundation. The foundation at the southern and eastern portions of the subject building would be located at their present location within the setback area. 4. On April 6,. 1993 the Building Division of the City of Edmonds notified the applicant the building permit was denied. The basis for denial included the staff's concern that the height of the subject building would be increased upon completion of the new foundation and that the cost of the new foundation exceeded 50 percent of the replacement value of the existing residence. 5. Due to the substandard foundation, dry rot has destroyed the flooring materials on the ground floor of the subject building. The owners removed the ground floor along with a variety of other components and fixtures from the subject building. Photographs admitted at the hearing before the City Council indicated the subject building is basically a shell with doors, floors, windows and other fixtures having been removed and other portions of the structure removed or opened in order to inspect the structure. 6. The appeal before the Hearing Examiner revolved around the application -of ECDC Chapter 17.40 and Section 17.40.020. , The staff interpreted these code provisions to prohibit the issuance of the building permit because the proposed work exceeds 50 percent of the replacement cost of the residence. The staff therefore applied ECDC Section 17.40.020(F) which prohibits the "restoration" of a nonconforming structure, following damage to 50 percent of the value of the structure. 7. When the matter reached the City Council, the City staff dropped its contention that the height of the building would be increased. Testimony indicated that the earth underneath the building would be excavated in order to place a new and enlarged foundation under the structure without increasing the height of the structure. 8. The appellant's representative Thomas Sorenson presented several arguments to the City Council: . 8.1. The subject property has not been damaged within the meaning ECDC Section 17.40.010 and 17.40.020. Subsection (D) of ECDC Section 17.40.020 permits normal maintenance and repair and the appellant asserts that subparagraph (4) of this section is inapplicable because the subject property has not been damaged or destroyed due to a catastrophic event. structure. . 8.2. The enhanced foundation does not expand the nonconforming aspect of the 8.3. Evidence of prior alterations are irrelevant to the current proceeding. SqAmber 1, 1993 WSS55459.IX/0006.M -2- 9. Testimony presented by the appellant at the hearing before the City Council indicates that substantial damage to the structure occurred due to dry rot. The appellant provided testimony that the cost of materials and labor to.replace the floor alone would cost approximately $1,200. Testimony of neighbors and their presentation indicated a higher value. Photographs presented by the neighbors show a structure without floors, with walls detached and with major fixtures removed from a structure which is open to the weather. Tespimony indicated that the current foundation was without value and must be completely replaced. �Cost of building a structure identical to the existing single family dwelling was estimated at approximately $30 per square foot or about $46,000 to $50,000 to totally replace. The building permit application submitted by the appellant stated a value for the work to be done on the residence at approximately $30,000. The entire tract according to the Snohomish County Assessor's evaluation (which is not individually allocated )is $180,000. The appellant noted before the Hearing Examiner that the information of the building permit includes activity which is not necessarily required for the building permit. CONCLUSIONS 1 . The purpose and intent of Chapter 17.40 and provisions related to nonconforming buildings, lots and uses is set forth in Section 17.40.000 which provides: The purpose of this chapter is to allow certain nonconforming uses, buildings and lots to continue while prohibiting further nonconformi1y. Other nonconforming uses, buildings, signs and lots, which are declared to be nuisances. are Muired to be eliminated. Emphasis Added. . The City Council strictly construes the provisions of Chapter 17.40 to prohibit expansion of nonconforming uses. 2. The construction of a new foundation which is of a broader, deeper and more sophisticated nature than the existing foundation would take place within the setback area. Such expansion is an expansion of a nonconforming building within the setback contrary to the provisions of Section 17.40.020(D)(2) which permits only: Alterations which otherwise conform to provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site development and bulk standard, and which do not expand into nonconforming gaMts of the building, shall be Wrmitted. Emphasis Added. Further Section 17.40.020(B) provides that a nonconforming building may be maintained and continued unless the code requires abatement but: Sqftmb,,r 1, M WSS55459.IX/0006.222 -3- ... it may not be changed or altered in anyway which increases the degree of nonconformiV o 'the building. Effi phasis Added. These provisions are violated. by the expansion of the foundation within the setback area. The subject building is nonconforming and its limits are defined by the existing structure in height, depth and width. The proposed expansion of the foundation represents an expansion of the nonconforming building within the setback area as surely as an extension of the height of the building upward would. The improvement and expansion of the foundation would occur within the setback area thereby expanding the bulk of the structure in the setback area by expanding the foundation downwards and adding additional bulk. No such alteration of an existing nonconforming structure is permitted. 3. The appellant's own testimony and the pictures presented by the neighbors establish that the repairs have been necessitated due to the action of dry rot brought by the substandard foundation. Testimony indicated that the flooring has been completely destroyed by dry rot causing walls to swing free. In order to ascertain the damage, the appellant has been forced to remove or open major portions of the subject building. At the current time the photographs clearly reveal a structure which is a shell resting upon an inadequate concrete block foundation. 4. The valuation figures presented by the applicant/appellant and the neighbors are inconclusive. Some figures represent replacement values, others formalize schedules of repair under the UBC and yet others assessor's records. The City Council notes that both the applicant and neighbors agree that the replacement value of the house is approximately $46,000 to $50,000 and the applicant's own building permit application indicates $30,000. The City Council therefore finds that the appellant applicant has failed to sustain its burden of proof and the record contains credible evidence to support a finding that the structure has been damaged by dry rot to 50 percent of its value when the total work necessary to rehabilitate the structure is included. Such repairs cannot be done in isolation and painting, plastering, dry wall and other improvements to the house are necessary. The pictures shown to the City Council indicate that floors, ceilings, walls, doors and windows all need to be replaced, rebuilt or reinstalled. As such the City Council finds that more credible evidence would indicate that the structure has been damaged to 50 percent of its value. DECISION Based upon the record before it the City Council finds that the proposed new foundation would alter or change the nonconforming structures located in the setback area expanding the nonconforming nature of the structure by expanding its foundation both in type, depth and width within the setback area. Such an expansion violates the provisions of Section 17.40.020(B) which permits a nonconforming building to be maintained and continued provided that "...it may not be changed or altered in any manner which increases the degree of nonconformity to the building." Section 17.40.020(D) permits only alterations which do not expand the Septembor 1, 1993 WSS55459.lX/0006.222 -4- nonconforming aspects of the structure. Secondly, the City Council finds that dry rot has damaged the building and that repair is necessary to correct the dry rot, provide a foundation which would not foster continued rot or decay and which brings about associated repair of the structure and that the most credible evidence indicates that the total cost for repairs exceed 50 percent of the value. The City Council therefore upholds the staff decision and confirms denial of issuance of the building permit due to violation of the provisions of Chapter 17.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. The building permit shall not be issued in accordance with Section 303(a) of the Uniform Building Code requiring a finding that the proposed work be in conformance with City ordinance. DATED this - 9th day of September ) 1993. Attest: onda �JMarc , C September 1, 1993 WSS55459.IX/0006.222 -2r A, P 6 40- ge�� RPL_ E. PUBLIC DISCLOSURE REQUEST lei DATE OF REQUEST: NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE: DOCUMENTS REQUESTED: — / �7 - I WWAX-A, Signature. (Staff Use Only) (0 - 5 COPIES FREE) 1. Non-profit organization @ . 10 per page: Charge: _ pages @ 10 per page = $ 2. General public @ .25 per page: Charge: _ pages @ .25 per page = S TOTAL S DOCUMENTS PROVIDED: Pick-up: f i le:-ord k data\ disclos, 8 9 0 - 19 q - March 29, 1993 Mr. & Mrs. Swing 2333 N. 193rd St. Seattle, WA 98133 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS. WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works * Planning * Parks and Recreation * Engineering Dear Mr. & Mrs. Swing: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR I have had the opportunity to review your application for a building permit to replace the foundation of an existing building at 640 Maple Street, Edmonds. Last week'Mr. Swing contacted me and asked me if the. nonconforming use of the subject property would prohibit the proposed foundation repair. During the conversation, Mr. Swing stated that there is a four unit apartment in the front of the property and a one unit house in the rear of the property. I told Mr. Swing that the property was zoned for single family use, but that the buildings on the property were placed there prior to the enactment of the single family zoning for that area. Section 17.40 of the zoning ordinance contains several different types of legal nonconformities. Two of these are legal nonconforming uses and legal nonconforming buildings. A legal nonconforming use is one where the use of the property was previously allowed, but has become prohibited since the time the use began. A legal nonconforming building is one which does not conform to size, setback height or other bulk standard requirements, but did conform to such standards when the building was constructed. Considering that the property had five units, and has continuously had those five units' since the time it was legal to have five units on the property, the property is determined to have a legal nonconforming use. A legal nonconforming use cannot be expanded in any way. Maintenance and repair, is allowed for a nonconforming use. Therefore, if the building to be repaired is only nonconforming due to the number of dwelling units, the repair would be allowed. As you may recall, this is what we discussed on the telephone. Unfortunately, during our phone convershtion I was not informed of the nonconforming rear setback. The RS-6 zone district requires a 15 foot rear setback. Though your site plan does not state the specific rear setback, it is apparent that at least a portion of the subject building is in the rear setback area. Considering this, your building is not only a legal nonconforming use, but it is also a legal nonconforming building due to the protrusion into the rear setback. The height of a nonconforming building cannot be increased, and no restorationor repair. exceeding 50% of the value of the building may be performed. Your proposal will increase the height of the foundation, therefore it will increase the height of the building and, as previously stated, an increase in height will not be allowed. In addition, your permit application states that the value of the. proposed work is $30,000 The Snohomish County Assessor values all buildings on your property at $190,600. That works out to $36,120 per unit. Therefore, with no better information , the City must assume that the subject building valuation is $36,120. $30,000 is over 50% of $36,000. Due to this iriformation, the Planning Division finds that the project as proposed cannot be approved for issuance. The application for foundation repa . ir as submitted is denied. Sincerely, John Bissell, AICP Planning Division cc. Permit Coordinator a fricorporatec! A.J2L.St 117 1890 �* Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan , 890 - 19 9 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works e Planning * Parks and Recreation e Engineering October 6, 1993 Ana M. Swing 2333 N. 193rd Street Seattle, WA 98133 RE: Plan Check #93-24 LAURA M. HALL MAYOR According to building division records the subject permit application expired on September 24, 1993. Your plans will be held for 10 days in order that you may come in and pick them up. If they are not picked up by October 16, 1993 they will be recycled. The Building Official may grant a one-time 180 day extension upon written request of the applicant stating the reasons for the request. If you have any questions, call the Building Department at 771-3202. Thank you, Sharon F. No l an Permit Coordinator 10 Incorporated August 11, 1890 USE CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATIONI,joB OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS ADDRESS A A 4 ,a NAME ADDRESS 6 oo.� CITY I-1kr STATE LICENSE I ZIP TELEPHONE Nt. 7 OA 1 -&v 3 � -� ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER j 6�2 'i &ZF+ I !) C �y z1gal Description of Property - include all ZA.), 7" U + �b DATE PERMIT NUMBER SUITE/APT # PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCIP Approved 0 EXISTING — REOUIRED DEDICATION RW Permit Required 13 Street Use Permit Req'd C3 inspection Required El Sidewalk Required 0 PROPOSED REMARKS AW,_� ENGINEERING MEMO DATED � 0//w REVIEW BY METER SIZE IBUILDING SUPPLY SIZE F FIXTURES -'%LOW\ PROPCIVO OMPLETE EXEMPT , , I c iHOREL-k— I VARIANCE OR PIA NJAG7EVIE L.-,TE _j < /,b A /11or- r. , V. Z*Ak SETBACKS - FEET LOT COVERAGE Z /5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . to e" ..SI1XD i REAR Z '�'i T ipA.count 113arcel J%, I No. 44-1 EM .. NEW RESIDENTIAL LIM 8 1 N G 0 E] ADDITION COMMERCIAL MECHAIN'I'CALI� APT. BLDG. AMA REMODEL SIGN. rN-71 GRADING FENCE 40 REPAIR 0 ECKED BY 1111F TION 1 CODE `1 HEIGHT 2:51 DEMOLISH WOO OVE SWI OL 0 INS HO MPA . PECIAL INSPECTOR REQUIRED. REA OCCUPANQ GRO UP R3 OCCUPANT LOAD GARAGE RE T WAL 13 YES El L_JS�ARPORT ROCK R RENEWAL. MARKS Z 0 (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVI Y) EXPLAIN: 11711vP&ESS INSPECTIONS PER U61C 305 8 w 71UMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF 0-4 bEStRIBE�WdRK-Td�kb6i4t'(ATTACW,#C6t-oaki�5, dX)S Jolb /7)// YA WJINSPE&ION REOUIRED VALUATION FEE PLAN CHECK FEE. TrE-AT SOURCE: GLAZING BUILDING-:' 00) 0- eye) ee % 2F71 PLUMBING Plan Check No. V MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs. sidewolks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATESURCHARGE 5_0 Permit Application: 180 Days Permit Limit: I Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE - FEE "Applicant, on be * half of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENG. IIINSPECTIO FEE .34) successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold h5rmless the City of Edmonds, Washington. its officials, m employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of Cr 4 x whatever nature, arising directly or Indirectly from the Issuance of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT rytodify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read Iqls application; that the information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or th.e duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and state laws regulating construction; and In doing the work authoriz- THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES This application is not a permit until ed thereby, no person will be employed In violation of the Labor a ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- 'S CoMpensa* WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is tion Insuraric INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. AGENT). DATE'SIGNED I NE� DEPARTMENT _ FT To I 3 -.2 y - 2L CITY OF OFFJrlA SiGt4ATURE, DATE I x_,n' oo" EDMONDS I ATTENTION :ILDING CALL FOR LEASEt DATE INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A OR STRUCTURE 'INTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR 771-0220 ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector 1i 'tERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. USC R 3. PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor 1024*1 4.- USE CITY OF EDMONT ZONE PERMIT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION 58 NUMBER OWNER NAME NAME OF BUSINESS ADDRESS S7kee, f SUITE/APT # — 1?1, C. hA r-,4, - 0_.,M4 Arik 5iV RIPTION CHECK BDIVISION NO LIO NO. MAILING ADDRESS Z r R3-33 Ah 113"4e74-- PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP Approved 0 CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER AW Permit Required 13 . Ly'- EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION 7TLe WA fry 3 '� Street Use Permit Req'd 0' ftw _363-6435� Inspection Required 0 NAME PROPOSED Sidewalk Required (3 METER SIZE LINE SIZE PRV REQUIRED ADDRESS Lu YES 0 NO C3 REMARKS Z < CITY ZIP TELEPM E NUMBER W W Z 0 NAME Ats4e*&Nd" �;,4. M ADDRESS 0 118 NGIINEER M ATED;j* REVIEWED By C TELEPkIONE NUMBER ft* FIRE MEMO DWO Z "uIttive WA q "P -4k 0 REVIEWED.BY N RA'. STAjX,�.ICENSE NUMBER E P RAT 0 TE SIGN:AREA 714. �EPA REVIEW A0B No. -7 ,�ALLOWED�:, i'�,,PROPOSED MPL6TF Legal Description of-Prooerty.- include all easements EXEMPT Z SHORELINE 0 Lot /Z �J 3 816'ck EXP,� ARIANCE OR'CU, G REVIEW BY TD_ L) Jo _U� T :S Al ETBAC HEJG _j Z < r..-* auW:.," Vol. 21, S HT jLoT ?? -:1, E W Z 1 FRO E. 'REAR Z T.'ONe,",y.. REM 0. Parcel No. r_1 N!Ew� ..... . jlRESIDEN PIL 01 rw ADDITION v, Comm M A REMODEL �&PT. BLD` ED. ey,� TYPE OF CO�NSTRUCTION,. ICODE F OCCUPANT t77?1. Fj REPAIR DFT GRO ,,WOODSTOVE� SPECIAL INSPECTOR DEMOLISH SWIM*POCIL;�... - I N S E R �.HOTTUB/SPA'*-,^ REOUI OCCUPANT RED�� LOAD GARAGE RETAINING WALIJ. YES 0 C I I RENEWAL,., Z :4 0 (TYPE OF USE 8 S PROGRESS INSPECTIONS'PER UBC'305 U INMSOF!.Pc �&E�XPLA Z T! V�T )N:::.,,.. rx- j L8 NUMBER N kA OF'.-,*,-'��. LIM LL, ING, ARE OF OWE A-111A to STORIES t' , NUMBER 0 DES CJJIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN),- 0*� el" JLi REOUIRED VALUATION FEE L 7 P N'. V A CHECK e` IL HEAT S 0 RCE:. GLAZING Plan Check No. (?,4 L This Permit covers work to be done oin private Otop GIFILL 0hy ON Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sldewpj driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate perml GE Permit Application: 180 Days Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work Is Started Withirg! 9 STORM DRAINAGE FEE "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, tjeIrs,ftg 5 and ENG. INSPECTION FEE In successors in interest,. agrees to indemnIfy,%eV%n hold harmless the City of Edmonds, WashlngtMk officials, c z employees and agents from any and all claims 1W.damages of cr < whatever n6ture, arising directly or indirectly from the Issuance x of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIf 0 Modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance 0 x nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE I provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the Information given Is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT state laws regulating construction; and In doing the work authoriz- AUTHORIZES This application is not a permit until ed thereby, no person III be e p I yed In violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Code otAhe State of Wialhington7re Ing to Workmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is tion It 0/Ance and AC 18.27. INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. SIGNAT WNER 0 A NT). DATEPICuhlil) DEPARTMENT CITY OF OFFICIAL'S SIGNATURE DATE AM EDMONDS L j CALL FOR RELEASED BY DATE ATTENTION INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspect A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED, UBC 771-0220 01 CHAPTER 3. 102-87 PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor I M., cn U; '2 > 93 j . 3 L AN (Pqo meLfk f 17- 4t3 pf ,-f 4L+ re i-at -r- 0 �o r 4( � L4 V 0) 0 cu W,41 Ic- p Ia 45 1 0 Pt PA Y.'s '3 Y 4 '�j , V�-CePv-ds �6 5k.0"134 TAX 13qZ-OT5,-,D/2- 000!� fpofouawal-k i-> (v; 4-U; ii 4-U 5 S -h- ke.+tA v -C L � 5; I-e ve- I - 0 LL - N 0. to vv,� " t.3 1 -> 4-0 4 A o K -f- OWVX4ZY-S'. j�cl-qvd a.-o( A-" SL-vito 20'"1 M(O. R5-(v 8 9 0 . I C) 9 - CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS. WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works * Planning e Parks and Recreation 9 Engineering April 25, 1994 Mr. Steve Kunkel Kunkel Master Building Inc. 5427 118th Avenue Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 RE: Swing Remodel @ 640 Maple Street Plan Check #94-72 t R IT FILt s i E The Building Division has completed an initial review of the subject application and the following information is required: 1. Provide an as -built of the existing foundation in order for the City to determine if the City Council decision on Appeal #93-145 is satisfied. This decision limits the scope of work on the foundation and is directly related to the existing foundation. 2. By City letter dated 3/29/94 the owners were notified that according to Snohomish County Assessors records the assessed value of the subject residence was $36,120.00. The City shaH continue to use this figure in calculating the restoration costs and determining the percentage of improvement on the structure. The owners have the ability to have the residence re -assessed by the County or the City will review a revised appraisal from a licensed appraiser. Currently, based on your bidof $21,033.00 the improvement exceeds 50% of the, assessed value and a permit could not be issued. If there are any questions please feel free to contact me at 771-0220. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Acting Building Official * Incorporated August 11, 1890 * Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 890 0 C� Q� Public Works e Planning * Parks and Recreation * Engineering April 25, 1994 Mr. Steve Kunkel Kunkel Master Building Inc. 5427 118th Avenue Southeast Bellevue, Washington 98006 RE: Swing Remodel @ 640 Maple Street Plan Check #94-72 The Building Division has completed an initial review of the subject application and the following information is required: 1. Provide an as -built of the existing foundation in order for the City to determine if the City Council decision on Appeal #93-145 is satisfied. This decision limits the scope of work on the foundation and is directly related to the existing foundation. 2. By City letter dated 3/29/94 the owners were notified that according to Snohomish County Assessors records the assessed value of the sub ect residence was $36,120.00. The City shall continue to use this figure in calculating the restoration costs and determining the percentage of improvement on 'the structure. The owners have the ability to have the residence re -assessed by the County or the City will review a revised appraisal from a licensed appraiser. Currently, based on your bid of $21,033.00 the improvement exceeds 50% of the assessed value and a permit could not be issued. If there are any questions please feel free to contact me at 771-0220. Thank you, 00,;N A51-4 Jeannine L. Graf Acting Building Official 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan STEVE KPNKEL MasteT Builders, Inc. j 81 P14DIN .1994 May'2, RAY U-S 'lq94�J Richard a'nd,Ana Swihg,,,, 2333 North, 193rd Street Seattle, WA 98133 Dear Richard'and Ana, is' As you know by now from our, meeting last Thursday, it is. unlikely that we Will, -be sued'A building permit for repairs at 640'Maple even' if we get a new appraisal that,would meet, the 50% repair cost rule. A copy of Jeanine's letter is enclosed.' The building department people liked our'pro'posal and did all, they could to* help us but Jeanine from the Building Department said itwould be -unlikely that the City Attorney would allow the permit to be issued. - Her opinion was based on a review of the Decision of the Cit ` Council from the last appeal made by you. y The next steps would be to submit an independent appraisal, of the. property apd a 1� ds- built" foundation plan, wait fdr the firl.al,decision on the.'Perliftit and appeal this decisiop, if the permit is,denied.',The permit application will'remain in effect until October 6, 199,4 if you choose to pursue it flaIrther. I think it's fair to say thatyou have mh&more than a reasonable effort to make iepairs so that - this -unit could be on . ce again tented.All the evidence suggests that you r:eally bought a property with 4'rentable units'not5. Here's the final accounting for my time: March:- 19.75 hrs 'Apfil: - '24.0 hrs Total:. 43.5*hr,sat$45 $1,957.50 Overhead and Profit: 2,0%. No) Charge Total: $1,957150 Sales tax:' $ 160.52 Grah d total: $2,118.02'* 350+1026 376.00 Less deposits. Balance due'. $ 142'.02 Please C`all if.1 can be of any further service. Sincerely,. A S evq u e t K nk 1) Master Builders, Inc., 7 Steve Kunkel, President, 5427.1 i8th Ave. S.E','- 8'ellevue,'WA98006(i (206) 643-9095\� it STEVt KPNKEL Master Builders, Inc. May'2,.1994. Y 0 1994 Richard and Ana Swing. 2333 North 193rd Street Seattle, WA 98133 Dear Richard and Ana, As you know by now from our meeting last Thursday it is unlikel that we will-be-issued'a building permit for repairs at 640 Maple even' if we get a new appraisal that would meet the 50% repair cost rule. A copy of Jeanine's letter is enclosed. The building department people liked our-pro'posal and did all.they could to help us 6u't', Jeanine from the Building Department said it, would be unlikely that the City Attorney would allow the permit to be issued. Her opinion w�s -based on A review of thebe cision of the City Council from the last appeal ;made by you. The next steps would be to submit an independent appraisal of the. property and a as - built" foundation plan, wait for the final.,decision on the.permit and appeal this decisiop, if! the permit is, deified. , The permit application will * remain in effect until October 6, 199,4 if you choose to pursue it further. I think it's fair to say that..you have mhde more than a reasonable effort to make repairs s6,that t ' his unit could be once again rented. All the evidence suggests that you really bought aproperty with 4 rentable units -not, 5. Here!s the final accounting for my time: March:- 1�35 hrs jApIrd: - )24.0 hrs; Total. 41.5-hrsat$45 $1,957.5 0,�erhead and Profit: 20% No)Ch4rge Total: .$1,957-:50 Sales tax:' 60.52 Grand total-. $2,118.02' Uss de 350+1026 437600 posits. Balance due: - $ ii�.:02 Please call if I can.be of any further service. F Sincerely, Stevq Kunkel! Master Builders, Inc.'. V Ku I Steve' nke, President 5427.118th Ave. S.E.: gellevue,'WA 98006 (206) 643-9095\1 FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS OF THE HEARING.EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE FILE NO. AP-93-61 STAFF DECISION: BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION BY THOMAS SORENSON INTRODUCTION Thomas Sorenson on behalf of Richard and Anna Swing appealed a determination of the City's Planning Division interpreting and applying development code provisions regarding alteration of nonconforming buildings to a building permit application to remodel an existing single family structure located at 640 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington (hereinafter "subject property"). This matter was first heard by the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds who issued his recommendation dated July 2, 1993, revised on July 7, 1993. The Findings and Conclusions of the Edmonds City Council are based upon the hearing before the Hearing Examiner, the Hearing Examiner's recommendation, the hearing before the Edmonds City Council and the evidence produced at such hearings. The hearing before the Edmonds City Council was held August 17, 1993 following notice provided by the City Clerk in accordance with ordinance. No objections were received to the participation of any City Councilmember based upon the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine or any other ground. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is currently developed with a detached single family residence and a four-plex multi -family dwelling. The four-plex is a legal nonconforming structure with respect to its use and density. The existing single family residence is a nonconforming structure due to its intrusion into the setback area and density. The existing single family residence is the subject of the building permit application and the staff interpretation at issue in this appeal. 2. The subject property is zoned RS-6 (single family use) and each residential unit requires a 6,000 square foot lot. The properties to the north, south, east and west are developed with detached single family residences and are also zoned RS-6. 3. On March 24, 1993, the appellant applied for a building permit to replace the foundation under the existing single family residence (subject building). The entire structure with the exception of the kitchen is proposed to have a new foundation. Testimony indicated that the subject building would be supported while the present foundation of concrete blocks was Sepwmber 1, 1993 WSS55459.IX/0006.222 0 0 removed and a new foundation poured under the existing residence. The new foundation would be deeper, wider and of a different type than the current foundation. The foundation at the southern and eastern portions of the subject building would be located at their present location within the setback area. 4. On April 6, 1993 the Building Division of the City of Edmonds notified the applicant the building permit was denied. The basis for denial included the staff's concern that the height of the subject building would be increased upon completion of the new foundation and that the cost of the new foundation exceeded 50 percent of the replacement value of the existing residence. 5. Due to the substandard foundation, dry rot has destroyed the flooring materials on the ground floor * of the subject building. The owners removed the ground floor along with a variety of other components and fixtures from the subject building. Photographs admitted at the hearing before the City Council indicated the subject building is basically a shell with doors, floors, windows and other fixtures having been removed and other portions of the structure removed or opened in order to inspect thestructure. 6. The appeal before the Hewing Examiner revolved around the application of ECDC Chapter 17.40 and Section 17.40.020. The staff interpreted these code provisions to prohibit the issuance of the building permit because the proposed work exceeds 50 percent of the replacement cost of the residence. The staff therefore applied ECDC Section 17.40.020(F) which prohibits the "restoration" of a nonconforming structure following damage to 50 percent of the value of the structure. 7. When the matter reached the City Council, the City staff dropped its contention that the height of the building would be increased. Testimony indicated that the earth underneath the building would be excavated in order to place a new and enlarged foundation under the structure without increasing the height of the structure. 8. The appellant's representative Thomas Sorenson presented several arguments to the City Council: 8.1. The subject property has not been damaged within the meaning ECDC Section 17.40.010 and 17.40.020. Subsection (D) of ECDC Section 17.40.020 permits normal maintenance and repair and the appellant asserts that subparagraph (4) of this section is inapplicable because the subject property has not been damaged or destroyed due to a catastrophic event. 8.2. The enhanced foundation does not expand the nonconforming aspect of the structure. 8.3. Evidence of prior alterations are irrelevant to the current proceeding. Scptember 1, 1993 WSS55459.IX/0006.2n -2- �111 9L 0 0 9. Testimony presented by the appellant at the hearing before the City Council indicates that substantial damage to the structure occurred due to dry rot. The appellant provided testimony that the cost of materials and labor to replace the floor alone would cost approximately $1,200. Testimony of neighbors and their presentation indicated a higher value. Photographs presented by the neighbors show a structure without floors, with walls detached and with major fixtures removed from a structure which is open to the weather. Testimony indicated that the current foundation was without value and must be completely replaced. Cost of building a structure identical to the existing single family dwelling was estimated at approximately $30 per square foot or about $46,000 to $50,000 to totally replace. The building permit application submitted by the appellant stated a value for the work to be done on the residence at approximately $30,000. The entire tract according to the Snohomish County Assessor's evaluation (which is not individually allocated )is $180,000. The appellant noted before the Hearing Examiner that the information of the building permit includes activity which is not necessarily required for the building permit. CONCLUSIONS 1 . The purpose and intent of Chapter 17.40 and provisions related to nonconforming buildings, lots and uses is set forth in Section 17.40.000 which provides: The purpose of this chapter is to allow certain nonconforming uses, buildings and lots to continue while prohibiting furthe nonconformi1y. Other nonconforming uses, buildings, signs and lots, which are declared to be nuisances. are Lequired to be eliminated. Emphasis Added. The City Council strictly construes the provisions of Chapter 17.40 to prohibit expansion of nonconforming uses. 2. The construction of a new foundation which is of a broader, deeper and more sophisticated nature than the existing foundation would take place within the setback area. Such expansion is an expansion of a nonconforming building within the setback contrary to the provisions of Section 17.40.020(D)(2) which permits only: Alterations which otherwise conform to provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site development and bulk standard, and which do not expand into nonconforming aWgcts of the building. shall b Wrmitted. Emphasis Added. Further Section 17.40.020(B) provides that a nonconforming building may be maintained and continued unless the code requires abatement but: Septcmber 1, M . WSS55459.IX/0006.222 -3- AD- C- i 0 0 ... it may not be changed or altered in anyway which increases the degree of nonconformijy of he buildin . Emphasis Added. These provisions are violated ' by the expansion of the foundation within the setback area. The subject building is nonconforming and its limits are defined by the existing structure in height, depth and width. The proposed expansion of the foundation represents an expansion of the nonconforming building within the setback area as surely as an extension of the height of the building upward would. The improvement and expansion of the foundation would occur within the setback area thereby expanding the bulk of the structure in the setback area by expanding the foundation downwards and adding additional bulk. No such alteration of an existing nonconforming structure is permitted. 3. The appellant's own testimony and the pictures presented by the neighbors establish that the repairs have been necessitated due to the action of dry rot brought by the substandard foundation. Testimony indicated that the flooring has been completely destroyed by dry rot causing walls to swing free. In order to ascertain the damage, the appellant has been forced to remove or open major portions of the subject building. At the current time the photographs clearly reveal a structure which is a shell resting upon an inadequate concrete block foundation. 4. The valuation figures presented by the applicant/appellant and the neighbors are inconclusive. Some figures represent replacement values, others formalize schedules of repair under the UBC and yet others assessor's records. The City Council notes that both the applicant and neighbors agree that the replacement value of the house is approximately $46,000 to $50,000 and the applicant's own building permit application indicates $30,000. The City Council therefore finds that the appellant applicant has failed to sustain its burden of proof and the record contains credible evidence to support a finding that the structure has been damaged by dry rot to 50 percent of its value when the total work necessary to rehabilitate the structure is included. Such repairs cannot be done in* isolation and painting, plastering, dry wall and other improvements to the house are necessary. The pictures shown to the City Council indicate that floors, ceilings, walls, doors and windows all need to be replaced, rebuilt or reinstalled. As such the City Council finds that more credible evidence would indicate that the structure has been damaged to 50 percent of its value. DECLSION Based upon the record before it the City Council finds that the proposed new foundation would alter or change the nonconforming structures located in the setback area expanding the nonconforming nature of the structure by expanding its,foundation both in type, depth and width within the setback area. Such an expansion violates -the. provisions of Section 17.40.020(B) which permits a nonconforming building to be maintained and continued provided that "...it may not be changed or altered in any manner which increases the degree of nonconformity to the building." Section 17.40.020(D) permits only alterations which do not expand the SWcmber 1, 1993 WSS55459.IX/0006.222 -4- nonconforming aspects of the structure. Secondly, the City Council finds that dry rot has damaged the building and that repair is necessary to correct the dry rot, provide a foundation which would not foster continued rot or decay and which brings about associated repair of the structure and that the most credible evidence indicates that the total cost for repairs exceed 50 percent of the value. The City Council therefore upholds the staff decision and confirms denial of issuance of the building permit due to violation of the provisions of Chapter 17.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. The building permit shall not be issued in accordance with Section 303(a) of the Uniform Building Code requiring a finding that the proposed work be in conformance with City ordinance. DATED this - 9th day of September 9 1993. Attest: onda 1. Marctf, City Clerk Septmber 1, 1993 WSS55459.IX10006.222 -5- 0 0 Councilmember Palmer referenced a letter attached to the agenda memo from the City of Mill Creek. Councilmember Palmer said he agrees with'the concerns and questions listed by Mill Creek, and asked Ms. Oblde to find the answers to the questions posted by Mill Creek. Ms. Ohle replied affir- matively. Councilmember Kasper agreed with Councilmember Palmer Ms. Oblde'said she would keep the Council informed on the progress of the Plan. Councilmember Dwyer suggested item 10 be continued to August 24th, due to the late hour. COUNCIL - MEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT EARLING, TO CONTINUE ITEM 10 TO THE AUGUST 24 COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION CARRIED with Councilmember Hall voting no as there was a member of the audience present to listen this particular subject. HEARING ON APPEAL OF THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION ISSUED UNDER FILE NO. AP-93-61 (APPELLANT: Jeff Wilson, Planning Supervisor, said on March 24, 1993, Richard and Ana Swing applied for. a building permit to replace the foundation under an existing single family residence. The existing house is a nonconforming building located in a RS-6 zone. The permit application was to construct a new foundation under the entire house, excluding the kitchen. On April 6. 1993, the Planning Division notified the Swings that the building permit was denied. The basis for the denial includ- ed the concern that the height of the residence would be increased upon completion of the new foundation; and, that the cost of the new foundation exceeded 50% of the replacement value of the existing residence as defined in ECDC 17.40.020(F). Thomas Sorenson, Attorney on behalf of the Swings. appealed the Planning Division's interpreta- tion to the Hearing Examiner. On July 2, 1993, the Hearing Examiner upheld the appeal and over- turned the Planning Division's interpretation. If the Hearing Examiner's decision stands, the permit will be issued because the proposed activity will be interpreted a-s ordinary maintenance and repair of an existing non -conforming building. On July 12, 1993, Scot Simpson, et a], ap- pealed the Hearing Examiner's decision to the City Council - Council Discussion Councilmember Palmer questioned the wording "level of destruction shall be made by the Building Official". Councilmember Palmer asked where documentation existed as to the level of destruction. Mr. Wilson said he doesn't recall any written documentation with regards to this particular issue. Testimony of the Applicant Tom Sorenson, Attorney for Tom and Ana Swing, presented City Clerk Rhonda March with copies of a Hearing Brief for distribution to the Mayor and Council. The brief was marked "Exhibit 1". Mr. Sorenson said the Swings respectfully submit that the decision of the Hearing Examiner is correct on the law and facts, that the arguments made by the Appellants, are without merit, and the City Council must affirm the decision of the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Sorenson said the property in question consists of two structures. The larger strucutre is a fourplex located towards the front of the property, and a detached single family residence which is presently uninhabitable until the proposed work is completed. This single-family -residence is the subject of the appeal. Mr. Sorenson said the proposed work does not expand the nonconforming aspect of the structure. the building has not been damaged or destroyed within the meaning of the code, and said the work required does not exceed the 50% threshold the Planning Department speaks of. Mr. Sorenson requested the Council uphold the decision of the Hearing Examiner. R. D. Jensen, General Contractor, spoke on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Swing. Mr. Jensen said the work required does not exceed the actual replacement cost. Testimony of the Appellant Ralph Matthews, 644 Maple, spoke on behalf of the appellants and read from a letter formulated by the appellants. Copies of the letter were given to City Clerk Rhonda March, and marked "Exhibit 2". The letter referenced past correspondence from a previous building official which stated "Because of the nonconforming nature of the structure, the structure itself would lose its non- conforming status under the building and zoning codes if a conforming foundation were placed under it. This would require the building to be removed". The letter stated because of the present damage to the house, the repairs needed on the house would be far more -than 50% of its il.,:�.� 4 EXHIBIT 2 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Page 6 August 17, 1993 0 0 value.. The letter stated, in par * t, that all the flooring except in the kitchen is gone. there is a 4 foot wide ground to ceiling opening -in the exterior -wall; the bathroom is totally gone includ- ing interior walls; about half of the interior wall sheathing is gone exposing walls with no insulation; and large section of ceiling sheathing is gone exposing no insulation in the roof. Mr. Matthews said this is not normal maintenance. Leah Simpson, 632 Maple, additional spokesperson for the appellants gave photographs to the City Clerk for distribution to the Mayor and Council depicting the property in question. Ms. Simpson explained that the amount of work required far exceeds the value and said the work is not general maintenance and should not be treated as such. Ms. Simpson said the house should.be completely rebuilt. Public Testimon Kenneth Bowne, Edmonds resident. said the front of the lot in question is very close to the street and does not know how the structure was ever allowed to be built in the first place. Mr. Bowne expressed concern for the way the building is situated on the property - As no other member of the public wished to speak on this. issue, Mayor Hall closed the public portion of the hearing. Council discussion Councilmember Palmer said there is a past history on this subject and said for the purpose of receiving additional testimony and information from the City Attorney, COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KASPER, TO RE -OPEN THE HEARING. Under discussion. Councilmemb.er Dwyer expressed concern with getting factual testimony from the City's legal counsel. Councilmember Palmer said he respected this concern. COUNCILMEMBER PALMER RESCINDED HIS MOTION. THE SECONDER AGREED. City Attorney Scott Snyder said if the Council wants to review past history, the Council can continue the hearing in order to get further information. Councilmember Hall said he doesn't know how helpful it would be to get past information when this is a different owner than past files indicate. Councilmember Kasper said the City has the power to require structures to be in conformance with its ordinances and regulations. Councilmember Dwyer said when viewed in light of the purpose of the ordinances that regulate nonconforming uses, this is not a difficult issue. Councilmember Dwyer said as Councilmember Kasper said, the City has the power to require structures to be in conformance with its ordinanc- es and regulations. Councilmember Dwyer said the City of Edmonds, as have most cities, has decid- ed to be somewhat lenient in that regard and allow structures which were in conformance when constructed, but have fallen out of conformance, to remain and not have to immediately have to be replaced. In searching for a logical rule for when replacement is required, the City has made a determination that when 50% of the cost of replacing the building is exceeded, then the City has something that is more like total destruction- Councilmember Dwyer said the Hearing Examiner made his decision based on his belief that this was ordinary maintenance and repair. Councilmember Dwyer said he believes the Hearing Examiner was wrong in that regard. The photographs and testimony is that floors were falling in and that walls were barely hanging on and were swinging. Councilmember Dwyer said repairing matters such as these are not ordinary repairs and maintenance. With regards to the valuation question, the Staff has historically relied upon assessed valuation and exceeding its threshold. As a procedural matter, COUNCILMEMBER PALMER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO EXTEND THE MEETING. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Dwyer believes the Staff is correct in their determination and the Hearing Examiner as incorrect in his determination. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PALMER, THAT THE DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER BE REVERSED AND THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL BE REINSTATED. MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Scott Snyder said he would have the Findings of Facts prepared foe the September 7 Council Consent Agenda. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL APPROVED MINUTES Page 7 August 17, 1993 8 9 0 0 F CITY OF EDMONDS 0 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER ORDER FROM THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF THOMAS SORENSON OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION LAURA M. HALL MAYOR FILE: AP-93-61 It is hereby ordered that the Conclusionst page five, paragraph one, of the Decision of the above captioned matter should read: The subject property is developed with a detached single family residence and a fourplex on one lot. The property, which is located at 640 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington, includes legal nonconforming structures, including an existing single family residence and a fourplex. All other paragraphs remain unchanged. DONE AND DATED this day of July, 1993. S M. DRISCOLL ing Examiner 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 * Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 8 go CITY OF EDMONDS r- -I L—A 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL MAYOR IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEALS FILE: AP-93-61 OF THOMAS SORENSON OF All ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION DECISION: It is ordered that the appeals of Thomas Sorenson on behalf of Richard and Ana Swing be approved. INTRODUCTION Thomas Sorenson (hereinafter referred to as appellant) on behalf of Richard and Ana Swing, appealed the Planning Division's interpretation relating to "alterations of nonconforming buildings" pursuant to the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 17.40.020, and subsequent denial by the City of a building permit for an existing single family structure located at 640 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington. At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence: JEFFREY S. WILSON Planning Dept. City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 ANA SWING 2333 North 193rd Street Seattle, WA 98133 GLORIA PRIEBE 637 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 SCOT SIMPSON 632 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 CLIFF ADAMS 631 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 THOMAS SORENSON 320 Dayton Street, Suite 106 Edmonds, WA 98020 RALPH MATHEWS 644 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 MAX PRIEBE 637 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 R.D. JENSEN 6002 - 237th Street S.W. Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 LEAH SIMPSON 632 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 0 0 HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION RE: AP-93-61 7/2/93 Page 2 CHARLES P. VERRALL, SR. 654 Maple Street Edmonds, WA 98020 At the hearing the following exhibits were admitted as part of the record for the hearing: Exhibit 1 - Staff Report with the following attachments Attachment 1 - Vicinity/Zoning Map if 2 - Letter of appeal (4/5/93) to 3 - Appellant's letter in response to denial of a building permit (4/6/93) of 4 - Letter from City to appellant denying building permit application (3/29/93) If 5 - Building permit application (3/24/93) of 6 - ECDC Section 17.40.020 (nonconforming buildings) After due consideration of the evidence presented by the appellants, evidence elicited during the public hearing and as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding areas by the Hearing Examiner, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the recommendation of the Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS OF FACTS e 1. The subject property is developed with a detached single family residence and a fourplex. The residential units on the subject property are legal nonconforming structures: the existing single iamily -residence is nonconforming because the building intrudes into the setback area. The existing single family residence is the subject of the building permit and staff interpretation at issue in this appeal. 2. The subject property is zoned RS-6, which requires a 6,000 square foot lot size. 3.� The properties to the north, south, east, and west are developed with detached single family residences and are zoned RS- 6. 4. On March 24, 1993 the appellant applied for a building permit to replace the foundation under the existing single family residence. The entire house, with the exception of the kitchen, is proposed to have a new foundation. 0 0 HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION RE: AP-93-61 7/2/93 Page 3 5. On April 6, 1993 the Planning Division of the City of Edmonds notified the appellant that the building permit was denied. The basis for the denial included the concern that the height of the residence would be increased upon completion of the new foundation; and, that the cost of the new foundation exceeded 50% of the replacement value of the existing residence. 6. Historically, the City has used a 50% construction cost standard to define when a proposal changes from "Maintenance and Alterations" becomes "Restoration" as defined in ECDC 17.40.010(D) and 17. 4 0. 02 0 (F) . Based on the staf f I s interpretation, the cost of the proposed work exceeds 50% of the replacement cost of the residence, and the proposed work is considered to be a "restoration" as defined in ECDC 17.40.020(F). Restoration of a nonconforming structure is not permitted. I 7. The appellant argued that ECDC 17.40.010(F) is not the proper ordinance to determine if the cost of the proposed work exceeds 50% of the replacement cost. According to the appellant, this ordinance applies only to destroyed or damaged nonconforming buildings. The structure at the subject property is neither destroyed nor damaged, but is being repaired. 8. Thomas Sorenson, the representative for the appellant, submitted that the height of the residence will not be increased with the replacement of the foundation wall because the area beneath the residence will be excavated for the new foundation. At the public hearing the City withdrew the height violation as a reason for denial and acknowledged that the proposal was within the code standards. In addition, Mr. Sorenson indicated that the assessed valuation used by the staff in determining the replacement value\construction ratio was inaccurate. 9. The Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) section 17.40.020 establishes the guidelines used to evaluate all nonconforming buildings, and when such buildings are required to be brought into conformance.. 10. The building permit application submitted by the appellant stated that the value of the work to be done on the single family residence was approximately $30,000. The staff, in reviewing the assessor's records, determined that the value of the entire property was $180,000. Dividing this figure by five for each unit on site, the staff determined that the value of the single family residence was approximately $36,000 and thus the cost of work proposed to be done on the residence equaled approximately 83% of the replacement cost of the structure. HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION RE: AP-93-61 7/2/93 Page 4 11. The appellant submitted that the work proposed in the single family residence is to construct a crawl space and a new foundation. He contended that this amounts to ordinary maintenance and repair of the nonconforming building and is allowed pursuant to ECDC 17.40.020(D)(1). 12. The appellant submitted that notwithstanding the fact that the use is permitted pursuant to ECDC 17.40.020(D) (1) . The City should not have used the assessed value of the property, but should have in fact looked at the market value to determine if the improvements exceed the 50.% threshold. According to the appellant, the property was recently purchased for $330,000. If this figure is divided by five for the five units on site, the total value of each unit is $66,000. With the projected $30,000 improvement, the value of the improvements is below the threshold. 13. The appellant submitted that the information on the building permit includes activity which is not necessarily required for a building permit. With the removal of items not required to be permitted, the replacement value will not exceed 50% of the value of the property. 14. The appellant submitted that by adding a new foundation and crawl space, the nonconforming use is not being expanded but in fact the structure is being brought closer to compliance. 15. At the public hearing testimony was received. A summary of the testimony is as follows: A. SCOT SIMPSON. The witness submitted that he is a general contractor. He contended that the costs of estimates of the appellant are incomplete because they do not include factors such as insulation of walls and other structural requirements that will be done for the proposed activity. With these figures, the construction amount should exceed 50%, according to the witness. The witness also provided testimony with regard to parking in the area. He contended that the property has been a problem to the neighborhood and the proposed improvements will be an expansion of the nonconforming use. He contended that the general upkeep of the building has been an issue in the past. B. CLIFF ADAMS. The witness supported the City's decision. He contended that the building on the site has already been illegally raised and that it encroaches into the alley right of way. 0 0 HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION RE: AP-93-61 7/2/93 Page 5 C. GLORIA PRIEBE. The witness submitted there is a parking problem that has been caused by residents at this illegal building. She contended that the best use of the property would be to tear down the structure and to construct one single family house on the site. D. RALPH MATHEWS. The witness submitted that he supports Scott Simpson's testimony about the insufficient information with regard to construction. The witness also contended to be concerned with parking. He submitted that renters of the properties park in the alley creating difficult passage of cars. He contended that there have been many "derelict" vehicles on site and that the renters of the properties have not been good neighbors. They have created problems with parking and animals. E. LEAH SIMPSON. The witness submitted that. the parking is a problem as well as the pets of the renters of the properties. She contended the property has no grass and is all pavement. Animal wastes have created problems on the property and other properties. F. CHARLES VERRALL. The witness submitted that the existing use of the property is a poor use. offstreet parking should be provided and part of the property should be used for parking. CONCLUSIONS 1. The subject property is developed with a detached single family residence and a fourplex on one lot. The property, which is located at 640 Maple Street, Edmonds, Washington, includes illegal nonconforming structures, including an existing. single family residence and a-fourplex. 2. On March 24, 1993 the appellant applied for a building permit to replace the foundation under the existing single family residence. On April 6, 1993 the Planning Department of the City of Edmonds denied the permit, contending that.the height of the single family residence would be increased upon completion of the foundation, thereby creating an expansion on the nonconforming use. The Planning Department also denied the permit based on its interpretation that the cost of the new foundation exceeds 50% of the replacement value of the existing residence. 3. The City officially withdrew its reason for the denial based on the height. The only issue before the Hearing Examiner is HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION RE: AP-93-61 7/2/93 Page 6 whether the proposed improvements are subject to the 50% improvement standard as set forth in ECDC 17.40.020(F). The City Planning Department was in error in applying the standards of ECDC 17.40.020(F). 4. The nonconforming building has not been destroyed and has not been damaged. The provisions of ECDC 17.40.020(F) are not applicable to the review of the permit. 5. The provisions of ECDC 17.40.020(D) (1) apply for the review of the permit. The proposal of the appellant is for the ordinary maintenance or repair of a nonconforming building. The proposed activity is permitted pursuant to this ordinance. 6. Parking, behavior of renters, animal wastes, and other issues raised at the public hearing are relevant neighborhood concerns, but they are not considerations that can be used by the Hearing Examiner in reaching a decision of the appeal. DECISION Based upon the preceding findings of facts and conclusions, the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon the impressions of the Hearing Examiner upon review of testimony and evidence, it is hereby ordered that the City Planning Department's decision of April 6, 1993 denying the building permit was in error. The permit should be granted because the proposed activity is ordinary maintenance and repair of an existing nonconforming building. The building has not been destroyed nor damaged. The building permit should be allowed pursuant to ECDC 17.40.020(D)(1). COMMENTS The City's decision has been reversed. The permit is granted because the evidence and testimony submitted at the public hearing supports the contention that the activity to be done on the property is ordinary maintenance and repair of a nonconforming building as allowed pursuant to ECDC 17.40.020. Two issues which are not determinative of the decision but which should be brought to the City's attention are: (1) how value is determined for replacement costs of nonconforming structures; and, (2) the neighborhood issues regarding this property.. 1. The Planning Department incorrectly used ECDC 17.40.020(F) in denying the permit. As noted in the Findings and conclusions, and Decision of this matter, the 0 .0 HEARING EXAMINER RECOMIENDATION RE: AP-93-61 7/2/93 Page 7 nonconforming building on site was not destroyed nor damaged and therefore is not subject to the provisions of ECDC 17.40.020(F). However, the Planning Department raised an issue which should be addressed with regard to this ordinance even though it is not determinative of the matter. The ordinance is unclear as to what the term "replacement cost" at the time of destruction means. ECDC 17.40.020(F) states that if a nonconforming building is destroyed or is damaged in an equal amount of 50% or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, the building shall not be reconstructed. The Planning Deparmtne has used the assessed value of the properties to determine the 50% value. However, arguments that the assessed value should not be used but the market value should be used are valid. The ordinance is definitely unclear and no definition is provided in ECDC. it is suggested that this ambiguity be corrected and that the term "replac . ement costs" be defined to give direction to the public and to the City in future cases. 2. Testimony was presented at the public hearing on the use of the property by renters. The concerns, although not a criteria that could be used for the decision, should be considered by the City. The appellant is also encouraged to work with the neighborhood to provide more reasonable use of the properties and to control parking and other problems. Further, the appellant should take some measures to ensure that those renting the properties are compatible with the other neighbors. This should include control of pets, activities, and any other disruptive behavior. Entered this 2nd day of July, 1993, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. ES M. DRISCOL ring Examiner Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action. HEARING EXAMINER RECOMMENDATION RE: AP-93-61 7/2/93 Page 8 In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior to 5:00 p.m. on Monday, July 19, 1993. RECEIVED THOMAS C. SORENSON J U N 1 7 1993 Attorney at Law 320 Dayton St., Suite 106 PERMIT COUNTER Edmonds, WA 98020 (206) 771-5206 (Telephone and Fax) TO: JIM DRISCOLL, HEARING EXAMINER FROM: THOMAS C. SORENSON, Attorneyfor Appellants Richard and Ana Swing DATE: JUNE 17,1993 FILE: AP-93-61 HEARING DATE, TIME AND PLACE: JUNE 17, 1993 at 9:00 A.M. Community Services Conference Room, Community Services Building, 250 5th Ave. N. FACTS The facts stated in the City's Findings and Conclusions are essentially correct. The building in question is a legal nonconforming building. It is a nonconforming building solely because it violates currrent setback requirements. See the letter to Mr. & Mrs. Swing of March 29, 1993, from John Bissell, AICP, City of Edmonds Planning Division, submitted with the City's materials. The Swings applied to a building permit to replace the foundation under the house (except under the kitchen, where the foundation had been replaced earlier by a former owner). The City denied the Swings' building permit application apparently because it believed (incorrectly) that the height of the building (which the City has never contended is nonconforming) would be increased, not because the nonconforming setback would be reduced. Moreover, the City believed that the cost of the proposed work (incorrectly stated in the permit application to be $30,000) would exceed 50% of "the value of the building." Id. The City based this conclusion upon a value derived by dividing the total assessed value of the property on which the house in question is located by the total number of units on the property, namely, five. Moreover, appellant will show at the hearing that the $30,000 figure is EXHIBIT 9 FILE NO. AP - U-61 M r. Jim Driscoll, F'. ring Examiner June 17, 1993 Page 2 inaccurate and that the total cost of the proposed work on the foundationand floor is only $15,484.00. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE A. The Proposed Work Is A Permissible Alteration The City apparently relies on Section 17.40.020 F of the ECDC, which deals with "Restoration" of damaged or destroyed nonconforming buildings. This case is, however, actually controlled by Section 17.40.020 D.2., which states: Alterations which otherwise conform to the provisions of the zoning ordinance, its site development and bulk standards, and which to not expand any nonconforming aspect of the building, shall be permitted. The City has never contended that the proposed work to the building violates the applicable zoning, site development, or bulk standards. Rather, it apparently interpreted the prohibition in this section on expanding any nonconforming aspect of the building to mean that no aspect of the building could be materially altered. Since the City incorrectly believed that the proposed work would raise the height of the building, it denied the Swings' permit appliction. It is clear that the proposed work is permissible under this Section. The bulk of the work to be done constitutes alterations, not restoration of a damaged or destroyed building. The work contemplates altering the crawl space under the building and altering the footings and depth of the foundation wall. This work is clearly permissible under Section 17.40.020 D.2. The nonconforming aspect of the building is its setback, not its height, and the proposed work in no way decreases the setback. Indeed, it does not affect the setback at all. Therefore, the proposed work is clearly permissible under this Section. The City says this case is controlled by Section 17.40.020 F because the value of the work exceeds 50% of the construction cost of the house. As explained below, the City's factual assumption is erroneous. But in addition, there is no basis in the Code for the staff interpretation that the distinction between Section 17.40.020 D and Section 17.40.020 F turns on the cost of the work to be done. Rather, these two sections deal with separate and distinct situations. Section 17.40.020 D deals with maintenance and alteration of a building. It does not apply to damage to or Mr. Jim Driscoll, J ring Examiner June 17, 1993 Page 3 destruction of a building, those matters being the subject of Section 17.40.020 F. If the work to be done does not deal with damage or destruction but rather with alteration or maintenance of a structure not resulting from damage or destruction, the work is controlled by Section 17.40.020 D, which makes no reference to the cost of the work to be done. The intent of the two Code sections is clearly different. The policy of the Code expressed in Section 17.40.020 D is to allow alteration and maintenance of a nonconforming building which is otherwise in good condition so long as the work does not increase the nonconforming aspect of the building. However, if a nonconforming building has been so substantially damaged or destroyed that it would cost more than half its value to rebuild it (as opposed to maintain or alter it), then the Code favors removing the nonconforming building. This policy is expressed in Section 17.40.020 F. Thus, the two Code sections deal with different factual situations and different public policies. The distinction between them in no way depends on the cost of the proposed work but rather on the nature of that work. In the present case, while some of the proposed work is arguably restoration, the bulk of the work, including nearly all of the work to the foundation, is alteration, not restoration. Because that work in no way increases the nonconforming aspect of the building, that is, does not reduce the set back, the work is permissible under the Code. B. The Proposed Work Is Not A Prohibited Restoration As noted. above, the City relies on Section 17.40.020 F of the ECDC in its denial of the Swings' building permit application. This Section prohibits reconstruction of a damaged or destroyed nonconforming building "in an amount equal to 50% or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction ...... This case is actually controlled by Section 17.40.020D.2., as explained above. The only part of the proposed work that might be considered "restoration" of a damaged building is the replacement of the floor joists that have been damaged by dry rot and insects. The scope of this work clearly does not exceed 50% of the value of the building. However, even if Section 17.40.02OF controlled here, it is clear that the City has misapplied it. The City started its analysis with the total assessed value of the property on which A Mr. Jim Driscoll, Y * ring Examiner June 17, 1993 Page 4 the house in question is located, namely, $180,600. It then divided this number by the total number of units on the property (5) to produce an alleged value for the house in question of $36,120. This procedure is faulty in two separate respects. First, assessed value is not necessarily the actual value of a piece of property. Thus, the City did not have a viable starting point for its value analysis. In fact, the actual value of this property is far higher than its assessed value. As the City now acknowledges. the Swings bought this property earlier this year for $330,000, nearly twice the assessed value the City used. Even if (as appears to be the case) the Swings paid more than the property is worth in its present condition, $330,000 must be taken as the market value of the property in repaired condition, that is, in the condition the Swings were led to believe it was in when they bought it. The City's method of dividing total value by the number of units gives a value of the house in question of $66,000, not $36,120, when the correct total value of the property is used. Thus, the City's analysis was faulty from the outset because it was using an incorrect and extremely low figure for the value of the property on which the house in question sits. Second, the City compounded the problem by determining the value of the house in question simply by dividing the assessed value by the total number of units on the property. This procedure assumes that each of the five units on the property contrbutes equally to the total value of the property. There is no reason to believe this is in fact true. The house in question is a separate one family dwelling. The other units are apartments in a fourplex. The only reasonable assumption is that the separate dwelling, being far more desireable as a rental unit, contributes substantially more to the value of the property than does each of the units in the fourplex. The true value of the house is clearly substantially in excess of one fifth of the total value of the property. Thus, the City used the wrong method of determining the starting point for its analysis and the wrong method of deriving the value of the unit in question from its incorrect starting point. Therefore even using the incorrect cost figure of $30,000 stated in the permit application, the City should have granted the permit, CONCLUSION: It is undeniable that the City made a mistake in denying the Swings' building permit application. The proposed alteration of the existing building is clearly permitted by Edmonds Community Development Code Section 17.40.020 D.2. And it is just as clearly not prohibited by Section 17.40.020 F. The proposed work in no way increases the nonconforming aspect of the building in question. The cost of the work (even using the exaggerated figure incorrectly t Mr. Jim Driscoll, U-iring Examiner June 17, 1993 Page 5 used in the permit application) does not begin to approach, much less exceed, 50% of the value of the building in question. The City's denial of the Swings! building permit application must be reversed, and the requested building permit must be issued. Respectfully submitted this !7th day of June, 1993. '�-�--x Thomas C. Sorenson j Itr9%e930615.swi WSBA #11977 Attorney for Appellants 0 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: JIM DRISCOLL, HEARING EXAMINER FROM: ?effre4yyS. Wilson, AICP Current Planning Supervisor DATE: June 14, 1993 FILE: AP-93-61 HEARING DATE, TIME, AND PLACE: JUNE 17, 1993 AT 9:00 AM Community Services Conference Room - Community Services Building 250 5th Avenue North TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page Appellant Information .............................................................................. I Recommendation.................................................................................... 2 SiteDescription ...................................................................................... 2 History................................................................................................ 3 Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance ........................................ 3 Appendices........................................................................................... 4 Partiesof Record .................................................................................... 4 1. INTRODUCTION A. APPELLANT INFORMATION 1. Appellant: Thomas Sorenson, Attorney at Law representing Richard and Ana Swing. 2. Site Location: 640 Maple Street (see Attachment 1). 3. Rgquest: Appeal of Planning Division interpretation related to "alterations of nonconforming buildings" pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 17.40.020, and AP93-61/6-11-91REPORMSTAFF Richard ,/Sorenson File No. A I Page 2 of 40 subsequent denial by the City of a building permit for an existing single- family structure located at 640 Maple Street (see Attachments 2 through 4). 4. Review Process: Appeal; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. 13 5. Major Issues: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.95 (SETBACK ADJUSTMENTS). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.105 (APPEALS AND COURT REVIEW). B. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, we recommend denial of this appeal. U. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development and Zoning: a. Facts: (1) Land Use: The subject property is developed with a detached single-family residence and a four-plex. The residential units on the subject property are currently legal nonconforming structures. The existing single-family residence building, is currently nonconforming because the building intrudes into the setback area. The existing single-family residence is the structure which is the subject of the building permit and staff interpretation in question (see Attachment 4). (2) Zoning: The subject property is zoned RS - Single Residential - 6,000 square foot lot size requirement (RS- 6), (see Attachment 1). 2. Neighboring Development and Zoning: a. Facts: (1) North: Developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-6 (see Attachment 1). (2) South: Developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-6 (see Attachment 1). AP93-61/6-11-91REPORTSWAFF Richard � ,/Sorenson File No. Ap" I Page 3 of 4W (3) East: Developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-6 (see Attachment 1). (4) West: Developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-6 (see Attachment 1). B. HISTORY 1. Fact: The subject property is developed with a detached single-family residence and a four-plex. The residential units on the subject property are currently legal nonconformities. 2. Fact: The existing single-family residence building, is currently nonconforming because the building intrudes into the setback area. 3. Fact: The appellant (applicant) applied for a building permit on March 24th, 1993, to replace the foundation under the existing single-family residence, except the kitchen which had already been replaced (see Attachment 5). 4. Fact: The appellant was notified by the Planning Division on April 6th, 1993, that the building permit was denied. The basis for the denial included the concern that the height of the residence would be increased upon completion of the new foundation; and, that the cost of the new foundation exceeded 50% of the replacement value of the existing residence (see Attachment 4). 5. Fact: A building permit for the existing single-family residence was denied by the City on the basis that the proposed construction would increase the degree on nonconformity (see Attachment 4). 6. Fact: The representative for the appellant (Tom Sorenson, Attorney at Law) has stated in a phone conversation with the Current Planning Supervisor for the City of Edmonds, that the height of the residence will not be increased with the replacement of the foundation wall, but rather, that the area beneath the residence will be excavated. In addition, Mr Sorenson has indicated that the assessed valuation used by the staff in determining the replacement value/construction ratio was inaccurate, in that the property recently sold for $330,000 and not the $180,000 used by the planning staff. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE COMPLIANCE a. Fact: Section 20.95.050 establishes the appeal procedures to appeal a Staff interpretation. 2. a. Facts: (1) Section 17.40.020 establishes the provisions which are used to evaluate all nonconforming buildings, and determining when such buildings are required to be brought into conformance (see Attachment 6). AP93-61/6-11-91REPORTSWrAFF Richard ', /Sorenson File No. AQW I Page 4 of 4W (2) The building permit application appeared to indicate that the height of the existing residence would be increased with the replacement of the foundation wall (see Attachment 5). (3) The building permit application indicated that the value of the work to be done is was approximately $30,000. In the absence of more specific information, staff determined that the value of the existing residence was approximately $36,000. Therefore, the cost of work equaled approximately 83% cost of replacement cost of the structure. (see Attachments 4 and 5). (4) Historically, the City has used a 50% construction cost as the break point to define when a proposal changes from "Maintenance and Alterations" to become "Restoration" as defined in ECDC Sections 17.40.020.D and 17.40.020.F. Under the staff's interpretation, because the cost of the proposed work exceeds 50% of the replacement cost of the residence, the proposed work is considered to be a "restoration" as defined in ECDC 17.40.020.F (see Attachment 6). Restoration of a non- conforming structure is not permitted. (5) The question under appeal is whether the staff's interpretation is correct; i.e. is it appropriate to use the 50% threshold standard for "restoration" as the cutoff point in defining whether a building proposal should be considered to be "maintenance and alterations" or Of restoration". A second question concerns whether it is reasonable to use assessed value as a substitute for replacement value in the absence of other information. III. APPENDICES Attachments I through 6 are attached. 1. Vicinity/Zoning Map 2. Letter of Appeal (received 4/5/93) 3. Appellant's letter in Response to Denial of Building Permit (received 4/6/93) 4. Letter from City to Appellant Denying Building Permit Application (3/29/93) 5. Building Permit Application (3/24/93) 6. ECDC Section 17.40.020 (NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS) IV. PARTIES OF RECORD Appellant: Anna Swing; 2333 North 193rd Street; Seattle, WA 98133 Tom Sorenson; Attorney at Law; 320 Dayton Street, Suite 106; Edmonds, WA 98020 Planning Division Building Section AP93-61/6-11-91REPORTSWAFF V, 8 9 0 � 19 9 - 0 40 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works 9 Planning 9 Parks and Recreation e Engineering October 6., 1993 Ana M. Swing 2333 N. 193rd Street Seattle, WA 98133 RE: Plan Check #93-24 LAURA M. HALL MAYOR According to building division records the subject permit application expired on September 24, 1993. Your plans will be held for 10 days in order that you may come in and pick them up. If they are not picked up by October 16, 1993 they will be recycled. The Building Official may grant a one-time 180 day extension upon written request of the applicant stating the reasons for the request. If you have any questions, call the Building Department at 771-3202. Thank you, Sharon F. Nolan Permit Coordinator I)A 10 0 Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 Sistef'%�ities International — Hekinan, Japan 7� ILI "T City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave N. Edmonds, Wa., 98020 Project: Swing Plan Review 93-24 640 Maple Dear Ms. Nolan Richard Swing 2333 n. 193rd. Seattle, Wa. Enclosed please find two set of copies of the information you requested in your letter of 7-8-93. 1) The plot plan has been drawn to a 1-20 scale -. see document RECEIVED AU6.1 6 1993 PERMIT COUNTER 2) Two copies of the plan for the foundation design, stamped by the professional engineering office Johnson Coastline, Assoc. has been provided - see document 3) A foundation plan has been provided with the position of vents indicated on the plan - see foundation plan 4) Crawl space access, as indicated on the'plan�is under the kitchen - see foundation plan I 5) A floor plan has been provided. 6) . The lengths of the anchor bolts are 1/2"/by 10'(1top) and 1/2"by 8f,d bottom) - see engineering design 7) The R value of insulation in the floor will be R30 8) The thickness of the proposed footing is provided on the engineering design document. 9) The new crawl space will require the removal of 45 cu. yds of earth. 10) Xmil poly overlapped 12 // will be used in crawl space - see engineering design. 11) A shoring plan has been providejd.��,�f,7/ kf6l 12) In regard t; *n 1� I on in the walls, all new walls will be insulated with ecaus e the r e was no insulation in them pre- s viously. The k chen wal ls are existing. Interior bathroom and utility walls wil.1 be replaced with new studs - see Proposed Changes to Swing Rental House a) There will be no new electrical work other than the replacement of what was there already b) There will be no new plumbing other than the replacement of ruste ' d pipes. c).New sheetrock work will be done by owner. Taping. will be subcontracted. d) Gutters will be installed on north and south eaves of house and east eave of carport. I sincerely hope this answers all your questions. Please advise myself and my contractor Mr. Jensen as to when we may -begin work. The delays to this project have already been costly. Again, thank you for your speedy attention to this matter. Richard Swing 11 f ZA - Zloo, �o V,C�41 17. 0 ---- ------ - --------- - ----- ---- 00;pv Y,2 AVA/ 4// �114"107X-41-1 A- j6Hnson COASTLNeASSOC Pao,* "6c'p gcpA?R_' oar 7-ft1c. 9-6 F �.Ww*o,4 06Y �j r F_)(i.tpTir.4G W4L,%.r' .. ..... ... ... (h. 110 A Ve do of ..4Ar Ll L t4ewzg4' FCAMW C", cooAtC. *,3 Ve&r i-ie- A LA4 C -a) 440.4-r. V4krpL aej&,L .6mis- AL 2/221 (o PA4 -M 04 YL) i�p;r '.2 S #Vor IF MINIMUM c4aA&o&_ 6PACC FGPOA _loot6r6 /5 16 4, . ........... . . --- --- JOB NAME*"64604 b_PuAJ424770� *r BY: CHECKED: JOB# q3-033-100 DATE: 3 -SHEET I - —OF I Joknson ,COASTUNGA&c�- RECEIVED MAR 2 4 1993 PERMIT COUNTER 1 4 , r7- 77K wv-39- ot x v cn-3N �ui o Ll 1"A Cl) vi !�� x -1� �\ND 6,0NA SWIN"o -P 6vjjr,�6 pc-:��TA(- 440OSE7 -t- �FILL- Ki C, %lip 1,,� A-, ADD t-YEW WIN IN Q1 Xfz F0904. r4ow 10 .. ........... FF09C14" CD1 55 x 22" + -/I-- -T— -15�x YC Notice of Modification The undersigned owners, in consideration of the approval of a. modification under Section 106 of the Uniform. Building Code by. the Building Official of the City of Edmonds, do hereby record this notification to prospective purchasers and lenders. 1. Subject Site. This notice is filed with respect to a?, structure located at 642-1/2 Maple Street, City of Edmonds Washington, legally described as: Lef / 6 40 C_ S- tA 0 0, '5 Vo Ac_c" &_ 21 3'� , a " cl_f4_� OF Sfn2h- a�' "_s-4_,'A9-Aq This document is a covenant to notify which touches and concerns the previously described,land and shall run with the land to any future purchasers, heirs, assigns. or other -party acquiring an interest in the property. 2. Modification. A modification to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code has been granted to the foundation of the structure. The structure itself is currently a legal non -conforming use in the City of Edmonds in that it is grandfathered under the terms of the City's ordinances as they exist, but does not comply with the current requirements of either the zoning code or uniform building code. Alterations or modifications in the structure could require it to be brought into compliance with such codes. Prospective purchasers are urged to review the approval modification contained in Building Code File No. and to consider the comments of the building official conta uch file. DONE this Al day of V , 1990. OWNERS: George T WSS52571M �qdl Marga-�et Terek 0 �A 9009 10 0 5 0 4 N VOL. 2376PAGE1 3 5- 6 0 ZONE SETBAdR' FRONT SIDE REAR OTHER HD CiTY OF EDMONDS BUILDING DEPARTMENT WORK 9 110 ADDRESS S7- OWNER APPROVED DATE- BLDG. OFFICIAL PERVA�T UMBER n= Q. 7 /es - 6. 13 -0? y cff- v- copy RECEIVED MAR 2 4 1993 G PERMIT COUNTER 890 - 1 ()9- March 29, 1993- Mr. & Mrs. Swing 2333 N. 193rd St. Seattle, WA 98133 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5TH AVE. N. - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (206) 771-0220 - FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works a Planning * Parks and Recreation 9 Engineering Dear Mr. & Mrs. Swing: LAURA M. HALL MAYOR coz��) � I have had the opportunity to review your application for a building permit to replace the foundation of an existing building at 640 Maple Street, Edmonds. Last week'Mr. Swing contacted me and asked me if the nonconforming use of the subject property would prohibit the proposed foundation repair. During the conversation, Mr. Swing stated that there is a four unit apartment in -the front of the property and a one unit house in the rear of the property. I told Mr. Swing that the property was zoned for single family use, but that the buildings on the property were placed there prior to the enactment of the single family zoning for that area. Section 17.40 of the zoning ordinance contains several different types of legal nonconformities. Two of these are legal nonconforming uses and legal nonconforming buildings. A legal nonconforming use is one where the use of the property was previously allowed, but has become prohibited since the time the use began. A legal nonconforming building is one which does not conform to size, setback, height or other bulk standard requirements, but did conform to such standards when the building was constructed. Considering that the property had five units, and has continuously had those five units since the time it was legal to have five units on the property, the property is determined to have a legal nonconforming use. A legal nonconforming use cannot be expanded in any way. Maintenance and repair, is allowed for a nonconforming use. Therefore, if the building to be repaired is only nonconforming -due to the number of dwelling . units, the repair would be allowed. As you may recall, this is what we discussed on the telephone. Unfortunately, during our phone conversation I was not informed of the nonconforming rear setback. The RS-6 zone district requires a 15 foot rear setback. Though your site plan does not state the specific rear setback, . it is apparent that at least a portion of the subject building is in the rear setback area. Considering this, your building is not only a legal nonconforming use, but it is also a legal nonconforming building due to the protrusion into the rear setback. The height of.a nonconforming building cannot be increased, and no restoration or repair exceeding 50% of the value of the building may be performed. Your proposal will increase the height of the foundation, therefore it will increase the height of the building and, as previously. stated, an increase in height will not be allowed. In addition, your permit application states that the value of the proposed work is $30,000 The Snohomish County Assessor values all buildings on your property at $180,600. That works out to $36,120 per unit. Therefore, with no better information , the City must assume that the subject building valuation is $36,120. $30,000 is over 50% of $36,000. Due to this information, the Planning Division finds that the project as proposed cannot be approved for issuance. The application for foundation repair as submitted is denied. Sincerely, John Bissell, AICP Planning Division cc. Permit Coordinator 0 1 9 Incorporated August 11, 1890.o Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan all USE ZONE PERMIT CITY OF EDMONDS NUMBER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION joB OWNER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS ADDRESS SUITE/APT # cr LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECKI SUBDIVISION NO LID NO. UJ MAILTNG ADDRESS Z 03 ;.) Q ZZ �k 1\1 I Q :k PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP Approved CI ZIP �A)A TELEPHONE NUMBER 3fbl_,0(4�4�5' EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION RW Permit Required 0 Street Us. Permit Req'd 13 NAME PROPOSED Inspection Required 0 Sidewalk Required 0 0 REMARKS Z ADDRESS a333 IV, I Z ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER ,CITY SAA -0y 3 5 .30*15 NAME eW &V ENGINEERING MEMO DATED REVIEW BY A ADDRESS — 1� A<— 51 . so, ke'D — I G SUPPLY SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES Z CITY ZIP Hk I—. TELEPHONE NUMBER STATE LICENSE NJIMBER 'EXPIRATION a DATE 6? 9 SIGN AREA SEPA REVIEW Legal Description of Property'- include all easements LOWE RO Pcfor MPLETE EXEMPT Z Z,9 7 -Z + 1 OREL-k— I —3 EL VARIANCE OR P NJAG REVIE L.,,TE W 76 /As V. LOT CO&ER A: Z SETBACKS — FEETI : . Pro rAcc -a yo RONI..ilk D REAR Z Z .,I unt q: Parcel No. CL NEW RESIDENTIAL ADDITION EICOMMERCIAL -MECHANICAL APT. BLDG. REMODEL SII ANA GRADING FENCE` L.,O REPAIR T) ECKED BY' TWTION Ic ODE 1,/ HEIGHT 2:51 WOO OVE SWI DEMOLISH INS HO B/ PA�1' , :. P., . SPECIAL INSPECTOR . I[REA REOUIRED JOCCUPANCY GROUP OCCUPANT LOAD r --- j GARAGE RET WAL L__JN��ARPORT 1:1 RENEWAL�. 13 YES Z ROCK R I I . E ARKS V PROQJE SS INSPECTIONS PER USC 305 0 (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: W NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF /9—C DWELLING UNITS,,:,, OESCRIBE*ORK-TO-BEbONE (ATTACH PL_0TPCXN)-;� SPECTION REQUIRED rb tJ ORV r6� /qZ r,, /=a a AID VALUATION FEE PLAN CHECK FEE 3 40 HEAT SOURCE: GLAZING B`U1:LDING Z, ec? PLUMBING Plan Check No. V MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADING/FILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewpiks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application: 180 Days Permit Limit: I Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENG. INSPECTION FEE 5,� ,n successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, Its officials, m employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of a: < whatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the Issuance of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT 0 modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance x norl . imit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read ills application; that the information given is correct; and that I am ihe owner, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and state laws regulating construction; and In doing the work authoriz- THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES This application Is not a permit until ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Code of the State of. Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is tion Insurance. INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. NATURE'(O R OR -AGENT) DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT 3 -.2 Y CITY OF OFFJrlA1 'c� SIGNATURE DATE ilikii".11% EDMONDS I ATTENTION CALLIFOR .�.EASEL DATE INSPECTION IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A ILDING OR STRUCTURE 'INTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR 771-0220 ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector Li nERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC R 3. 102-81 PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor 08/16/93 13,05 1A March 10, 1993 93rO33-100 Richard and Anna Swing 2333 N. 193rd Street Seattle, WA 98133 2 206 2591359 JOHNSON/CUASTLIN 7� &ASC cc FILE -COPY RE: I Foundation Damage at 642 Maple Street, Edmonds, WA Dear Mr. and Mrs. Swing: C04q;'- Per your request, I made a site visit to check the condition of the existing foundation of the above -referenced site. The existing one-story wood frame house is supported by 8 x 16 concrete block foundation. The existing 6" log f I . oor joist are dry -rotted and damaged by carpenter. ants due to close � contact with soil and lack of ventilation. The detarioration of the wood member has taken place during a period of 10 years or more. We recommend reinforcing the existing concrete block foundation with a now concrete foundation and floor joist. (See details enclosed). if you have any question, please feel free to call. Sincerely, J; UONI OMASINE S kCIATEIS, INC. Nick Lehtinen, P.E. Senior Project Manager �_- — , f116 /� P_ 3 5a— - 6-;r1,i7oc-- &gir1eefing1pimr;ning—,79ii Bond Street, Suite 201� Everett, Washington 96201.(206)259-6071[Seotde362-6884 02 Notice of Modification in consideration of the approval of a The undersigned owners, modification under Section 106 of the uniform Building Code by. the Building official of the City of Edmonds, do hereby record this notification to prospective purchasers and lenders. 1. Subject Site. This notice is f iled with respect to a structure located at 642-1/2 Maple Street, city of Edmonds, Washington, legally described as: Lot 1.2 a.*,4 /_3 / S1,VC_k q5-1 Pte& 0-7t- 4e (�4y Oil' cfei;�.Ols r-e_"-^AA 1'." ve 3S' C6,-4j -F 4-� o E "S4 5+&/ 4- O-r "_S4A'A)-/0q This document is a covenant to notify which touches and concerns the previously described land and shall run with the land to any future purchasers, heirs, assigns. or other part . y acquiring an interest in theproperty. 2. Modification. A modification to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code has been granted to the foundation of the structure. The structure itself is currently a legal non -conforming use in the City of Edmonds in that it is grandfathered under the terms of the City's ordinances as they exist, but does not comply with the current requirements of either the zoning code or uniform �building code. Alterations or modifications in the structure could require it to be brought into compliance with such codes. Prospective purchasers are urged to review the approval modification contained in Building Code File No. — and to consider the comments of the building official containe -in such file. DONE this /T day of &..Ao... 199o. OWNERS: Marga-let Terek George Teroc WSS52571M 1 0009100 504 VOL. 2376PAGE1356 431. CaQjVj,�M �jtgr BE 1,RIT,,m: No 'v-JIML C(>IPIAIIRS -ILL BE -�JJJS FORM KiST BE WIP1,ETE. RijcjilVED ,TE, A APR 2 0 1990 CITY OF EMMS PUM couhm C'QITLAIN-1 RECUrD 3,, Cc14,LknqT SUB"UTTED BY: LA ADM�FSS CF PRWEM TO BE INV=GATED: �bm of wer: Phone- dreSs: 4. DESU� OF CcrMAINT: co -Rrrz- BELCW TIUS LIZIE - FOR CITY USE UZY V Do NOT u CmE sEcT!ON VIOIATION: Ale TYPE oF ACTION EXPB=: ;,I-r ON CCMPLAIN'T: Tjj,�E FSQUIRED TC JN=IGATE mz= OF 327VES=GATION': TIME REQUIPM: 7777r-7-77 IN,,=—IGATED BY: _ �0' v4, Q:, 4. t .14, ,;S - All, Fr. .2 �,b . A 'o o a P[iqrVIT U E CITY OF EDMONDS N YBR CONSTRUCTION PEnmIT APPLICATION JOB SUITE/APT OWNER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS ADDRESS Lf.GAL DEbCRIF7TION Y�Lcl twuo,(m "I) P Nu MAILI.NG ADDRE:�:; 'I 12 ICU PUBLIC FIGHT .1 %NA1 P111 FlICIAL 111EeT MAP. 'El APPROVED By VyY TELIEPHIJNE NUMBER �XISTIN1 -_ --- — RECUIRED DEDICATION LZ06) PROrOSEU C A 'T.'-ON U J A 0 0 p r "'B D A L L E_ ST ,17 "Ror" INAME RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTIIN PERMIT REOUIRED LI STREST USE PERMIT FIGURED 0 EE E 'M I, ER ADDRESS REV:EW I,1Y SEE ENGINEERING MEMO DATED 4 CITY zip IT:-,LEPHONC NUMBER REMARKS NAME lit � a Description of Property - !nclude all easements �101� t�elow or attach two copies) 1-07-6 / Z- le- /3 (�o'y P,,c7 /_;11nrA1ds Tax ACCOUnt Parcel No. 0 E. PLUMBING F I I ADD/A ��ESJIDENIRAL COMMERCIAL C 0 MECHANICAL REPAIR APT. BLDG. SIGN nOEMOLISH EXCAVATE, FILL FENCE OR GRADE (_ ._Fn E3CARPORT swim REMODEL GARAGE POOL STOVE I RETAININGWALL] []WOOD INS E R T I I ROCKERY RENEWAL (TYPE OF USELBUSINESS OF; ACTIVIII Y) EXPLAIN: NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) SIZE IBUILDING SUPPLf SIZE [FIXTURE UNITS SIGN AREA ENV. REVL�', ADB NO. ., PROPOSED EXEMPT I —ALLOWED __CO.PLITI VARIANI�E OR CU PLANNINC REVIEW BY SETBACKS — FEET HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE FRONT SIDE BEAR I REMA9KS TYPE OF SPECIAL INSPECTOR 2EA JOCCUPANOY OC,�UPANT FEOUIFEO GROUP P LOAD I -I YE S JA NO REM.RKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER LIBC 305 FINAL INSPECTION REQUIREn Oct VACEIA:, ON PIN CHECK FEE BUILDING PLUMBING eckNo. Plan Ch 4 -SHANICAL T;iis Permit covers _ulk to be bone on private property ONLY. Any construction or. the public domain (curts, sidewMlks, driveways, marquees. etc will require separate permission. GRADINGIFILL STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application: 18,0 Days Permit Limit; 1 Year - Provided Work is Started Within 1.60 Days "Applicant. on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and successors In interest. aprees to indemnify. defend and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials. n employees, and age IS from any and all claims for damages of isin directl 0. indiractl from the issuance t w atever nature. ar g y y 5, of lh�s permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEIOSIT nod.tv, waive or reduce anv requirement of any city ordinance nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinarLe TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." 4?1 I hereby acknowledge that 1 have read this application: that the ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL inlormation gi,en i3 �;orrect; and that : am the owner. or the duly ! � -,%� authorize agent oi the owner. I agree to corr.pIv with city and d a 'AlUT."111"IT This application is not a permit until state laws regulalint; construclicn; and in doing the work authoriz. ii C."." signed ty the Building Official or his � M, ,�o 9 d ereby. no person will be -�mployed in violation )f the Labor e t h ONLY THE WORK NOTED Deputy: and fees are paid, and.receipt is Code of tt,.e State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa cxknowledged in zpace provided. flon insurance. AGE171 IEC INSPECTION p EPARTMENT OFF[rIAL'S IGNAT _E 2" /50 C17Y OF 77 EDMONDS CAI * LFOR 64.1" DATE ATTENTION JNSPECT!ON �.ELFASED IT IS UNLAWPUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A EUILDING OR STRUCTURE 771-3202 UNTIL A F:NAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIF CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS 3EEN GRANTED. UBC ORIGINAL —'FOP YELLOW lnnp�v PINK OW,.cr GOLO Assesso CHAPTER 3. �1777--c-,-. A.0 I cc p 0., rC k-A aC� , 'o , -- o J, I v tE r APR PERM COUNTER IL C? 4q- /to 4, Q— L) t, -r 0 o 5 oil K-0 0 rt e- 0,-451 n,-v r o 0 0 td cr C�- e*z— p r I 1 c— 0 uQr- (7.) 0 QW- PORI , 15 v c ri /,jLAf?Li5zj: 4,41— paqe 5 of 11 RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS .............. FOUNDATION: Footing We.. ... Pier/Porch Retaining Wall .......... PLUMBING: Underground ...... . . Rough�-In . CF. HEATING: C- as Test Gas Piping Equipmnt ... CF.................... FRAMING SHEETROCK NAILING ... It �"h yr SPECIAL INSPECTION 411 FINAL APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY 0A1 4- 1 4 ' 5/14/90 TO: Fi le rROM: Dick Mumma//�J RE: 642 MADLE STREET On 5/14/90, visited 642 Maple Street, talked to owner of the property. Notified her and two workers on site that a Stop Work was still in �Jfect and that all work must stop on the site until the permit is issued. Home owner said they were confused; that they thought work was only to stop on one side of the house. �4e reaffirmed that all work was to stop on the project until the pni"-mit was issued. We asked the property owner to come into the office and pick up the plans for corrections as required. While on the site, John Bissell and I observed that the work had continued on repair of t!-,e foundation. The existiag concrete block and stones had benn encapsulated in a concrete pour around two-thirds of the house. We explained to the homeowner that the foundation was not of an approved type and would probably have to be removed. RRM/sfn 642flAPLE/TXTCSPLN 14 ---------- CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY NAUGHTEN N-1 VAIQR 250 -5T-i AVE, N - -UMONDC. WA 9SNO - (20r) 771-3202 CONINAUNIT-Y SERVICES: PETER E. HAHN 171 Public Works Planning Parks zmd Recreation Erincerin, DIRECTOR 9 0 George and Marguerite Tarek PO Box 12 Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: 642 1/2 Maple Dear homeowner, on May 5, 1990 I issued a permit for repairs to your rental house at 642 1/2 Maple Street and lifted a Stop Work that was issued on foundation May 14, 1990. Work included in the permit i,,-as a new in original under the existing home. The foundation described your block foundation. You changed that submittal was to be a masonry design during the plan review to a typical concrete foundation. n On or about Julv 2nd, ! received a call from a COMP lainant had reporting you had not installed a new foundation but covered mesh and the existing variety of blocks, bricks and wo od with wire the call, I covered the mesh with concrete. After receiving the ccnplaint had insuected the site to see if the allegations of - the foundation had been completeC, without the any merit. I found necessary inspections required by the building code. I could not determine what construction techniques or material were used since my depLrtment did. not perform the required foun dation inspection per section 305 of the Uniform Building Code. j Therefore, I take the following action; 1. Pursuant to Section 202 (d) of the UBC, I order you to Stop Work on this structure until the necessary foundation inspection is conducted by an approved special inspector or a licensed engineer to establish the foundation is in compliance with the approved plans. 3. Since the stability of the foundation is in ques tion thus causing the stability of the house to be in question, the requirement of the paragraph above must be met by July 27, 1990. o Incorporated August 11, 1800 * Sister Cities International — Hekinan. ',Par, W If the deadline above is riot met, the building will be found *n v iolation of it's �;-_cupancy puvsuant to section 202(e) of the IJBC and ordered vacated. if you have any questions about this action feel free to call me a�,/71-3202 during normal business hours. Richard R "a Building �fMfuimia 1 City of Edmonds cc: John Bissell., Code enforcenent Tech. Kary Lou Block, Planning Manager Scott Snyder, City Attorney Terek.rrm P 772 229 329 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL A0,11MRANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED OT. FOR IfITERNATIONAL WIL (See Reverse) 1 5 Senim George & t1arquerite Terek Street and No. P. 0. Box 12 P.0 . State and, zip coce Edmonds VIA 98020 Postage S C�e,,ned Fee S_�C,�f Delwery Pee OC! y F�c Pet— Re,p, * -ha'. and D S6,0_g to ho� Da,e. and ddress of Daltvery Cz TOTAL Poslage and Fees p st k 0, oate 7,1� E 1. 0. _Xp 7, 9-1 E 7 C3, 0 IM to o a, 413 St 0 fA a , M 0 lu7r) 11 ll n� M KeM Im CITY OF EDMONDS Kj 250 - 51H A VC N. . EDMO�14()S. WA 96020 . (','OG) 7711202 COMMUNITY SERVICE& Public Worl:s - P13nning - Parks and Recreation Engineering 9 0 1 July 27, 1990 0 LARRY S. NAUGHI MA PETER E. W DIRE, George and Margaret Terek P.o. Box 12 Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: 642 _1/2MapIP pending Jim writinj to update You an the status of the action tW is on your property at 642 1/2 Maple. My inspection of your property recently did not disclose any condition that I would consider hazardous, even though the existing -foundation was not installed in compliance with the current code. I also saw that compliance was impossible because of your non -conforming status. Any height of the building tc provide for the required change in the e made your structure an ,em, would hav clearance under your floor syst , ict application of the illegal use. In your case, I believe the str building codes would be a severe hardship --and the codes do provide for some leniency in special cases. As far as your case is concerned, I have concluded that the strict application of the code is practically impossible and have requested, the city Attorney review the status Of your file and make a recommendation. 1 have asked if he coold consider a declaration an your deed notifying any Potential buyeir that the foundation system was repaired but is not in compliance with.the current code, and, because of the configurati'on of the existing foundation, potential problems could occur in the future. As a result of this review, I have suspended any,action on your property until a decision has been received from ur City Attorney, 'ece ived 'rom u r "'y Richard R;. umma Building official City of Eftonds RRM/sfn cc: city Attorney Mary Lou Block TEREK2/TXTSFN61 - Incorporated August I I - 1990 " Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan 7";:r CITY OF ED,' ON D_Q 4.P: ';F]02U - (20,51) 771-3202 SIH AVE N - CDMONM� COMMUNITY SERVICES Public Works - Plannino C3 go . 19" July 27, 1990 irks and Recreation - Engineering Scott Snyder, City Attorney ogden, Murphy & Wallac6 2100 Westlake Center Tower 1501 Fifth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101-1686 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN yAyon PETER E. HAHN D,RLCT01 Re: GEORGE AND MARGARET TEREK During our regular Tuesday meeting on July 24, 1990, we discussed a reasonable resolution for the Terek problem. As you recall, Mrs. Terek had begun working on her residence to repair the foundation without Ifirst obtaining a building permit. We -issued a "Stop Work" and required a permit. Mrs. Terek then agreed to install a typical concrete foundation, but, after repairs began he realized it would be impossible to comply and completed repairs wiihout calling for the required inspections. A complainant notified our office that work had continued on the project that was not in compliance with the plans. I nspected the sitp on iijly 23, 1990, and found the foundation system to be in relatively good condition even though 4t was not in compliance with the current code. Because of the age of the house, I suspect at the time of its installiation it may have been a 1,,gal foundation but no longer compliEs Vith the current code. The problem that the Tereks face, is that any r.-vement of the house upward to inst311 a legal foundation would cause it to lose its non -conforming status and make it an illegal use. Therefore, in the meeting, we discussed tha possibility of attaching a statement to the deed of the property declaring that the structure is not in compliance with the current building codes, and some language to the effect that the existing foundation may deteriorate over a period of time. I've enclose ,A a copy of the Jile for your review and recommendations Richard R. Mumma Building official City of Edmonds RRM/sfn enclosure TEREKI/TXTSFN61. - Mcorporated Augusf 11 1. 1890 * Sister Cities international — Hekinan, Japan 'q J04 0 k q, 4AUGH T EN CITY OF 'EDMONDS LARRY S. f OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 447-700C FAX: 447-2015 1191Q0 3� 9 0 - 1 9 C, DATE: p.ugust 2, 1990 TO: Dick Mumma, Building official FROM: W. Scott Snyder, Office of the city Attorney RE: Terek Rental Home--642 112 Maple ile regarding the repair of a rental You have �orwarded to me a f lncated at 642-1/2 ay;d home owned by George and Margaret Terek ity of Edmonds. while the full details are Nll, Maple in the C: contained in the file which you have 'provided me, it is mY W14po, under;tanding that the existing structure s foundation system was 'vely condition altht�ugh not in compliance with in relat good ventually. current code. The lack of proper ground clearance may e In order to bring the lead to determination of the structure. foundation into compliance with the code, the house would need to from 18 to 24 inches. Any such movement of the be moved upward house would cause the structure to lose its non -conforming status under the zoning code. The work described in the pe=-it application was installation cf foundation. The plans were chunged to specify a a mason--y block The actual uork co-mpleted consisted Z; typical concrete foundation. blocks, bricks and wood of covering the existing foundation of with wire mesh and concrete. As you are aware, section 104(b) of the UBC provides that: ........... alterations or repairs may be made Additions, to any building without requiring the exis-�_ing %b -ements building . . . to comply wit3� all requir. of the code, provided the addition,.alteratian or repair conforms to that required for a new building or structure. The section continues that no change can be made which will cause the building to be in violation of the code or unsafe in specified categories. it is my understanding that the work which was done cloes not make the building unsafe. On the other hand it n, which will lead to the does not stabilize the existing conditio the gradual deterioration of the structure. Needless to say, work which was done does not comply with the existing code. Section 104 continues, however, to provide that alterations or repairs to existing buildings which are non-structural and which 2100 Westlake Center Tower, 1601 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101-16--3 o Incorporate(I AUgUS( 1 0 Sister Cities Ii.ternational Hck;nan, Japan I c d� - el _4 P ilP I IV go Memo to Dick Muuima August 2, 1990 Page 2 will not adversely affect any structural member may be made- " . . . with the same materials of which the building . . . is constructed." You may wish to consider whether the repairs are non-structural. if in your opinion they are, you should consider whether the materials are the same as that which the buildina was originally constriicted. Sections 105 and 106 deal with approved alternates and practical difficulties. Section 105 requires that a suggested alternative have a design which complies with tha code and is an equivalent to the code requirement's in terms of suitability or strengr-h. The new design does not comply with the code and would not provide structural strength equivalent to t,-.-:-t of code approved foundations. Therefore, section 105 does not appear applicable. Section 106 provides that the building official may approve modifications in situations where strict application of the letter of the. code would be impractical, and the modification conforms to the intent and purpose of the code and would not lessen the fire protection requirements or "any degree of structural integrity. 11 If you wish to approve a modification this seems the most practical alternative. The foundation wcrk which was done does nothing to improve the structural stability of the non -conforming foundation but neither does it decrease its stability. Therefore, while you cannot approve the work which was done under strict application of the code, you could find that it is non- structural work under Section 104(b) if it is of the same materials which the building was originally constructed. If the materials are different, and they appear to be due to the mesh, you could approve a modification through section !06 of the section !U4(b) non-structural requirements. section 106 requires the Building Official to enter notice into the records of the nodification which has been approved. Your suggestion that a brief notice be recorded wou'l-A be a logical extension of Section 106's requirements and should be a part of your modification decision. Attached as Exhibit A is language which I suggest be included in your modification decision. Feel free to vary it according to the actual contents of your inspections and your own common sense. Exhibit B is a notice for recording. Rather than contain detailed information, it puts future purchasers on record notice by advising them that they should consult the building permit files and inform themselves of the modification which has been approved. If you have any queotions please feel free to call. WSS:tcp 0006.040:WSS52571M .2 J S �7 3P EXZIBIT A Draft languagf, for i1iclusion in modification decision: The undersigned building official of the City of Edmonds has inspected foundation work done on the structure located at 642- 1/2 MaplP street, city of Edmonds, Washington. Work was done under building permit application No. but did not comply with the oriainal application or t�ie amended application. The -work which was done consisted of coverina an existing non -conforming foundation of bricks, blocks and ;�ood with a wire mesh and concrete. The work which was done is not in conformance with the code and could not be approved under Sections 104(b) or 105 of the Uniforia Building Code. In my judgment however, the work was not structural in nature. It did not improve the structural stability of the non -conforming foundation bulk. neitl'er does it reduce the stability of the existing foundation. The foundation does not provide tie sufficien,'C. ground clearance required by the current code and continued deterioration of the foundation and the structure should be anticipated. Any purchaser of the prol.,:-rty should conduct a structural inspection of the foundation and consider the recommendation their own experts and should not rely on the issuance of a building permit as any indication that the structure complies with existing codes. Because of the non -conforming nature of the structure, the structure itself would be lose its non -conforming status under building and zoning codes if a conforming foundation were placed under it. This would re.cpAre the building to be removed. For these reasons, I find that. there are "practical difficulties" with the application of the code as terms used in Section 106 of tho Uniform Building Code. I therefore apprcved a modification of S�w 104 (b) , specif ically f inding that the alterations and repairs to the existing structure were "non-structural" - The modification which I have approved is using materials, specifically wire mesh, that were not incorporated in the original structure. This modification and approval should not be taken as an indication that the current structure cOmplies with the provisions of 'the Uniform Building Code or the Zoning Code of city of Edmonds. It is non -conforming in both contexts. I have no indication however that the structural intogrity of the structure has been lessen by the work and may have had some slight inprovement. I therefore! approve thii7 modification subject to the filing of a notice to prospective purchasers and lenders in the records of Snohomish County, Washington. If the notice is not filed, this modification will be void, the structure will become an illegal nonconforming use and I will require it to be removed. WSS52571M 7-7— Notice of Modification !he undersigned owners, in consideration of the appi.-)val of -3 iodification under Section 106 of the uniform Building Code by �he Building official of the City of Edmonds, do hereby record :hls notificaticn to prospective purchasers and lenders. au�j_qcr_ Site. This notice is f iled with respect to a str%'�Lture located at 642-1/2 Maple Street, c3l,:y of Edmonds, Washington, legally described as: This document is a covenant to notify which touches and concerns the previously described land and shall run with the land to any future purchasers, heirs, assigns or other party .acquiring an interest in the property. Xg_dAgjcatio A modif ication tj the re mirements of the J2. - granted tc the foundation of Uniform Buildin�; code has been the structure. The structure itself is currently a legal non -conforming use in the city of Edmonds in that it i.-; grandfathered under the terms of the City's ordinances as they exist, but does not oomply with the current requirements of either the zoning code or uniform building code. Alterations or modifications in the structure could require it to be brought into compliance with such codes. Prospective purchasers are urged to review the approval. modif icatio:i contained in Building Code File No. aid to consider the comments of the building official contained in such I,ile. DONE this _ day of 1990- OWNERS' George Tarek Margaret Terek WSS52571M i�iR i_AFI11Y S. NAUGHTEN NDS MAYOR CITY OF EDMO .(206) 771.3,02 250. El HAVE. N. - EDMONDS. WAIJ802() PETER E. HAHN f: COMMUNI TY SERVICES: arks and R--creation Engj(1-_eriog OMECTOR 89 114 Public Works Planning P August 14, 1990 George & Margarita Terel, post office Box 12 Edmonds, Washington 98020 RE: 6,�2 1/2 Maple Street Permit #900402 As a followup to try letter dated 7/27/9C, I have miade the following determination on the foundation work at 642 1/2 Maple Street. A site inspection revealed that repair work on the foundation was not done in a--cordance with minigium standards of the M8 edition of the Uniform Building Code, .(UBC) as required under permit #900402. The work which was done consisted of covering the 2xisting non -conforming foundation of bricks, blacks and wood with a wire mesh and concrete. The work is not In conformance with UBC standards and -It cannot be approved under strict interpretation of Sections 104 (b) or 1o5 of the UBC. It is my judgement however, that the work is not structural in nature and does not improve or reduce the structural stability of the existing non -conforming foundation. Further, the existing foundation does not provide the sufficient ground clearance required by the current code f the foundation and the structure should and continued deterioration a I be anticipated. Any future purchaser of the property should conduct a private structural inspection of the foundation and consider the recommendation of their own experts and should not rely on the issuance of a building permit by the City C-s any indication that the structure complies with the existing codes. As you are aware, since the building is non -conforming it would lose its status uneer the building and zoning codes if a conforming foundation were placed under the structure. This would require the building to be �or these reasons, I find that there are 'practical difficulties-- with the application of the code as terms used 4n section 106 of the UBC. I therefore approve a modification cf UBC Section 104 (b), specifically finding that the alterations and repairs to the existing structure are "non-strlictural". The modification which 'f4cally wire mesh, that are 1 have approved is using materials, SP2cl , not incorporated in the original structure. a incorporated August 11. 1890 0 Sister C;ties Internationai — Hekinan. Japan 'f tl) A George & Margarita Terek August 14, 1990 Page Two This modification and approval should not be taken as an indication that the current structure complies with the provisions of the UBC or the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds, it is non -conforming in both contexts. I have no indication however that the structural integrity of the structure has been lessened by the work and may have had some sli5ht improvement. I therefore approve this modification subject to the filing of a notice to prospective purchasers and lenders in the records of Snohomish Cointy, Washington. If the notice in not filed, this modification will -�e void, the structure will become an illegal non -conforming use, and I will require it to be removed. The jotice of Modication form is attached, it must be completed, signed by all owners of the property, notarized and recorded with Snohomish County. A copy of the recorded monds Building division by no later document must be provided to the Ed rded than September 14, 1990. Failure to provide a copy of the reco document by this date will result in immediate action to abate the " Z structure. if there are any questions please contact me at 771-3202. Richa�-d R. Mumma Building Officia, cc: City Attorney Notice of Modification The undersigned owners, in consideration of the approval of a modification under Section 106 of the Uniform Building Code by the Building OI:ficial of the City of Edmonds, do hereby record this notification to prospective purchasers aiid lenders. 1. Subiect Site. This notice is filed with respect to a structure located at 642-1 / 12 Maple Street, City of Edmonds, Washington, legally described as; Lot Y-4 Q A (f'; C'14 I's4 "'J", '-i cry, This document is a covenant to notify which touches and concerns the previously descxibed land and shall- run with the land to any future purchasers, heirs, assigns or other party acquiring an interest in the property. 2. Modigication. A modification to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code has been granted to the foundation of the structure. The structure itself is currently a legal non -conforming use in the City of Edmonds in that it is the City's ordinances as grandfathered under the terms of they exist, but doas not comply with the current requ irements of either the zoning code or uniform building code. Ali-erations or modifications in the structure could require 'ance. with it to be brought into compl-4 such codes. Prospective purchasers are urged to review the approval modification contained in Building Code File ments of the No. and to consider the con building official containe n such file. DONE this day of OWNERS: J2 George Ter.- Marga�et Terek WSSF�2571?1 9000 10 i) 5 04 VLA* -I- I lb Z A� 9 t 14 MORTGAGE HOLDER/LENDER: STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF6664e�,--111 I certif%, that I know or have satisfactory evidence'that, A George Terek sign;d this instrument and acknowledged it tc be his mentioned in this free and voluntary act for the purposes instrument. ...... .... . DATED this _I—Lday of Alt" 1990. NOTARY PUBLIC M, STATE OF WASHINGTON )ss: COUNVI certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that Margaret Terek signeid this instrument and acknowledged it to be in this her free and voluntary act fcjr the purposes mentioned instrument. ........ "I,;,-*,. 17 DATED this_,/ --aav of 1990.i-, e, NOTi Y PUBL*C M cormiss ion ex v pi STATE OF WASHINGTON )ss- COUNTY OF I certify that I know r have satisfactory evidence sl gned thi3 inst--um--nt, on oath that the stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute (title) instrumebt and acknowledged it Els the WSS52571M 10 C. 5 0 A of to be, the free ;...Id voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in thit3 instrument. DATED this _ day of 1990. z 7,i nK' WSS52571M i')OOq 10 0 5 0 4 NOTARY PUBLIC my commission expires; -3- - (-I nt LU r D Z) A,- I LARRY S. vlAUGHTEN OFEDMONDS !�Mon CITY 77 1 .:Q02 (200 5TH AVE. N V.11, 911020 Lcv!�, 250 PETER E. HAHN COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works - plj.nning - Paflks and Recreation Engineering . . . . . . . . . . . LETTER �OF TRANSMITTAL )�A c-, I Plan review number: )Ject: C 0 4 �&ncss ?,nsmitting: —Plans & CaIcs— Soi:, RePOrt Othc,- Com-ments: For your information: _101 'i�� ested by vour office: As requ Per y lie, %/\-X— For structural plan review: r For non-structural plan review: For -Washington State Energy Code review: For NTorthwest Energy Code review: rJL F017 Fire Code review: ff Note attachpd comments: For Corrections and resubmittal: Building Division Respond to leftr in writing: CV\, Rcsubmit 2 revised plans:.--- City Official Send directly to City Building Division: - Incorporated AUgLJSt ]L 1890 Sisler Citl�s jr,terri,)tjonal — Hekinan. JaPa-v,