6503 EVERGREEN WAY SPORTYS BEEF AND BREW 2018-01-02 MF Import

�� � b � y H N N q � y � ro H ro .j,� � H O ��a 7 H Eq , N y O N N n � N � `" `' zHvro+ H O N I I�"O° os Gregg Ortega Appeal 8-92 Page -3- 4. On August 5, 1992, the Appeliant made a building permit dpplication for an G40 square foot additiun to the building on-site. The proposed improvements, as submitted by the Appellant, are expected to be $33,799. This is less than 50% of the fair market value of the oroperty on-site as determined by the 1991 tax assessment of the property. The 1991 tax assessment on the property is $219,200. 5. � The City of Everett Public Works Department decided that street improvements are required for the proposed improvement. The City contended that the improvements should have been made ir, ':989 and must now be made with the 1992 improvements. The City submitted that EMC Chapter 13.68, the enabling legislation for street imrrovemer,!s, does not have an expiration oate for comoliance. It was the City's argument that because the City failed to require the initial street improvements during the 1989 remodel, they can be required with the second building permit. 7. The Appellant submitted that the fair ma�ket val! ie of the pi �perty in 1989 vias much greater than the assessed value as determined in 1997. The Appellant submitted a statement from the Baytown Escrow Compan� indicating that in 1989 the subject propeRy sold for $392,455.07. According to an escrow statement submitied by the Appellant, the value of the property should be based on the total amount paid for the site. (It is noted that the legal description of the property that is identified in the escrow staternent is not the same legal description as the property that is identified in the 1985 �onstruction permit.) The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jw�sdictional authority to h�ld a hearing and to issue a decision on this administrative appeal. 2. Street improvements are required in the City of Everett for any additions, alterations, �� or repairs within any twelve-month period which excaeds 50% of the current market value of an existing building or facility on the property. This is required pursuant. to EMC 13.68.020. 3. G� The City has not proven the fair market" value of the property as of October 31, 1989. The City relied upon 1987 tax assessments but did not provide updated values resulting from appreciation of the property for 1989. The Appellant su5mitted that the property value exceeds the tax assessment for 1987. The difficulty with the Appellant's information is that the escrow statement that he provided was not applicable to the subjec: property.