20060721075837.pdfMessage Page i of 7
Harrison, Marie
From: Gebert, David
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 4:25 PM
To: Harrison, Marie
Cc: Graf, Jeannine; Bowman, Duane; Haakenson, Gary; Sims, Don; Chrisman, Lyle; 'Snyder, Scott'
Subject: FW: Paradise Lane Developers agreement -McCormick Medical Building
Marie,
Jon McCormick has agreed to the terms of our developers agreement for the McCormick Medical Building.
Please issue his permit.
Thanks,
Dave
-----Original Message -----
From: Jon McCormick [mailto:jon@mccmed.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:45 PM
To: Gebert, David
Subject: RE: Paradise Lane Developers agreement
Dave,
I will agree to pay the city $2400 and forget about my re-engineering costs. Please issue the permit.
Jon McCormick
From: Gebert, David [mailto:Gebert@ci.edmonds.wa.us]
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:04 PM
To: Jon McCormick
Cc: Bowman, Duane; Chrisman, Lyle; Sims, Don; Graf, Jeannine
Subject: RE: Paradise Lane Developers agreement
Jon,
It looks like we are at an impasse on this developer agreement. The City will not agree to compensate you for
your redesign costs and we will not execute a developer agreement with the knowledge that you will be submitting
a claim for the redesign costs.
You would have had to redesign your parking lot layout and parking lot entrance to avoid the costly relocation of
the utility pole that interfered with your initial driveway approach layout as shown on your initial plans anyway,
whether or not we were doing a developer agreement for the mini -park ..... or you would have had to incur the
significant cost to relocate the pole. Furthermore, we believe the $5,000 number you have provided for your
redesign costs is excessive for any redesign effort required to revise the layout of your parking lot and the location
of the parking entrance. You plans were not complete when the concept of the mini -park was proposed. The
effort to redesign the parking lot layout and entrance should have been significantly less than $5,000. Please
note that the redesign we are talking about should only include the redesign costs actually caused by the need to
rearrange the parking lot and entrance,.... not any design costs required to complete your plans or revise your
plans to respond to City review comments.
So, we see two options to get this resolved:
7/21/2006
Message
Page 2 of 7
1. Either you agree to the conditions outlined in my July 19, 2006 e-mail, including that you will not submit a claim
for redesign and other costs, or
2. We forget about the developer agreement and you install all required frontage improvements, including but not
limited to sidewalk, driveway curb cut, trim vegetation in right of way per your engineer's original recommendation,
and right of way restoration. The City will then do whatever work is necessary to build our mini -park and/or
provide suitable right of way revisions to accommodate your parking lot and entrance layout as currently
designed.
The choice is yours. Please let us know which option you choose. If you choose option 2, we can redline your
drawings accordingly and issue your permit.
Dave
-----Original Message -----
From: Jon McCormick [mailto:jon@mccmed.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 9:32 AM
To: Gebert, David
Cc: Warrenlafon@earthlink.net
Subject: RE: Paradise Lane Developers agreement
Dave,
1. 1 agree with the $2400 figure.
2. 1 do expect the city to compensate me for the architect, and re-engineering fees I incurred as a result of this city
project. 1 will submit a claim for this, the amount will not exceed $5,000
3. 1 will sign the developer agreement.
4. Question 1. Jon McCormick, an individual
Question 2. McCormick Medical Building
Please do your best to get the permit released, as I was promised that this development agreement would not hold up
my permit. The delays as a result of this re-engineering are proving to be very costly to me.
Sincerely,
Jon McCormick
From: Gebert, David [mailto:Gebert@ci.edmonds.wa.usj
Sent: Wed 7/19/2006 11:57 AM
To: Jon McCormick
Cc: ; Chrisman, Lyle; Sims, Don; Bowman, Duane; Graf, Jeannine; Harrison, Marie; Umbaugh, Theresa;
Zulauf, JoAnne
Subject: RE: Paradise Lane Developers agreement
Jon,
To confirm our telephone conversation this morning, your permit is ready to be issued as soon as we have
agreement on the terms of the developer agreement. What we need from you is an e-mail stating the
following:
7/21/2006
Message Page 3 of 7
1. You agree with the $2,400 number for paragraph 6.2. and no compensation paid to you by the City for
re-engineering.
2. You will not submit a separate claim for re-engineering or other costs.
3. You agree to the other terms of the developer agreement and will sign the agreement.
Also, I still need the answers to questions #1 and #2 in my e-mail dated June 5, 2006 so I can finalize the
agreement and get it to the City Council for approval.
In our phone conversation, you indicated that you don't necessarily agree to not submit a claim for re-
engineering and other costs and that you will submit a dollar number to us for consideration.
Dave
-----Original Message -----
From: Gebert, David
Sent: Friday, July 3.4, 2006 4:3.3 PM
To: 'Jon McCormick'
Cc: Warrenlafon@earth link. net; Chrisman, Lyle; Sims, Don; Bowman, Duane; Graf, Jeannine;
Harrison, Marie; Umbaugh, Theresa; Zulauf, JoAnne
Subject: RE: Paradise Lane Developers agreement
Jon,
No, we don't want a separate claim regarding redesign costs. The language of the developer
agreement is based upon incorporating your re-engineering costs into the agreement. Please see
paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 of the developer agreement.
In your tally of costs, the amounts you have indicated are reasonable and acceptable for those items
(i.e., demo of existing sidewalk, construction of new sidewalk, and curb cut). However, you have
omitted the costs that will be eliminated for you or for work the City will do for you for the following:
• Relocation of the power pole (requirement eliminated) - We estimate the value of this to be
approximately $7,000
• Tree trimming/removal for sight distance (eliminated) - We estimate the value of this to be
about $1,000
• Right of way restoration (reduced and City to do final restoration) - We estimate the value
of this to be about $500
As I indicated in my e-mail to you dated June 5, 2006, we recognize that you may have opted to
revise the design of your parking lot anyway (i.e., independent of this developers agreement) to
avoid the need to relocate the power pole and, therefore, are willing to consider the redesign costs
as offsetting or avoiding the $7,000 cost to relocate the power pole. After further consideration, we
also recognize that by redesigning your parking loft to avoid relocating the power pole, you could
have avoided the majority, if not all, of the tree trimming/removal.
Therefore, if you are willing to consider your re-engineering costs as offset by your avoidance of the
cost to relocate the power pole and the tree trimming/removal, we are willing to consider that the
only additional cost to address is the $500 for right of way restoration. This would result in a total
net cost that you would contribute to the City of $2,400 and no compensation paid to you by the City
for re-engineering. We could agree with this number.
7/21/2006
Message
7/21/2006
Page 4 of 7
Jon, also, unless you provided answers to Jeanie and I am not aware of it, I still need answers to
my questions #1 and #2 in my e-mail dated June 5, 2006.
If we can get these issues resolved, we can proceed with finalizing the agreement to take to the City
Council for approval.
Also, we have completed our Engineering Division review of your latest resubmittal, and
understand from the Permit Coordinator that your permit is ready to issue as soon as we have
reached agreement on the above.
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: Jon McCormick [mailto:jon@mccmed.com]
Sent: Friday, July 14, 2006 10:17 AM
To: Gebert, David
Cc: Warrenlafon@earthiink.net
Subject: RE: Paradise Lane Developers agreement
Dave,
I will submit a separate claim to Edmonds for the re-engineering work required to accommodate the
city development.
To come up with a hard dollar figure to mitigate work the city is doing on my behalf, the work consists
of the following:
1. Demolition of existing sidewalk $500
2. Construction of new sidewalk. $1000
3. Curb cut $400
Therefore I will contribute $1, 900.00 towards the project.
Sincerely,
Jon McCormick
From: Gebert, David[mailto:Gebert@ci.edmonds.wa.us]
Sent: Mon 7/10/2006 $:36 AM
To; Jon McCormick
Cc: Chrisman, Lyle; Sims, Don; Subject: FW; Paradise Lane Developers agreement
Jon,
How are you coming on a dollar amount for the developer agreement? We need to be
moving forward to get Council approval on the agreement.
Dave
-----Original Message -----
From: Jon McCormick [mailto:jon@mccmed.com]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:05 PM
Message
To: McConnell, Jeanie
Subject: RE: Paradise Lane Developers agreement
Page 5 of 7
Will do. The only holdup has been the engineering firm fees associated with the re-
design. Should have that figured out soon.
Jon
From: McConnell, Jeanie [mailto:Mcconnell@ci.edmonds.wa.us]
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 12:54 PM
To: Jon McCormick
Cc: Sims, Don; Gebert, David; McConnell, Jeanie
Subject: RE: Paradise Lane Developers agreement
Jon,
Please let Dave and I know as soon as you have a dollar amount that you think is
reasonable, as well as an explanation as to how you arrived at that amount. As soon
as an agreeable number has been reached and the Development Agreement is signed
we will forward to City Council for approval.
Thank you,
Jeanie
7/21/2006
--Original Message
From: Jon McCormick [mailto:jon@mccmed.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:17 PM
To: McConnell, Jeanie
Subject: RE: Paradise Lane Developers agreement
am in agreement, and would be willing to sign with the exception of my
contribution to the city. I am still working on this.
Jon
From: McConnell, Jeanie [mailto:Mcconnell@ci.edmonds.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:19 AM
To: Jon McCormick
Cc: warrenlafon@earthlink.net
Subject: FW: Paradise Lane Developers agreement
Good morning Jon,
I'm just following up on the this e-mail sent to you by Dave Gebert, City
Engineer. We would like to keep moving forward with our end of the project,
but need a response from you before we can do so.
Please provide a response as soon as possible or contact Dave Gebert or
myself should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Message
Jeanie 9VcConneCf
Engineering Technician
425-77.1-0220, epi. 1338
'FAX - 425-77.1-0.22.1
wcconneff@dedmontL.wa.us
-----Original Message -----
From; Gebert, David
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 1:34 PM
To: 'jon@mccmed.com'
Cc: 'Warrenlafon@earthlink.net; Sims, Don; McConnell, Jeanie; Chrisman, Lyle
Subject: Paradise Lane Developers agreement
<<Paradise Lane, developer agrmt, Rev 4, June 5, 06.DOC»
Jon,
Page 6 of 7
Thank you for bringing in your comments on the proposed developer agreement
on June 1 st. Attached is a revised draft with your comments incorporated as
well as a few more revisions we have made. The revisions are highlighted.
A couple questions for you:
1. In paragraph 1.2 it says that "'Developer' shall mean , a
Washington 1 am assuming that we should put your name in
the first blank (and have done so in the attached draft), but for the second
blank, are you developing this project as an individual, a corporation, etc.?
2. In paragraph 1.2 and elsewhere in the agreement we refer to the project as
the "McCormick Medical Building", but I want to make sure we have the correct
project title because there are several names used on various documents in the
file including McCormick Medical Office and McCormick Medical Dist. What is
the correct title you would like us to use?
3. Also, we have taken a look at the $1,000 figure you propose for paragraph
6.2. As I indicated to you in our discussions, we certainly want to be
reasonable in arriving at an appropriate number for this, but we need to make
sure that the number is in fact reasonable and appropriate, and that this
agreement does not result in a contribution of public funds to accomplish work
that you are required to do on your private project.
Accordingly, the following are the cost factors and estimated amounts that we
see:
Additional costs to your project:
Redesign of parking lot configuration: $1,000
Reduction in costs to your project due to elimination of requirement and/or City
7/21/2006
Message Page 7 of 7
to accomplish work:
Power pole relocation (eliminated) -$7,000
Tree trimming/removal (eliminated) -$1,000
Right of way restoration (reduced and City to do final restoration) -
$500
Demo asphalt walkway (City to do) -$500
New asphalt walkway (City to do) -$1,000
New curb cut for driveway (Eliminated at current sidewalk -$400
location and City to do at new location)
Subtotal reduction -$10,400
Net reduction in cost to your project -$9,400
However, we also recognize that you may have opted to revise the design of
your parking lot anyway (i.e., independent of this developers agreement) to
avoid the need to relocate the power pole and, therefore, are willing to consider
the redesign costs as offsetting or avoiding the $7,000 cost to relocate the
power pole. This would reduce the estimated cost reduction to your project (or
the estimated value of your project work requirements that will be eliminated
and/or accomplished by the City) to $3,400.
Therefore, we consider $3,400 to be a more reasonable and appropriate
number for paragraph 6.2 in the agreement.
Please review these numbers and the attached revised developers agreement
and let us know if you agree. If so, we will finalize the agreement for your
signature and place it on the Council agenda for approval.
Thank you
Dave
7/21/2006