Loading...
20071221074821.pdfI11c 1890 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwci.edmonds.wa_us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Olympic Vista LLC James Malsch, Registered Agent 6824 24`h Avenue Northeast Seattle, Washington 98115 RE: 421 Sprague Street, Edmonds Dear Mr. Malsch, GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR December 20, 2007 As a follow-up to City Plan Review Comments dated December 18, 2007, City records indicate the original building construction and occupancy approval for the 421 Sprague Apartment was for five (5) total units (please refer to building permit 9670535 and the Certificate of Occupancy dated May 15, 1968 enclosed). Your plans submitted under permit application BLD20071210 show six units- The City Planning Division has confirmed that a maximum of five total units is permitted based on the zoning district of RM 1 S_ Please note that RM 1.5 is the highest density zoning within the City. In preparing this letter my office discovered the following information; the City initiated code enforcement on the sixth unit against a former building owner in 1975 (see City letter dated 7/31/75 copy enclosed). In response an application was filed with the Board of Adjustments (enclosed please find Board minutes from March and April of 1979 regarding this matter). Note that at the April 1979 meeting the Board voted to amortize the sixth unit for a period of three years after which time the building would become a five unit building. The maximum number of units permitted is five and the sixth unit must be removed. Therefore, the following actions are required by you: • If the illegal unit is currently occupied you shall immediately notify the tenant of the noted code violation and demand termination of vacancy as permitted by State RCW 59-18- The City shall require inspection of the area within 45 days date of this letter to verify that the unit is not used or occupied. • You shall alter the current permit application on file with the City by no later than January 21, 2008 indicating removal of the illegal dwelling unit by changing all spaces to a common use (i -e., storage, laundry room, mechanical room, etc.). The City will review for code compliance and issue the permit in a timely manner. Removal of dwelling unit spaces shall occur within 60 days of permit issuance. If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 extension 1226 during City business Hours. Sincerely, ` ..(/ Jeannine L. Graf Building Official Incorporated August 11, 1890 tic+ r 1'ik7 - 14ol.inan .ianan IMM t 4k. P.S�zo 6, KROLL M� -'olo, tU a I LD I N G DEPARTMENT- Appua t Flu 1 opilcATION v or aV dINNa91 FF 9 .7a _l -K IrRG B S —7—SUIL 1,1. A.kE'61 HEIGHT NAME -- 4 C -/j 6c, rv. 1-4i I KA L 41-1 CLE�Cg C "D ar JF. r carr I-fix—apholcz NUKE f RE_� A7E ucEN-n NV cOKNECTi-- V� ;RC C -Y 0 .'.f' F f.Q As P17-- P .1j, FxTLE SONE TYPM OF (-,vNdTnuCI'........ L�r 0- C:!- '4AIt jJ I -2 a EC"'. RE"UrRED Mc GROUP IOC' C] T.S 0 -NO OCCup, "LIN CRECKEn fty REL "Xa CIS of Wz? tin tiloct t LL] P, S.1 . I r. 1,.f to OWIL2,75 C,_ty sot 310- "t," tc EXO­�ATE ALTER vl Num8 or OF 'o-qFee AeeelPt - 97,77, cdn' T HEATh C-8 LINE FENCE 2A-1- Swx FRE.=E INSPECTION EXCAVII -10N OR FILL TOTAL AMOU�-x DTIZIJ T_ M, —l" 11 th, dqtr "tb­ :tea .cart os .ha umtcr_ I aYret to I .1� �lty -d etwa 1-- [eels APP, LICATION APPROVAL Thi; AppRl,.tlwf is Roti Permit "R1:11 igmd Mdlding OffiCRl or his Dep - qty; —d �fts.. R� PaRL —d .�-iPc is ac NOM Permit limit One year vid,& I 1_._W;9�1 lolva� PTU. GN VRE (.—OR DEpkn-CI�FV`IT 'Z cury OF 'IDS NIOTE: Apphc­l Subjecf 10 NO- ChIcA, F- - -- -------- In Q 0 _z a� LL LU 0 z LU0. um r UL iii j -- STREET FILE STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE, AND THAT THE VARIANCE BE DEP!€ED BECAUSE IT IS NOT A MINIMUM VARIANCE NOR A HARDSHIP_ On question by Mr. Roy to the City Attorney, Mr. Tanaka said that since the motion was to deny, it would be best to omit the reference to the second accessory building_ and leave it to the City Staff to see that it is removed. MRS. MEDINA AMENDED HER MOTION TO DELETE THAT PORTION REGARDING THE STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE FENCE. MRS_ DERLETH SECONDED THE MOTION AS AMENDED_ A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN ON THE MOTION, WITH MRS. MEDINA, MRS. DERLETH, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING YES, WITH MR. BYRD AND MR. LERAAS VOTING NO, AND WITH MR. ROY ABSTAINING BECAUSE HE HAD NOT BEEN PRESENT FOR THE PREVIOUS HEARING ON THIS ITEM. THE MOTION CARRIED. AGENDA NCU-3-78 JOHN LaRUE - Nonconformin Use Permit to maintain a nonconforming unit at :. 1 -Sprague St. ?RMH,) Ms. Luster distributed copies of an Earnest honey Agreement executed by the applicant at the time this property was purchased. The Agreement indicated the property had a Building Permit for five units only and that income for five units only was considered in the agreement. The structure currently was leasing six units, one of which was nonconforming. Ms. Luster said the applicant had the options of acquiring sufficient property .to make up the square footage required for the sixth unit or to reduce the number of units to comply with the Code. She read aloud 12.15.180(e) of the Code, regarding the issuance of a Nonconforming Unit Permit. There are three requirements for such a permit, and Ms. Luster indicated the applicant met the first two but he did not meet the third. That states that the owner must have purchased the multi -family dwelling on good faith with no knowledge of the nonconforming unit. Because the Earnest Money Agreement stated there were only five units, he was aware that there were five legal units and that'the other unit was not a legal unit. Ms. Luster recommended denial of the application because the applicant was aware of the nonconforming status of one unit as indicated by the Earnest Money Agreement and the escrow papers, the applicant could reduce the number of units to the total allowed, and the innocent purchaser clause in the Code does not apply in this case. She showed a slide of the property, saying she believed the storage area in the building was converted to an additional unit which has one bedroom. They are not paying utilities individually on that unit. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Chet Bennett, attorney representing the applicant, said the building was constructed in 1967 as a five -unit structure_ He submitted to Chairman Stole a rental agreement on the structure from 1969. He said .the two storage units under the stairs were combined in 1969 to make one rental unit and three owners prior to the LaRues had rented this building out as six units. He noted that all of the information regarding this building had been provided by the LaRues and he asked Ms_ Luster if there would be a serious environmental impact if the sixth unit were to continue. She responded there would not. Mr. Bennett suggested that the applicants covenant with the City to phase out the sixth unit and remove the kitchen facilities at the conclusion of five years, giving them an opportunity to amortize their investment. He said they would put up a bond to that effect and the ordinance required they would have to pay the back utilities. Mrs_ LaRue stated that they were novices in negotiating for income property and had taken the word of their real estate agent that there would not be any problem with the extra unit and that all they would have to do was ask for a variance and a new ordinance coming on the books would grandfather it in. Mrs. Derleth asked her if they had inquired of the City regarding that ordinance or a permit and they had not. This matter had come to the attention of the City as the result of a Fire Department inspection_ The publ is portion of the hearing was closed. ,a The applicants were asked questions regarding the units. They stated the rent amounts for each of the units and said five have individual utility meters and the sixth meter is for the house lights and laundry and the BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 4 - March 21, 1979 sixth unit is wired to that meter_ They have seven parking spaces but at the time the building was constructed thev met the parking requirements for five units_ In order to legalize the sixth unit they would have to acquire additional square footage, provide additional parking, take care of the utility billing requirements, and meet the Uniform Building Code requirements_ Mr. Byrd asked if the phase-out suggested by Mr. Bennett would be an appropriate remedy and whether the Board had the authority to do that_ City Attorney Wayne Tanaka advised that the only authority the Board had was to issue the Nonconforming Use Permit. He said the phase-out of the nonconforming unit was not at issue because the Board was not empowered by the Code to do that_ Chairman Stole suggested offering the unit as storage space and raising the apartment rentals accordingly, but Mrs. LaRue said there already was adequate storage provided. Mr. Tanaka then said he did not believe anything would prohibit the Board from imposing a limited time permit if the criteria were met_ Mr. Leraas noted that the LaRues had been open and above board and this building had been in existence this way since 1969. He felt the Board should be able to give the LaRues some kind of relief. Mr_ Roy agreed, commenting that the type of rental units the LaRues had were needed and there was nothing to be gained by removing the sixth unit. Mrs. Derleth was troubled by the Earnest Money Agreement, and yet she said the understood that in the enthusiasm to sell such comments could be made regarding the ease of getting a permit_ She felt, however, that if such comments were made to her, she would contact the City to verify them. MR. ROY THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, TO APPROVE NCU-3-78 BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BECAUSE HE FELT THERE WAS NOT MUCH TO GAIN BY ELIMINATING THE SIXTH UNIT_ A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MR. ROY AND MR_ LERAAS VOTI14G YES, AND MRS. MEDINA, MR. BYRD, MRS. DERLETH, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING NO. THE MOTION FAILED. Mr. Byrd stated that he could not vote for the motion because he felt that would exceed the authority of the Board, and Mrs. Derleth agreed. CHAIRMAN STOLE THEN MOVED THAT THIS BE AMORTIZED OUT IN THREE YEARS AT WHICH TIME THE BUILDING WOULD BECOME A FIVE -UNIT BUILDING, BECAUSE SHE DID NOT FEEL IT WOULD BE DETRIME14TAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. She added that she felt they should pay their utility bills. MOTION FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Mrs. Derleth said she was looking at the criteria and at the Earnest Money. Agreement, and that Agreement definitely stated that there was knowledge. Mr. Byrd added that there may have been some fraud imposed on the LaRues but the knowledge was there and the Board has certain criteria to follow. MR. BYRD THEN MOVED, IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS, THAT NCU-3-78 BE DENIED. MRS. MEDINA SECONDED THE MOTIOII. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN, WITH MR_ BYRD, MRS. MEDINA, AND MRS. DERLETH VOTING YES, AND WITH MR. ROY, MR. LERAAS, AND MRS. STOLE VOTING NO, RESULTING IN A TIE VOTE. THE MOTION FAILED_ MR. BYRD THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY MRS_ MEDINA, TO CONTINUE NCU-3-78 UNTIL THE APRIL MEETING BECAUSE A DEADLOCK HAD'BEEN REACHED AND IN ORDER TO HAVE THE SEVENTH MEMBER OF THE BOARD PRESENT: MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. ROY VOTING NO. V-16-79 FRED R. BROWN - Variance from required front yard setback at 24322 74th Ave. W. RS -8) This application was for reduction of the required front yard set back from 25' to 10' for a length of approximately 14'_ This would not result in a rezone. The property fronts on 74th Ave_ W_ which is an easement the City has over the old Traction Right -of -Way, and it never will be widened. The existing house invades the setback and the applicant wished to enclose the porch area of his home. He would be building along the existing line of the house so he would not intrude into the setback more than the existing house does. It was not possible to increase the size of the home in any other way, and the house is very small, approximately 600 sq. ft. The Staff felt this was a reasonable request because of the location. Ms. Luster recommended approval because it was a reasonable variance to make the maximum use of the property, it would not obstruct views or interfere with the traffic in the area, it appeared to be the best location for.this type of addition, and because 74th W. will not be improved. The public portion of the hearing was opened. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 5 - March 21, 1979 . . � I . , - - I .,�' I, , I . j 1-1 .� ,_' . - " .. , .- ' ' - , """ '-' -' ' � . . . . �4 a . - � - . . ., . I � 1-1 - - .. � '.... ` -' - .'- - I . . .- . . .. �� � i - . . . I.; .-- - - . - � � -- - .--- - - -:- . - - . . . . ...-. - . - . . � � - .1 - .. �- . - � . .- . . � . . ,- ,-f,. , - -: - - x' - .L - _ Herbert K Bc�hrnn_ _ -_ 2! Sprague Edmonds, tigt� _ _ _ - pear S.Ir _ €fie:: {)##' Aparfi�®nt-RMH) 4 __ 4#i—agues#reei .. . .� - - !t is our uniertaacfiq_ that' you `are .the over f he ave a.partm att.I.b - ..- it has cane -to the. atte''t#-moi; of t:h�Te 4 )Aj. fi ent stat, a . 4,d `atIoit .. oI. .f the of t� ion a code; ax s Qty -tho #hot s�e3 f i ca,1 # y ttrxit - rect i u +it - Are 1-1 im p # sd - } _,.. r _ _ y3 flat arks #ndica' �r . firl � f c � _ - - _ - S -.k�_- - - - - _ I :: B� #':I d i'ng ;_pormit6t?j._# 5�u� Nn�ber ! 6, . ! 967 antn6r ized `. codstrucfiia��t cif #eve '(5) urs:#f apart .but -,- - #do psrmit� hot , Siete �W " f steed, to add an addl crna ,;unifi ffi %�3 t - 3 '= -T---h& # of atm i # i tto# ge ft � 46 i U , f r li - - - is r 4 '', c _ �" s r �� *ori 30 "�duvded t llie; � lbh, cA _ - �-� I ci#y r codes_ F #.ease caafa�t # iw � .� �a . ` r `# � �� �r�ce ') s z, l - _ _ - - 3 y Y -t: r � �3 r' ��� y = } f _. N f - - ___ _ - - - s '- �r - - - __ . s ... - - - - - _ - i� - _ t x J $#f if ng _ , 4 _ 4 _ s y `- i`-- .. - _ 'fir _ - a t-.,x'tt.3 _ - ter"`_' _ _ 4 -'- r ,� -£ r- s '_`•rz ..,—� s e - a e._ _s - -- �- _ '$O D.:OF.ADJUSTMENT April 18, 1979 The regular mertinq of the Edmonds Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chairwoman Alice Stole at 7:35 p -m. in the Council Chambers of the Edmonds Civic Center. PRESENT ABSENT STAFF PPESENT filice Stole, Chaimoman Ann Derleth Nancy Luster, Associate Planner Huryl Medina Jo Ann. Fischer, Recording Sec y. Paul Poy Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney Jack Byrd Bill Leraas Harold Hatzenbuhler Chairwonrn Alice Stole welcomed the audience and explained the functions of the Board, the procedure for handling of the hearings, and the method of appealing decisions of the Board. APPROVAL CF MINUTES MCT 1071- Minutes. of the March 21, 1479 meeting had been distributed. MR. JACK BYRD MOVED, SECQ:lDEO BY FIR. BILL LERAAS, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 21, 1979_ MOTION CARRIED. hER i tISIN=SS ;} Selection of Vice Cha?rman of the Board - Ms. Nancy Luster stated Far. Hatzenbuhler had been selected as the Co -Chairperson, but someone else will have to be selected as Mr. Hatzenbuhler could not adept the position_ Chairwoman Alice Stole requested nomina- tions for this position. Mr. Bill Leraas nominated Mr. Jack Byrd. however, stir_ Byrd stated that he would have to miss at leasttwO , if not three meetings during the summer months. Ms. Luster stated that the Board should select someone who could attend all of the POTION' meetings. CHAIRWOMAN ALICE STOLE MOVED TO NOYINATE HP. PAUL ROY, SECONDED BY MR. BILL LERAAS. f1OTiON CARRIED. Mr. Paul Roy is the newsy selected Vice Chairman of the Board of Adjustment. CONTINUED AGENDA NCU-3-78 JOHN EARUE - Nan -conforming use permit to maintain a non -conforming unit R-421 Sprague Street. (RYH) Ms_ Stole stated that this was a continuance from the March 21, 1979 meeting. Ms. Luster stated that this is a request to maintain a non- conforming unit in an existing apartment bvilding.'The structure was a originally approved to allow five units, and there re six units at this time. FIs_ Luster referred to the minutes of the March 21, 1979 meetinq. She further stated that the code appears to be quite clear on this matter and she read the portion of the code pertinent to this situation. Ms. luster expressed the ovinion of the Staff ir that the applicant did make an attempt to acquire additional property, but he was unable to. However, the staff felt that the applicant does have the option of eliminating one unit in order to bring this complex into comoliance and the escrow. papers, a; well as the earnest money agree- ment, state that there are only five legal units_ Hs. Luster stated that the staff recommends denial of this permit for the following -rea- sons: the applicant was aware of the non -conforming status of one unit as indicated by the earnest money agreement and the escrow papers; the applicant can reduce.the number of units to the total allowed; and the innocent purchase clause in the Code does not apply in this particu- lar case. The public portion or the hearing was opened. N Mr. Chet Sennett, attorney representing the applicant, stated that he wanted to thank the Board members for their efforts in his client's behalf. Mr. Bennet said that he was in disagreement with Ms. Luster regarding the last qualification under that ordinance per- tinent to this case because he and his applicant did not feel that this would be detrimental in any way. He asked the Board to con- si„er the motion made during the march 21, 1979 meeting by Chair- woman Stole which failed for lack of a second wherein she moved, " THAT T141S BE AMORTIZED OUT IN THREE YEARS AT WHICH TIME THE BUILDING WOULD BECOME A FIVE -UNIT BUILDIN5. BECAUSE I 00 NOT FEEL IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD". The hearing was closed to the pubiic. Mr. Harold Hatzenbuhler stated that he was in agreement with the motion made by Ms. Stole at the March 21, 1979 meeting as it appear- ed to be the answer to the LarAe's problem with the additional unit_ MOTION: MS. STOLE MOVED THAT THIS UNIT WOULD 3E AMORTIZED OUT IN THREE YEARS AT WHICH TIME THE BUILDING WOULD BECOME A FIVE -UNIT BUILDING, BECAUSE I DO NOT FEEL THIS. ADDITIONAL STUDIO APARTMENT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL_ TO THE HEALTH, WELFARE OR SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORS; HOHEVE2 I UO FEEL THAT'THEY �_,ynULD PAY THE UTILITY BILLS ON THIS UNIT- MS. MEDINA AMENDED THE MOTION TO STATE THAT THE ABATEMENT GO INTO EFFECT IMMEDIATELY UPON THE SALE OF THE UNIT. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY MP. PAUL ROY. As clarification, Mr. Wayne Tanaka, City Attorney, stated that in order to.p�otect the potential owners, it should be recorded that this unit will be eliminated for three years, or upon sale of the property, whichever occurred first. Ms. Stole called for a roll call vote and the vote was as follows: Ms. Stole, yes; `4s_ Medina, no; Mr. Roy, yes; fir. Jack Byrd, no; Mr. Bill Leraas, yes; and Mr. Harald Hatzenbuhler, yes. MOTION CARRIED. V-19-79 MARK MCNAUGHTON - Variance from required side yard setback at 21723 9th Avenue West. (RS -8) Ms. Nancy Luster stated that this was a variance request for a side yard setback and the applicant is asking for a 6" variance. She stated that this variance is in conjunction with a subdivision of the property and did not amount to a rezone. Ms. Luster showed slides of the location of ttie house on the property noting that the house will be sitting seven feet from the driveway line that leads to Lot No. 2. She said that there are no unique features of this property and that both lots exceed the square footage requirements of the RS -8 Zone. This variance is the only way the applicant can have access to Lot 2. She went on to say that the access if 15 feet wide. The applicant does meet the lot width requirements as far as the zone is concerned and there will be adequate open area. Ms. Luster stated that the staff recommends aporoval of this request as it will not be detri- mental to the health, welfare or safety of neighbors in the surrounding area, it is a minimum variance, and the open area will be adequately main- tained. Ms. Luster stated that she should malke note of tiie petition in the file which had been signed by several of the neighbors. The petition was tLrned in in conjunction with the subdivision on the pro- perty and the petitioners requested that it be placed in the file. The petition requested that the subdivision and any subsequent vari- ances on that property should be denied. The public portion of the hearing was opened - Ms. Ann Wilkinson, property owner on the ether side of McNaughton's spoke stating that 80% of the people who are property owners in the area are against this variance as noted in the petition which is on file. She said that a road would present traffic and noise probe -Ems es well as a loss of privacy for all of the people. FIs. Judith Nel3on, also a neighbor in the area, stated that there would be a light shin- ing in their home all of the time if a driveway is put in and she questioned the safety of a driveway going passed the garage. Owner. cc the property, Mark McNaughton,spoke stating that he purchased the property about seven years ago at which time it was subdivided along �. with several other hones in the area and, therefore, the subdividing BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page -2- April 18, 1979