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

O 4 O �q M � y fA H�" n H G °z n o Ht�o N � Cg 7 H tV t�� � °nov~i �c�ar z H m H O N I +► Gregg Ortega Appeal 8-92 Page -3- 4. On August 5, 1992, the Appellant made a building permit application for an 840 square foot addition 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 property 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 Rublic Works Department decided that street improvements are hould ha�e been madean 1989 a d mu t nowlbe made wi h the 1992 Provements improvements. 6. The City submitted that EMC Chapter 13.68, the enabling legislation for street improvements, does not have an expiration date for compliance. 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 buildinn permit. 7. The Appellant submitted that the fair market value of the property in 1989 was much greater than the assessed value as determined in 1987. The Appeilant submitted a statement from the Baytown Escrow Company indicating that in 1989 the subject property sold for $392,455.07. According to an escrow statement submitted by the Appellant, the value of the property should be based on the total amount paid for the site. (It is noted that the le�al description of the property that is identified in the escrow statement is not the same legal description as the property that is identified in the 1989 construction permit.) •��_ • A 0�a 1. The Hearing Examiner of the City of Everett has jurisdictional authority to hold 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 iwelve-month period which e:xceeds 50% of the current market value of an existing building or facility on the property. This is required pursuant to EMC 13.68.020. ��1. 3. The City has not proven the fair markeC' value of the property as of October 31, 1989. The City relied upon 19871ax assessments but did not provide updated values resulting from appreciation of the property for 1989. 4. The Appellant submitted that th2 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 subjer,t property.