Document Redmond_doc_740424f084

APPEAL OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT FOR ORIGINS CANNABIS (LAND-2017-00207) BUILDING PERMIT # BLDG-2016-09802/BPLN-2016-02092 and BPLN-2017-00445 PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT TO HEARING EXAMINER MEMO TO: Sharon Rice, Hearing Examiner FROM: Planning Department DATE: August 2, 2017 PREPARED BY: Gary Lee, Senior Planner (425) 556-2418 SUBJECT: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OF THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR ORIGINS TYPE I PERMIT (FOR TENANT IMPROVEMENTS, EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS, AND CHANGE OCCUPANCY); BUILDING PERMIT #BLDG-2016-09802 AND BPLN- 2017-00445. SCOPE OF WORK: Change of Occupancy Tenant Improvements to divide building into multiple retail suites, and storage (Exhibits J – Original Building Permit Application, Exhibit K – Approved Original Plans, Exhibit B – Building Permit Revision Application, and Exhibit C – Approved Revised Architectural Plans). REQUEST: The appellant is requesting the Hearing Examiner reverse the decision to approve the Origins building permit and deny the application for the subject building permit. HEARING DATE: August 2, 2017 ATTACHMENTS EXHIBIT A: Appeal Form EXHIBIT B: Building Permit Revision Application EXHIBIT C: Approved Revised Architectural Plans EXHIBIT D: Site and Surrounding Zoning ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 2 Page 2 of 17 EXHIBIT E: Inspection Worksheet EXHIBIT F: Appraisal Email EXHIBIT G: Permit Values EXHIBIT H: Historical Documents of T & D Feed EXHIBIT I: Kroll Map and Aerial photo of T D Feed Buildings EXHIBIT J: Original Building Permit Application EXHIBIT K: Approved Original Plans BACKGROUND Appellant WPDC Cleveland LLC 1420 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 (Exhibit A - Appeal Form) Project Applicant: Sean Miller Andorra Ventures 3861 E Lake Sammamish Parkway NE Sammamish, WA 98074 (Exhibit B – Building Permit Revision Application) Building Permit Application Date: May 3, 2017 Building Permit Issuance Date: May 19, 2017, File # BLDG-2016-09802 and BPLN-2017- 00445 Appeal Filed: June 2, 2017 Hearing Date: August 2, 2017 Project Location: The proposed project is located at 16390 Cleveland Street Parcel Size: The total area of the site is 3,140 square feet. ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 3 Page 3 of 17 Neighborhood: The proposed project is within the Downtown Neighborhood as identified within the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Designation: This property is within the Downtown Urban Center which is envisioned as a higher density neighborhood attracting businesses and people to the advantages of distinct economic opportunities, distinctive places to live, and proximity to shopping and other amenities. These goals are further defined in the Comprehensive Plan Policies UC-4, UC-7, and DT-38 through DT-41. The land use of the existing structure is recognized to be general retail as the structure was used by the past business of T& D Feeds, which was a General Sales and Service type business, selling animal feed and hardware type products to the general public. Zoning Designation: The property under consideration for this building permit application is zoned Old Town (OT) within the Downtown Neighborhood. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: The site is currently developed with an existing building that was previously associated with the feed store that has been demolished as part of redevelopment. Surrounding land use and zoning is as follows (see Exhibit Zoning Land Uses North: Old Town (OT) Single-Story Commercial (vacant) East: Anderson Park (AP) Single-Story Commercial/bank South: Old Town (OT) 6-Story Mixed-Use Residential West: Old Town (OT) Single-Story Restaurant Access: The existing warehouse building has vehicular access on Cleveland Street. Pedestrian access to the building is available from Cleveland Street and 164th Avenue NE. SEPA: The subject building permit is exempt from SEPA. Public Notice: The subject building permit, as a Type I permit, does not require public notice as outlined in the Redmond Zoning Code (RZC 21.76.050F). Building/Use History: The subject building, identified in Exhibit A – Appeal Form, Attachment 2, was built in 1952 – without parking, and was used for storage and retail sales for the retail business of T&D Feeds. Goods were stored and sold out of this building. The main retail buildings for T&D Feeds was across Cleveland Street at 16355 Cleveland Street, and that business closed 1999, and the property at 16355 has been redeveloped, separate of the subject parcel/building. The building’s prior Building Code ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 4 Page 4 of 17 occupancy type was for storage. In order for the building to be allowed for retail or office occupancy, building improvements are required to change the occupancy classification of the building to M/B, Mercantile/Business. Thus, the subject building permit application is to change the Building Code occupancy of the building. The existing building appears to be a replacement of a similar building constructed in 1946, according to historical documents. Goods like hay bales, bags of seeds, and wheel barrows were stored and sold out of this building. The original business at 16355 Cleveland Street was Western Farmers Association, established in the early 1900’s. T&D Feeds purchased the properties in the 1970’s and ran the feed store business until 1999, when it closed for business and sold the main property on the south side of Cleveland Street. See Exhibit H- Historical Documents of T&D Feed. See also Exhibit I – Kroll Map and Aerial photo of T&D Feed The Aerial photo was taken in 1969, and shows there was no on-site parking for any of the T&D Feed buildings. FACTS AND FINDINGS 1. As the building was historically and previously used as accessory storage and retail sales for the retail business of T&D Feeds (which the main business buildings were across Cleveland Street) the City finds the existing “land use” of the existing building is General Sales and Service. Therefore, the building permit application and associated revision application do not require a “change in land use” because the previous use was, and continues to be, conforming to the zoning code. 2. The applicant originally applied for a Tenant Improvement that included the addition of a mezzanine office space. See Exhibits J – Original Building Permit Application and Exhibit K – Approved Original Plans. The original application and plans have been revised with the submission of Exhibit B – Building Permit Revision Application and Exhibit C Approved Revised Architectural Plans. 3. The applicant submitted a revision application to the City that eliminated the addition of floor area, namely the mezzanine. Based on that reduction, coupled with the fact that that the valuation of the exterior modifications is less than $50,000 (See Exhibit B – Building Permit Revision Application, Increase in Valuation line), the City finds that a land use permit (Administrative Modification) is not required per RZC21.76.090. D. 4. As the value of the exterior improvements to the building is less than $50,000, the City finds that review by the Design Review Board is not required, per RZC 21.76.020.3.c, and that review of the building design is within the authority of the Administrator. ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 5 Page 5 of 17 5. As there is no enlargement of the building or change of land use (from retail sales), the City finds the existing nonconforming parking may continue per RZC 21.40.010.C.1. All nonconforming design standards may continue as the structure is not being rebuilt as defined in the RZC 21.78 Definitions (Rebuild), as the value of the construction permits is not anticipated to exceed 50% of the value of the building, per RZC 21.76.100.F.7.a.iii. See Exhibit F- Appraisal Email and Exhibit G – Permit Values. 6. As the existing nonconforming parking (including loading space) for the building is not being enlarged and the use is not changing, it may continue per RCZ.21.40.010(C)(1). No additional square footage is being added to the existing building and the use remains the same. 7. The building permit application is for a change of Building Code occupancy from storage to mercantile as well as tenant improvements. Nothing presented to the City by applicant in this matter sought city approval to operate a marijuana retail sales business at the subject location. Accordingly, the City has neither reviewed any application or request nor made any determination that would involve a change of use to marijuana retail sales. To date, the City of Redmond has not received an application for a business license for the retail sale of marijuana at this location, which is the process that would be required for this type of action and that would be used to evaluate the requirements for the change in land use. As such, the City finds it premature to analyze the criteria for reviewing marijuana retail sales uses at this time, and will only do that sort of review when a business license application which includes a proposed change of use is properly submitted. 8. As the stated appraised value of the building is $250,000 and the value of the improvements to the building are projected to be less than $250,000 (less than 100% of the value of the building) and there is no addition of building square feet, the City finds frontage improvements (to make street sidewalks a minimum of 14 feet wide) are not required per RZC.17.010.F.1.d. JURISDICTION The permit being appealed is a building permit. According to table RZC 21.76.050B. Building permits are Type I decisions. Appeals of Type I decisions are properly brought before the Hearing Examiner by parties of record. Appellant requested to be a party of record before the decision was made and therefore properly brought this appeal to the Hearing Examiner. Therefore, jurisdiction is proper. ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 6 Page 6 of 17 APPELLANT’S BASIS FOR APPEAL The appellant has appealed the issuance of the subject building permit based upon several assertions regarding errors of procedure, fact and law described and addressed below. RELIEF SOUGHT BY APPEAL The appellant requests that the Hearing Examiner reverse the Decision to approve the Origins building permit and deny the application for a building permit and change of use. ANALYSIS The following is an analysis regarding the assertions raised by the appellant (EXHIBIT A – Appeal Form). Assertion 1: The City failed to provide the appellant any notice or opportunity to comment on the Origins Cannabis project prior to issuing the original Decision, which violates City notice requirements under RZC 21.76.020, 050, .060, & .080 and as required by RCW 36.70B.110, Washington common law and state and federal constitutional due process clauses. Staff Response: The decision being appealed is in regards to the subject building permit. Per the RZC code sections referenced in this assertion, building permits (Type I Permits) do not require public notice per RZC 76.080.B.1. The addition in the building floor area, in the form of the mezzanine, did require an Administrative Modification or Site Plan Entitlement land use application (depending on the size of the addition), which was not applied for prior to March 8, 2017. As such, a notice of correction was issued on the subject building permit application on March 8, 2017 informing the applicant that the Administrative Modification application for the additional square footage must be applied for and approved prior to continuation of work on the mezzanine. See Exhibit E – Inspection Worksheet. On March 21, 2017, a Site Plan Entitlement application (LAND-2017-00290) requesting approval of the subject mezzanine addition and significant exterior façade modifications was submitted. Public Notice for this application was mailed and posted March 29, 2017. The ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 7 Page 7 of 17 Site Plan Entitlement application was subsequently withdrawn by the applicant April 27, 2017. On May 3, 2017 a revision to the original building permit was submitted to the City (Exhibit B – Building Permit Revision Application). The revision removed the addition of the mezzanine (see Exhibit C – Approved Revised Architectural Plans) – removing the requirement for the Site Plan Entitlement Application approval. The revision also included adding back minor exterior changes to the building. This revision was required by the building inspector so that he could see a clean set of plans that are compliant to the building code. Assertion 2: The City failed to require compliance with the procedural and substantive requirements of RZC 21.76.020.D., RZC 21.76.020.E., RZC 21.76.020.H., and/or RZC 21.76.020.E – RZC 21.76.070.B., RZC 21.76.070.Y and/or RZC 21.76.090D in allowing for the piecemealing of the permit process, allowing for the occupancy and/or use to General Sales or Services and /or Marijuana Retail Sales use in a building that does not meet substantive land use code requirements and/or comply with the building code; approving exterior improvements and/or modification to the Project Site and/or building; approving a revised building permit without requiring an Administrative Modification permit; failing to condition approval of the Decision on payment of any and/or the correct amount of impact fees and/or dedication and construction of planned right-of way improvements; and/or approving a change of occupancy and/or use with increased usable floor area on a non-conforming site in a non-conforming structure without required parking, bicycle parking, loading, garbage/recycling, and/or utility meters. Staff Response: Regarding the assertion that the occupancy of the building for General Sales and/or Marijuana Retail Sales in a building that does not meet substantive land use code requirements, the City finds the existing land use of the existing building/property is General Sales and Service, as the existing building was used as an accessory building to the General Sales business of T&D Feed, for decades. Goods were stored and sold out of that building with the T&D Feed business, which closed and sold the main buildings across the street. The existing building appears to be a replacement of a similar building constructed in 1946, according to some historical documents on the T&D Feeds business. (See Exhibit H- Historical Documents of T&D Feed and Exhibit I– Kroll Map and Aerial photo of T&D Feed The Aerial photo was taken in 1969 shows there was no on-site parking for any of the T&D Feed buildings. Thus, land use for General Sales and Services is not an issue. The subject building permit addresses occupancy requirements of the building code. ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 8 Page 8 of 17 Regarding the assertion about land use permits and building codes, because the building permit revision eliminated the mezzanine addition, an Administrative Modification permit (or Site Plan Entitlement permit) is not required because the associated exterior modifications to the building are valued less than $50,000, and there is no addition of floor area. The Administrator (or his/her designee) shall have design review authority on all building permit applications that have a total valuation of less than $50,000, which this project has. Thus, planning staff, as the Administrator’s designee, performed the review and approval of the subject building permit, per RZC 21.76.020.E.3.c . Staff routinely conducts similar review and approval of tenant improvement building permits involving interior improvements and exterior work with a value of less than $50,000. Through the subject building permit application review and approval, and the pending inspections, the improvements to change the occupancy of the building from – Storage to – mercantile for retail, and for office, will ensure the modifications meet building code requirements, before issuing a Certificate of Occupancy. Regarding occupancy for Marijuana Retail Sales – the subject building permit application does not include any request to change the land use of the structure to Marijuana Retail Sales. Accordingly, the City has made no review of a proposed change of use to Marijuana Retail Sales and has made no determination of the requirements that would apply to a Marijuana Retail Sales Use. Such a land use change will be reviewed if/when a business license is applied for. At that time the City will conduct a proper analysis to determine if the Marijuana Retail Sales use meets the requirements of RZC 21.41 and will determine whether impact fees for the use will be required. 9. Regarding Design Standards, all nonconforming design standards may continue as the structure is not being rebuilt as defined in the RZC 21.78 Definitions (Rebuild), as the value of the construction permits is not anticipated to exceed 50% of the value of the building, per RZC 21.76.100.F.7.a.iii. Assertion 3: The City failed to follow the criteria and requirements of RZC 21.40.010.C.1.a, Nonconforming Parking, and the parking requirements in RZC 21.10.030.D, (Table 21.10.030C), because the proposed change in occupancy and/or use to a General Sales and Services and/or Marijuana Retail Sales use is a change in land use and such change in use requires provisions of onsite parking spaces and none is provided. Staff Response: The subject building permit is not for a change of use to marijuana retail sales, or a change of use from storage to general sales use. The building permit is for a ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 9 Page 9 of 17 “change of occupancy” from the Building Occupancy Type of – Storage to – mercantile for retail, and for office occupancy. If and when a business license application for a retail marijuana sales use is submitted for this location, additional parking, at a minimum ratio of 2 stalls per 1,000 square feet will be required for the retail marijuana sales store area. As the subject building was an accessory building to the T&D Feeds business and used for General Sales and Services purposes, the land use category of the existing building is still considered general sales. Thus, the City finds the existing building enjoys nonconforming parking rights for general sales purposes (not related to marijuana retails sales), Per RZC 21.40.010.C.1.a. Assertion 4: The City failed to follow the criteria and requirements of RZC 21.40.010.C.1.a, -b Nonconforming Parking, and the parking requirements in RZC 21.10.030.D, (Table 21.10.030C), because the proposed change in occupancy and/or use to General Sales and Services and/or Marijuana Retail Sales use will result in an enlargement of the leasable floor area and such enlargement requires provision of onsite parking spaces and none is provided. Staff Response: The subject building permit is not for a change of use to marijuana retail sales, or a change of use from storage to General Sales and Services use. The building permit is for a “change of occupancy” from the Building Occupancy Type of – Storage to – mercantile for retail, and for office occupancy. As the subject building was used for General Sales and Services in the past, the land use category of the existing building is still considered General Sales and Services. Per RZC.21.40.010.C.1.a, the building has legal non-conforming status regarding parking for general sales. The revision to the Building Permit (Exhibits B – Building Permit Revision Application and Exhibit C – Approved Revised Architectural Plans) have eliminated the addition of a mezzanine (additional floor area), thus no additional parking is required for this permit. If/when a business license application for Marijuana Retail Sales is submitted parking requirements for the Marijuana Retail Sales use will be considered. Assertion 5: The City failed to follow the criteria and requirements of RZC 21.40.010.C.1.c, Nonconforming Parking, and the parking requirements in RZC 21.10.030.D, (Table 21.10.030C), because the proposed change in occupancy and/or use to General Sales or Services and/or Marijuana Retail Sales use will result in a change in land use and such change in use requires ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 10 Page 10 of 17 provision of at least the code minimum number of onsite parking spaces and bicycle parking and none is provided. Staff Response: The subject building permit is not for a change of use to marijuana retail sales, or a change of use from storage to general sales use. The building permit is for a “change of occupancy” from the Building Occupancy Type of – Storage to – mercantile for retail, and for office occupancy. The existing building appears to be a replacement of a similar building constructed in 1946, according to some historical documents on the T D Feeds business. (See Exhibit H- Historical Documents of T& D Feed and Exhibit I – Kroll Map and Aerial photo of T&D Feed The Aerial photo was taken in 1969, and shows there was not on-site parking for any of the T& D Feed buildings. As the subject building was an accessory building to the T D Feeds business and used for General Sales or Services purposes, the land use category of the existing building is still considered general sales. Thus, the City finds the existing building enjoys nonconforming parking rights (including bicycle parking) for General Sales or Services purposes (not related to marijuana retails sales), Per RZC 21.40.010.C.1.a. If/when a business license application for Marijuana Retail Sales is submitted parking requirements for the Marijuana Retail Sales use will be considered. Assertion 6: The City failed to follow the criteria and requirements of RZC 21.40.010.C.1.e, Nonconforming Parking, and the parking requirements in RZC 21.10.030.D, (Table 21.10.030.C), because the proposed change in occupancy and/or use to General Sales or Services and/or Marijuana Retail Sales will result in an enlargement in the leasable floor area and such enlargement requires provision of at least the code minimum number of onsite parking spaces and bicycle parking and none is provided. Staff Response: The subject building permit is not for a change of use to marijuana retail sales, or a change of use from storage to general sales use. The building permit is for a “change of occupancy” from the Building Occupancy Type of – Storage to – mercantile for retail, and for office occupancy. As the subject building was an accessory building to the T D Feeds business and used for general sales purposes, the land use category of the existing building is still considered general sales. Thus, the City finds the existing building enjoys nonconforming parking rights ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 11 Page 11 of 17 (including bicycle parking) for general sales purposes (not related to marijuana retails sales), Per RZC 21.40.010.C.1.a. Per Exhibits B - Building Permit Revision Application and Exhibit C – Approved Revised Architectural Plans, the Building Permit has been revised to eliminate the addition of the mezzanine (additional floor area). Thus, no additional parking is required as there is no additional building square footage proposed. If/when a business license application for Marijuana Retail Sales is submitted parking requirements for the Marijuana Retail Sales use will be considered. Assertion 7: The City failed to follow the criteria and requirements of RZC 21.40.010.C.1.c, Nonconforming Parking, and the parking requirements in RZC 21.10.030.D, (Table 21.10.030C), because the prior use, warehouse, was abandoned and/or terminated and the proposed change in occupancy and/or use to General Sales or Services and/or Marijuana Retail Sales use requires provision of at least the code minimum number of on-site parking spaces and bicycle parking and none is provided. Staff Response: The subject building permit is not for a change of use to marijuana retail sales, or a change of use from storage to general sales use. The building permit is for a “change of occupancy” from the Building Occupancy Type of – Storage to – mercantile for retail, and for office occupancy. As the subject building was an accessory building to the T&D Feeds business and used for general sales purposes, the land use category of the existing building is still considered general sales. Thus, the City finds the existing building enjoys nonconforming parking rights (including bicycle parking) for general sales purposes (not related to marijuana retails sales), Per RZC 21.40.010.C.1.a. As the general sales use has not been “abandoned” by intent, per the definition “Abandonment” (RZC 21.78) the legal structural and parking nonconformities are not lost and may continue. The existing structural nonconformities related to design standards, may continue per RZC 21.76.100.7.a as there is no change in land use; the use of general sales has not been abandoned per the definition of Abandonment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 12 Page 12 of 17 The existing nonconforming frontage improvements may remain as they are per RZC.17.010.F.1.d as value of the improvements is projected to be less than 100% of the value of the existing structure. If/when a business license application for Marijuana Retail Sales is submitted parking requirements for the Marijuana Retail Sales use will be considered. Assertion 8: The City failed to follow the criteria and requirements of RZC 21.40.010.E.8., Off- Street Loading Space, because proposed change in occupancy and/or use to General Sales or Services and/or Marijuana Retail Sales use requires provision of off-street parking facilities for service vehicles and none is provided. Staff Response: The subject building permit is not for a change of use to marijuana retail sales, or a change of use from storage to general sales use. The building permit is for a “change of occupancy” from the Building Occupancy Type of – Storage to – mercantile for retail, and for office occupancy. As the subject building was an accessory building to the T&D Feeds business and used for general sales purposes, the land use category of the existing building is still considered general sales. Thus, the City finds the existing building enjoys nonconforming parking rights including bicycle parking, and off-street loading, for general sales purposes (not related to marijuana retails sales), Per RZC 21.40.010.C.1.a. The existing nonconforming parking (including loading space) may continue per RCZ.21.40.010(C)(1) because the building is not being enlarged and the use is not changing. No additional square footage is being added to the existing building and the use remains the same. If/when a business license application for Marijuana Retail Sales is submitted parking requirements for the Marijuana Retail Sales use will be considered. Assertion 9: The City failed to follow the criteria and requirements of RZC 21.76.100.F.7 for the alteration and/or expansion of a nonconforming use, because the warehouse use of the building on the Project Site was changed and/or abandoned and/or terminated for at least twelve (12) months, the proposed change in occupancy and/or use to General Sales or Services and/or Marijuana Retail Sales use is a change of use, and therefore all rights to any parking nonconformities have been terminated, which requires the new use to provide code-compliant onsite parking and loading spaces. ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 13 Page 13 of 17 Staff Response: As the subject building was an accessory building to the T&D Feeds business and used for General Sales and Services purposes, the land use category of the existing building is still considered General Sales and Services. The City finds the general sales use has not been abandoned. The City has no information to support the position that the owner intended at any time to abandon its right to continue the nonconforming use. Further, the City has no information to support the position that there was ever an overt act, or failure to act, on the part of the property owner which implies that the owner no longer claims or retains any interest in the use. See definition of “Abandonment” RZC 21.78. Thus, without any support for the notion that the use was abandoned according to the code definition, the building enjoys nonconforming rights to parking, including bicycle parking and on-site loading. The subject building permit is not for a change of use to marijuana retail sales, or a change of use from storage to general sales use. The building permit is for a “change of occupancy” from the Building Occupancy Type of – Storage to – mercantile for retail, and for office occupancy. The existing nonconforming parking (including loading space) may continue per RCZ.21.40.010(C)(1) because the building is not being enlarged and the use is not changing. No additional square footage is being added to the existing building and the use remains the same. If/when a business license application for Marijuana Retail Sales is submitted to the City the parking requirements for the Marijuana Retail Sales use will be evaluated. Assertion 10: The City failed to follow the criteria and requirements of RZC 21.76.100.F.9.a & .b for the alteration or expansion of a nonconforming structure in conjunction with change in occupancy and/or use to General Sales or Services and/or Marijuana Retail Sales use will increase the parking nonconformity as the use requires more onsite parking than a warehouse and /or the value of the improvements equal or exceed the value of the existing structure, including but not limited to, future improvements to be undertaken from the date of the Decision forward for three years. Staff Response: The subject building permit is not for a change of use to marijuana retail sales, or a change of use from storage to general sales use. The building permit is for a “change of occupancy” from the Building Occupancy Type of – Storage to – mercantile for retail, and for office occupancy. ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 14 Page 14 of 17 As the subject building was used for General Sales and Services purposes in the past, the land use category of the existing building is still considered General Sales and Services. The City does not find that the use of general sales has been abandoned per RZC 21.78 Definitions. Thus there is no nonconforming use. Per RZC.21.40.010.C.1.a, the building has legal non-conforming status regarding parking for general sales, bicycle parking, and off-street loading. The nonconformities are not required to be brought into full compliance, per RZC 21.76.100.F.9.ii, as cost/value of the associated permits applications is not anticipated to equal or exceed the value of the existing structure ($250,000). See Exhibit G – Permit Values. Assertion 11: The City failed to follow the criteria and requirements of RZC Chapter 21.60, Citywide Design Standards, and RZC 21.62.020, Downtown Design Standards, in failing to require Design Review and/or compliance with the applicable design standards for the building and Project Site. Staff Response: As the associated exterior modifications to the building are valued at less than $50,000, and there is no addition of floor area, the Administrator (or his/her designee) shall have design review authority on all building permit applications that have a total valuation of less than $50,000. Thus, Planning staff (the Administrator’s designee) performed the design review and approval of the subject building permit, per RZC 21.76.020.E.3.c – as it routinely does with most tenant improvement building permits involving interior improvements, and exterior work with a value of less than $50,000. As the general sales use has not been “abandoned”, per the definition “Abandonment” (RZC 21.78) the legal structural and parking nonconformities are not lost and may continue. The existing nonconforming parking (including loading space) may continue per RCZ.21.40.010(C)(1) because the building is not being enlarged and the use is not changing. No additional square footage is being added to the existing building and the use remains the same. All nonconforming design standards may continue as the structure is not being rebuilt as defined in the RZC 21.78 Definitions (Rebuild), as the value of the construction permits is not anticipated to exceed 50% of the value of the building, per RZC 21.76.100.F.7.a.iii. See Exhibit G – Building Permit Values. ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 15 Page 15 of 17 Assertion 12: The City failed to follow the criteria and requirements of RZC 21.76.090.E., Revocation of Permits, for failing and/or refusing to revoke or otherwise rescind the Decision despite actual knowledge of facts that demonstrate the Decision was issued in error and/or obtained by misrepresentation of material fact, including without limitation the estimated value of improvements, the transportation impacts associated with the proposed change in occupancy and/or use to General Sales or Services and/or Marijuana Retail Sales use, the location of the Project Site within the City and state required buffers for marijuana retail sales establishments and/or the prior/existing use of the Project site. Staff Response: This subject building permit is not the proper City application to review and evaluate marijuana retail sales at this, or any, location. The review for required buffers and required impact fees associated with a new Marijuana Retail Sales use will be done at the time of a business license application for such use. No business license application for such use, at this location has been applied for yet. On March 8, 2017 the City issued an Inspection Worksheet informing the contractor the work on the mezzanine cannot proceed until an Administrative Modification application for the mezzanine is applied for and approved. (See Exhibit E – Inspection Worksheet) After the issuance of the Inspection Work Sheet, a building permit revision application and revised plan were submitted and approved. (See Exhibits B- Building Permit Revision Application and Exhibit C – Approved Revised Architectural Plans) The City has no reason to believe that any information provided to it misrepresented a material fact or that the permit was issued in error. The City finds the existing building/property continues to have the rights for General Sales and Services land use as the building was previously used for the general sales use of the former T & D Feed business – of which this building was part of. Assertion 13: The City failed to follow the criteria and requirements of RZC 21.41.010. C & D, and WAC 314-55.050(10) & (11) (marijuana retail sales establishments buffer requirements), because the approval of a marijuana retail establishment is within the required buffers for one or more parks, playgrounds, schools, recreation centers and/or childcare centers. Staff Response: The subject building permit is not for a change of use to marijuana retail sales, or a change of use from storage to general sales use. The building permit is for a “change of occupancy” from the Building Occupancy Type of – Storage to – mercantile for retail, and for office occupancy. At the time of the building permit application (December 9, 2016) or issuance (February 17, 2017), no business license or State license for marijuana sales had been applied for at this address. This building permit is not considering or approving the change in land use or ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 16 Page 16 of 17 business license for marijuana retail sales. As such, this is not the correct time or process to discuss a potential marijuana use. As of this writing, no business license application for marijuana retail sales at this location, which would include a proposed change in use, has been submitted. The City has not conducted any review and/or analysis of a proposed marijuana business at this site and has not approved any business license or change of use. These topics are not related to the building permit at issue in this appeal. Assertion 14: The City failed to follow the criteria and requirements of RZC 21.76.070.B., Criteria Applicable to All Land Use Permits, because the approval of change in occupancy and/or use to General Sales or Services and/or Marijuana Retail Sales use is inconsistent with the City’s development regulations cited above as well as RZC 21.41.040.C & D (buffer requirements) for the change in use from abandoned warehouse to retail marijuana establishment. Staff Response: As the recognized land use of the existing building/property is a conforming land use of General Sales and Services- as the building was used for the retail sales business of the former T & D Feed business (for many decades) – there is no land use permit needed for this tenant improvement building permit. The subject building permit application is not a request to allow the marijuana retail sales use at this location. The review for an approval of the marijuana retail sales use at this location will occur if/ when a business license application is submitted for such use. SUMMARY In summary, because the existing building/property was used for General Sales and Services for the former retail business of T&D Feeds - prior to the closure of that business, the “land use” of the building/property is General Sales and Services – as it had been for many decades. Thus, the City finds that no land use permit is required to “change the use” to allow the building to be used for General Sales and Services purposes – as it is already recognized an existing, land use at this location. Because the threshold of applicability for the most closely related land use permit (Administrative Modification) was not reached – the addition of floor area, per RZC 201.76.090.D.5, a land use permit is not required with the associated building permit. Because the value of the exterior improvements is less than $50,000, the Administrator has the Design Review authority to for review, per RZC 21.76.020.E.3.c. ---PAGE BREAK--- Hearing Examiner Origins Building Permit Appeal Page 17 Page 17 of 17 Because the existing building, with its existing General Sales and Services land use, enjoys legal nonconforming structure status, legal nonconforming parking status, legal nonconforming status regarding design standards, and legal nonconforming frontage improvements status, and because the valuation of the proposed improvements are projected not to equal or exceed the thresholds for requiring the nonconformities to be brought up to code, per RZC.21.40.101.C.1.a., RCZ.21.76.100.F.7.a.iii., RCZ.21.76.100.F.7.b., and RZC.17.010.F.1.d., the subject legal nonconformities are not required to be brought up to code. Because the subject building permit application is not an application to operate a Marijuana Retail Sales use at this location, and because such use requires a business license, reviews regarding buffers and other regulations for Marijuana Retail Sales use are not required for this building permit, and such reviews (including parking standards, and impact fees) will take place during the business license application review, if/when applied for. Thus, the City did not err in the processing and approving of the subject building permit. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Prior to the public hearing and based on the analysis included in this report, staff recommends the Hearing Examiner deny the appeal. CONCLUSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION The appellants have the burden to prove that the City erred in issuing the Building Permit. The appellants have provided no evidence to meet that burden and cannot establish that the City erred procedurally or substantively in issuing the Building Permit. No business license application to operate a Marijuana Retail Sales use at this location has been applied for, thus the appeal regarding the Marijuana Retail Sales use is not ripe and not properly before the Hearing Examiner in this appeal. ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT B Jozanne Moe 5/3/2017 ---PAGE BREAK--- 17 8 7 15 12 'other' spaces = 7 occupants 20 8 7 = 51 occupants 05/04/2017 2:46:26 PM Development Services Center Reviewed for Code Compliance X Approved with Corrections noted Resubmittal Required Signature: Jozanne Moe Approved REVISION #1 - BLDG-2016-09802 Site Copy 5/3/2017 - Revision Removing 470 sq ft mezzanine, creating new storefront and adding stucco and siding to exterior. Creating additional tenant space, total of 3 tenant spaces. Updated energy and structural calcs included. Occupancy 05-05-2017 SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTION ALL APPLICABLE CODES SHALL APPLY. ERRORS AND/OR OMISSIONS ON PLANS ARE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNER/CONTRACTOR. CORRECTIONS REQUIRED FROM FIELD INSPECTION SHALL BE AT OWNER/CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. THIS APPROVAL DOES NOT GRANT TO ANY PERSON THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE ANY CITY OR STATE LAWS. Redmond Fire Department Stan Noble Occupancy to Occupancy Attic Attic Attic 05/08/2017 10:25:32 AM City of Redmond Planning Department X Approved with Corrections noted Resubmittal Required Signature: Gary Lee Approved EXHIBIT C ---PAGE BREAK--- 139.17 sf 140/15=9 occupants 969.91 sf 970/60=16 occupants 379.13 sf 380/60=6 occupants 403.14 sf 403/60=7 occupants 236.95 sf 1 occupant 1 restroom is required per CH 20 WA ST Amendments. Site Copy Bldg Addressing shall follow Redmond Fire Standard 2.00: Building is 16390 Cleveland St. with Suites 100, 110 & 120. SN Redmond Fire EXHIBIT C ---PAGE BREAK--- Space is not to be used as storage or occupied space. If wanting to convert in the future, a permit will be required. JM 5.4.2017 Site Copy ATTIC EXHIBIT C ---PAGE BREAK--- Site Copy EXHIBIT C ---PAGE BREAK--- Site Copy EXHIBIT C ---PAGE BREAK--- Site Copy ATTIC EXHIBIT C ---PAGE BREAK--- Site Copy EXHIBIT C ---PAGE BREAK--- Site Copy EXHIBIT C ---PAGE BREAK--- Site Copy EXHIBIT C ---PAGE BREAK--- Site Copy EXHIBIT C ---PAGE BREAK--- Site Copy EXHIBIT C ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT D ---PAGE BREAK--- INSPECTION WORKSHEET (INSP-2017-07904) City of Redmond Case Number: Inspection Date: Inspector: Case Module: Inspection Status: Inspection Type: BLDG-2016-09802 03/08/2017 Brett Shepard Permit Correction Required BLDG Other Job Address: Parcel Number: 16390 CLEVELAND ST REDMOND, WA 98052 [PHONE REDACTED] Contact Type Company Name Name Lender [Lender] Applicant [Andorra Ventures] Miller, Sean Contractor [WAYNE CONSTRUCTION LLC] Owner [Rain City Development LLC] Architect [Morris Architects Inc] Morris, Tom Checklist Item Passed Comments Inspection Comments - Inspection Comments NO An Administrative Modification application for the additional square footage must be applied for and approved prior to continuing work on the mezzanine. ?Please contact Gary Lee at [PHONE REDACTED], or [EMAIL REDACTED] if you have any questions. Mar 08, 2017 Page Shepard, Brett (Inspector) EXHIBIT E ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Sean Miller [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2016 2:33 PM To: Gary Lee <[EMAIL REDACTED]>; Min Luo <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: Re: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] Gary, I hope you had a nice weekend. Following our pre-app meeting we ordered a commercial appraisal on 16390 Cleveland to determine the replacement cost of the building. The replacement value for just the building came back at $250,000. We have also ordered all of our estimates to understand what it will take to bring the building up to 2015 IBC standands. Estimates are coming back at between 120-135K which is far below the threshold set by the appraisal. We would like to submit for permits and need to know if there is anything special we should be doing while submitting for the permits? I appreciate your time and help. Best regards, Sean Miller Partner 225 W Wacker Drive Suite 1565 ● Chicago, Illinois 60606 ● USA P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] E: [EMAIL REDACTED] W: www.paylinedata.com From: Gary Lee <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 at 2:54 PM To: Vicki Orrico <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Sean Miller <[EMAIL REDACTED]>, Min Luo <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] EXHIBIT F ---PAGE BREAK--- Vicki, We prefer that you come in for a pre-application meeting so you can talk to all of the relevant disciplines at one time. The meetings are free, but they only occur on Thursdays and we are currently booked out to September 15th. We do not make reservations. You need to submit your application to get on the calendar. You can submit your application at the Planning counter any time, you do no need an appointment to submit for a Pre-Application meeting. Pre-Application meeting filing requirements. http://www.redmond.gov/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=90602 Gary Lee, Senior Planner (425) 556-2418 City of Redmond, MS: 2SPL PO Box 97010 Redmond WA 98073-9710 From: Vicki Orrico [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:42 PM To: Gary Lee Cc: Sean Miller; Min Luo Subject: RE: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] Thanks Gary. Could we please come in and meet with you and Min to discuss all the parameters and requirements for our proposed remodel? Best Regards, Vicki E. Orrico Vicki E. Orrico Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Koloušková, PLLC Bellefield Office Park 11201 S.E. 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 467-9968 (direct) (425) 417-3519 (cell/direct) (425) 451-2818 (fax) EXHIBIT F ---PAGE BREAK--- THIS MESSAGE AND/OR THE DOCUMENT(S) ACCOMPANYING THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS TRANSMISSION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE, MAIL OR ELECTRONIC MAIL, AND DESTROY THIS COMMUNICATION From: Gary Lee [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 2:40 PM To: Vicki Orrico Cc: Sean Miller Subject: RE: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] Vicki, That code section is now RZC 21.76.100. F.9. Yes this applies too. However, parking has been grandfathered for the existing square footage of the building. See the link below the new Zoning Code, and that section. http://online.encodeplus.com/regs/redmond-wa/doc-viewer.aspx#secid-3080 The anticipated exterior modifications to the building will require an Administrative Modification application review approval (prior to the issuance of a building permit), which also requires Design Review by the Design Review Board. The Fee for that application is $5,953.05. Below is a link to the filing requirements. Administrative Modification filing Requirements http://www.redmond.gov/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=90430 Gary Lee, Senior Planner (425) 556-2418 City of Redmond, MS: 2SPL PO Box 97010 Redmond WA 98073-9710 From: Vicki Orrico [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 11:40 AM To: Gary Lee Cc: Sean Miller; Min Luo Subject: RE: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] Thank you Gary. I understand that it falls under RZC 21.17.010.F.1.d. My question is whether it is also considered a nonconforming structure under 20F.10.50-090. EXHIBIT F ---PAGE BREAK--- Best Regards, Vicki E. Orrico Vicki E. Orrico Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Koloušková, PLLC Bellefield Office Park 11201 S.E. 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 467-9968 (direct) (425) 417-3519 (cell/direct) (425) 451-2818 (fax) THIS MESSAGE AND/OR THE DOCUMENT(S) ACCOMPANYING THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS TRANSMISSION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE, MAIL OR ELECTRONIC MAIL, AND DESTROY THIS COMMUNICATION From: Gary Lee [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 8:23 AM To: Vicki Orrico Cc: Sean Miller; Min Luo Subject: RE: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] Vicki, Yes, this is a nonconforming structure, sidewalk, etc. The codes section that could trigger the requirement is RZC 21.17.010.F.1.d. (Screenshot below). If you have any questions about this, please contact Min Luo. I cc’d her on this email, so she will know what you may be contacting her about. RZC 21.17.010.F.1 below EXHIBIT F ---PAGE BREAK--- Gary Lee, Senior Planner (425) 556-2418 City of Redmond, MS: 2SPL PO Box 97010 Redmond WA 98073-9710 From: Vicki Orrico [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2016 4:35 PM To: Gary Lee Cc: Sean Miller Subject: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] Hi Gary I am working with Sean Miller on the above-referenced project. He shared your email (below) with me. What is triggering the infrastructure requirements – is this a nonconforming structure? Best Regards, Vicki E. Orrico Vicki E. Orrico Johns Monroe Mitsunaga Koloušková, PLLC Bellefield Office Park EXHIBIT F ---PAGE BREAK--- 11201 S.E. 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98004 (425) 467-9968 (direct) (425) 417-3519 (cell/direct) (425) 451-2818 (fax) THIS MESSAGE AND/OR THE DOCUMENT(S) ACCOMPANYING THIS ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY NAMED ABOVE. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, BE AWARE THAT ANY DISCLOSURE, COPYING, DISTRIBUTION OR USE OF THE CONTENTS OF THIS TRANSMISSION IS PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE, MAIL OR ELECTRONIC MAIL, AND DESTROY THIS COMMUNICATION From: Gary Lee <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Date: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 11:36 AM To: Sean Miller <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Min Luo <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] Sean, This property has been grand-fathered regarding parking in the past. Thus no parking will be required for this building, for general retail/office use. As mentioned by Min previously, you will need to do property frontage improvements, including new curb, gutter and sidewalk – according to City plans, if your improvements to the building equal or exceed the current assessed value of the improvements. If the cost of the improvements to the building (with your project) equal or exceed $23,500 (as assessed below) you will need to remove approximately 10’ of the east side of the building (fronting 164th and the intersection) and build a new, wider, sidewalk as shown below. All of the costs associated with improving the building will be included. Our general thinking is that you will be spending at least $23,500 to make the building suitable for retail/commercial use, which will trip the requirement for the removal of the east side of the building and widening of the sidewalks. I think that this is very important for you to aware of. EXHIBIT F ---PAGE BREAK--- Plans for this intersection call for the widening of the sidewalk as shown below. See arc through the building. EXHIBIT F ---PAGE BREAK--- Gary Lee, Senior Planner (425) 556-2418 City of Redmond, MS: 2SPL PO Box 97010 Redmond WA 98073-9710 EXHIBIT F ---PAGE BREAK--- From: Sean Miller [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 11:42 AM To: Min Luo; Zheng Lu Cc: Gary Lee Subject: Re: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] Min, here is the site plan with a basic traffic pattern to show how a car will back into the parking space. Please let me know your thoughts. As I shared in my last email we plan to reduce the retail space sqft to 1500 to remove one parking space which will make the spaces larger and easier to access. Best regards, Sean Miller Partner 225 W Wacker Drive Suite 1565 ● Chicago, Illinois 60606 ● USA P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] E: [EMAIL REDACTED] W: www.paylinedata.com From: Min Luo <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Date: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 at 2:16 PM To: Sean Miller <[EMAIL REDACTED]>, Zheng Lu <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Gary Lee <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] Sean, Could you sketch out the path how the vehicle entering and exiting the parking stalls? Thanks, Min Luo, P.E., PTOE, PTP Senior Engineer, Transportation │City of Redmond [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] I Redmond.gov MS: 2SPL │ 15670 NE 85th St │ Redmond, WA 98052 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From: Sean Miller [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 11:42 AM To: Min Luo; Zheng Lu EXHIBIT F ---PAGE BREAK--- Cc: Gary Lee Subject: Re: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] Min and Gary, here is the proposed site plan showing 4 parking stalls inside the building. We will have sub 1500sqft of interior retail space so technically we should need 3 parking stalls which will leave additional room. We would like to get confirmation it is ok to move forward with back in parking to accommodate the parking requirements. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you for your time and patience. Sean Miller Partner 225 W Wacker Drive Suite 1565 ● Chicago, Illinois 60606 ● USA P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] E: [EMAIL REDACTED] W: www.paylinedata.com From: Min Luo <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Date: Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 1:24 PM To: Sean Miller <[EMAIL REDACTED]>, Zheng Lu <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Gary Lee <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] Sean, I will need to see your site plan to determine if there any issue regarding the vehicles back into the parking stalls. Regarding the transportation impact fee, it would be the net difference before and after land use changed. The link below shows the impact fee schedule and hopefully it is straight-forward and you can do an estimate by yourself. http://www.redmond.gov/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=178122 Thanks, Min Luo, P.E., PTOE, PTP EXHIBIT F ---PAGE BREAK--- Senior Engineer, Transportation │City of Redmond [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] I Redmond.gov MS: 2SPL │ 15670 NE 85th St │ Redmond, WA 98052 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From: Sean Miller [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2016 5:06 PM To: Min Luo; Zheng Lu Cc: Gary Lee Subject: Re: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] Thank you Min I appreciate your response. You mentioned that Cleveland will be turning into a 2 way street. Do you know when this is scheduled to happen? How would I get additional information on if we can back into the building? There is currently a two parking stall cut out and no curb at the street to access the building. I envision that the cars could pull into the cut out and then back into the stalls located under the existing building roof. Do you see any issues with this? As to the trip volume I estimate approximately 60-75 customers per day would be entering the facility. It will be used for retail purposes. The building currently is used for warehouse space and office space. It has two separate units. I estimate it currently has less than 20 trips per day. So it will be converting to warehouse to retail. Can you provide an estimate on what the impact fee would be for this change? Thank you again for your help and time. Best regards, Sean Miller Partner 225 W Wacker Drive Suite 1565 ● Chicago, Illinois 60606 ● USA P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] E: [EMAIL REDACTED] W: www.paylinedata.com From: Min Luo <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Date: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at 8:45 AM To: Sean Miller <[EMAIL REDACTED]>, Zheng Lu <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Cc: Gary Lee <[EMAIL REDACTED]> Subject: RE: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] EXHIBIT F ---PAGE BREAK--- Sean, see the responses in red for transportation. Zheng will respond to the water and sewer. Min Luo, P.E., PTOE, PTP Senior Engineer, Transportation │City of Redmond [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] I Redmond.gov MS: 2SPL │ 15670 NE 85th St │ Redmond, WA 98052 NOTICE OF PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: This e-mail account is public domain. Any correspondence from or to this e-mail account is a public record. Accordingly, this e-mail, in whole or in part, may be subject to disclosure pursuant to RCW 42.56, regardless of any claim of confidentiality or privilege asserted by an external party. From: Sean Miller [mailto:[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Monday, June 06, 2016 4:05 PM To: Shirley Lu; Min Luo Cc: Gary Lee Subject: 16390 Cleveland St. Parcel number: [PHONE REDACTED] John and Min, I’m local resident of Redmond and was given your information from the planning desk this morning regarding a use change and remodel we are looking to begin. We have until June 30th to gather all relevant information on the property before we close. I’m submitting for a pre-intake but understand appointments are booked out until August. I was hoping you could help clarify a few topics prior to my June 30th deadline. Below is a list of questions I have that I hope you can help clarify. If any of the questions, fall outside your domain it would be wonderful if you could point me in the right direction on whom could help answer the questions. 1. The property does not currently have water or sewer inside the building. Is water and sewer available and what will be the approximate fees to bring them to the site? 2. For a use change from warehouse to retail are Water and Sewer required? 3. We are looking to keep the same building foot print and during the remodel we would like to open up the front of the building to allow for parking accessible via Cleveland st. The building roof would remain and would overhang the 4-5 car parking stalls. We envision it will be back in parking given the one way street. Per RZC 21.40.010.E.6, Backing Into Streets Generally Prohibited. Parking facilities shall be designed so exiting vehicles are not required to back into streets, except for residential uses of less than four dwellings per lot on local access streets. However, Cleveland St will be converted into a two-way street and you may be able to back into the garage? 4. Assuming the parking as described will work the building sqft will reduce to 1800. Will the parking requirements thus reduce to the 1800sqft versus the original 2800sqft (current building)? I believe so, Gary Lee to confirm. 5. Which impact fees do you anticipate being charged I need to know what specific use of the building before and after and I will use the before and after use to estimate the new trips. If the new net new trips are more than 30 trips, it will trigger new impact fee. The net impact fees would be the new impact fee offset by the impact fee resulting from the existing use. 6. We are looking to remodel the exterior to include either new barn doors, reclaimed wood exterior (possibly repaint portions of the cinderblock). Which permits and or architectural committee involvement will be needed? Check with planer or building department. Thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, EXHIBIT F ---PAGE BREAK--- Sean Miller Partner 225 W Wacker Drive Suite 1565 ● Chicago, Illinois 60606 ● USA P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] E: [EMAIL REDACTED] W: www.paylinedata.com Click here to report this email as spam. This message has been scanned for malware by Websense. www.websense.com EXHIBIT F ---PAGE BREAK--- Permit Values EXHIBIT G ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT H ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT H ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT H ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT H ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT H ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT H ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT H ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT H ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT H ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT H ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT H ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT I ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT I ---PAGE BREAK--- Sean Miller Andorra Ventures 3861 E Lake Sammamish Parkway NE Sammamish WA 98074 [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] 66151 appraised value $250,000 Change of Occupancy - Origins - Construction includes TI to divide the building into multiple retail suites, storage and offices, including the construction of a new 2nd story (459 sq ft) mezzanine. Total area of construction = 3268 sq ft. 2016-02092 CZ (PCR) MTA 2016-09802 12/9/2016 EXHIBIT J 25,100 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12-8-16 Sean Miller EXHIBIT J ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT J ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT J ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT K All exterior work is under a separate permit. Interior Only Permit Site Copy 01/25/2017 2:37:26 PM Development Services Center Reviewed for Code Compliance X Approved with Corrections noted Resubmittal Required Signature: Jozanne Moe Approved ANY CHANGES TO AN ISSUED PERMIT BEGIN IN THE FIELD WITH A BUILDING INSPECTOR. Call for an inspection ([PHONE REDACTED]) and present your changes to the building inspector in the field. The inspector will determine if they can approve your change in the field (no fee), or if you need to apply for a formal Revision (fee). If the Inspector requires a formal Revision they will provide you with a signed form containing further instructions. Please make an appointment with the assigned Building Plans Examiner ONLY AFTER you have received the signed revision form. The revision is not issued over the counter. PL: Exterior modifications are not to be included within this permit City of Redmond Planning Department X Approved with Corrections noted Resubmittal Required Signature: Cameron Zapata Approved DO NOT MODIFY PLANS WITHOUT APPROVAL Revisions to the approved site plan or building colors, materials or other features of the plan set must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to making any changes in the field. Changes made without prior approval may be subject to code enforcement penalties. Please contact Cameron Zapata at [PHONE REDACTED] for further instructions. 02-15-2017 SUBJECT TO FIELD INSPECTION ALL APPLICABLE CODES SHALL APPLY. ERRORS AND/OR OMISSIONS ON PLANS ARE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF OWNER/CONTRACTOR. CORRECTIONS REQUIRED FROM FIELD INSPECTION SHALL BE AT OWNER/CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. THIS APPROVAL DOES NOT GRANT TO ANY PERSON THE RIGHT TO VIOLATE ANY CITY OR STATE LAWS. Redmond Fire Department Stan Noble ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT K Site Copy ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT K Site Copy ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT K Site Copy ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT K Site Copy ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT K Site Copy ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT K Site Copy ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT K Site Copy ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT K Site Copy ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT K Site Copy PL: Exterior modifications are not a part of this permit. Exterior alterations will likely be required to go through the Design Review Board ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT K Site Copy PL: Exterior modifications are not a part of this permit. Exterior alterations will likely be required to go through the Design Review Board ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT L ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT L ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT L ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT L