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

�� ro 10 C G H 7 H N r K n H � O m O � H � N M � H � °zner r+ cn o c� • n❑ � H R: N y °nora �`0�"c H O N Gregg Ortega Appeal 8-92 Page -5- The first reason is that the City relied solely on 1987 tax assessment records. f\Ithough no testimony and evidence were submitted, it is common kno�vledge that the value of real estate, inr,luding commercial real estate, increased betweer� 1987 and 1989. The City provided no evidence of the value of the property in 1989. Thus the City has failed to prove that ti �� 1989 irtiprovements were, in fact, 50% or greater than the fair market value of the property Secondly, the property �Nas purchased in 1989. The purchase price of the property is more indicative of the fair market value price than the assessed price. Although the evidence submitted by'the Appellant regarding the purchase of the subject property appears to be erroneous (the escrow sheet appears to be for another parcel of land), uncontradicted testimony was received ftom the Appellant that the purchase price was, in fact, significantly more than the assessed price. Based on this testimony and the lack of evidence submitted by the City, it appears that the improvements made in 1989 to the building were, in fact, less than 50% of the fair market value of the property. j p� �1` tn addition, the City's argument that Chapter 13.68 of the Everett Municipal Code does i� not have an expiration date for compliance is not supported by the ordinances contained in that chapter. EMC 13.68.020 is explicit that the additions, alterations, and I'.� �� repairs are to be made within a twelve-month period. Thus it would appear that cnly �,e those repairs in any twelve-month period are to be considered in the calculation of I building permits pursuant to EMC 13.68.020. Further, the fact that the ordinance specificaliy requires review of the "currenP' market value is indicative that the City Council did not intend for this to be a never ending ordinance to calculate I��' improvements within the City of Everett. ,� Finaily, the City's impoaition of the improvements is contrary to recent 5upreme Court �� cases in the State of Washington. In Lutheran Dav Care vs Snohomish Countv 119 Wn.2d 91, Robinson vs. Seattle 119 Wn.2d 34, and �itra vs. Seattle 119 Wn.2d 01, the Court was quite clear on substantive due process. In order for substantive due process � � to exist within the building permit process, !he Applicant (in this particular case the ��,� Appellant) must bcj aware of the specific requirements of the ordinance which is bein� interpreted. Because of the vagueness of EMC 13.68.020 and its reliance by the Ciqi �, for calculation of the value oF the property and the time ftsme for calculating the value �.� � of improvements, the Cit��'s interpretation flies in the face of these recent decisions. The Appellant was not placed on notice of the process for calculating costs for building permits.