Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutParking Standards - COM Letters / Memos - 11/14/1994 INVESTIGATION REPORT FORM z Revised 6/3/93 Part A: Nature of Compl2.1n+ • Initiator's Name: • Address: `I - a 0 • Telephone: 4- • Owner Name: C_ L Dle k ' S 4 T7,-oeAl E Z 70 61 P, M 7C# 4 L CA • Address: 14A W,,#-zl s4eiM 3;20 LAWPUTLE- LPG • Telephone: ( ) Al00 1.t�/}4FRAI ,gr/E� B,e91ERTart1;W* 19310 • Department of Concern 1-4 7 -300 O ZI- -0 ❑ Clerical NfBuilding ❑ Health ❑ Comm Development ❑ Fire 4. Az • Area of Concern: ❑ Process Delay ❑ Personnel ❑ Policy/pee Code Violation ❑ Other Referto Director I 1. • Location of Concern: 1 oT B O F S P /'7 S PAte7 OF /3E1-EAJ�' CENTf� V� <Kry TF_A1d 1r 15 /1"0FTN MAYAl MC-0jL4 Y_ C_"Alh- lW • Nature of Concern: PHRGEL A 16 !L/ ✓iaL.A?u111 OF M 450AI CQUAIaS 57/}!t!DAF DS WITH NOT ONE P�4L'lflN� 5 PACE AS AAO 0 21 'i N�9-L o u/NEA? �- DG vE 4 o>°As,f'- � DF PAPec B 6 m,04, P1Gt)f FAILED To Gb�F/GL/-J [f/S LECAL PA,E'fi/A/6 .P�QUl,EFME�yT OF VE— 0 e5 P 7' 0A� A0V A-L- L.e4 i41 AW k/Ar 56#eez-,s o Al ouie a k'Q 1'Fl.3 + ao1yz5 aN PAje 'L A , (SE APp'L INFO ATT �D PLUS SEATIC ,y['A?af,�/f/j1ENT Cv/11f'Lr�/N-T), Part B: Concern Intake and Referral Received By: Referred To: Response Date: OName Date Name Date Date � Part C: Findings Referral Forwarded to: ❑N/A Name Date Findings: Part D: Resolution Name Date Intake/File Copy-White Referral Copy-Yellow Referral Copy-Pink Tracking Copy-Gold J MEMORANDUM November 14, 1994 To: Mike Clift, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney From: Department of Community Development Mike: Please find enclosed all letters and information sent from Ms. Janice Cooperstein. After reviewing the information provided it does not appear that the Planning Department can help. It appears to be more of a legal issue. Ms. Cooperstein feels that an adjacent retail business violated the parking standards in 1975-77 and that this business is using parking spaces that should be hers... J. nassee, Planner D artment of Community Development cc: file "NOV 1 ; 1994 .,ON COUNT' �C' V 1 994 East. 9716 45th Avo-n,-n e Spokane, WA 99206 October 30 , 1994 Mr. Jason Manassee Planner Mason County Dept . of Community Development 426 West Cedar Street Shelton, WA 98584 RE: Parking Standard Violations by Michael L. Dick, Belfair Center, Lot A of S . P . 178, Sec . 28 - 23N - 1W, Auditor ' s # 307560 Dear Mr. Manassee : Here is some additional information regarding the violation report that we submitted a couple of weeks ago . I hope that this will answer a couple of the questions that you raised in our telephone conversation last week, concerning why we are filing the complaint and what resolution we are looking for. The immediate impetus for this complaint involved a number of letters and petitions from our tenants at Belfair Center (Parcel B) , stating that the parking lot was severely overcrowded and that we find a solution. Per our ensuing survey in Nov. 1992, we learned that about 91 cars on average were attempting to park in our 58 legal spaces, including 27 of Mr. Dick ' s tenants or customers cars (half of our legal parking spaces) . Based upon the documents , which I previously submitted, it appears obvious that Mr. Dick violated Mason County ' s Parking Standards when he developed Parcel A in 1978 with NO parking spaces on that parcel . The chart below indicates that Belfair Center ' s combined legal parking requirements (for Dick ' s Parcel A and our Parcel B) are about twice the number of actual parking spaces . Est . Pkg. Spaces Actual Building Permit Required Per : Pkg . Issued Sq .Ft . Use Plot Plan ' 77 Stds Spaces Parcel B 12/31/75 11 , 570 Retail 59 63 58 Parcel A 3/27/78 4, 900 Office ? 48 0 Total 111 58 The fifty-eight (58) parking spaces on Parcel B were/are obviously not sufficient to fulfill both parcels legal parking requirements; moreover, there is no room for additional legal n parking spaces . Mr. Dick was and is in violation of Mason County ' s parking codes : - no matter which parking standards apply to Parcel B, those of 12/75 - when Lot B ' s bldg. permit was issued, or of 3/78 - the date of Lot A ' s bldg. permit and the easement (Since Mr. Dick redesigned and redefined the Parcel B lot as fulfilling both parcels requirements in 1978, it would appear that the 1978 standards should apply, but in either case , the violation remains . ) - and whether or not the easement is valid. The easement grants Mr. Dick' s Parcel A "an easement on Parcel B for such parking . . .so long as the legal parking requirements for Parcel B are not violated . " But Parcel B' s requirements are obviously violated. In our resolution of this problem, we would like to protect the tenants in Mr. Dick' s building from harm to their businesses; for example, although we have the right to just disconnect or dig up Mr. Dick ' s septic system which is on our property, we have not done so, because it would put his tenants out of business . From our perspective, a favorable resolution of this issue involves : 1 . An injunction against Mr. Dick for use of our parking or our land for his septic system, and the nullification of the easement -- in order to protect our property rights, our property value, and our tenants rights to safe , adequate parking. 2 . The development of a plan with the County that balances the need for safe, legal parking, while protecting Mr. Dick ' s tenants (especially tenants critical to the community , such as North Mason Medical Center) . This would involve long-term parking and septic leases to Dick ' s tenants, or extended notices (of several years?) to any tenants who must vat.dte to meet safe , acceptable parking requirements . We would try to increase the number of legal parking spaces available by requiring that Mr. Dick provide legal access to the employee gravel lot on Parcel B (which he is currently threatening to block) and by hopefully developing a long-term parking lease with our tenant on Parcel C . 3 . Compensation by Mr. Dick to the County and us for our losses/damages . We have tried since the purchase of this property to negotiate with Mr . Dick, but with no success; we have offered him low-cost parking leases (prior to our awareness of his parking code violations) in exchange for removal of the easement - he refused; for two years we repeatedly asked him to pay a small 20% share of our parking lot lighting and cleaning -- he refused, until 4/81 (.Wrien We discovered the parking easement and Were threatening him with court action) and which he paid until 5/43; we asked him to help pay for the recent expansion of our gravel employee lot in response to his and our tenants ' complaints - he refused and has threatened to block off access to this area which is used by both his and our tenants ; we asked him to increase his share of the parking lot expenses to 33% to reflect his increased parking -- he refused unless we signed a modification of his easement , which we refused. Mr . Dick apparently doesn ' t want to pay for his own parking -- and neither do we . We are requesting that the County participate in the resolution of this problem -- via County confirmation that Mr. Dick is indeed in violation of the County' s Parking Standards and via County enforcement of the standards . We are also filing a civil complaint in Mason County Superior Court . I believe that you have all the data necessary to determine the fact that there is a serious violation of parking ordinance #815, and thereby the Comprehensive Plan, and RCW 3670 ; this violation represents a public safety violation, as well as an enfringement of our and our tenants property rights . I understand that subsequent to your and the Planning Director ' s review, the complaint will be submitted to the Prosecuting Attorney for his decision on pursual of the case . Does the County ever also join a civil suit as a co-plaintiff? I would appreciate your help in expediting this matter. Please call me at (509) 928-8608, if you have any questions . I hope to hear from you soon . Thank you. Sincerely, a�nice S . Coopex tein /I �^ , ' | RE COMPLAINT CONCERNING MICHAEL L. DICK PARKING STANDARDS BACKGROUND Michael L. Dick purchased the subject land in 1974 , which he � short platted in 1975 into Parcels A, B, C, and D of Short Plat #178. Mr' Dick has up to the present date retained sole ownership of Parcel A, which originally housed his Spot Realty business. On 1/16/76, Mr. Dick quit claimed two-thirds of his interest in Parcels B, C and D to co-owners Short and Cloud, and on 12/19/78 Parcels B & C were sold to the Coopersteins. On the day before the sale to the Coopersteins was recorded, a parking easement against Parcel B for the benefit of Parcel A was filed by Dick and co-sellers; in the last minutes of escrow, an addendum regarding an ingress and egress easement had been requested and granted per the escrow instructions, but no parking easement had been discussed or approved. PICK, AS OWNER/DEVELOPER, 1_AI__,ED TO MEET_COUNTY PARKING STANDARDS As an owner/developer of Parcels A and B, Mr. Dick is responsible to fulfill the requirements of the County Parking Standards. My approximation of legal parking requirements for Parcels A and B indicate an extreme shortage of parking for Parcel A. Mr. Dick may contend that he fulfilled Parcel A` s parking requirements via a parking easement on Parcel B, but Parcel B did/does not have any more spaces than it required for itself. About 111 parking spaces were/are required for the development of Parcels A and B combined, but they have less than 58 parking spaces -- all of which are on Parcel B. ' Parcel A Parcel B Bldg. Use/Pkg Standard: Offices Clustered Comm' l Section 9. 02: Section 9. 0: One space per each 150 5. 5 per 1 , 000 sq. ft. of gross leasable sq. ft. of gross area + 1 per employee. leasable area. Sq. Ft. Per Bldg. Permit: 4900 11 ,570 Parking Spaces Required: Per Sq. ft. reqmts. 4900/150 = 33 11 . 57*5. 5=63 Per employee reqmts. 15 0 (as reported 11/92 by Mr. Dick' s tenants) APPROX. PARKING SPACES REQUIRED: 48 63 VS. ACTUAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES 0 <58 � (Note segments of the 58 spaces are on Parcel A and Parcel C (which isn' t affected) , plus the State right-of-way. ~ � THE EASEMENT, BY ITS OWN TERMS, ALSO DOES NOT GRANT ANY PARKING Even IF the easement is valid (which is also being legally contested with respect to a property owner giving themself an easement over their own land) , the easement still does not grant Dick any parking rights on Parcel B based on its own words. Specifically, it grants Dick "an easement on Parcel B for such parking. . . so long as the legal parking requirements for Parcel B are not violated. " However, as shown above, Dick' s use of even one parking space on Parcel B would violate Parcel B' s requirements. COUNTY AND CIVIL IS—QP The Coopersteins are filing a complaint against Mr. Dick in Mason � County Superior Court next week regarding the civil issues of Mr. Dick' s septic system and parking encroachments. We would appreciate Mason County' s fulfillment of their separate responsibility to also investigate and enforce the County Codes with regard to these issues. � � Enclosed are some key documents with regard to the parking issue. If you need further detail , documents or information, please call Janice Cooperstein (509) 928-8608. Thank you. � Documents Enclosed: � Plot Plan for Parcel B - 1975 Parcel B Building Permit - 1975/76 Survey for M. Dick prior to Parcel A Construction - 1978 | Parcel A Building Permit - 1978 Survey Conducted for M. Dick - 1993 � Survey Conducted for Coopersteins - 1993 ' � 1a3-)L ��_9�o3a OFFICE OF THE MASON COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY GARY P.BURLESON 411 N.FIFTH STREET PROSECUTING ATTORNEY SHELTON,WASHINGTON 98584 PHONE(206)427-9670 ext.417 MEMORANDUM DATE: November 17, 1994 TO: Jason Manassee, Mason County Planner FROM: Mike Clift, Chief Deputy Prosecuting Attorney FK--1111 PARKING COMPLAINT - JANICE COOPERSTEIN I 've reviewed the documentation furnished rs. Cooperstein's complaint. It's my opinion ild stay out of what' s essentially a civil I Phe issues raised are or can be adequately raise n's lawsuit. Your file is returned herewith.