Marina Staff Report.pdf'1)c. is L) \.3
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5`" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 ® Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Project: Meadowdale Marina — Appeal of Building Official determination
File Number: APL2011-0001
Date of Report: May 12, 2011
From: Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
4
Public Hearing: May 19, 2011 at 3:00 P.M.
Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers
250 5"' Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
1. SUMMARY OF APPEAL
The Meadowdale Marina LLC has appealed a Type II administrative decision by the City
Building Official that prevents the reconstruction of a destroyed nonconforming building or
structure in accordance with ECDC 17.40.020.F. The Building Official determination notes that
the damage to the structure exceeds the 75% thresholds allowed by chapter 17.40 ECDC and
Shoreline Master Program for re-establishment of a nonconforming use and that it must be
removed. [Exhibits 1 and 2]
II. GENERAL INFORMATION
1. Appellant: Meadowdale Marina, LLC
2. Site Location: 16111 76`x' Place West, Edmonds WA [Exhibit 3]
3. Zoning: Commercial Waterfront (CW)
4. Staff Request: That the City's Building Official determination of level of destruction pursuant to
ECDC 17.40.020.17 be affirmed. [Exhibits 4 and 5]
5. Review Process: The Hearing Examiner conducts an open record appeal hearing on the appellant's
request as specified in Chapters 20.06 and 20.07 ECDC. The Hearing Examiner's decision is final
and is subject to judicial appeal within 21 days of the issuance of the decision pursuant to ECDC
20.07.006.
6. Notice: Notice of the appeal was posted at the Edmonds Public Library and Public Safety Building
on April 7, 2011. Notice was published in the Everett Herald on April 7, 2011. Due to unforeseen
circumstances, the hearing was postponed and notice republished on May 5, 2011. [Exhibit 9]
Meadowdale Marina Building Official Appeal
File No. APL2011-0001
Page 2 of 5
III. BACKGROUND
In July 2005 the Appellant (applicant/owner) applied for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
(SM -05-94) to repair and reconstruct the wood piling portions of Meadowdale Marina along with the
now -collapsed timber building, which is the subject of this appeal. The Hearings Examiner decision
issued on Dec 8, 2005 granted approval of the Shoreline SDP, with conditions. [Exhibit 6] Specifically,
Condition #2 states:
The nonconforming buildings may be maintained and repaired. However, the building footprint
or volume may not be expanded in any way. Also, if the overwater structures are dcnnaged to a
point where the damage exceeds the thresholds described in ECDC 17.40.020 or in the Shoreline
Master Progrcmr, or if a building is moved a� distance at all, it must be demolished.
The current Appellant previously appealed the Hearing Examiner's Condition #2 on December 20, 2005.
[Exhibit 10] The subject of the 2005 appeal involved the Examiner's interpretation of the applicable
non -conforming code and specifically the validity of the phrase "...or if a building is moved aM distance
at all, it must be demolished." The closed -record appeal was heard by the City Council on January 17,
2006, and denied. [Exhibit 11] In its decision [Exhibit 12], the Council stated:
The City Council finds that it is obligated to enforce the codes as written. Wide the applicant's
proposal has many positive aspects, the primary and deciding issue before the City Council
related to whether an existing building on the pier cann be moved. The provisions of ECDC
23.10.220(c) are clear-- no such rriovenierat is allowed. These provisions are specific to the
Shoreline Management Program and therefore, control over the more general provision of the
Coin n inity Development Code, specif ccdly ECDC 17.40.020, which relate to another topic —
nonconforming uses as they relate to setback and other bulk zoning requirements. The City
Council finds that the specifics should control the general, and more particularly that the
specific provisionn of the Shoreline Management Program must be applied to the applications
under Shoreline Management Program.
The Council's decision clearly indicates that while the timber building and pier could be maintained and
repaired given the site conditions that existed in 2005, the timber building specifically could not moved
at all in order to repair it or the pier.
On August 12, 2008, the owner applied for building permits to repair the existing pier structure and
replace piles (BLD2008-0694), and to repair the existing wood frame building located on the pier
(BLD2008-0693). Action on the applications was not completed and after an extension of one year the
applications expired on August 12, 2010.
During a winter storm on, or about January 16, 2011, the timber building collapsed and parts of the pier
were also damaged. Exhibit 2 provides clear photographic evidence showing the complete destruction
suffered by the timber building as a result of the storm.
IV. DISCUSSION
The Hearing Examiner's decision on the associated Shoreline Substantial Development permit references
the nonconforming language in ECDC 17.40 as well as that in the Shoreline Master Program (ECDC
23.10). The pertinent thresholds described in ECDC 17.40.020(F) (Nonconforming building and/or
structure) are:
Restoration. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged inn an amount
equal to 75 percent or more of its replacernen.t cost at the tinge of destruction, said building shall
not be reconstructed except in full conformance ivith the provisions of the Edmonds Coninrunity
Meadowdale Marina Building Official Appeal
File No. APL2011-0001
Page 3 of S
Development Code. Determination of replaceinent costs and the level of destruction shall be
made by the building official and shall be appealable as a Type II staff decision under the
provisions of Chapter 20.06 ECDC. Damage of less than 75 percent of replacement costs assay
be repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape and lot locationn as existed before
the damage occurred, if, but only if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application. for a
building permit which vests as provided in ECDC 19.00.015, et seq. (ed.note new code section is
19.00.025G), ivithinn ogre year of the date such damage occurred. This right of restoration shall not
apply if
1. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or
the owner's agent; or
2. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the
owner or the owner's agents.
Further, the City's Shoreline Master Program identifies specific nonconforming regulations in ECDC
23.10.220:
Where nonconforming development exists, the following definitions and standards shall apply:
A. "Nonconforrni.ng development" means a shoreline use or structure which was lawfudly
constructed or established prior to the effective date of the act or the applicable master program,
or amendments thereto, but which does not conform to present regulations or standards of the
programs or policies of the act;
B. Nonconforming development inay be continued; provided, that it is not enlarged, intensified,
increased, or altered in any way which increases its rroncorsforinity;
C. A nonconforming development which is moved any distance must be brought into
conformance with the applicable master program;
D. If a nonconforming development is damaged to anextent not exceeding 75 percent
replacement cost of the original structure, it inay be reconstructed to those configurations
existing immediately prior to the tune the structure was damaged, so long as restoration is
either:
1. Conspleted withinn one year of the date of damage, or
2. Completed withinn one year of the date of issuance of all required permits, so long as
applications for such permits are submitted within six months of the date of damage and are
pursued inn a timely manner;
E. If a nonconforming use is discontinued for 12 consecutive months or for 12 months during any
two year period, any subsequent use shall be confornzing. It shall not be necessary to show that
the owner of the property intends to abandonn such nonconforming use in order for the
nonconforming rights to expire;
F. A n.onconforining use shall not be changed to another nonconforming use, regardless of the
conforming or nonconforining status of the building or structure in which it is housed; and
G. Anundeveloped lot, tract, parcel, site, or division which was established prior to the effective
date of the act or the applicable master program but which does not conforns to the present lot
size or density standards may be developed so long as such development conforms to other
requirensen.ts of the applicable master program and the act. [Ord. 3318 § 3, 2000].
The 75% thresholds cited above are based upon the concept that a building or structure that has been
merely damaged (as opposed to destroyed) and can be repaired, or restored. The photographic evidence,
Meadowdale Marina Building Official Appeal
File No. APL2011-0001
Page 4 of 5
see Exhibits 1 and 2, however, shows that no part of the building can be salvaged and `reconstructed'.
The building has completely collapsed and is beyond repair. None of the walls remain standing and the
roof structure has broken into a number of smaller sections. It is inconceivable that any portion of the
existing structure could be reused or restored as part of a repaired structure. The language in the
Shoreline Permit and the ECDC speak to repairing (emphasis added) the structure and not the removal
and replacement with a new structure.
The City maintains that the photographic evidence alone is sufficient to affirm the Building Official's
determination because the totality of destruction is so obvious. For the salve of argument, however, we
will address the issue of replacement costs and restoration costs in light of the 75% figure referenced in
the ECDC.
According to ECDC 17.40.020(F), the building official is charged with making a determination of the
replacement costs and the level of destruction. This section of the code suggests that one must divide the
repair or restoration cost by the replacement cost at the time of destruction to determine whether the
damage equals or exceeds the 75% threshold. In other words, the formula can be reduced to the
following fraction:
REPAIR OR RESTORATION COST
REPLACEMENT COST AT THE TIME OF DESTRUCTION
To determine replacement costs a value must be attached to the building as it existed prior to collapse, in
order to have a baseline of the building's condition. The ECDC does not prescribe a method for
determining replacement cost. The county Assessor's records can provide a commonly used reference
and a neutral base point, but assessed value is often lower than fair market value. In addition, the repair
cost must also be estimated.
The Snohomish County Assessor had established the `market improvement' value of the property at
$198,000. This figure would presumably (since there are no descriptors) include the value of the pier
and both the 21,500 square foot metal building and the 11,200 square foot timber frame building, which
has collapsed. Using a very conservative approach that would serve to maximize the existing value of the
timber building, the Building Official's determination divided the Assessor valuation by the total square
footage of the two buildings, even though the metal building would have a potentially higher per -foot
value. This provided a per -square -foot value of $6. The $6/ft figure places the valuation of the wood
frame building at $67,200 prior to its collapse. Importantly, this does not provide for a value of the pier
structure itself and doing so would reduce the building values even more.
The applicant was also required to provide an appraisal of the timber building as a condition of the
Hearing Examiner decision on the Shoreline permit. [Exhibit 6, page 11, Condition #3] An appraisal
submitted in June of 2009 (Exhibit 8) shows the replacement cost of the timber building to be $132,000,
which is $11.82/sf. This number would be the denominator of the fraction above. As noted in the report,
this is based upon a low quality general purpose barn building with dirt floor and no heat, electric or
plumbing. This value does not consider the additional cost of overwater construction, reconstruction
work needed for the pier, and does not include the utilities that would be required to use the timber
building for boat storage or anything else. As a result, the appraised replacement cost would have to be
considered a very low estimate.
Another method, which was used in the Building Official determination, is based on what is traditionally
used for determining valuation in the issuance of building permits. For permits, the City values new
construction on a square -footage basis using tables prepared by the International Code Council (exhibit
7). These tables are updated annually and are intended to reflect the current market. Looking at a cost
Meadowdale Marina Building Official Appeal
File No. APL2011-0001
Page 5 of 5
per square -foot figure for a wood frame warehouse of $51.20, (and assuming from the photographic
evidence that none of the existing structure can be reused) the restoration cost would be $573,440. This
number would go in the numerator of the fraction above. The warehouse use seems to most accurately
depict the use of the structure as a boat storage house. Considering the difficulty and added costs of over
the water construction the figure of $51.20 may not include some of the associated costs, which could
result in an even higher cost. That said, even if the figure was reduced to less than one-half the stated
amount and a number of $25 per foot is used the cost would still be $280,000, which is significantly
higher than the assessor's value of the total complex of buildings and pier and significantly higher than
the 2009 appraised value of the wooden building.
V. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION
As is clearly evidenced by the photographs in Exhibits 1 and 2, the timber building has been completely
destroyed and clearly exceeds the 75% threshold established in the Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit decision (SM -05-94) and the nonconforming building provisions of the ECDC. The condition of
the building suggests that there is not a likelihood of any actual repair, or salvaged reuse of the materials,
suggesting a 100% loss. In fact, because the timber structure has moved some distance — it has collapsed
— it could not logically be replaced without removing the existing debris and constructing a new building.
As a result, the timber structure must be completely demolished according to Condition #2 of the Hearing
Examiner's December 8, 2005 decision on SM -05-94 and be removed from the pier.
Based upon the evidence provided and analysis given, staff recommends DENIAL of the appeal and that
the Building Official's determination be AFFIRMED.
VI. PARTIES OF RECORD
1. Vladan Milosavlje� vic 23423 Brier Road, Brier WA 980366
2. David S. Mann Gendler & Mann, LLP 1424 Fourth Ave. Suite 715, Seattle WA 98101
VII. ATTACHMENTS
1. Photos of timber building taken prior to January 2011 storm 11. City Council minutes
2. Photos of timber building taken after January 2011 storm
3. Vicinity Map
4. Building Official's Determination
5. Appellant's Letter of Appeal
6. Hearing Examiner's decision on SM -05-94
7. ICC valuation table (as adopted by city resolution 1192)
8. Timber building valuation associated with BLD -2008-0693
9. Public notice materials
10. Appeal of SM -05-94
excerpt, January 17,
2006
12. City Council decision
denying appeal
Exhibit 1 APL 2011-0001
Photo from Dec. 2007
Meadowdale Marina Appeal - APL 2011-0001
1611176 Ih Place W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 1 APL 2011-0001
Photo from Dec. 2010
Meadowdale Marina Appeal - APL 2011-0001
1611176 Ih Place W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 2 APL 2011-0001
Post Collapse Photo 1
Meadowdale Marina Appeal - APL 2011-0001
1611176 Ih Place W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 2 APL 2011-0001
Post Collapse Photo 2
Meadowdale Marina Appeal - APL 2011-0001
16111 76t" Place W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 2 APL 2011-0001
Post Collapse Photo 3
Meadowdale Marina Appeal - APL 2011-0001
16111 76th Place W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 2 APL 2011-0001
Post Collapse Photo 4
Meadowdale Marina Appeal - APL 2011-0001
1611176"' Place W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 2 APL 2011-0001
Post Collapse Photo 5
Meadowdale Marina Appeal - APL 2011-0001
1611176"' Place W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 2 APL 2011-0001
Post Collapse Photo 6
Meadowdale Marina Appeal - APL 2011-0001
1611176 th Place W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 2 APL 2011-0001
Post Collapse Photo 7
Meadowdale Marina Appeal - APL 2011-0001
1611176 th Place W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 2 APL 20110001
Post Collapse Photo 8
Meadowdale Marina Appeal ® APL 20110001
1611176"' Place W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 2 APL 2011-0001
Post Collapse Photo 9
Meadowdale Marina Appeal - APL 2011-0001
16111 76t" Place W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Exhibit 2 APL 2011-0001
Post Collapse Photo 10
°t..E4Mo
U N
7'g90
Meadowdale Marina Appeal - APL 2011-0001
16111 76th Place W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Meadowdale Marina Building Official Appeal 1 inch = 150 feet
APL -2011-0001
16111 76th Place W
Site zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW),
Edmonds, e, 98026
In C. 1890
CITY OF EDMONDS MIKE COOPER
MAYOR
121 5th AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 > FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.dedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
February 22, 2011
Vladan Milosavljevic
Meadowdale Marina, LLC
23423 Brier Road
Brier, WA 98036
SUBJECT: Meadowdale Marina: Determination of Replacement Costs and Level of
Destruction
Dear Mr. Milosavljevic:
The winter storm on January 16th of this year caused severe damage to the dock and
associated facilities at the old Meadowdale Marina. The older wooden building collapsed
and areas of the surrounded dock also failed. The present condition of the site is such
that debris from the building and dock continue to be carried by currents and. tides.
Photographic evidence documenting the physical status of these structures is on file with
the City of Edmonds.
The Hearings Examiner decision dated 12/8/2005 approving the shoreline permit for this
project (Case No. SM=05-94) specifically addressed the buildings as they were/are
nonconforming to the current land use code provisions. Item #2 of the decision states
that "... if the overwater structures are damaged to a point where the damage exceeds the
thresholds described in ECDC 17.40.020 or in the Shoreline Master Program, or if a
building is moved any distance at all, it must be demolished". The threshold described in
section 17.40.020 of the ECDC refers to the language "If a nonconforming building or
structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to ,75% or more of its
replacement cost at the time of destruction ".
The wooden building was 11,200 sq. ft. in area (per Assessor's data) and the metal
building structure is 21,500 sq. ft. The total improved value (from Assessor's data) for
2011 was shown as $198,000. Even if the value were to be equally allocated by square
footage between the two buildings, the older building would have been valued at only
$67,000. Using the construction costs table published by the International Code Council
the square footage costs of a wood frame storage warehouse would be $51.20. This
would give a replacement value, for the wooden building only, of $573,440. The extent
(JZL861326.DOC;1/00006.960000/ )
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Exhibit 4
AP L-2011-0001
of the building failure is such that it clearly exceeds the 75% threshold as specified in
17.40.020 of the ECDC.
In accordance with the Hearings Examiner's decision, the building must therefore be
demolished and may not be re-established. The remaining structure must also be secured
so as to prevent additional failures and to mitigate the debris. Application for the
appropriate demolition permit must be made by April 1, 2011 and all work must be
completed by September 1, 2011 .
This determination is an appealable Type II staff decision in accordance with ECDC
17.40.020 and will be enforced by the City unless a timely administrative appeal is filed.
Any appeal of this decision must be filed in accordance with the requirements of ECDC
20.07.004 within fourteen (14) days of this decision as calculated using ECDC
20.07.004(C). (language enclosed)
This determination is independent of your responsibility to prevent impacts to the
shoreline area, including without limitation the migration of debris, resulting from the
collapse of the subject structures. This determination is likewise without prejudice to the
City's authority to separately enforce any violations of the City's regulations and/or your
permits.
Sinncerel ,
Leonard Yarbe y
Building Official
cc: Zachery Lell, Ogden Murphy Wallace
David S. Mann, Gendler & Mann, LLP
{JZL861326.DOC;1/00006.900000/ )
20.07.004 Appeals of recommendations and decisions — Permit decisions or recommendations.
Appeals of a hearing body's recommendation or decision on a permit application shall be governed by the
following:
A. Standing. Only parties of record have standing to appeal the hearing body's decision.
B. Time to File. An appeal must be filed within 14 days after the issuance of the hearing body's written
decision. The appeal period shall be extended for an additional seven days, if state or local rules adopted
pursuant to Chapter 43.21C RCW allow public comment on a determination of nonsignificance issued as
part of the appealable project permit decision. Appeals, including fees, must be received by the city's
development services department by mail or by personal delivery at or before 4:00 p.m. on the last
business day of the appeal period. Appeals received by mail after 4:00 p.m. on the last day of the appeal
period will not be accepted, no matter when such appeals were mailed or postmarked.
C. Computation of Time. For the purposes of computing the time for filing an appeal, the day the hearing
body's decision is issued shall not be counted. If the last day of the appeal is a Saturday, Sunday, legal
holiday designated by RCW 1.16.050 or by a city ordinance, or any day when City Hall or the city's
development services department is closed to the public by formal executive or legislative action, then the
appeal may be filed on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, holiday or closed day.
D. Content of Appeal. Appeals shall be in writing, be accompanied by the required appeal fee as set forth
in the city's adopted fee resolution, and contain the following information:
1. Appellant's name, address and phone number;
2. A statement describing appellant's standing to appeal;
3. Identification of the application which is the subject of the appeal;
4. Appellant's statement of grounds for appeal and the facts upon which the appeal is based with
specific references to the facts in the record;
5. The specific relief sought;
6. A statement that the appellant has read the' appeal and believes the contents to be true,
followed by the appellant's signature.
7. All written submittals should be typed on letter size paper (eight and one-half by 11), with one -
inch margins, using readable font type (such as Times New Roman) and size (no smaller than
12), single sided.
E. Effect. The timely filing of an appeal shall stay the hearing body's decision until such time as the
appeal is concluded or withdrawn.
F. Notice of Appeal. The development services director (hereinafter the "director") shall provide mailed
notice of the appeal to all parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003. [Ord. 3817 § 6, 2010; Ord.
3736 § 4 (Exh. A), 2009].
GEN LE ANN, LISP
A,YrORNEYS-AT-LAW
Michael W. Gendler*
David S. Mann 1424 FOURTH AVENUE, SUITE 715 (206) 621-8868
Brendan W. Donckers SEATTLE WA 98101 Fax (206) 621-0512
mary@gendlermann.com
*Also admitted nr Oregon www.gendlermann.com
March 7, 2011
Leonard Yarburry
Building Inspector
121 5th Avenue N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Appeal of Meadowdale Marina., LLC
Mr. Leonard Yarberry,
Please find enclosed Meadowdale Marina's Appeal of Determination of Replacement Costs and
Level of Destruction and a Declaration of Service, along with a check for the amount of $365.00
Do not hesitate to contact us with any questions or a request to do anything further.
Thank you,
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
A & K Oev-
Mary Barber
Receptionist
Exhibit 5
AP L-2011-0001
11
2
3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPEAL TO THE EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER
MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC,
V.
CITY OF EDMONDS,
Appellant,
Respondent
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
ss.
CITY OF EDMONDS )
APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF
REPLACEMENT COSTS AND
LEVEL OF DESTRUCTION
I, MARY BARBER, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
Washington, declare as follows:
APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF REPLACEMENT COSTS
AND LEVEL OF DESTRUCTION - 1
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 715
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9'
10'
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I am the legal secretary for Gendler & Mann, LLP, attorneys for the plaintiff
MEADOWDALE MARINA herein. On the date and in the manner indicated below, I
caused the Appeal of Determination of Replacement Costs and Level of Destruction to be
served on:
Leonard Yarbuiy
City of Edmonds
Building Inspector
121 5th Avenue N
Edmonds WA 98020
[ ] By U.S. Mail
[ ] By Legal Messenger
[x] By Federal Express
DATED this
day of March, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
Ma I& V��
Mary Barber
Secretary
APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF REPLACEMENT COSTS
AND LEVEL OF DESTRUCTION - 2
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 715
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206)621-8868
Fax: (206) 621-0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPEAL TO THE EDMONDS HEARING EXAMINER
MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC,
V.
CITY OF EDMONDS,
Appellant,
Respondent
APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF
REPLACEMENT COSTS AND
LEVEL OF DESTRUCTION
I. RELIEF REQUESTED
Meadowdale Marina, LLC (Meadowdale) respectfully requests that the City of
Edmonds Hearing Examiner reverse the city building official's Determination of
Replacement Costs and Level of Destruction.
11. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Meadowdale Marina, LLC currently owns property on the Edmonds shoreline that
includes an overwater dock jutting into Puget Sound. The structure consists of several
buildings erected on top of a dock supported by creosote piers. The city hearing examiner
approved a shoreline permit, authorizing Meadowdale to redevelop the property on
December 8, 2005 9 (Case No. SM05-94). The hearing examiner incorporated the ECDC
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 715
APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF REPLACEMENT COSTS Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
AND LEVEL OF DESTRUCTION - 1 Fax: (206) 621.0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
14,
15
16'
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
into the decision, including the provision that damages to the structure would be governed
by ECDC 17.40.020.
Several components of the Meadowdale structure were damaged by a large winter
storm in January of 2011. Relying on the hearing examiner's decision and ECDC
17.40.020, the City of Edmonds Development Services Department issued a Determination
of Replacement Costs and Level of Destruction on February 22, 2011 and concluded that
the damage to the structure exceeded the threshold required by the Code and the structure
could not be re-established. The City concluded that the total value of the property was
$198,000 and it would cost $573,440 to repair just one of the damaged wooden buildings.
Meadowdale appeals the city's determination because the City's valuation of the property
is without foundation.
III. AUTHORITY
Under ECDC 17.40.020, if "a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or
damaged in an amount equal to 75% or more of its replacement cost at the time of
destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except in full conformance 1vith the
provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code." ECDC 17.40.020(F)
.(Emphasis added).' The City of Edmonds relied upon the Snohomish County Assessor's
valuation of Meadowdale, which was $t98,000 for 2011. Using information published by
the International Code Council, the city found that it would cost $573,440 to repair one
r In the City of Edmond's determination, the building official omitted the complete
language of ECDC 17.40.020(F). The ordinance, by its own plain language, contemplates
restoration even where damages exceed 75% of the replacement cost, but it is not clear
which provision in the ECDC governs in such a circumstance. However, resolution of this
issue is unnecessary for the purposes of Meadowdale's appeal, since, based on information
and belief, the value of the subject property greatly exceeds the city's estimate.
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 715
APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF REPLACEMENT COSTS Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
AND LEVEL OF DESTRUCTION - 2 Fax: (206) 621.0512
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17!
181
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
building, and ruled that ECDC 17.40.020(F) precluded Meadowdale from repairing the
structure.
The City's valuation of Meadowdale is flawed. Staff provided no basis for the
content of the valuation, did not justify why the improved value is an appropriate measure
of the property, and did not identify the content of any formula utilized by the Snohomish
County Assessor in determining the value of such property.
IV. CONCLUSION
The foregoing appeal is submitted in good faith and appellants believe the contents
herein to be true. We respectfully request the City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner reverse
the city building official's Determination of Replacement Costs and Level of Destruction.
7J
DATED this day of March, 2011.
Respectfully submitted,
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
By: 6L IJ
David S. Mann
WSBA No. 21068
Brendan W. Donckers
WSBA No. 39406
Attorneys for Appellant
APPEAL OF DETERMINATION OF REPLACEMENT COSTS
AND LEVEL OF DESTRUCTION - 3
GENDLER & MANN, LLP
1424 Fourth Avenue, Suite 715
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 621-8868
Fax: (206) 621.0512
11hc,1$9v
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • Edmonds, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
0�11 a of 102 11 t Iffel wor,"wri 1101 31 '
CITY OF EDMONDS
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
APPLICANT: Meadowdale Marina LLC, Vladan Milosavljevic as General
Manager
CASE NO.: SM -05-94
LOCATION: 1611176`h Pl. W. (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1-3).
APPLICATION: Shoreline Permit application to repair/reconstruct the timber
portions of the Meadowdale Marina pier (see Exhibit A,
Attachment 2).
REVIEW PROCESS: Shoreline Permit; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and
makes final decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
a Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 23.10 (SHORELINE MASTER
PROGRAM)
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapters 23.40 & 90 (CRITICAL AREAS).
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.55 (SHORELINE PERMITS).
d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Chapter 20.100.010 (HEARING EXAMIlNER,
PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL
REVIEW).
SUIID RY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation:
Hearing Examiner Decision:
Approve with conditions
Approve with conditions
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Exhibit 6
AP L-2011-0001
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. SM -05-94
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report,
and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application.
The hearing on the Meadowdale Marina application was opened at 3:02 p.m., November 17,
2005, in the City Council Chambers, Edmonds, Washington, and closed for oral comments and
legal argument at 4:32 pm. The hearing was held open administratively until close of business
on November 28, 2005 to allow additional information to be entered into the record. 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.
111_ A t il►�lt�71 U IU 1
The following persons offered comments at the public hearing.
From the City:
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner,
From the Applicant:
Jeff Layton, Engineer
David Mann, Attorney
Madan Milosavljevic, Applicant
From the Community:
Speaking in opposition, or expressing concerns about the proposal:
Diane Clay Teresa White
John Quast Don Henderson
Sky Young Phil Ruggerio
Roger Hertrig Sarah Bernstein
Laurie Dressler
.Speaking in favor of the proposal:
Marko Vuladinovic Lourdes Becker
Margaret Tiere Reba Law
Christine Kelly
CORRESPONDENCE:
Correspondence/written remarks were received from the following members of the community:
Philip Ruggiero, Exhibit A, Attachment 9
Armando & Sina Chilelli, Exhibit A, Attachment 10
Tung Bui, Exhibit 2
Gerald Bernstein; MD, and Sarah Bernstein, RN, Exhibit 3
Nick & Renee Blattner, Exhibit 4
John Quast & Laurie Dressler, Exhibit 6
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. SM -05-94
Page 3
Sky Young, Exhibit 7
John Quast, Exhibit 8
SUMMARY OF CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC HEARING COAMENTS:
From the City:
Staff reviewed the staff advisory report (Exhibit 1) and entered it into the record. He noted:
• There had been some recent demolition activity on the pier and that a stop work order had
been issued.
• Any code violation fines that may be assessed would be up to the City's Building
Official.
• An additional condition should be required in accordance with the email from the
Washington State Department of Ecology (Exhibit 5).
• Any uses on the pier that are not allowed outright by the code will need to go through a
separate review process.
• Once the pier is improved, all parking associated with the uses on the pier will have to be
located on the pier.
• If the wooden building is moved any distance for any reason it will lose it nonconforming
status and must be removed (see Exhibit 9)
From the Applicant:
The Applicant wants to repair the existing pier facility, which is located mostly on fee owned
property, with a small amount of tidelands leased from the Washington State Department of
Natural Resources. The Applicant and/or his representatives noted:
• The marina is still operating and boats are still stored there. A tackle shop is also still
operating.
• Approximately 66,000 square feet of over water structure now exists and replacement is
proposed for 44,000 square feet of it.
• All of the existing portions of the wooden pier would be replaced with concrete, and
some minor repairs may be needed on the existing concrete pier.
• All of the activity would be done from waterborne vessels (tugboat, with barge and
crane). Debris would be stored on another barge and then off loaded on the uplands.
• A crew of 5 to 6 people would be on site at any one time.
• Parking for the crew can be located off-site and workers could be brought to the site on a
small bus.
• The approach pier would have some light penetration to enhance fish habitat.
• There will be a pedestrian walkway to the facility from the shore.
• The existing wooden building on the pier was barged to the site in halves from Sequim
and the intent is to move the building to a newly replaced portion of the pier and then
move the building back to it's current location once that portion of the pier is replaced.
• The wooden building is a legal nonconforming structure and should not have to be
demolished because it is being moved. Repair of the building should be considered
normal repair and the Examiner should condition the requested permit to require the
building to be only temporarily moved and, at the conclusion of the repair project, the
building restored to its pre-existing location (see Exhibit 10).
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. SM -05-94
Page 4
From Citizens Expressing Concern:
• With the capital required to complete such a project, it is rather obvious the scope of this
project goes well beyond repairing the facility. There are obviously other developmental
motives here, which need to be out in the open in a candid manner.
• Future uses which may bring more people to the area should not be allowed due to the
following potential impacts: increased traffic volumes, speeding vehicles, pedestrian
safety (road and railroad), noise, vandalism, loitering, illegal consumption of alcohol, and
trespassing. This area has no capacity to handle any sort of increased traffic, parking or
additional public access.
• Before any consideration is given to repairing or improving the marina, 75`h Street West
must be redesigned and improved to handle the certain increase in auto traffic and to
provide safe sidewalks for pedestrians.
• Adequate parking must be provided.
• The Applicant has been removing decking and other materials without permits and has
been dumping debris into the water. There needs to be enforcement before any approval
is given.
• Any demolition and reconstruction that occurs on the site needs to be very closely
monitored.
• Protection of the environment (beaches, waterways, flora and fauna) impact on the
neighborhood quality of life (parking, noise periods of operation, etc.) and health and
safety hazards now and during the project are primary concerns.
• The pier would be a good structure for public park purposes and at the very least the
restored facility should accommodate the public.
• Moving and rebuilding the old wooden building should not be allowed as has been
proposed by the Applicant.
From Citizens Expressing Support:
The facility needs to be repaired and an improved facility would in turn improve real
estate values in the area.
• Activities, which limit traffic increases, improve the habitability of the neighborhood, and
which address parking concerns should be allowed-
The
llowedThe pier needs to be repaired, but only permitted uses should be allowed.
INTRODUCTION:
The Meadowdale Marina LLC as the property owner of the Meadowdale Marina, also known as
Haines Wharf, has applied for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to reconstruct the
existing timber portion of the pier. Replacing the creosote treated timber piles and supports with
concrete and steel is seen as a way to repair damaged portions of the facility and remove harmful
materials from the marine environment.
It is acknowledged that a stop work order has been issued relative to activities, which have
occurred on the site without permits. That code enforcement action is viewed by the Examiner
as separate issue from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit application, which is the
subject of this report.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. SM -05-94
Page 5
This report will only address the request for the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and
will not address any future uses the Applicant may have in mind for the subject pier. Any future
uses, which may be proposed that are not allowed as permitted uses under the Code will need to
go through a separate public review process.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Jurisdiction: The subject facility appears to extend to the west beyond the
bounds of the property lines that encompass the subject property. Anything to the
west of the subject property is in the jurisdiction of the State Department of
Natural Resources and would require an approval and lease with DNR.
(2) Existing and Proposed Development: The site is currently developed with a
pier structure, approximately 2/3rds of which is an old timber structure. The
remaining pier is newer and constructed of concrete and steel. Both structures are
structurally tied together. On the piers are two buildings. A relatively recent
large metal warehouse used to store boats and an older smaller wooden structure,
which was historically used to support a recreational fishing use.
The proposed project is to remove all of the old timber pier structure and replace
it with a concrete and steel structure. This will make the entire pier of similar
construction and likely will prolong its life significantly. These changes will also
reduce the impact of the existing structure on the environment by removing
hazardous materials from the marine environment as well as by slightly reducing
the piers footprint and introducing a water treatment facility to clean rain water
before it gets back into the Sound.
(3) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Commercial Waterfront (CW)
(see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). Compliance of the project with this zone district
will be discussed later in this report.
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The entire site is either tidelands or located in the near
shore environment. Included in the application is a Biological Evaluation of the
Environmental resources in the area (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4).
b) Conclusion:
(1) Jurisdiction: Any approval the City might give on this project should be subject
to proof of any DNR approval and/or lease being submitted to the City.
(2) Existing and Proposed Development: The proposed repair/reconstruction of
the Meadowdale Marina must comply with the City's zoning and Shoreline
Master Program.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. SM -45-94
Page 6
(3) Zoning: The Commercial Waterfront zone generally allows this type of
improvement. However, the specifics of the proposal must be consistent with the
City's Shoreline Master Program, ECDC 23.10. Also, the will need to comply
with the City's Nonconforming provisions. This means that any nonconforming
buildings may be maintained and repaired, but not expanded in any way.
Furthermore, if a nonconforming building is removed any reconstruction must
comply with our code, which will not allow new over -water buildings.
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: Because the property is in the shoreline environment,
the project must comply with the City's Critical Areas provisions regarding the
protection of habitat and with any conditions placed on the project by the Army
Corp of Engineers, the Washington State Departments of Ecology, Fish and
Wildlife, and Natural Resources, and/or the Naiional Marine Fisheries Service,
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) . Facts:
(1) North: The property(ies) to the north are zone CW but undeveloped.
(2) West: There are no private properties west of the subject property and the State
Department of Natural Resources regulates all activities west of the property line.
(3)(South: There is one small parcel immediately south of the subject parcel that is
zoned CW. However, south of that, all the tideland parcels are zone Open Space
and undeveloped
(4) East: Immediately east of the subject parcel is the Burlington Northern
Right -of -Way developed with railroad tracks. East of the railroad right of way are
Single Family zoned properties that in most cases are developed with single
family homes.
b) Conclusion: The proposed repair/reconstruction would reduce the impact of the site
on the neighborhood in that the footprint of the pier would be slightly reduced and
one of the buildings might be removed from the pier.
,B. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1. Zoning Standards for the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC 16.55.000 states that the purposes of the CW zone is to preserve areas for
water dependant uses, protect natural features of the waterfront, encourage public
use of the waterfront and ensure both physical and visual access to views of the
waterfront for the public.
(2) The applicants indicated that they continue to use the pier and its buildings for
boat storage in support of the recreational fishing industry here in Puget Sound.
Marine oriented uses are a permitted primary use in the CW zone and the
applicant's statement about the use of the site would be consistent with the use
provisions of the CW zone. However, while the CW zone is fairly general in the
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. SM -05-94
. Page 7
uses that are permitted and it appears that the applicants assertion about what the
property is currently being use for is consistent with those regulations, it should
be noted that any project, the proposed pier repair or establishing anew use on the
pier, will also have to comply with the City's Shoreline Master Program adopted
in July of 2000. The proposed project will be reviewed for compliance with the
Shoreline Master Program later in this report.
(3) The development standards for the CW zone imply that all buildings in the CW
zone would be upland of the ordinary high water line or bulkhead. Because the
piers have two buildings located on them that are actually over water, those
buildings are nonconforming buildings in relation to the zoning code. They may
be maintained but their nonconformity may not be expanded in any way.
(4) The current use of the facility, although admittedly less than it has been in the
past, is as a boat storage facility supporting the local recreational fishing industry
in Puget Sound.
(5) Piers are not specifically addressed in the zoning regulations for the CW zone.
B) Conclusions:
(1) Reconstruction of the pier is consistent with the CW zone of the City.
(2) The current use of the site as described by the applicant is consistent with the CW
zone in that it is a water dependant use or service. Any additional future uses of
the site would also have to comply with the CW zone and the City's Shoreline
Master Program.
2. City of Edmonds Development Code Non -Conforming Provisions
a) Facts:
(1) Both buildings on the pier are nonconforming in relation to the CW zone and to
the City's Shoreline Master Program in that over water buildings are no longer
allowed.
(2) The buildings may be maintained and/or repaired but may not be expanded in any
way including footprint and volume. Also, in the event that either one or both of
the buildings is damaged or removed to the point that thresholds established in
either the non -conforming chapter of the development code or the Shoreline
Master Program are crossed, the buildings will need to be removed and will not
be allowed to be re-established.
(3) The timber building is currently damaged. At this point, no information has been
provided relative to the current value of that structure, or the cost to repair it. The
Applicant has proposed that the pier area adjacent to the building be replaced, the
building be moved onto the replaced pier, and once the portion of the pier on
which the building is now located is replaced then the building would be moved
back to its current location and restored (see Exhibit 10).
(4) ECDC 17.40.020.E reads: Relocation. Should a nonconforming structure be
moved for any reason for any distance whatsoever, it shall thereafter come into
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. SM -05-94
Page 8
conformance with the setback and lot coverage requirements for the zone in
which it is located Movement alone of a nonconforming structure shall not
require the owner thereof to bring the structure into compliance with any other
bulk or site development standard of the city applicable solely to the building
itself.
(5) ECDC 23.10.220.Ctreads: A nonconforming development which is moved any
distance must be brought into conformance with the applicable master program:
(6) The word "any" is not defined in the code and when a word or term is not defined
in the code common definition of the word or term is used. In this case:
Webster's New World Dictionary defines "any" as: some, no matter how much or
how little, how many, or what land.
Black's Law Dictionary defines "any" as: some, one of many, an indefinite
number, one indiscriminately of whatever kind or quantity.
(7) The Appellant's attorney has argued in Exhibit 10 that ECDC 17.40.020.E
provides guidance for both sections of the code cited above and argues that a
building can be moved so long as it complies with appropriate setbacks and
argues further that a moved nonconforming building does not have to comply
with other site development standards — including a standard that prohibits a new
similar building.
(8) Staff has argued in Exhibit 9 that because of the sensitive nature of the shoreline
environment the City's position is strict relative to a nonconforming development
and that the City would like to see nonconformities ultimately eliminated and in
this case recommended that the building be demolished if moved any distance at
all.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Because both of the buildings located on the pier are nonconforming, the
buildings may be maintained and even repaired and remodeled, but the footprint
or volume of the buildings may not be expanded in any way. Furthermore, if
either of these buildings is damaged or destroyed to the point that it meets the
thresholds identified in either ECDC 17.40.020 or ECDC 23.10.220, the building
may not be reconstructed.
(2) After reviewing the ECDC provisions cited above, the Examiner believes the
ECDC 23.10.220.0 is more stringent than ECDC 17.40.020.E. When two code
sections are similar, but one is more stringent than the other, the more stringent
section of the code should be followed. Therefore, if the timber structure is to be
moved anv distance at all to allow for the reconstruction of the pier on which it is
located, the building may. not be moved back to its current location and should be
demolished.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. SM -05-94
Page 9
3. Compliance with the requirement for a Shoreline Permit
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Section 23.10.105 identifies the project area as an "Urban Mixed Use 11"
shoreline environment. This shoreline environment allows the most intense and
diverse development of the City's shoreline areas. Because the Meadowdale
Marina/Haines Wharf facility has been located at this site for a long time, the City
acknowledged its presence by designating it "Urban Mixed Use H" in the City's
most current update of the Shoreline Master Program adopted in July of 2000. It
is the only property in this area designated this_ way. All other land in this area of
the City waterward of the Burlington Northern Right -of -Way, both public and
private, are designated as Conservancy L Saltwater Environment.
(2) The dollar value of the proposed project and the fact that the proposed repair will
entirely remove and replace the timber section of the pier led the City to conclude
that the proposed project does not qualify for a shoreline exemption. In reviewing
WAC 173.27.040, projects not exempt from a shoreline permit must gain
approval of a shoreline substantial development permit. That is the purpose of
this application and this review.
(3) ECDC Section 23.10.130-145 document general regulations for. Shoreline
Substantial Development permits. These regulations relate to Environmental
Resources, Historic or Archeological resources, Parking requirements and Public
Access. The proposed Substantial Development Permit must address these
requirements.
(4) Regarding ECDC 23.10.130 Environmental Resources, the applicant has
submitted both a Biological Evaluation and the Army Corp of Engineers initial
evaluation of it (see Exhibit A, Attachments 4 and 6). As long as the proposal is
completed as indicated in the plans and construction takes place as described in
the application and the Biological Evaluation, no significant adverse impact
should be felt by environmentally sensitive and critical areas.
(5) Because the proposed Substantial Development Permit is only requesting repair of
the existing pier structure and no change of use is proposed, the city is not
reviewing the project for compliance with the City's parking requirements. itis
considered to comply or at worst to be nonconforming. However, if a change of
use is ever proposed on this site,- another Substantial Development Permit will be
required. Any new use on the pier would have to demonstrate how it complies
with the City's parking regulations both for number of stalls and parking lot
arrangement.
(6) The public access provisions of the City's Shoreline Master Program, ECDC
Section 23.10.145, require that public access be designed into any substantial
development proposal. The proposed pier reconstruction has a separate
pedestrian walkway from the vehicular access. The stated use of the site, a boat
storage and launch facility supporting the recreational fishing industry in Puget
Sound, is a somewhat public use. With the reconstruction of the pier it is likely
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. SM -05-94
Page 10
that use of the facility will increase, raising both the demand and need for public
access to the facility. ECDC section 23.10.145.B -D outline circumstances under
which this requirement might be waived, however it is up to the applicant to
request that waiver and justify why it is unwarranted.
(7) ECDC section 23.10.185, which deals with Public access piers or boardwalks, is
the only section of the City's Shoreline Master Program that addresses fixed piers.
Using this section as a guide, fixed piers are only allowed to be 15 feet above the
ordinary high water mark, OHWM, and may not contain any hazardous materials
like creosote, lead and other toxic chemicals. The proposed pier reconstruction
will be only 6.5 feet above the OIHWM and a major reason for the whole
construction is to remove creosote piles and other hazardous materials and replace
them with concrete and steel.
(8) The City's Shoreline Master Program deals with nonconforming matters in ECDC
Section 23.10.220. It is clear from reviewing the Master Program that buildings
over water are nonconforming. Nonconforming buildings may not be expanded
in any way and may be required to be removed if the cost to repair the building is
more than 75% of the cost to replace the building altogether. It is the City's
position that. the pier itself complies with the Shoreline Master Program and is not
nonconforming or illegal. Because no new uses are proposed with this
application the City is not reviewing the project for compliance with any of the
use provisions of the Shoreline Master Program. It should be noted that the City's
Shoreline Master.Program does not allow nonconforming uses to be expanded.
Furthermore, if a nonconforming use ceases for a period of 12 months, it may not
be re-established At this point the applicant has not asked the city to verify what
uses are conforming or not.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Environmental resources will be protected if the submitted plans and conditions
of the Biological Evaluation are complied mith.
(2) Public access should be permitted to the pier. It should lead to some kind of
viewpoint, probably with benches, and be protected through an easement.
(3) A condition, which requires documentation of the replacement value of the
nonconforming buildings as compared to the cost to repair them, should be
included to ensure compliance with the nonconforming provisions of the
Shoreline Master Program. Also, any condition discussing nonconforming
structures on the pier should make it clear that moving a structure any distance at
all will result in a requirement to demolish the structure.
(4) Due to the lack of parking in the immediate area, a condition that acknowledges
the offer by the Applicant to bus workers to the site from an off site parking area
during construction should be added.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. SM -05-94
Page 11
c) Future considerations:
(1) Additional Permits: Any new use or construction at the Meadowdale Marina will
almost certainly have to apply for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
prior to being able to establish that use or development. Obviously, any Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit will have to comply with all the regulations of
the City's Shoreline Master Program as documented in sections 23.10.115-220.
These regulations will assist in minimizing impact -to the surrounding community.
(2) Traffic: Another consideration that will come up during any permit review for a
new use or development will be safe access to the facility: Any proposed use will
be reviewed by the city to determine that traffic is being handled in a safe manor.
The City will likely require an agreement from Burlington Northern that the
crossing leading to the pier is adequate to accommodate additional traffic.
Additionally, because this project is located in a single family neighborhood of
the City, traffic access and circulation on local streets will be a significant issue;
allowing additional trips to be generated through residential neighborhoods to get
to this facility would be likely to trigger significant concerns.
C. TECHmcAL COMNIITTEE
All city departments have chosen to defer comments on this request until they, review the
building permit application to construct the changes.
DECISION:
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit is approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. The Applicant shall provide proof of the Department of Natural Resources lease that
allows the pier facility to project beyond its property lines.
2. The nonconforming buildings may be maintained and repaired. However, the building
footprint or volume may not be expanded in any way. Also, if the overwater structures
are damaged to a point where the damage exceeds the thresholds described in ECDC
17.40.020 or in the Shoreline Master Program, or if a building is moved a X distance at
all, it must be demolished.
3. Prior to issuing any permits for the repair of the timber building, the applicant must
submit an appraisal for the value of that structure. They must also submit an estimate for
the cost to repair the building. As noted above if the timber structure is moved to allow
for the reconstruction of the pier, the building shall be demolished.
4. The project must implement the ESA requirements and/or agreements set forth in the
Biological Evaluation, Proposed Repairs, Meadowdale Pier, Edmonds, Washington,
dated June 17, 2005 in their entirety. The project will also have to comply with any
conditions placed on it by the Army Corp of Engineers, Washington State Departments of
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. SM -05-94
Page 12
Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources, and/or the National Marine Fisheries
Service including times of year the proposed work may take place.
5. The project will be subject to the City's performance regulations, specifically as they
relate to construction and noise. Noise from construction sites is only permitted to exceed
the limits established in the City's noise ordinance from 7 AM until 6 PM Monday
through Friday, 10 AM until 6 PM on Saturdays and never on Sunday's or National
Holidays.
6. The application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions in these ordinances.
7. During construction (until parking is available on the pier), all parking for persons _
working at the site shall be located off-site and the Applicant shall provide transportation
to and from the site in a small bus or similar conveyance.
8. The City will not grant construction authorization until a minimum of 30 days after final
City approval.
Entered this 8th day of December 2005 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner
under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
Ron McConnell, FAkP
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL:
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and
appeal. 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.
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. SM -05-94
Page 13
APPEALS:
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made., The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the
name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and
reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with
the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL:
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock
for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed.
Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time
clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a
reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9
more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the
reconsideration request.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL:
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is
required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval,
the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.'
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR:
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner
request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
1. Planning Division Advisory Report, with 10 attachments
2. Letter from Tung Bui, dated 11/9/05
3. Letter from Gerald and Sarah Bernstein, dated 11/11/05
4. Letter from Nick and Renee Blattner, dated 11/12/05
5. Email from David Pater of DOE, dated 11/14/05
6. Letter from John Quast, dated 11/14/05
7. Letter from Sky Young, received 11/16/05
8. Hearing presentation by John Quast
9. Memo from Steve Bullock, dated 11/18/05
10. Letter, from. David Mann, dated 11/21/05
PARTIES of RECORD:
Meadowdale Marina LLC,
Vladan Milosavljevic GM
23423 Brier Road
Brier, WA 98036
David Mann, Attorney
1424 Fourth Ave, Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
Layton & Sell, Inc.
Attn. Jeff Layton
12515 Willows Road NE, #205
Kirkland, WA 98034
John Quast & Laurie Dressler
1571475 th Pl W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Antnne Kasnar
13026 4th Ave. W, # 186
Everett, WA 98024
Carlos Semanate
781122nd St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Alyce M. Groul
PO Box 6159
16010 75th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98026
Sarah & Gerald Bernstein
15912 75' Pl. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
Don Henderson
15825 75th Pl. W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Reba Agnes Lane
1127 2 Ave. S
Edmonds, WA 98020
Roger Hertrich
1020 Puget Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020
Philip Ruggiero
PO Box 6159
Edmonds, WA 98026
Tung Bui
188111" Place W
Bothell, WA 98012
Armando & Sina, Chilelh
16414 75th A W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
Diana Clay
2002 196 St. SW
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Sky Young
1613175 Place W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Allen & Margaret Curtis
21811 Hwy 9 SE
Woodinville, WA 98072
Lourdes & Jon Becker
15908 75th Place West
Edmonds WA 98026
Diana Clay
2002 196 St. SW
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Jon Cannen
123 2nd Ave. S
Edmonds, WA 98020
Christine Kelly
21228 84th W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Richard Hankinson
15925 75' A W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. SM -05-94
Page 14
Thomas Hillman
15915 74`x' Pl. W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Teresa White
%16414 75h Pl W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Hearing Examiner Decision
Case No. SM -05-94
Page 15
Marko Vuladinovic
16006 75h Pl. W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds Planning Division
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Ron cConne ear' g Examiner
From:
Ste4e Bullock
Project Planner
Date: NOVEMBER 10, 2005
Fide: SM -2005-94
Meadowdale Marina pier repair/replacement
Hearing Date, Time, And Place: November 17, 2005, At 3:00 PM,
The Council Chambers
Edmonds Public Safety Complex
250 5" Ave. N.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2
A. Application.......................................................................................................................................2
B. Recommendations.............................................................................................................................3
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS....................................................................3 ..
A. Site Description.................................................................................................................................3
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance...................................................... 5
III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS.........................................
...................................
A. Request for Reconsideration.............................................................................................................8
B. Appeals............................................................................................................................................. 8
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals.................................................................................. 8
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL.....................................................................................................8
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR..................................................................................9
VI. APPENDICES .................................................................................................................9
VII. PARTIES OF RECORD......................................................................................................9
05094sr.doo / November 10, 2005 / Staff Report
QQ3 i 15t I
Meadowdale Marina
File No, SM -2005-94
Page 2 of 9
I. INTRODUCTION
The Meadowdale Marina LLC as the property owner of the Meadowdale Marina, also known as Haines
Wharf, has applied for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit to reconstruct the existing timber
portion of the pier. Replacing the creosote treated timber piles and supports with concrete and steel is seen
as a way to repair damaged portions of the facility and remove harmful materials from the marine
environment.
One of the most difficult elements of this proposal to deal with is the fact that the facility has declined fairly
rapidly over the period of the last few years and the City has no documentation regarding the current use of
the facility. While the proposed repair/reconstruction of the pier, in and of itself, may not cause or create
any long term impacts to the neighborhood, any new use that might be proposed after the reconstruction of
the pier, because it is now a viable facility and location, may cause or create long term impacts to the
neighborhood.
In an effort to be as up -front as possible with the applicant and the neighborhood, City staff will address the
following in this report:
1. Staff will review the proposed repair/reconstruction of the pier for compliance with the City's
Development Code and Shoreline Master Program;
2. Staff will attempt to clarify what might be allowed by the City's Shoreline Master Progarm on this
site in the future. We will also attempt to describe what processes those future proposals would
need to go through.
One of the most significant items to come up in our review of the proposed project is the nonconforming
status of the buildings located on the pier. Although the buildings are nonconforming, they may be
maintianed, repaired and remodeled so long as their footprint or volume doesn't expand. However, because
they are nonconforming, if they are ever damaged or removed to a point established by the Shoreline Master
Plan they will not be allowed to be re-established.
The following is the Edmonds Planning Division's analysis and recommendation of the submittal.
A. Application
1. Applicant: Meadowdale Marina LLC, Vladan Milosavljevic as General Manager
2, Site Location: 16111 76a' PI. W. (see Attachments 1-3).
3. _ Request: Shoreline Permit application to repairfreconstruct the timber portions of the
Meadowdale Marina pier (see Attachment 2).
4, Review Process: Shoreline Permit; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes
final decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 23.10
(SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM)
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 & 90
(CRITICAL AREAS).
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.55
(SHORELINE PERMITS).
d. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.100.010
(HEARING EXAMINER, PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL
REVIEW).
05094sr.doe /November 10, 2005 /Staff Report
Meadowdale Marina
File No. SM•2005-94
Page 3 of 9
B. Recommendations
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report we recommend
Approval of the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit with the following conditions:
I. Provide proof of the Department of Natural Resources lease that allows the pier facility to
project beyond its property lines.
2. Nonconforming buildings may be maintained and repaired. However, the building footprint or
volume may not be expanded in any way. Also, if the overwater structures are damaged to a
point where the damage exceeds the thresholds described in ECDC 17.40.020 or in the
Shoreline Master Program they will not be allowed to be reconstructed.
3. Prior to issuing any -permits for the repair of the timber building, the applicant must submit an
appraisal for the value of that structure. They must also submit an estimate for the cost to
repair the building. If the timber structure must come down to allow for the reconstruction of
the pier, the building may not be rebuilt.
4. The project must implement the ESA requirements and/or agreements set forth in the
Biological Evaluation, Proposed Repairs, Meadowdale Pier, Edmonds, Washington, dated
June 17, 2005 in their entirety. The project will also have to comply with any conditions
placed on it by the Army Corp of Engineers, Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service including times of year the proposed
work may take place.
5. The project will be subject to the City's performance regulations, specifically as they relate to
construction and noise. Noise from construction sites is only permitted to exceed the limits
established in the City's noise ordinance from 7 AM until 6 PM Monday through Friday, 10
AM until 6 PM on Saturdays and never on Sunday's or National Holidays.
6. The application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance
with the various provisions in these ordinances.
7. Construction authorization shall not be given by the City until a minimum of 30 days after
final City approval.
II. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Jurisdiction: The subject facility appears to extend to the west beyond the
bounds of the property lines that encompass the subject property. Anything to the
west of the subject property is in the jurisdiction of the State Department of Natural
Resources and would require an approval and lease with DNR.
(2) Existing and Proposed Development: The site is currently developed with a pier
.structure, approximately 2/3rds of which is an old timber structure. The remaining
pier is newer and constructed of concrete and steel. Both structures are structurally
tied together. On the piers are two buildings. A relatively recent large metal
warehouse used to store boats and.an older smaller wooden structure which was
historically used to support a recreational fishing use..
The proposed project is to remove all of the old timber pier structure and replace it
with a concrete and steel structure. This will make the entire pier of similar
05094sr.doc / November 10, 2005 / Staff Report
Meadowdale Marina
File No. SM -2005-94
Page 4 of 9
construction and likely will prolong its life significantly. These changes will also
reduce the impact of the existing structure on the environment by removing
hazardous materials from the marine environment as well as by slightly reducing the
piers footprint and introducing a water treatment facility to clean rain water before it
gets back into the Sound.
(3) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Commercial Waterfront (CW)
(see Attachment 1). Compliance of the project with this zone district will be
discussed later in this report.
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The entire site is either tidelands or located in the near
shore environment. Included in the application is a Biological Evaluation of the
Environmental resources in the area (see Attachment).
b) Conclusion:
(1) Jurisdiction: Any approval the City might give on this project should be subject
to proof of any DNR approval and/or lease being submitted to the City.
(2) Existing and Proposed Development: The proposed repair/reconstruction of the
Meadowdale Marina must comply with the City's zoning and Shoreline Master
Program.
(3) Zoning: The Commercial Waterfront zone generally allows this type of
improvement. However, the specifics of the proposal must be consistent with the
City's Shoreline Master Program, ECDC 23.10. Also, the will need to comply with
the City's Nonconforming provisions. This means that any nonconforming buildings
may be maintained and repaired, but not expanded in any way. Furthermore, if a
nonconforming building is removed any reconstruction must comply with our code
which will not allow new over -water buildings.
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: Because the property is in the shoreline environment, the
project must comply with the City's Critical Areas provisions regarding the
protection of habitat and with any conditions placed on the project by the Army Corp
of Engineers, the Washington State of Fish and Wildlife and/or the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
North: The property(ies) to the north are zone CW but undeveloped.
(2) West: There are no private properties west of the subject property and the State
Department of Natural Resources regulates all activities west of the property line.
(3) South: There is one small parcel immediately south of the subject parcel that is
zoned CW. However, south of that, all the tideland parcels are zone Open Space and
undeveloped.
(4) East: Immediately east of the subject parcel is the Burlington Northern
Right -of -Way developed with railroad tracks. East of the railroad right of way are
Single Family zoned properties that in most cases are developed with single family
homes.
b) Conclusion: The proposed repair/reconstruction would reduce the impact of the site on
the neighborhood in that the footprint of the pier would be slightly reduced and one of the
buildings might be removed from the pier.
05094sr.doc /November 10, 2005 /Staff Report
Meadowdale Marina
File No. SM -2005-94
Page 5 of 9
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. Zoning Standards for the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC 16.55.000 states that the purposes of the CW zone is to preserve areas for
water dependant uses, protect natural features of the waterfront, encourage public use
of the waterfront and ensure both physical and visual access to views of the
waterfront for the public.
(2) The applicant has told staff that they continue to use the pier and its buildings for
boat storage in support of the recreational fishing industry here in Puget Sound.
Marine oriented uses are a permitted primary use in the CW zone and the applicant's
statement about the use of the site would be consistent with the use provisions of the
CW zone. However, while the CW zone is fairly general in the uses that are
permitted and it appears that the applicants assertion about what the property is
currently being use for is consistent with those regulations, it should be noted that
any project, the proposed pier repair or establishing a new use on the pier, will also
have to comply with the City's Shoreline Master Program adopted in July of 2000.
The proposed project will be reviewed for compliance with the Shoreline Master
Program later in this report. Staff will also attempt to clarify issues that might be
associated with potential future projects later in this report as well.
(3) The development standards for the CW zone imply that all buildings in the CW zone
would be upland of the ordinary high water line or bulkhead. Because the piers have
two buildings located on them that are actually over water, those buildings are
nonconforming buildings in relation to the zoning code. They may be maintained but
their nonconformity may not be expanded in any way.
(4) The current use of the facility, although admittedly less than it has been in the past, is
as a boat storage facility supporting the local recreational fishing industry in Puget
Sound.
(5) Piers are not specifically addressed in the zoning regulations for the CW zone.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Reconstruction of the pier is consistent with the CW zone of the City.
(2) The current use of the site as described by the applicant to staff is consistent with the
CW zone in that it is a water dependant use or service. Any future uses of the site
would also have to comply with the CW zone and the City's Shoreline Master
Program.
2. General Development Code Non -Conforming provisions
a) Facts:
(1) Both buildings on the pier are nonconforming in relation to the CW zone and to the
City's Shoreline Master Program in that over water buildings are no longer allowed.
(2) The buildings may be maintained and/or repaired but may not be expanded in any
way including footprint and volume. Also, in the event that either one or both of the
buildings is damaged or removed to the point that thresholds established in either the
non -conforming chapter of the development code or the Shoreline Master Program
are crossed, the buildings will need to be removed and will not be allowed to be re-
established.
(3) The timber building is currently damaged. At this point, the City has no idea of the
current value of that structure, or the cost to repair it. But, it would appear that the
05094sr.doc / November 10, 2005 / Staff Report
Meadowdale Marina
File No. SM -2005-94
Page 6 of 9
building will need to be removed to totally reconstruct the pier as indicated by the
application.
b) Conclusion:
(1) Because both of the buildings located on the pier are nonconforming do to the fact
that they are buildings located over water, a condition should be placed on the permit
which puts the property owner on notice that while the buildings may be maintained
and even repaired and remodeled, the footprint or volume of the buildings may not be
expanded is any way. Furthermore, if either of these buildings are damaged or
destroyed to the point that they meet the thresholds identified in either the Shoreline
Master Program or the city's nonconforming section for requiring compliance with
the code, the buildings will not be allowed to be reconstructed.
(2) If the applicant wants to retain the timber building, prior to issuing any permits for its
repair, the applicant will have to submit an appraisal for the value of that structure.
They will also need to submit an estimate for the cost to repair the building, If the
timber structure must come down to allow for the reconstruction of the pier, the
building may not be rebuilt.
3. Compliance with the requirement for a Shoreline Permit
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Section 23.10.105 identifies the project area as an "Urban Mixed Use II"
shoreline environment. This shoreline environment allows the most intense and
diverse development of the City's shoreline areas. Because the Meadowdale
Marina/Haines Wharf facility has been located at this site for a long time, the City
acknowledged its presence by designating it "Urban Mixed Use II" in the City's most
current update of the Shoreline Master Program adopted in July of 2000. It is the
only property in this area designated this way. All other land in this area of the City
waterward of the Burlington Northern Right -of -Way, both public and private, are
designated as Conservancy I, Saltwater Environment.
(2) The dollar value of the proposed project and the fact that the proposed repair will
entirely remove and replace the timber section of the pier led the City to conclude that
the proposed project does not qualify for a shoreline exemption. In reviewing WAC
173.27.040, projects not exempt from a shoreline permit must gain approval of a
shoreline substantial development permit. That is the purpose of this application and
this review.
(3) ECDC Section 23,10.130-145 document general regulations for Shoreline Substantial
Development permits. These regulations relate to Environmental Resources, Historic or
Archeological resources, Parking requirements and Public Access. The proposed
Substantial Development Permit must address these requirements.
(4) Regarding ECDC 23.10.130 Environmental Resources, the applicant has submitted
both a Biological Evaluation and the Army Corp of Engineers initial evaluation of it
(see Attachments 4 and 6). As long as the proposal is completed as indicated in the
plans and construction takes place as described in the application and the Biological
Evaluation, no significant adverse impact should be felt by environmentally sensitive
and critical areas.
(5) Because the proposed Substantial Development Permit is only requesting repair of the
existing pier structure and no change of use is proposed, the city is not reviewing the
project for compliance with the City's parking requirements. It is considered to comply
or at worst to be nonconforming. However, if a change of use is ever proposed on this
site, another Substantial Development Permit will be required. Any new use on the pier
05094sr.doe, / November 10, 2005 / Staff Report
Meadowdale Marina
Pile No. SM -2005-94
Page 7 of 9
would have to demonstrate how it complies with the City's parking regulations both for
number of stalls and parking lot arrangement.
(6) The public access provisions of the City's Shoreline Master Program, ECDC Section
23.10.145, require that public access be designed into any substantial development
proposal. The proposed pier reconstruction has a separate pedestrian walkway from the
vehicular access. The stated use of the site, a boat storage and launch facility supporting
the recreational fishing industry in Puget Sound, is a somewhat public use. With the
reconstruction of the pier it is likely that use of the facility will increase, raising both
the demand and need for public access to the facility. ECDC section 23.10.145.B -D
outline circumstances under which this requirement might be waived, however it is up
to the applicant to request that waiver and justify why it is unwarranted.
(7) ECDC section 23.10.185, which deals with Public access piers or boardwalks, is the
only section of the City's Shoreline Master Program that addresses fixed piers. Using
this section as a guide, fixed piers are only allowed to be 15 feet above the ordinary
high water mark, OHWM, and may not contain any hazardous materials like creosote,
lead and other toxic chemicals. The proposed pier reconstruction will be only 6.5 feet
above the OHWM and a major reason for the whole construction is to remove creosote
piles and other hazardous materials and replace them with concrete and steel.
(8) The City's Shoreline Master Program deals with nonconforming matters in ECDC
Section 23.10.220. It is clear from reviewing the Master Program that buildings over
water are nonconforming. Nonconforming buildings may not be expanded in any way
and may be required to be removed if the cost to repair the building is more than 75%
of the cost to replace the building altogether. It is the City's position that the pier itself
complies with the Shoreline Master Program and is not nonconforming or illegal.
Because no new uses are proposed with this application the City is not reviewing the
project for compliance with any of the use provisions of the Shoreline Master Program.
It should be noted that the City's Shoreline Master Program does not allow
nonconforming uses to be expanded. Furthermore, if a nonconforming use ceases for a
period of 12 months, it may not be re-established, At this point the applicant has not
asked the city to verify what uses are conforming or not.
b) Conclusions:
(1) Environmental resources will be protected if the submitted plans and conditions of
the Biological Evaluation are complied with.
(2) Public access should be permitted to the pier. It should lead to some kind of
viewpoint, probably with benches, and be protected through an easement.
(3) A condition which requires documentation of the replacement value of the
nonconforming buildings as compared to the cost to repair them should be included
to ensure compliance with the nonconforming provisions.of the Shoreline Master
Program.
c) Future considerations:
(1) Additional Permits: Any new use or construction at the Meadowdale Marina will
almost certainly have to apply for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit prior
to being able to establish that use or development. Obviously, any Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit will have to comply with all the regulations of the
City's Shoreline Master Program as documented in sections 23.10.115-220. These
regulations will assist in minimizing impact to the surrounding community.
(2) Traffic: Another consideration that will come up during any permit review for a new
use or development will be safe access to the facility. Any proposed use will be
reviewed by the city to determine that traffic is being handled in a safe manor. We
05094sr.doc / November 10, 20051 Staff Report
Meadowdale Marina
File No. SM -2005-94
Page 8 of 9
will likely require Burlington Northern's agreement that the crossing leading to the
pier is adequate to accommodate additional traffic. Additionally, because this project
is located in a single family neighborhood of the City, traffic access and circulation
on local streets will be a significant issue; allowing additional trips to be generated
through residential neighborhoods to get to this facility would be likely to trigger
significant concerns.
C. Technical Committee
All city departments have chosen to defer comments on this request until they review the building
permit application to construct the changes..
D. Public Comments
We have received letter from both Philip Ruggiero and Mr. and Mrs. Chilelli.
III. RECONSIDERATION 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.
A. 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.
B. Appeals
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name
of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the
appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community
Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed.
C. . Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for
filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the
Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing
an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a reconsideration request is
filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an
appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request.
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required,
substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the variance shall
expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the
expiration date.'
05094sr.doc /November 10, 2005 / Staff Report
Meadowdale Marina
File No. SM -2005-94
Page 9 of 9
V. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in
the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office
VI. APPENDICES
Attachments 1 through 10:
1. Vicinity and Zoning Map
2, Applicant's Declarations labeled Attachment A
3. Drawing Packet
4, Biological Evaluation of the site and the project dated June 17, 2005
5. Applicant's JARPA submittal
6. Army Corp of Engineers letter dated August 12, 2005
7. SEPA Checklist
8. Environmental Determination dated October 31, 2005
9. Letter from Mr. Philip Ruggiero dated October 21, 2005
10. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Chilelli dated October 24, 2005
Meadowdale Marina LLC, Philip Ruggiero
Vladan Milosavljevic GM PO Box 6159
23423 Brier Road Edmonds, WA 98026
Brier, WA 98036
Layton & Sell, Inc. Armando & Sina Chilelli
Atten. Jeff Layton 16414 750Pl. W.-
12515
:12515 Willows Road NE, #205 Edmonds, WA 98026
Kirkland, WA 98034
Diana Clay
2002 196"' St. SW
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Engineering Division
Fire Department
Parks & Recreation Division
Public Works Division
Planning Division
John Quast
15714 75`x' Pl W.
Edmonds, WA 98026
05094sr.doe I November 10, 2005 / Staff Report
• i � 4 � a i tt ai t 'r uk27,
gqq� pp
y •���
11j :
to V t � .�,�� ,�k� � �i a «at1`2' s a � a ■ s
, sit Urs:a�t t'2: 1� �r v�•���'S ��rl ;.
�$ � "S`�4y�
�{�"�, �,N-'Ys,�c.t i'1Zi s}`„ �-♦..l�.�ecy_4. cs y..Tr$Yjr -.
KI
f g
r
r /^y�.Ef i; k9 � t�� .Y`� ash` �`: sd ,r4 • `rf .-c C "\ rT '7
/ �, C. t�CA�"t t v •i s:i � Y, t t .. a r tt � �t t if t"y.
,tax'
W�` Larf. DS�SLnx �S 1 ,L y
+r.
ti ♦ � r2h �� , � _ x .. t� . c� 1 L �N ,, t. r r fir.
ATTACHMENT A
Land Use Permit Application
Meadowdale Marina Pier Repair C i V j3
Edmonds, Washington
JUL z II
2o95
BEVaOPMENT SERV}cEs CTR.
Description of Project or Proposed Use CITY OF E()VONUs
Existing Conditions;
The site is an existing marina. The marina consists of a 66,600 square foot fixed pier system
that is used for the dry storage of small boats. The fixed pier system consists of three parts that
are structurally linked together. (1) 20 -foot -wide by 200 -foot -long (±) timber approach trestle that
connects the offshore pier to the adjacent shoreline, (2) a fixed timber pier covering
approximately 41,150 square feet and (3) a concrete/steel pier covering approximately 21,500
square feet. Also located on the pier system are the following: boat elevator, two fixed hydraulic
boat lifts, various removable floats for the staging of boats, fishing and holding tank platforms,
vehicle parking, a 21,500 square foot metal dry stack moorage building and a 11,800 square
foot timber dry stack moorage building that includes a retail marine supply store and cafe.
Purpose of Proposed Project:
The main purpose of the proposed work is to replace the damaged timber portions of the
existing pier. Repairs will also be made to the concrete portions of the existing pier as may be
needed.
Project Description:
The proposed work will consist of replacing all creosote -treated timber piles and creosote -
treated pile caps and other pier timbers in the existing pier and approach trestle with concrete
and steel construction. Approximately 277 timber piles will be extracted and/or cut-off below the
mudiine and disposed of on the uplands at an approved disposal site. Approximately 27,000
lineal feet of creosote -treated pile caps will be removed and disposed of on the uplands.
Approximately 45,000 square feet of timber decking will be removed and disposed of on the
uplands
The timber bearing piles (267 ±) will be replaced with approximately 230 concrete and/or steel
bearing and batter piles. The timber pile caps will be replaced with cast -in-place concrete caps.
The timber stringers and deck planks will be replaced with precast concrete deck panels overlaid
with a concrete topping slab. Approximateiy 10 creosote -treated fender piles will be replaced
with the same number of ACZA timber fender piles.
The existing 16 -foot -wide by 22 -foot -long holding tank platform on the approach trestle will not
.be replaced. The existing 5 -foot -wide by 80 -foot -long fishing platform extending north to south
at the northwest corner of the pier will not be replaced. The former 5 -foot -wide by 80 -foot -long
fishing platform extending west to east at the northwest corner of the pier will not be replaced.
A neve 4 -foot -wide grated walkway will be located on the south side of the approach trestle. The
purpose of the walkway is to provide safe pedestrian access to the pier. The net result of the
above surface area changes will be a reduction in over -water coverage of approximately 352
square feel
1 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
Land Use Permit Application
Meadowdale Marina Pier Repair
Edmonds, Washington
To provide additional sunlight under the approach trestle, steel grating will be located in the
center of this structure. The grating will be 4 feet wide and will extend the full length of the
trestle (200 feet t). In addition, the new pedestrian walkway that will be attached to the
replacement trestle will be constructed of 4 -foot -wide light permeable grating. The grating at
both locations will have a minimum of 60% openings.
A stormwater runoff collection and treatment system will be incorporated into the replacement
pier system. This system will collect runoff from over -water parking areas on the replacement
pier and convey the runoff to an oil -water treatment system. Treated runoff would then be
discharged to Puget Sound.
As part of the timber pier replacement process, existing pier utility systems (fire, water, sewage,
electrical power, etc.) will also be replaced and/or upgraded.
The existing timber building located on the timber pier will also be repaired as part of the project.
In addition to replacing the timber elements of the project site, various concrete/steel piles
located under the existing concrete portion pier will be repaired in place. Repairs will consist of
patching and coating damaged/rusting areas. Various concrete caps/decks with cracks will also
be repaired in place.
A barge -mounted pile driver will be used to install the replacement piles, pile caps and deck
panels. A second barge will likely be used to store materials. A small work boat will be used to
repair piles and concrete pile caps under the concrete -pier. A tugboat will be used to transport
the pile driver barge and supply barge to and from the project site.
Proposed Project Mitigation Measures;
There will be minor short-term noise from pile driving and other repair/replacement operations.
The original creosote -treated bearing piles will be replaced with concrete and steel bearing and
batter piles. All creosote -treated materials associated with existing pier will be removed from the
marine environment and disposed of on the uplands at an approved site. The original creosote -
treated timber fender piles will be replaced with ACZA-treated timber fender piles. There will be
a 352 square foot reduction in over -water surface coverage. Light permeable grating will be
added to the approach trestle to increase sunlight under the trestle. A stormwater collection and
treatment system will be incorporated into the replacement pier to treat runoff from parking
areas.
Refer to the attached biological evaluation prepared by BioAquatics International for additional
discussion regarding project impacts.
2of2
MVA
+tr s.00.Nz.SUG t s5. 1 a? �
t0� 1 39 - � f11�• � d4 � , Po
119
t al , 'H- 1�^�� s�".�fj• B6/i /109
foo 198 39 SI 21
1 : 06 s 6 54 i
liS {i 76S 9 51 16 pS 1 1 n4T� 129
No
'V t m 1 11 a 46 37 S 7a`
is az t & us to o ® 9 f� 1. 129
` 50
t � 714 aB1 /
10
104 i{ 14 19 iol 20 ,j , 1t8 ]0
s<
0, t 29 13 66' 1971` WI
lz
ti �. a's s. It Its I�PiJ(�T SOUND 03 i1: =a ItOw3 4
t3 tb } 24 SSE At
ret Cj] .� ,s dt , a2 ae. -- °S
,* t 1 1 r.�f151 4a p
se �` ro4 99
, r. �-PROJEI � I t 7 E ag sa
4� so
n so as
10 �°"G� O �i tot ,.a t` 95 77
62 t
Oz O{ 112 91 i� ��% r d,.G 19.
{ O i 39 J
42 N 95 ' 75 •• pi
1; 4,y , ; 4 93 87' -
25 t
53 07 of 4
r `
40 90
- . 57 t 2t 7a `� 6 ter92.
) 83 IiR
` \ c
Y 7 pit w 401 t 6a f 89"
r ` 601 yt 1 �f d
i PiMmohU '-' .
�PPtia It d"'I "s°er°—n'1
1
83 l a1 90 Ge1..e. ; J2' I
{ Y15.
RdimcSM
SA,
101
D 1': v
OIL
68 53
(o� wanIF a
PF
It
•2
JI /�..
-
12
"wC~43 t
!8—
r'
so
s"16 t
t -
.p ipp 1 y
' 52 {U3e"
1 1 y .R 491
�,• i 93
"OUnsta Awn
VICINITY MAP
NAUTICAL MILES
1 0 1 2 3 4
YARDS
1000 0 5000
PROJECT LOCATION:
LAT = 47'51710"
LONG = 122'20'06"
PURPOSE: REPAIR EXISTING PIER
DATUM: MLLW=0.007
#L_�h
SOURCE NOM CHART NO. 18441
PROPOSED REPAIRS TO
EXISTING PIER
IN: PUGET SOUND
AT: MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS
COUNTY: SNOHOMISH
STATE: WASHINGTON
Atta'chm'ent 3
SM -2005-94
EX FISHING
PLATFORM TO
BE REMOVED
0
EX CREOSOTE '
TREATED TIMBER
PILES, TYP
EX TIMBER
FENDER
PILES, TYP iv
EXdATUFT TO
BE R�Ai0VE0
= SIEEL PIPE -
'ILE TYP
EX BOAT UFT
EX TIMBER PILES, PILE CAPS
STRINGERS AND DECKING TO BE
REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH
ORMER FISHING
CONCRETE/STEEL PILES, CONCRETE
PLATFORM -NOT PILE CAPS AND CONCREi£ DECKING. q� r
TO BE REPLACED
S>i5 49
80' r� EX HOLDING TANK
LLW_O.00' PLATFORM �•±
(TO BE REMOVED) F» -•i
7n �
\L4
STEEL
CONCRETE 0
\- \ AIR AS NEEDx CONC.
ATTfR PILEB,
YP
FACE OF CONC.
DECK AND STER
*THE REMOVABLE STAGING FLOATS USED FOR BUILDING ABOVE -
TEMPORARY BOAT MOORAGE ASSOCIATED WITH
THE EXISTING BOATUFTS ARE NOT SHOWN.
* 4HWM-ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
SEE ATTACHED LIST FOR
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
I
APPROY_ OHWI
MHHW=10.91',
200'± 1
�EX TIMBER BUILDING
(TO REPAIRED) 40
s 1
W
Q
\ 1 o
4
1=3'35'37`
RADIUS=S77BJM
w LENGTH=321.05 1
7,78 \0
E N0. BEARING DISTANCE
Ll
WX40'23'W30 41
L2
R051,% w 30.41•
L3
W43'07"W 27.41
L4
N271W44`W 27.4
LS
N2035'05" W 25.58'
EXISTING SITE PLAN
40'
0' 80'
'EX TIMBER
APPROACH
TRESTLE
(TO BE
REPLACED)
RIPRAP
11
- EX TIMBER PIER TO BE
REPLACED WITH CONCRETE
STEEL CONSTRUCTION.
EM - EX BUILDING TO REPAIRED
- EX CONCRETE AND STEEL. PIER AND
DRY STACK BUILDING TO REMAIN
NOTE LOCATION OF EXISTING CONC. AND
STEEL PILES BASED UPON ORIGINAL
DESIGN DRAWINGS - NOT FIELD VERIFIED
PROPOSED REPAIRS TO
EXISTING PIER
IN: PUGET SOUND
AT: MEADOWDAL£, EDMONDS
COUNTY: SNOHOMISH
STATE: WASHINGTON
ADPL 6Y: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC
SHEET: 2 OF 8 DATE: 06/14/200`.
APPROX.
*OHWM=MHHW=10.9V-
EX TIMBER PILES. PILE CAPS STRINGERS AND
DECKING TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH ®' �
CONCRETE/STEEL PILES. CONCRETE PILE CAPS
AND CONCRETE DECKING. r
RMER FISHING
ro
LATFORM-NOT TO
E REPLACED
Teo' -
f�
0-- 40
49'1 r
EX HOLDING TANK
MLLW= 00' PLATFORM 22'f I
(TO BE�REMOVEO)A---,, I-- 1
FACE OF CONC.
�• DECK AND STEEL
BUILDING ABOVE—
I��Y
• - EX CREOSOTE TREATED TIMBER
PILE (APPROX. LOCATION)
- EX PLUMB CONC. PILES
®~ - EX CONC. OCT. BAITER PILES
2H:12V DIRECTION OF BATTER, TYP
- - EX CONC. OCT_ BATTER PILES 4N:12V
• - EX STEEL PIPE PILE
® 49 Ofi'rW 22? 78
— a
r /)
s C' *OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
SEE SHEETS 5 AND 6
FOR SECTION A -A do B -B
EXISTING PILE PLAN
0' 6fl
30'
EX TIMBER PIER TO BE
REPLACED WITH CONCRETE
AND STEEL CONSTRUCTION.
- EX BUILDING TO REPAIRED
EX CONCRETE AND STEEL PIER AND
®-
DRY STACK BUILDING TO REMAIN.
PROPOSED REPAIRS TO
EXISTING PIER
IN: PUGET SOUND
AT: MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS
COUNTY: SNOHOMISH
STATE: WASHINGTON
APPL BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC
SHEET: 3 OF 8 DATE: 06/14/200'
4p - a
�
1
s�
Fl
T.krl ate"?r''t'"
GS 9
eir'1-.c 5'�" �: �Ila,
• •!i'�.'i.l�
€S'`��'
}� .. f .
•
-.-"-[{
GIN
so
J•i�{'. Sii tl
Ff
WN aly�a-
IX
MBER
} AY 5 7
.�'�.'�ti.�^,�e"•s.x�'�r'�f
-yK
�i3'g
fORE •,
C.C.i
-
c.�0I
u3�
1�r�>!
,s
Ip_
•.1 :..
�
y;,s
1
f'
.
•p
F'
a�"
u*4�
��
4�f ' i •�� a_��-a+:e-
z=`� S �
•�5'°ni•�""11''s J
�>
S-
:=5•-�� ��/i} .:. ���iS���Sr�'
� ,�� •`t �'S.SF����
•.CA.II+i.•..� .-D� TM�.t✓'
EX ROCK RIPRJ
�v=�•�.��.t::N���iF����-��l7Ai1i���1�11^i�l�lJ'''�`i+��j�',���)""J�
�'�i-,
(i
r
y
sP Mo
Y"
CONIC,
f
a as BLDGs
f
�iij
rte
' !•
f 1 1
1
FACE OF CONC.
�• DECK AND STEEL
BUILDING ABOVE—
I��Y
• - EX CREOSOTE TREATED TIMBER
PILE (APPROX. LOCATION)
- EX PLUMB CONC. PILES
®~ - EX CONC. OCT. BAITER PILES
2H:12V DIRECTION OF BATTER, TYP
- - EX CONC. OCT_ BATTER PILES 4N:12V
• - EX STEEL PIPE PILE
® 49 Ofi'rW 22? 78
— a
r /)
s C' *OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
SEE SHEETS 5 AND 6
FOR SECTION A -A do B -B
EXISTING PILE PLAN
0' 6fl
30'
EX TIMBER PIER TO BE
REPLACED WITH CONCRETE
AND STEEL CONSTRUCTION.
- EX BUILDING TO REPAIRED
EX CONCRETE AND STEEL PIER AND
®-
DRY STACK BUILDING TO REMAIN.
PROPOSED REPAIRS TO
EXISTING PIER
IN: PUGET SOUND
AT: MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS
COUNTY: SNOHOMISH
STATE: WASHINGTON
APPL BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC
SHEET: 3 OF 8 DATE: 06/14/200'
EX PIER TO BE REPLACED
WITH CONCRETE & STEEL
CONSTRUCTION
r
r � ,
r ROPOSED VERTIC
GUARDRAIL
D GUARD-
TYP
t�
r r �
EX STEEL BLDG
(Rb;CONC. DECK
AS NtEDEO)' '
FACE OF CONC. DEaq AND STEEL BUILDING
9
6
a
LEmfk
• - PLUMB CONC. OR STEEL PILES
-_ CONC. OR SIM BATTER PILES
2H. IV DIRECTION OF BAITER, TYP
CONC. OR STEEL BATTER
PILES 4H.- 12V
- EX STEEL PIPE PRE
®- REPLACEMENT FENDER PILE
(ACZA TREATED TIMBER)
250'±
1 ✓
EX APPROACH TRESTLE TO BE
REPLACED WITH CONCRETE &ff
STEEL CONSTRUCTION i
APPROX. t
**HWM=MHHW=10.91'-:--
PERMEABLE
p.43' S *OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
SEE SHEETS 7 AND 8
PROPOSED PILE PLAN & REPAIRS FOR SECTION C -C & 0-0
o' 60'
30'
- EX TIMBER PIER TO 8E
REPLACED N1TH CONCRETE
AND STEM. CONSTRUCTION.
- EX BUILDING TO REPAIRED
C3 -EX CONCRETE AND STEEL PIER AND
DRY STACK BUILDING TO REMAIN.
PROPOSED REPAIRS TO
EXISTING PIER
IN: PUGET SOUND
AT: ME4DOWDALE, EDMONDS
COUNTY: SNOHOMISH
STATE: WASHINGTON
APDL. BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC
SHEET: 4 OF 8 DATE: 06/14/200`
J / � I
o 200'±
t
ALL EXISTING
CREOSOTE -TREATED TIMB
Lu
PILES UNDER PIER &
APPROACH TRESTLE TO 84
Q
REMOVED AND REPLACED TH
STEEL CONCRETE PILES.
L
.&
A=3`35'37"
Q
EX TIMBER RADIUS=5118.58
BUILDING (TO LENGTH=321.0
REPAIRED) j1t
t
O
i Q
RELOCATE EXISTING
Q
BUILDING TO NORTH AS
Lir
\\ NEED TO REPLACE PILES,
DECK, ETC. UNDER BUILDING
ALL EXISTING CONCRETE AND
STEEL PILES UNDER THIS
J
BUILDING TO REMAIN (REPAIR
ao
ANY DAMAGE TO PILES AND
CAPS INPL CE AS NEED )
1
r
.1;57 7B r, �
p.43' S *OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
SEE SHEETS 7 AND 8
PROPOSED PILE PLAN & REPAIRS FOR SECTION C -C & 0-0
o' 60'
30'
- EX TIMBER PIER TO 8E
REPLACED N1TH CONCRETE
AND STEM. CONSTRUCTION.
- EX BUILDING TO REPAIRED
C3 -EX CONCRETE AND STEEL PIER AND
DRY STACK BUILDING TO REMAIN.
PROPOSED REPAIRS TO
EXISTING PIER
IN: PUGET SOUND
AT: ME4DOWDALE, EDMONDS
COUNTY: SNOHOMISH
STATE: WASHINGTON
APDL. BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC
SHEET: 4 OF 8 DATE: 06/14/200`
EX TIMBER DECK
PLANKS, TYP
EX TIMBER APPROX. DECK
STRINGER, TYP �EL=17.5'1
'--EX CREOSOTE -TREATED
AMBER PILE CAP
OHWM=MHHW
MHW=10.06'
EX CREOSOTE -TREATED
TIMBER PILES, TYP (PILE
SPACING VARIES 10' TO 16')
MLLw=D.O'
/-EX GRADE-�
II it
NOTE: EXISTING GUARDRAILS NOT SHOWN
SECTION A -A
EXISTING PIER
CONSTRUCTION TYPICAL
O' 5'
OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
PROPOSED REPAIRS TO
EXISTING PIER
IN: PUGET SOUND
AT: MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS
COUNTY: SNOHOMISH
STATE: WASHINGTON
ADPL. BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC
SHEET: 5 OF 8 DATE: 06/14/200:
EX TIMBER
STRINGER,
10' DRIVING LANE
-EX TIMBER DECK
PLANKS, TYP
10' DRIVING LANE
TYP
EX CREOSOTE -TREATED
PILE CAP
�Z MHHW=10.91'
g MHW=10.06' .
*OHWM=MHHW
GRADE
I � I
EX CREOSOTE -TREATED
TIMBER PILES, TYP (PILE
I SPACING VARIES 7' TO 8't)
SECTION B -B
EXISTING TYPICAL APPROACH
TRESTLE CONSTRUCTION
0' S'
OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
PROPOSED REPAIRS TO
EXISTING PIER
IN: PUGET SOUND
AT: MEADOWDALE, .EDMONDS
COUNTY: SNOHOMISH
STATE: WASHINGTON
APPL. BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC
SHEET: 6 OF 8 DATE: 06/14/200.`
PROPOSED PRESTRESSED
PRE -CAST CONC. DECK
PANELS, TYP
PROPOSED CAST -IN- PLACE
CONCRETE TOPPING SLAB
APPROX. DECK
EL=17.5'±
`-PROPOSED CAST -IN --PLACE
CONC.. PILE CAP
PROPOSED STEEL OR PRECAST
CONCRETE PILES (PILE SPACING
VARIES 16' TO 20') ----Y'
I
i�
NOTE: PROPOSED GUARDRAILS NOT SHOWN
kiHHW=10.91'
MHW=10.06'
*OHWM=MHHW
I
*OHWM=ORIDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
SECTION C -C
PROPOSED TYPICAL REPLACEMENT PROPOSED REPAIRS TO
PIER CONSTRUCTION EXISTING PIER
2.5' IN: PUGET SOUND
TI AT: MEADOWDALE. EDMONDS
0 5 COUNTY: SNOHOMISH
STATE: WASHINGTON
APPL. 6Y: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC
SHEET: 7 OF 8 DATE: 06 14 200;
PROPOSED
GUARDRAIL
PROPOSED LIGHT
PERMEAB
GRATING -
PROPOSED
PEDEDESTR1
WALKWAY
4'
PROPOSED STEEL
SUPPORT BEAMS
FOR WALKWAY
5't
Z --PROPOSED LIGHT
10' DRIVING LANE
-PROPOSED VERTICAL
GUARDRAIL
8
-EL 17.51
9'
PROPOSED
CAST -IN-PLACE CONC.
TOPPING SLAB. TYP
If
11
II
II
II
II
II
10' DRIVING LANE
8'
PROPOSED LIGHT
PERMEABLE GRATING
PROPOSED PRECAST
PRESTRESSED CONC.
DECK PANELS
r -EX GRADE
SECTION D -D
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT
APPROACH TRESTLE
2.5'
0' 5'
�-PROPOSEO VEHICLE
GUARDRAIL, TYP
PROPOSED
CAST -IN-PLACE
CONC.
CONC. PILE CAP
# *OHWM=MHHW
-,7 MHHW-1 ...
W HW=10.06'
PROPOSED STEEL OR
PRECAST CONCRETE
PILE, TYP
12 '' r-
1 1 12
11
11
1!
11
11
11
*OHWM=ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
PROPOSED REPAIRS TO
EXISTING PIER
IN: PUGET SOUND
AT: MEADOWDALE, EDMONDS
COUNTY: SNOHOMISH
STATE: WASHINGTON
APPL BY: MEADOWDALE MARINA, LLC
SHEET: 8 .OF 8 DATE: fl6/14/200'
�;
Ilr�
a)
o-
C
CL
O
O
Cb
N
6q
N
=M
- a)
�c
i v
E
I 0
. C
>U)
PM'
Cw,
Exhibit 7
AP L-2011-0001
OOoo00
0000
O
oOo
OooOOOoo
00
OR
N
V
V
O
o
N
LO
(D
N
N
N
tO
r
OD
T
O
O
I--
O
m
>
Lo
CO
O
O)
O
O
LO
O
LO
6)
00
M
O
M
(Z
W
N
00
O
O
M
N
00
N
r-
O)
LO
M
N
T
d
r
M
O
N
LO
LOLO
O
T
CO
r
00
N
O
O
T
LO
L O
M
r
T
r
r
r
r
T
T
r
Z
r
r
Z
Z
r
T
r
T
r
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Cl
O
O
QOO
N
(U
(0
(o
0)
N
N
LO
1-
I`
r-
I`
N
O)
LO
r
(p
0)
T
OO
LO
M
O
il-
I`
( O
>
T
N
d'
N
LO
d'
O,4
O
N
N
I�
t`
V'
N
M
M
O
N
M
4
00Cb
co
Lo
Lo
r i
(D
,T
N
N
V
T
d-
r
M
(O
I
(f)
Lo
Lo
T
N
N
"t
M
N
00
N
O
O
N
Lo
Lo
"I.
T
T
r
r
r
r
r
r
T
T
r
N
r
T
r
r
r
r
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
M
i-
O
O
r
t`
CO
O
Lo
LO
V
M
OO
1�
T
M
(A
i-
M
O(
D
j
NNOOMO
t
I -
M
-
O
LOLOI-
(O
I--(OT(0000N00(O
q
Mto
00
(O
LO
d
(D
(o
(D
co
Lf)
co
OO
1-
r
M
'I
d
CD
co
' T
O
N
r
V
I�
I�
(O
T
T
r
T
r
r
T
T
T
r
T
N
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
T
LO
(O
(9
CO
N
L)
T
1--
I`
r
r-
r--
d'
O
ti
T
r
O
(D
(D
T
I-
N
T
O
N
N
M
N
L(7
(O
T
6
O
N
r
M
(9
LO
N
a
d
O
N
M
V
I�
N
N
Lf)
d'
O
.2
e�
LO
co
M
LO
N
LO
N
1l-
I--
(D
(D
N
CO
Z
Z
g
M
O
CO
O
T
CO
(°
(O
'q
••
T
T
r
T
r
T
T
[�
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
r
T
r
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
o
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
N
Q
M
I-
ct
rt
T
00
1�
M
M
T
T
r
T
M
00
(D
T
I-
CX
O)
1�
'q'
(p
OR
T
T
I' -
V)
�-
O
LO
O
CO
O
(6
.-
O
Lo
m
O
Lo
Lo
LO
I-
Lo
Lo
O)
N
O-
I-
LO
co
co
M
N
LO
M
d
r
1`
t`
r-
M
M
M
U)
LO
M
M
M
T-
M
((J
(�
LO
Ur
T
r
T
T
T
T
T
T
r
T
N
r
T
T
r
r
T
T
w -
O
o
o
O
O
o
0
0
0
o
O
o
o
O
o
O
o
0
0
0
o
O
O
O
O
o
0
0
tiTTrLC)
IlNMO
O
OD
OONLO
MI-
MLOO
(.OTOLO00
00V
m
Lo
r
00
t-
Lo
O
N
Lo
N
r-
/`!Z
OMO
M
�
�
I'
(O
V'
LO
OD
r
'd'
tMO
1l-
(~O
�
'd'
N
'q
Lo
T
r
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
N
T
r
T
T
T
T
T
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
0
0
Q
C9
OCY)
C3)
M
Il-
LO
M
(9
V
00
If
C9
M
r-
M
M
(D
=
(9
r-
cy)
O
O
LO
OLO
1�
t--�
N
N
6
T
O
o.
d'
T
O
M
I�
M
r
0
O
`-
f—
LO
V
M
(U
OO
M
M
M
to
LO
(O
ti
t-
LO
O
LO
N
N
LO
M
co
(D
r
T
r
T
T
T
.�
T
T
r
N
T
T
T
T
T
T
r
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O1l-
00
co
C)
r-
MMNO
O
M
00
M
OO
dCb
r-
0
d'OO
O
O
MLO
TCTICD
-'
LO
LO
O
LO
O
CO
N
I--
I`
LO
LO
LO
M
0)
Lo
I
I`
�
(O
Lo
(D
LO
Lo
OO
LO
LO
Cb
LO
00
LO
1-
C)
O
00
00
LO
LO
(0
OO
r
LO
T
LO
M
N
Lo
00
00
(9
r
T
T
r
r
T
T
T
T
T
N
T
T
T
r
T
T
T
T
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
O
O
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
O
O
't
d'
r-
T
T
M
1--
I`
LO
LO
T
M
O
M
N
M
N
d
O
O
M
LO
LO
T
Q
OO
00
O
O)
rN
1�
rA
I`
OTO
Mr-
O
T
O
CA
O
M
(D
LO
A
(O
co(9
r-
O
O
m
(O
(9
I�
00
00
(9
T
(U
M
M
(9
�
OO
(9
(\1
T
T
T
T
T
T
r
a)
r
T
T
r
T
U
T
T
T
T
U_
C
Q)
O
_
>.
U)
Q
O
O
N
U
Q
V
@
Q
_0
(6
a)
(0
U
(n
a)
.0
E
—
a)
C
s
ui
a
ui
c
_�
a)
c
a
E
Ea
O
N
m
C
O
a'
O
L
L
4-
O
O
9
Q)
O
(D
Q)
E
p>
..0
O
7
uj
O
Y
-0 O
O
Q)
(Q
O
a
-
(II
O
(0
'
V)
N
3
c
Ln
-ac
�c�v
(ll
Edo
-
(n
O
UcC°)�Ea)�U)�
(73
'�
-
C
i
L
-
=
__ C
OL
C
U
Vj
(U
(6
Q)
O
fll
+a)
Q3
—
V
U
`
(U
(6
(II C
C6 Y
X
Q
m
i
u)
a)
L
(ll
Y
-
-
(D
a)
L
(6
L
N
C
.N
c
(U
(O
2
L
_
C
a)F
a)
'�
'L L
n°
(u
�
U
c
c
°�
(�
a
o
5
E
c
o
(4
U
a)
(B
(�
D,.
c
U
ac)
rn
c�
(n
c
3
-
a
O
3
}
L
°�oaYocamm
c°
����a��o�io�uE
o(n
-
-
�, to
C
C
C
'+�
C)
O
_____
S�
Q
Z E
_
U
En
O
o
N
(6
N
(B
G
O
C
O
C
o
C
o
C=
O
+�
C
w—
C
C
C
ai (n
(D
E
v
E
E
E
E
.0
E
E c
.o
E
o
is
3
E__@
°a
°' a)
(1)COn
.N
L)
O O
O
C
d
-t-,
t:�
�
2
>
+-
(°n
(On
(On
(On U
C
COn
-O
U
L
C
Cn •-
+_
V)
V)
to
to
a)
�n
(ll
to
(ll
Cn
N
Q)
(n
QQ
u)
N
Q
V)
QQQ
V1
U
E<mwUm-
0
=
(U o
(0 L
LL
C.�
C
C
C
C����r,-
(p
Cn�
Q
2
T
T
N
N
M
Ch
�Y'
r
N
T
M
N
tO
r
N
CM
r
N
C�
QQQQQQ
QC�WLL
LL
,
=2=
,
T
N
N
M
V
��wwry6
C
�
�
�
C
�
(nom
Ilr�
a)
o-
C
CL
O
O
Cb
N
6q
N
=M
- a)
�c
i v
E
I 0
. C
>U)
PM'
Cw,
Exhibit 7
AP L-2011-0001
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
Vladan Milosavljevic
2947 215" Place SW
Brier, Washington 98036
By
Rick Mellen, MAI
The Eastman Company
925 North 130"' Street
Seattle, Washington 98133
9076
The Eastman Company Exhibit 8
AP L-2011-0001
The Eastman Company
..
Rick Mellen, MAI
Donald K. Melton
Paul Zemtseff
Kevin Congleton
Carl Bolstad
Mitch Vander Broek
Mike Gage
June 2, 2009
Mr. Vladan Milosavljevic
2947215 1h Place SW
Brier, WA 98036
Meadowdale Nfarina Building
File No. 9076
Real Estate Appraisers/Analysts/Consultants
925 N. 130th Street
Seattle, WA 98133
(206)363-6611
(888) 251-2921
Fax (206) 363-5507
appraisers@wavalue.com
RE: Replacement Cost, Barn Building, Meadowdale Marina,
16111 76`" Place W, Edmonds, WA - Our File No. 9076
Dear Mr. Milosavljevic:
At your request, I have completed an appraisal of the real property named above. The appraisal
states my opinion of the replacement cost of the building, subject to various Assumptions and
Limiting Conditions described in the accompanying report. Per client instructions, this is a
summary appraisal report.
This appraisal report was prepared in accordance with the instructions provided by the client and
is subject to the Code of Ethics and the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal
Institute and the Appraisal Foundation.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/ADDRESS
The subject of this appraisal is a barn building located on the pier of Meadowdale Marina, 16111
76" Place W, Edmonds, Washington.
OSTENSIBLE OWNER
Meadowdale Marina LLC
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
TAX PARCEL NUMBER
00 5139 001 007 00
CENSUS TRACT; MAP REFERENCE
CT 509.00, Thomas Brothers page 475,A2.
APPRAISAL AUTHORIZATION/CLIENT
Appraisal authorization was given by Vladan Milosavljevic. The client and intended user is
Vladan Milosavljevic.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Meadowdale Tidelands Block 001 D-00, all lots 7-11, inc Block A
PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL, INTENDED USER AND RESTRICTIONS ON USE
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the replacement cost of the building. Use of this
appraisal by any party other than the client and for any purpose or use other than the stated
intended use is expressly prohibited. Any others using or relying on this report are unintended
users.
USPAP COMPLIANCE
It is my intent that this appraisal conforms with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP) adopted by the Appraisal Foundation in 1987.
REPLACEMENT COST DEFINITION
Replacement Cost is defined by the Appraisal Institute's Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal
as "the estimated cost to construct, at current prices, a building with utility equivalent to the
building being appraised, using modern materials and current standards, design and layout."
PERSONAL PROPERTY
No personal property was included in the appraisal.
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED
The property rights appraised herein are the fee simple estate of the subj ect property. Fee simple
estate is defined by the Appraisal Institute's Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal as the "absolute
ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate; subject to the limitations of eminent
domain, escheat, police powers, and taxation."
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
Per client request, this is a summary appraisal, with only the replacement cost being developed.
This appraisal is based upon a physical inspection of the subject property. Specific data on the
subject was obtained from the property owner, representatives of the city and county, and from
records of various public agencies. It is assumed that all information gathered from various
sources is correct and accurate and that any changes or modifications of this data may invalidate
the conclusions contained herein.
APPRAISAL DATENIEWING DATE
The subject property was viewed on June 2, 2009. The date of this report and the effective
appraisal date is June 2, 2009.
IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION
Address
16111 76`h Place W, Edmonds, Washington.
Building Description
This is a Class D wood frame barn building located on the pier at Meadowdale Marina.
Dimensions are 70'x 160', for an area of 11,200 sf. Reportedly, the building was constructed
circa 1920 and barged to the current site circa 1939. The exterior is wood siding. The roof is a
pitched wood type, with 2" x 10" sheathing and composition shingles. The floor, being part of
the pier, was not included in the replacement cost estimate. Construction includes 8" x 8" wood
posts 16' on center around the perimeter and two rows of posts running down the center of the
building, supporting a barn roof structure. There are two sets of double doors at each end of the
building and one door near the northwest corner of the building. Several windows are also
located at the northwest corner of the building. Height to the eaves is 14' and 22' to the crown.
The Eastman Company
iWeadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
There are no interior partitions. The building does not have electric power, plumbing or heat.
The building appeared to be in poor condition, with a section of the roof sagging. An 18'x 100'
section at the northeast corner of the building was missing, with walls, roof and structural
members missing.
The appraisal assignment was to estimate the replacement cost of the entire building.
The appraiser relied upon cost data from Marshall Valuation Service, a nationally recognized
source of cost data, which is regularly updated.
The subject was considered a low quality Class D general purpose barn building in Section 17,
page 30. This is described as having a dirt floor and no heat, electric or plumbing. The base cost
was $11.001sf. Modifiers were applied to base costs for height, perimeter, time and local costs,
resulting in a cost of $11.82/sf. 11,200 sf @ $11.82/sf = $132,384, rounded to $132,000.
REPLACEMENT COST
The Eastman Company
$132,000
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
CERTIFICATION
I, Rick Mellen, certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
The statements of fact contained in this appraisal report are true and correct.
The appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation
or the approval of a loan.
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions
and limiting conditions and are my personal, unbiased, professional analyses, opinions and
conclusions.
I have no present or prospective interest in, or bias with respect to, the property that is the subject
of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting
predetermined results.
The compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in
value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a
stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been
prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards
of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
I have personally inspected the subject property and I am competent and qualified to perform this
appraisal assignment. As of the date of this report I have completed the requirements of the
Continuing Education Program of the Appraisal Institute and I am currently certified by the State
of Washington as a general classification real estate appraiser.
I do not authorize the out -of -context quoting from or partial reprinting of this appraisal report.
The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review
by its duly authorized representatives.
No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report.
Based on the descriptions, definitions, assumptions, data, and conclusions presented herein, it is
my opinion that the Replacement Cost of the subject property, as of June 2, 2009, is: $132,000.
cIc Mellen, MAI
Washington State Certified General
Real Estate Appraiser (1100811)
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
LIMITING CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
SUMMARY APPRAISAL REPORT
1. This is a Summary Appraisal Report which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under
Standard Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for a Summary Appraisal
Report. As such, it might not include full discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the
appraisal process to develop the appraiser's opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data,
reasoning, and analyses is retained in the appraiser's file. The information contained in this report is specific to
the needs of the client and for the intended use stated in this report. The appraiser is not responsible for
unauthorized use of this report.
LIMIT OF LIABILITY:
The liability of The Eastman Company and employees is limited to the client only and to the fee actually received
by the appraiser. Further, there is no accountability, obligation or liability to any third party. If this report is
placed in the hands of anyone other than the client, the client shall make such party aware of all limiting
conditions and assumptions of the assignment and related discussions. The appraiser is in no way to be
responsible for any costs incurred to discover or correct any deficiencies of any type present in the property;
physically, financially and/or legally. In the case of limited partnerships or syndication offerings or stock
offerings in real estate, the client agrees that in case of a lawsuit (brought by lender, partner or part owner in any
form of ownership, tenant, or any other party), any acid all awards, settlements of any type in such suit, regardless
of outcome, the client will hold appraiser completely harmless in any such action.
COPIES, PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, USE OF REPORT:
Possession of this report or any copy thereof does not carry with it the right of publication, nor may it be used for
other than its intended use,
The Bylaws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute require each member and candidate to control the use and
distribution of each appraisal report signed by such member or candidate; except as hereinafter provided, the
client may distribute copies of this appraisal report in its entirety to such third parties as he may select; however,
selected portions of this appraisal report shall not be given to third parties without the prior written consent of the
signatories of this appraisal report. Neither all nor any part of this appraisal report shall be disseminated to the
general public by the use of advertising media, public relations, news, sales or other media for public
communication without the prior written consent of the appraiser.
Use of this appraisal by any party other than the party(ies) identified within this report, and for any other use or
purpose(s) than the stated intended use, is expressly prohibited. The appraiser assumes no responsibility or
liability for the use of this report, or any information contained herein, including the valuation conclusion, by any
party not named as a user of this report.
4. CONFIDENTIALITY:
This appraisal is to be used only in its entirety, and no part is to be used without the whole report. All
conclusions and opinions concerning the analysis as set forth in the report were prepared by the appraiser(s)
whose signature(s) appear on the appraisal report unless indicated as "Review Appraiser." No change of any
item in the report shall be made by anyone other than the appraiser and/or officer of the firm. The appraiser and
firm shall have no responsibility if any such unauthorized change is made.
The appraiser may not divulge the material (evaluation) contents of the report, analytical findings or conclusions,
or give a copy of the report to anyone other than the client or his designee as specified in writing except as may
be required by the Appraisal Institute as they may request in confidence for ethics enforcement, or by a court of
law or body with the power of subpoena.
TRADE SECRETS:
This appraisal was obtained from The Eastman Company or related companies and/or its individuals or related
independent contractors and consists of "trade secrets and commercial or financial information" which is
privileged and confidential and exempted from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552 (b) (4). Notify the appraiser(s)
signing the report of any request to reproduce this appraisal in whole or in part.
6. INFORMATION USED:
No responsibility is assumed for accuracy of information furnished by work of others, the client, his designee or
public records. The comparable data relied upon in this report has been confirmed with one or more parties
familiar with the transaction or from affidavit or other source thought reasonable; all are considered appropriate
for inclusion to the best of our factual judgment and knowledge. An impractical and uneconomic expenditure of
time would be required in attempting to furnish unimpeachable verification in all instances, particularly as to
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
engineering and market- related information. It is suggested that the client consider independent verification as a
prerequisite to any transaction involving sale, lease or other significant commitment of funds for subject property.
TESTIMONY, CONSULTATION, COMPLETION OF CONTRACT FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES:
The contract for appraisal, consultation or analytical service are fulfilled and the total fee payable upon
completion of the report. The appraiser(s) or those assisting in the preparation of the report will not be asked or
required to give testimony in court or hearing because of having made the appraisal, in full or in part, nor engage
in post appraisal consultation with the client or third parties except under separate and special arrangement and at
an additional fee. If testimony or deposition is required because of any subpoena, the client shall be responsible
for any additional time, fees and charges regardless of issuing party.
S. EXHIBITS:
The sketches and maps in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property and are not
necessarily to scale. Various photos, if any, are included for the same purposes as of the date of the photos. Site
plans are not surveys unless shown from separate surveyor,
9. LEGAL, ENGINEERING, FINANCIAL, STRUCTURAL, OR MECHANICAL NATURE HIDDEN
COMPONENTS, SOIL:
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character or nature, nor matters of survey, nor of any
architectural, structural, mechanical, or engineering nature. No opinion is rendered as to the title, which is
presumed to be good and merchantable. The property is appraised as if free and clear, unless otherwise stated in
particular parts of the report.
The legal description is assumed to be correct as used in this report as furnished by the client, his designee, or as
derived by the appraiser.
Please note that no advice is given regarding mechanical equipment or structural integrity or adequacy, nor soils
and potential for settlement, drainage, and such (seek assistance from qualified architect and/or engineer) nor
matters concerning liens, title status, and legal marketability (seek legal assistance), and such: The lender and
owner should inspect the property before any disbursement of funds; further it is likely that the lender or owner
may wish to require mechanical or structural inspections by qualified and licensed contractor, civil or structural
engineer, architect, or other expert.
The appraiser has inspected as far as possible, by observation, the land and the improvements; however, it was
not possible to personally observe conditions beneath the soil or hidden structural, or other components. We
have not critically inspected mechanical components within the improvements and no representations are made
herein as to these matters unless specifically stated and considered in the report. The value estimate considers
there being no such conditions that would cause a loss of value. The land or the soil of the area being appraised
appears fieri, however, subsidence in the area is unknown. The appraiser(s) do not warrant against this condition
or occurrence of problems arising from soil conditions.
The appraisal is based on there being no hidden, unapparent, or apparent conditions of the property site, subsoil,
or structures or toxic materials which would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for any
such conditions or for any expertise or engineering to discover them. All mechanical components are assumed to
be in operable condition and status standard for properties of the subject type. Conditions of heating, cooling,
ventilating, electrical and plumbing equipment is considered to be commensurate with the condition of the
balance of the improvement unless otherwise stated. No judgment may be made by us as to adequacy of
insulation, type of insulation, or energy efficiency of the improvements or equipment which is assumed standard
for subject age and type.
If the Appraiser has not been supplied with a termite inspection, survey or occupancy permit, no responsibility or
representation is assumed or made for any costs associated with obtaining same or for any deficiencies discovered
before or after they are obtained. No representation or warranties are made concerning obtaining the above
mentioned items.
The appraiser assumes no responsibility for any costs or consequences arising due to the need, or the lack of need
for flood hazard insurance. An Agent for The Federal Flood Insurance Program should be contacted to determine
the actual need for Flood Hazard Insurance.
10. LEGALITY OF USE:
The appraisal is based on the premise that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local
environmental regulations and laws unless otherwise stated in the report; further that all applicable zoning,
building, and use regulations and restrictions of all types have been complied with unless otherwise stated in the
report; further, it is assumed that all required licenses, consents, permits, or other legislative or administrative
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
authority, (local, state, federal and/or private entity or organization) have been or can be obtained or renewed for
any use considered in the value estimate.
11. COMPONENT VALUES:
The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the
existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction
with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used.
12. AUXILIARY AND RELATED STUDIES:
No environmental or impact studies, special market study or analysis, highest and best use analysis study or
feasibility study has been requested or made unless otherwise specified in an agreement for services or in the
report.
13. DOLLAR VALUES, PURCHASING POWER:
The market value estimated, and the costs used, are as of the date of the estimate of value. All dollar amounts are
based on the purchasing power and price of the dollar as of the date of the value estimate.
14. INCLUSIONS:
Furnishings and equipment or personal property or business operations, except as specifically indicated and
typically considered as a part of real estate, have been disregarded with only the real estate being considered in
the value estimate unless otherwise stated. In some property types, business and real estate interests and values
are combined.
15. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, CONDITIONED VALUE:
Improvements proposed, if any, on or off-site, as well as any repairs required are considered, for purposes of this
appraisal, to be completed in good and workmanlike manner according to information submitted and/or
considered by the appraisers. In cases of proposed construction, the appraisal is subject to change upon
inspection of property after construction is completed.
16. VALUE CHANGE, DYNAMIC MAREET, INFLUENCES, ALTERATION OF ESTIMATE BY
APPRAISER:
The estimated market value, which is defined in the report, is subject to change with market changes over time;
value is highly related to exposure, time, promotional effort, terms, motivation, and conditions surrounding the
offering. The value estimate considers the productivity and relative attractiveness of the property physically and
economically in the marketplace.
In cases of appraisals involving the capitalization of income benefits, the estimate of market value or investment
value or value in use is a reflection of such benefits and appraiser's interpretation of income and yields and other
factors derived from general and specific client and market information. Such estimates are as of the date of the
estimate of value; they are thus subject to change as the market and value is naturally dynamic.
17. MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY:
It is assumed that the property which is the subject of this report will be under prudent and competent ownership
and management; neither inefficient nor superefficient.
18. FEE:
The fee for this appraisal or study is for the service rendered and not for the time spent on the physical report or
the physical report itself. Neither the employment to make the appraisal nor the compensation is contingent upon
the amount of the valuation reported.
19. TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
The appraiser is not qualified to detect hazardous waste and/or toxic materials. Any comment by the appraiser
that might suggest the possibility of the presence of such substances should not be taken as confirmation of the
presence of hazardous waste and/or toxic materials. Such determination would require investigation by a
qualified expert in the field of environmental assessment. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea -
formaldehyde foam insulation, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The
appraiser's value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that
would cause a loss in value unless otherwise stated in this report. No responsibility is assumed for any
environrriental conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The
appraiser's descriptions and resulting comments are the result of the routine observations made during the
appraisal process,
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
20. ENDANGERED SPECIES:
It is assumed that there are no endangered species present on or near the subject property which would adversely
influence the potential development of the site, and in the event that any such restrictions are identified, the
conclusions contained in this appraisal report are subject to revisions.
21. CHANGES, MODIFICATIONS:
The appraisers and/or officers of The Eastman Company, reserve the right to alter statements, analysis,
conclusion or any value estimate in the appraisal if there becomes known to us facts pertinent to the appraisal
process which were unknown to us when the report was finished.
Appraisal report and value estimate subject to change if physical or legal entity or financing is different than that
envisioned in this report.
22. ADA DISCLAIMER:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. 1(we) have not made a specific
compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various
detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property together with a detailed
analysis of the requirements of the ADA could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of
the requirements of the act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since I
(we) have no direct evidence relating to this issue, I (we) did not consider possible noncompliance with the
requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the property.
23. FIRREA/USPAP:
The Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), Title XI, was implemented
to protect federal financial and public policy interests in real estate related transactions requiring the services of
an appraiser. Regulatory agencies (FDIC, FRB, NCUA, OCC, OTS, and RTC) have issued virtually identical
regulations to provide uniformity in requirements for appraisals. It is our intention that the following report is in
compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice as promulgated by the Appraisal
Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation and the regulatory agency, if applicable.
24. ACCEPTANCE OF, AND/OR USE OF, THIS APPRAISAL REPORT BY CLIENT OR ANY THIRD
PARTY CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS. APPRAISER LIABILITY
EXTENDS ONLY TO STATED CLIENT, NOT SUBSEQUENT PARTIES OR USERS, and it is limited to
the amount of fee received by appraiser.
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER RICK MELLEN, MAI
EDUCATION:
B.S. Business Administration — Florida State University
M.B.A. — U.C.L.A.
TYPICAL PAST CLIENTELE:
Evertrust Bank
Mt. Rainier National Bank
Washington Mutual Savings Bank
Key Bank
First Mutual Bank
City of Renton
Port of Edmonds
Seattle Public Schools
Seattle City Light
U. S. Postal Service
Kent Public Schools
Buchan Brothers Investment Properties
Various Commercial and Residential Developers
King County— Real Property Division
King County Open Space Division
Various Private Individuals, Residential Developers
Charter Bank
Wells Fargo Bank
PROPERTIES APPRAISED:
Regal Financial Bank
Bank of Washington
Pierce Commercial Bank
METRO
U.S. Bank
Chevron, USA
Melco Industries
Boy Scouts of America
Security Pacific Bank
Viking Community Bank
Puget Sound Bank
First Interstate Bank
Frontier B an1c
Kitsap Bank
Anchor Savings Bank
Columbia Banlc
Arguss Communications
Twenty years experience appraising in the Puget Sound area, including:
Shopping Centers/Retail Complexes Motels
Residential Subdivisions Apartment Buildings
Right of Way/Condemnation Special Purpose Properties
Mobile Home Parks Mixed -Use Properties
Industrial/Manufacturing Properties Office Buildings
Land Valuation — Residential/Commercial/Industrial Marinas
DESIGNATION: Washington State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
(1100811)
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS:
Appraisal Institute — Designated MAI
The Eastman Company
THIS IS A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT & SHOULD BE BILLED TO PLANNING DEPART
CITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
Name of Applicant: Gendler & Mann, LLP on behalf of Meadowdale Marina,
LLC
Project Number: APL20110001
Project Location: 16111 76th Place West, Edmonds
Project Description: Notice of Application and Public Hearing for an appeal of
Building Officials Determination for replacement costs
and level of destruction and declaration of service.
City Contact: Leonard Yarberry, Building Official
leonard.yarberry@)ci.edmonds.wa.us
425.771.0220
Comments Due By: May 19, 2011 by 3:00 pm
Date: May 19, 2011
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Location: Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds
Please Publish on: May 5, 2011
Exhibit 9
AP L-2011-0001
cu
L
X N r°
°L Q
CIO
� < J
C
C6 O O
�zz
O (1)
U a) LJ._
Q cu
CL
Q
a)
0
z
0
C
O
V
CL
CL
Q
O
C)
E
Z
c�
3
4
0
C
3
0
75-
0
C
.
C
� N
U
G
O N
Q
=
::D
::D
0
0
0
0
O
d
�
d
w
`—" -� o
'Q
C
C
r.
(!i 2
°C
C.
O b G1
` — cB
O v
'O
)
d
0a)
OQ
C
N
O, U cd O
Cr
C
E
a. a
'a
g)
_
L
Y
ti
� C
a.v
ti
r.+
U
O
r
N O L
d
L
CCmco
"O
W i
N
'� •'"
E-� U
•N .�
OL
0
0
0
O
U
O O
C
O
A
Cd
w Q
O w
a' cL
w
0
C
O
V
CL
CL
Q
O
C)
E
Z
c�
3
4
0
N
_N
a�
0
N
N
O
ti
L6
N
E
O_
O
O
cYi
O
N
N
Q
Q
I
Z
Q
w
LO
O
LO
N
Q
O
d
co
_V
.Q
L
Cs
v
i
U
v
CL
a
O
M
c
O
r
.
C
� N
U
G
O N
O
b
p N
O
+-
W
O
O
Q -
d
`—" -� o
'Q
C
v
OU_
(!i 2
°C
C.
O b G1
` — cB
O v
J
®
W
0a)
OQ
N
O, U cd O
Cr
� E
0
0
m a)
®
D U
ti
� C
ti
ti
•~-� N 00
U
U
r
N O L
L
Cc
G
L
CCmco
r
Q L
Q
'� •'"
E-� U
•N .�
0
0
0
0
N
_N
a�
0
N
N
O
ti
L6
N
E
O_
O
O
cYi
O
N
N
Q
Q
I
Z
Q
w
LO
O
LO
N
Q
O
d
co
_V
.Q
L
Cs
v
i
U
v
CL
a
O
M
: 'cl o o
r
.
C
G
r
O
N
O
b
O
O
+-
W
O
O
Q -
d
'Q
C
v
o
m
°C
C.
O b G1
=- a;
J
®
OQ
N
O, U cd O
Cr
� E
-�
O
CO)
O
ca
®
D U
a.
a
N
: 'cl o o
+3Cd 'o4rN
b
O O O O N
.� O
O
+-
�. o UUP
O Q �,
d
o �U�c�v
W
o
bA s
O b G1
O
O
O, U cd O
O
cd
9 O
o
O
N
•~-� N 00
'd O o
O
U vi O Q.
1 bA o o
>1
'� •'"
E-� U
•N .�
Vo N
4
U
Cd
ani • o � p., °� �
� 4�
o
0 00
: ,O O
bA o o
v O
O
o
��+ W
O
O
N .0 'd
.,:j
N
O�
V
Ur C)
Z
5 a)
0.
°o¢
03 .r a�
o
M
O
td �" -a P-+
�L O
O p
_
o�UVj�"
0
4O bA O,
4-+N
$-4O
°
to
cn + C'stn
�
.Si � Cd � • �
o
�J
P. bA fl
'
�
O
U
'CS N
r O 0
Cd
� -Z H 24 'A Q
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH
�j.Of FOAfOH�
CITY OF EDMONDS
NOTICE OF A B0C HEARING
Name of pp igant: Gen er &Mann: :P on e a o —
Meadowdale Marina, LLC
Project Number: APL20110001'
Pro Oct Location: 16111 76th Place West, Edmonds
Pro act Description: Notice of Appplication and Public Hearing for
an appeal of Building Officials f3etermination,for replacement
costs and level of destruction and declaration of service
City Contact:. Leonard Yarberry, Building. Official '
leonard.yarberry@cl.edmonds.wa.us
425.771.0220
Comments Due By: Appril 21, 2011 byy 3:00 pm
HEARING INFORMATION
Date: April 21, 2011
Time: 3:00 P.M.
Location: Council Chambers; Public Safety Complex
250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds
Published: April 7, 2011.
REcEIVED
,APR 120111
EDMONDS CITY CLERK
S.S.
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath deposes and says that she is Principal Clerk of
THE HERALD, a daily newspaper printed and published in the City of Everett, County of
Snohomish, and State of Washington; that said newspaper is a newspaper of general
circulation in said County and State; that said newspaper has been approved as a legal
newspaper by order of the Superior Courtof Snohomish County and that the notice
Notice of Annlication
Gendler & Mann, LLP
APL20110001
a printed copy of which is hereunto attached, was published in said newspaper proper and not in
supplement form, in the regular and entire edition of said paper on the following days and
times, namely:
April 07, 2011
and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period.
sworn to before me this ,
I
wil, 2011.,/
7th
otary Pub l'N,,Wd for thState of Washington, residing at Everett, Snohomish
County.
Account Name: City of Edmonds Account Number: 101416 Order Number: 0001732778
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DEC 2 0 2005
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF EDMONDS
In re: Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision
for the Application by Meadowdale Marina,
LLC. SM -05-94
1. Decision Appealed
No.
NOTICE OF APPEAL
This is an appeal of the December 8, 2005 Findings, Conclusion and Decision of the
Hearing Examiner, City of Edmonds, regarding the application by Meadowdale Marina, LLC,
for a shoreline permit application to repair/reconstruct the timber portions of the Meadowdale
Marina pier. A copy of the decision is attached.
2. Appellant
The appellant is the applicant
Meadowdale Marina, LLC,
c/o Vladan Milosavljevic, General Manager
23423 Brier Road
Brier, WA 98036.
The appellant is represented in this
David S. Mann
Gendler & Mann, LLP
1424 Fourth Ave., Suite 1015
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 621-8868
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 1
Exhibit 10
AP L-2011-0001
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3. Reasons Why the Decision is Wrong
Appellant believes that the Hearing Examiner erred as a matter of law in Condition No.
2 of his decision. Specifically, the Hearing Examiner erroneously concluded that if one of
the existing noncomforming buildings is moved a. nX distance, it must be demolished.
The application before the City of Edmonds is to replace the creosote coated timber
piles and supports with concrete and steel as a way to repair damaged portions of the facility
and remove harmful materials from the marine environment. In order to accomplish this
beneficial action, the existing buildings on the deck of the marina necessarily need to be
moved, at least temporarily, so that the deck structure can be replaced. Forcing the
destruction ofthe existing, valid nonconforming uses, simply because the owner seeks to make
environmentally beneficial repairs is unduly harsh and violates the intent and language of the
City Shoreline Master Program, Development Code and the Shoreline Management Act.
DATED this 19'h day of December, 2005.
NOTICE OF APPEAL - 2
Respectfully submitted,
GENDLE & ,LLP
By: _
David . Mann
WSBA No. 21068
Attorneys for Appellants
She described the schedule and the Board's request to develop a draft plan by the end of March. As the
list currently contains more projects than funding, the Board asked staff to develop high, medium and low
tax rate scenarios. The Board then plans to take the draft plan out for extensive public review and
comment. If a decision is made to do a ballot measure this year, the Board will need to adopt a final plan
by the end of June. Sound Transit is in discussion with the Regional Transportation Investment District
(RTID) regarding a joint road/transit ballot measure.
In response to a commonly asked question, why should someone who does not use transit pay for it, Ms.
Earl explained transit benefited you even if you do not use it because each person added to a bus or train
removed their car from the road. She also commented on Transit Oriented Development occurring in the
regional which provides economic benefits.
Ms. Earl explained Sound Transit took their accountability and transparency very seriously and she
provided a list of the reviews that are conducted. She referred to the third quarter 2005 milestones report,
advising the yearend report would be presented to the Board at their January 26 meeting.
Councilmember Moore thanked Ms. Earl for the incredible work she and the Sound Transit Board have
done, commenting on the turnaround of the agency in the past six years.
Councilmember Marin commented on how thrilling it was to see up close what was happening with
Sound Transit. He advised of a ceremony Wednesday morning to launch the tunnel boring machine, and
commented on the advanced technology used in the Beacon Hill tunnel. He noted Sound Transit was
poised to have link light rail from Pine Street to the airport by the end of 2009 and potentially to Everett
in the future.
Councilmember Moore complimented Sound Transit on their improved signage with regard to Sound
Transit dollars at work.
Councilmember Wambolt stated Kemper Freeman, owner of Bellevue Square, was not a fan of Sound
Transit and inquired about his primary opposition. Ms. Earl answered he was a proponent that the region
could build its way out of congestion via aggressive road expansion and he did not view the amount of
people transit carried over a 24 hour per day period was worth the expense. She recalled Mr. Freeman's
statement that public transportation only carries about 2-3% of the travelers per day which she
acknowledged was correct on a 24-hour basis. However, during the peak hour, public transportation
carried approximately 40% of the travelers, noting public transportation was needed most during peak
hours.
5. CLOSED RECORD REVIEW OF AN APPEAL OF A HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
REGARDING THE SHORELINE PERMIT APPLICATION TO REPAIR / RECONSTRUCT THE
TIMBER PORTIONS OF THE MEADOWDALE MARINA PIER. THE APPEAL IS
SPECIFICALLY REGARDING A CONDITION OF THE RESULTS IN THE LOSS OF THAT
BUILDING'S NONCONFORMING STATUS AND RESULTS IN ITS REQUIRED DEMOLITION.
(APPLICANT/APPELLANT: MEADOWDALE MARINA LLC, VLADAN MILOSAVUEVIC AS
GENERAL MANAGER — FILE NO. SM -05-94)
In accordance with the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine, Mayor Haakenson asked whether any
Councilmembers had any conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose regarding this matter.
Councilmember Marin advised he had been in the building 23 years ago.
Councilmember Wambolt advised he had attended the Hearing Examiner's hearing.
Council President Dawson disclosed at least one of the parties of record had contributed to her campaign.
Edmonds City Council Apr
Ja
Exhibit 11
AP L-2011-0001
Councilmember Plunkett advised he had been in the building 35 years ago. He noted because campaign
contributions were reported to the State as part of the Public Disclosure Commission, contributions were
already disclosed. However, Councilmembers take the extra step in cases such as this to disclose
contributions made by parties of record. He disclosed he received a $100 contribution to his City Council
campaign from Diana Clay, $25 from Laurie Dressler, and $25 from John Quast.
Councilmember Moore advised she had good friends who were parties of record and therefore would
recuse herself. She left the building.
Councilmember Olson advised a party of record contributed to her campaign and one of the parties of
record was her campaign treasurer. She advised that would not affect her ability to make a fair decision.
Councilmember Wambolt disclosed that Laurie Dressler and John Quast had contributed to his campaign
but that would not affect his decision in the matter.
Councilmember Orvis advised some of the parties of record may have contributed to his campaign.
Mr. Snyder asked Councilmember Wambolt if he participated in the Hearing Examiner hearing by
testifying or submitting any comments. Councilmember Wambolt answered he had no participation. Mr.
Snyder asked if when he attended, he had taken the Oath of Office as a Councilmember. Councilmember
Wambolt answered no.
As he could be asked to break a tie vote, Mayor Haakenson disclosed he had been on the pier in the past
and had met with the applicant/appellant but that would not affect his ability to make a fair decision. He
asked the Councilmembers whether their disclosures would affect their ability to make a fair and
reasonable decision. Councilmembers answered their disclosures would not affect their ability to make a
fair and reasonable decision in the matter.
Mayor Haakenson asked whether any of the parties of record objected to any Councilmembers' or his
participation in this matter. There were no objections voiced. Mayor Haakenson established time limits
of 10 minutes for staff's presentation, and 20 minutes for the appellant's presentation.
Senior Planner Steve Bullock advised the applicant applied for a Shoreline Permit which was heard by the
Hearing Examiner in November. The Hearing Examiner approved the Shoreline Permit. Tonight's
appeal was related to one condition the Hearing Examiner placed on the project — prior to the hearing it
was not clear how the pier would be reconstructed; at the hearing it was clarified the applicant's plan was
to demolish the northern half of the old timber pier, completely reconstruct it with concrete piles, concrete
pile caps and concrete decking, move the existing timber building on the south half of the timber pier onto
the newly constructed section, demolish and reconstruct the deck where the building had been located,
and move the building back to its original location. The City's code, both the Shoreline Master Program
and the code related to nonconforming buildings/structures address the continuance, retention, and
maintenance of nonconforming buildings and under what circumstances they are required to be brought
into compliance. In this case, because the pier is over water and the current Shoreline Master Program
allows buildings over water only in very limited circumstances, the Shoreline Master Program requires if
a building is moved for any reason, it must be brought into conformance.
Because this issue arose at the Hearing Examiner hearing; the Hearing Examiner asked for a clarifying
memo from staff and allowed the applicant an opportunity for rebuttal. Mr. Bullock advised that letter
was included in the Hearing Examiner decision as Exhibit 9 and 10, pages 140-143 of the packet. He
noted pages 7 and 8 of the Hearing Examiner's decision contained a fairly exhaustive analysis of the
applicant's application, staff's memo, the applicant's response and his analysis of dictionary terms, etc.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2006
Page 5
used to reach his conclusion that if the building was moved for any reason whatsoever, it must be brought
into compliance which in this case, results in its demolition.
Applicant
David Mann, representing Meadowdale Marina LLC, requested five minutes be retained for rebuttal.
He explained this was an appeal on one narrow issue of the Hearing Examiner's decision. He referred to
page 26 of the packet that contained the Land Use Permit application and a general description of the
existing conditions and the proposed change. He explained the pier was currently constructed with
creosote timbers, timber -fixed pilings, pier decking and the two large buildings, one metal and one wood.
Their proposal was to remove the creosote treated timber piles and caps and wood decking and replace it
with steel pilings and a concrete deck. The trestle approach, rather than the existing solid wood, would be
graded metal to allow sunlight to pass through to the sea bottom. He summarized the proposal would
improve the existing situation by replacing the creosote with steel and concrete, allow more sunlight to
pass through as well as improve public access. He noted their proposal would not change the view as the
existing facilities would remain.
Mr. Mann explained the application process included a biological and environmental evaluation, pages
36-84 of the packet, and after reviewing the environmental checklist, the City issued a Determination of
Non -Significance, page 119 of the packet which was not appealed. He emphasized that although there
were parties of record to the Hearing Examiner's hearing, the City's Determination of Non -Significance
was not appealed.
Tonight was an appeal of the ruling that as part of construction the existing buildings could not be moved
at all on the pier and if moved at all, they must be demolished. The proposal presented to the Hearing
Examiner was to construct most of the deck, move the buildings out of the way onto the newer decking,
construct the pier underneath the buildings, and move the buildings back. He did not find the Hearing
Examiner's decision, that buildings could not be moved at all and if they were moved they must be
demolished, to be a fair or correct application of the City's code.
He noted a permit may not have even been required, pointing out the State's Shoreline regulations allow
maintenance and repair to existing structures. He noted the State's definition of repair included
replacement of an existing structure. As long as the existing structure was replaced with something that
was comparable in size, shape, etc., a Shoreline Permit was not required. However, Meadowdale Marina
did apply for a Shoreline Permit.
He referred to page 6 of the Hearing Examiner's decision noting there was no dispute that the existing
marina and buildings were allowed uses under the existing Commercial Waterfront zoning and that a pier
structure could be built in that location today under the existing Shoreline Master Program (page 10 of the
Hearing Examiner's decision). He pointed out rebuilding the pier would make it better as it would be an
improvement to the environment and there would be no change to the view. He concluded the Hearing
Examiner approved a complete rebuild of the pier; the only issue was whether the buildings could be
moved during the rebuild.
Mr. Mann explained the Hearing Examiner relied on Section 23.10.220, page 80 of his decision, which
took a very narrow view of nonconforming structures, requiring it to conform with the code if it was.
moved. He objected to this narrow view, pointing out the City allowed nonconforming uses to be rebuilt
when damaged up to 75% of their value. The intent of the movement section in the code referred to
moving the overall main use somewhere else and he did not believe it applied to buildings that were on
top of the main use, in this instance, the pier. He recalled referring the Hearing Examiner to Section
17.40.020 regarding nonconforming uses, specifically subsection E, that addressed moving buildings,
stating if a building was moved, it must comply with setbacks. He noted setbacks did not apply in this
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2006
Page 6
instance and that section did not require a building that was moved to comply with any other provisions.
He concluded Section 17.40.020(E) did not prohibit nonconforming buildings from being moved. He
noted the Hearing Examiner found the Shoreline Master Program was more specific.
Mr. Mann recommended the City's overall code be considered, in particular the nonconforming sections
and buildings on top of a primary use. There were contradictory provisions in the City's code but if read
together they would allow the pier to be rebuilt, the buildings to be moved as long as they remained on
the pier and remained the same size and shape and occupied the same floor space. He concluded it was a
matter of common sense; their intent was to make an improvement to the pier but in the process they
needed to move the buildings out of the way to replace the pier underneath which he said should be
allowed without the penalty of demolishing the buildings. If that was not allowed and the buildings could
not be moved, the pier and decking would remain as they exist today.
Mr. Mann requested the City Council strike the sentence, "Therefore, if the timber structure is to be
moved any distance at all to allow for the reconstruction of the pier on which it is located, the building
may not be moved back to its current location and should be demolished", which is found in the Hearing
Examiner Conclusion b2 on page 8 and the sentence, "As noted above if the timber structure is moved to
allow for the reconstruction of the pier, the building shall be demolished" be deleted from Condition 3 on
page 11. He requested the Council allow this proposal to move forward, noting it was good for the
community and the pier.
Parties of Record
Roger Hertrich, Edmonds, stated he attended the Hearing Examiner hearing due to environmental
concerns but found those concerns would be addressed properly. He disagreed with the Hearing
Examiner's decision, particularly staff's recommendation regarding the narrow interpretation of the Code
in view of the City's intent to save historic structures. He pointed out the Meadowdale Marina was an
historic structure. He provided an example of an historic house building on pilings and the need to raise
the house to construct a concrete foundation, noting this was the same as the request made by the
Meadowdale Marina, move the structure to complete construction. He did not believe the Code meant
moving a building up or over, as long as it was returned to its original location. He found the
nonconforming section of the code too strict and recommended this narrow interpretation be corrected to
allow the history of Edmonds to be saved.
There were no other parties of records who wished to provide comment and Mayor Haakenson closed the
public participation portion of this item.
Mr. Mann had no rebuttal and Mr. Bullock had no further comment.
Councilmember Plunkett referred to Mr. Mann's comment that there were conflicts in the Code and the
Hearing Examiner's indication in his Conclusions on page 8 (b2) that the more stringent of the code
sections should apply. Mr. Bullock agreed the Shoreline Master Program ruled.
City Attorney Scott Snyder referred to Section 17.40.020 regarding nonconforming buildings which states
in part A, definition, a nonconforming building is one which once met zoning standards and site
development standards after construction that no longer conforms to such standards due to enactment of
an amendment to the zoning ordinance of the city. With regard to the provision sited regarding
movement and relocation, paragraph F, he noted that was under this zoning code definition. He also
referred to Section 23.10., the introduction to the Shoreline Master Program, which contains in section
.010 - .045 basic information regarding the applicability of the Shoreline Master Program and relationship
of the Shoreline Master Program to other documents and how to use the Shoreline Master Program.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2006
Page 7
Councilmember Plunkett referred to the comment that the proposal was similar to moving an historic
home, explaining staff and the Hearing Examiner were strictly interpreting the code due to the
applicability of the Shoreline Master Program for the pier, which differed from a home on land.
Councilmember Orvis spoke in favor of upholding the Hearing Examiner's decision, agreeing with the
strict enforcement of the Shoreline Master Program and the Hearing Examiner's interpretation of the
code.
COUNCILMEMBER ORVIS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCIL PRESIDENT DAWSON, TO
UPHOLD THE HEARING EXAMINER'S DECISION AND DENY THE APPEAL.
Council President Dawson commented if the nonconforming ordinance or the Shoreline Master Program
was too strict, changes must be made legislatively. If the intent was to allow buildings over water, the
code needed to be changed as the code did not currently allow that use. The only way to read and
interpret the Code was as the Hearing Examiner did and require the building be demolished if the building
were moved in any way.
Councilmember Marin spoke in favor of the motion, acknowledging the applicant had good intentions
and what was proposed sounded reasonable; however, the combined codes overruled the proposal.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
6. AUDIENCE COMMENTS
Christin Leupold, Edmonds Police Foundation, referred to the Police Foundation's fundraiser to
purchase a second K-9 unit. She advised the goal was $40,000 and $10,000 had already been raised. She
invited the Edmonds community to contribute via mailing donations to the Edmonds Police Foundation,
K-9 Unit, P.O. Box 303, Edmonds, WA 98020. She explained that the Edmonds Police Foundation was a
not-for-profit organization that had 501(c)(3) status; therefore contributions were tax deductible. She
commented on the 55 retail partners in the community who were collecting donations and had K9 wrist
bands and car cutouts. The names of those contributing $25 or more would be published in the Police
Foundation's ads every three weeks unless anonymity was requested. She concluded the success of the
campaign depended on the generosity of the Edmonds community and she urged the community's
support.
REPORT ON CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OF JANUARY 10 2006.
Finance Committee
Councilmember Olson reported the Committee appointed' her as Chair. The Committee also discussed a
modification to vacation accrual that would allow non -represented supervisors to accrue the same amount
of vacation as division level managers. Following discussion, the committee agreed to continue this item
to the February meeting.
Community Services/Development Services Committee
Councilmember Plunkett advised the Committee discussed the 81h Avenue walkway between Alder and
Walnut which the Council discussed at their November 15 meeting and directed staff to increase.
markings and engage in discussion with one of the property owners on the southeast side who would need
to allow people to walk on their property. Subsequent to the Council's discussion, that property owner
was less interested in having people walk on his property and staff began to consider other alternatives.
The Committee recommended the full Council consider a proposal to expend $17,000 to construct a
pathway through the center of the right-of-way to connect Alder and Walnut streets.
Edmonds City Council Approved Minutes
January 17, 2006
Page 8
In RE the Application of Meadowdale Marina LLC, Vladan Milosavljevic as General
Manager. File No: SM -2005-94
Meadowdale Marina
This matter came on for hearing before the Edmonds City Council on January 17, 2006.
The City Council heard this matter as a closed record appeal of the decision of the Edmonds
Hearing Examiner.
For its findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Edmonds City Council hereby adopts
by reference the decision of the Edmonds Hearing Examiner dated December 8, 2005, as fully as
if herein set forth. A copy of the Hearing Examiner's decision was attached as Exhibit 1 in the
record of the proceeding before the City Council.
DECISION
The City Council finds that it is obligated to enforce the codes as written. While the
applicant's proposal has many positive aspects, the primary and deciding issue before the City
Council relates to whether an existing building on the pier can be moved. The provisions of
ECDC 23.10.220(c) are clear -- no such movement is allowed. These provisions are specific to
the Shoreline Management Program and therefore, control over the more general provisions of
the Community Development Code, specifically ECDC 17.40.020, which relate to another topic
-- nonconforming uses as they relate to setback and other bulk zoning requirements. The City
Council finds that the specifics should control the general, and more particularly that the specific
provisions of the Shoreline Management Program must be applied to the applications under
Shoreline Management Program.
DONE this 14HI day of 12006.
CITY OF EDMONDS
By:
M or G 0
Haakenson
ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED:
By: . �.4 a l_
Sandra S. Chase, City Clerk
Exhibit 12
(WSS624259.DOC;1/00006.900000/) AP L-2011-0001
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
W. Scott Snyder, City Attokn y
{ WSS624259.DOC;1 /00006.900000/}