5530 EVERGREEN WAY 2018-01-02 MF Import

�l �— �1 , ro File: 5530 Evergreen Way and WO File 1377 FROM Celia everett OATE February 22, 1984 susaecr Ordinance 555-78/Records Keeping CI7Y OF EVERETf,EVEFETf WASHINGTON Page Two When the next similarly situated discretionary application occurs City Council has not provided the necessary guidance to us as to what course of action they expect from us: ie, does Bolser represent a change in direction or a skipped beat? z 0 LAST - There is another important situation that appears to be a problem with � regard to Bolser and may be occuring more broadly. ,�1, During todays public hearing, some specific inquires were made by City Council � � about the two Bolser remodel permits. The address file (5530 Evergreen Way) was retreived from the Building Department rather than Public Works (because of the v, m close proximity) to respond to the inquiry. � o mo While the significance was not preceived at the time, the Building Department file o 3 contained more permits than just the 2 building permits identified from Pt�blic � _ Works files. Since the 50% 555 threshold was nearly met bv the 45% already �_ -+ identified remodel, the newly disclosed permits would have provided the necessary Q = tool t� gain the needed improvements on Evergreen Way. Again, it is the 50% n � building permit threshold in Ordinance 555-78 that continues to be the City's best �- _ enforcement tool and it was not used. = N < T it is my considered opinion that if we had told City Council that 555 definitel did � a apply (which is contrary to what the Assistant City Attorney was able to say , then = m standard street improvements would have been required. The additional permits m N contained in the Building Department files (that are not in the Public Works files) o r do in fact bring Bolser under 555 - independent of the rezone�and �pfils would � N have required Bolser to install improvements several years ago if the Fermits had 3 � been properly identified and filed. � � • m a The records keeping portion of ihis problem (whether it is unique to Bolser or not) p will be resolved in the months ahead as the Building officials relocate and gain = daily contact with Public Works Officials to communicate EVERY permit. _ � It seems unlikely that this problem is unique to Bolser unless it occured = surreptitiously - which seems even less likely. Since this "records problem" will y shortly resolve itself, the real problem is wi�at to do about Bolser and 555. o -� Bolser is in violation of Ordinance 555-78. If we pursue this, Bolser will preceive it ,"., as harassment. If we pursue it and he challenges it - the Court may even preceive it as harassment. City Council may preceive it as going beyond what they ordered (unless we go back to them with what we now know). Even though Bolser has not been "up front" with his neighbors and the City; it appears that the least offensive course of action is to do nothing. I ,, i