Full Text
Appellant's Exhibit 103 (as referenced in June 30, 2017 Appellant WPDC Cleveland LLC's Witness and Exhibit List) ---PAGE BREAK--- Laing^AaronJ^ Gary Lee Thursday, August 08, 2013 4:05 PM Jason Jones RE: The Cleveland building From; Sent: To: Subject: Jason, I have done some research regarding your question and have determined that in order to use the building as you are sho\A/ing, the building will need other significant improvements to make it occupy-able for retail/commercial use, inciuding providing a restroom and doing seismic upgrades (according to the building Department). You shouid contact the Building Department directly about probable requirements. Because the assessed value of the building is only $23,000 (according to the K.C. Assessor), it is estimated that the cost to make the minimal improvements to the building (to make it occupy-able for retail/commercial use and do the improvements you show in your sketch) will be at least $23,000, or more than 100% of the existing value. Since the City has an adopted pian for street improvements at this intersection, the modifications to the building would trigger the requirement for full street frontage improvements, similar to what is shown below, thus several feet of the east side of the building wouid need to be removed and a wider sidewalk (with new curb and gutter) would need to be built with the modification to the building. The trigger for requiring street frontage improvements with building modifications is when the cost of construction/modification equals or exceeds 100% of the existing value of property improvements. I am sure that your friends (the property owners) have heard this before with other proposals/inquiries to improve the building. In any case, the fruit stand, or any other retail use, will require significant upgrades to the building to make it occupy-able for use (even with few or no architectural modifications)- and thus would trigger the frontage improvements and requirement to reduce the size of the building (in order to widen the sidewalk). The major reason for this is because the building was originally constructed for storage, and not for retail/commercial occupancy, and thus the building was not originally improved to retail/commercial occupancy standards. Let me know if you have any other questions about this. Senior Planner (425) 556-2418 City of Redmond, M.5: 2SPL Redmond WA 98073-9710 PO Box 97010 1 Appellant WPDC Cleveland's Exhibit 103 - Page 1 of 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- II * f T-Ej I f, ; T i: ^j^nstru 'rv ‘Ws ' Wiu From: Jason Jones [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED] Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2013 12:31 PM To: Gary Lee Subject: The Cleveland building Hi Gary, hope you are enjoying the weather, if you are like me, from yourwindowl My office needs to implement a recess" policy when it's this nice out. I was in the other week for another project but mentioned this one to you, this is my friends warehouse building at the corner of Cleveland and 164*^ at; 16390 Cleveland St My friend is trying to get it ready to re-rent it to a couple who wants to do a fruit stand in the building. I have sketched up a rough layout of the floor plan of what they were thinking. The object is to do very little to the outside but add a little more texture to it and minimize the interior Tl work. u 2 Appellant WPDC Cleveland's Exhibit 103 - Page 2 of 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- The main question is do you see any problem with what we are wanting to do from a city stand point? Please see attached for a little more visual explanation. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions at [PHONE REDACTED] Thank you for your help Jason Jones Click here to report this email as spam. 3 Appellant WPDC Cleveland's Exhibit 103 - Page 3 of 3