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

�� m b � C 7 H N H � N K n H � � y � N O LV H O � � f�1 zy y � r N H nov~i ��tra H O N � � e�n-,: � � �� Gregg Ortega Appeal8-92 Page -5- no testimony and ev dence w'tere submftted, ft is common knowledge that the vallue o fh real estate, including commercial real estate, increased�b 9S9e Thus the City has fa led City provided no evidence of the value of the prope�ty to prove that the 1989 improvements were, in fact, 50% or greater than the fair market value of the property Secondly, the property was purchased in 1989. The purchase price of the propertY is more indicative of the fair markellant regardi g the pu chase of the sub elct property evidence submitted by the App ears to be for another parcel af land), appears to be erroneous (the escrow sheet app ellant ihat the purchase price was, uncontradicted testimony was received from the App in f2ct, significantly more than the assessed ears t at the mp olvements rc ade in 1989 lack of evidence submitted by the City, it app to the building were, in fact, less than 50% of the fair market value of 1he property. In addition, the Cify's argument that Chapter 13.68 of the Everett Municipal Code does not have an expiration date for compliance is not supported by the ordinances contained in that chapter. EMC 13.68.0?.0 is explicit that the additions, e�aef that onlynd repairs are to be made within a twelve-month period. Thus it wouid app those rep e�rmits pursuant t EMC P3.68 020. tFurti e�nthe fact that the ord ntance f building p specifically requires review of the "currenY' market value is indicative that the City Council did not intend for this to be a never ending ordinance to calculate improvements within the City of Everett. cases in the State of W shington In Lutherr� a� �?fer vs SnohomishUCountv 119� Wn.2d 91, Robinson vs Seattle 119 Wn.2d 34, and �itra v� 12 »y `�'�n.�u 01, the Court was o,uite clear on substantive due process• I'cant (I�rtor S a� cula'r caseethe cess to exist within the building permit process, the App nterp�etedmBecause of the vaguenesscof EMC 13 68.020 and itsreliancelby the C'ty ofrimprovetmentst the City's nteepretat on fl es in the fa e of these ecelntldec s ons�ue The Appellant was not placed o n n o t i c e o f t h e process for calculating costs for building permits.