The URL can be used to link to this page

1018 PUGET DR.PDF1018 PUGET DR r" STREET. FILE R E E I V E �. JUN 1,� 1989 CITY OF EDMONDS ENGINEERING 250-5th AVE N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: l �� Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering 890_lg February 23, 1989 Mr. Loren Landau Texaco, Inc. P. 0. Box 2969 Kirkland, WA. 98083 Dear Mr. Landau: i LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR . PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR I am enclosing copies of the sections of the Centrac Associates Traffic Study done for the developer's and Bell -Walker Engineers' review. I have highlighted the areas regarding truck traffic. It is my under- standing that only single unit trucks would be used for deliveries between 8 a.m..and.6 p.m. Larger trucks, such as those used for fuel delivery, would be allowed between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. I am enclosing a City map that shows the preferable route for your drivers to take inbound and outbound, at least through the construction work on SR 524, between 88th Ave. W. and Olympic Ave. The route is SR 104 to Westgate, right on 100th Ave. W. (9th Ave.) to SR 524, follow SR 524 to the site. I request that your drivers be sensitive.to this route because it does go through residential neighborhoods. Thank you. If.I can be of further service, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, ?0:i H Y D E Engineering Coordinator GCH/sdt Enclosures -- LANDAU/TXTST530 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan could be safely negotiated (adequate sight distance available). - without significant delays in waiting for adequate gaps in traffic stream. If.a future traffic signal were installed at the SR-524/Olympic View intersection, the SR-524 driveway could be limited to inbound movements only (as recommended by WSDOT District #1) to.prevent conflicts with queued westbound vehicles at the signal. Parking spaces for the proposed retail/gasoline station I development would be p provided on -site without any parking • required off -site, adjacent to bordering streets. A total of 13 new parking spaces would be provi.ded. At present, curb parking is not permitted.on streets adjacent to the proposed development.. 1 - Pedestrian facilities proposed at the project site would consist of: Sidewalks on streets adjacent to the proposed development and crosswalks at the SR-524/O1Y m is View intersection N additional pedestrian facilities are planned.or n.ecessary. Signs +. are posted on SR-524 warning motorists of the crosswalk at the Olympic View intersection. A truck loading area for the development is currently planned adjacent to the east side of the new building s t 0 e""to ati t l " r(di+a T.i'jK 't`x't r'V +'r'„x a,, r^cc:.v =^. l: 'i"'atl•. a 4 - _ iL. 1,P,�"ylsr rr' I s' - : a.3i' .t �+l.L.'G i1�4�u?p { ." �m7tation,s! of4 theaupropos�ed�sirtey and to„„deduce conflicts dur_i. , nrNi ace E7 ?+ K t Fide r �b��li}�Y�f 1"4 5`'s� s,,�ze One;�im�eazoFr�s�r�ngrte�'u,n.�i,�,typ'e�.�trucks duwring-"work.in,'g"• hour _t,,•z'}yrj�t P „ Larger .4tr cks `s uch as those�ne eded to serve c'e�p 9tai};•:v! the gasoline pumps::..would. 'ac'cess ':'the 's'ite"du'ring ;off - peak. hours' and at ;nigh>>..t „ The proposed right -turn deceleration lane at the SR-524/Puget driveway could also be used as a secondary load/unload area for larger trucks to minimize turning and on - site conflicts with customer vehicles. 10 vehicles and the level of service for westbound traffic entering the intersection do not warrant a protected right -turn lane. Also, creating a right -turn lane would eliminate the protected nature of the holding lane for the store entrance, in that vehicles intending to turn right at the intersection would also be .entering this lane.' Finally, extending the right -turn lane around the corner would increase the distance required for pedestrians to cross Olympic View Drive, which- would increase the hazard to pedestrians using that crosswalk. .Truck Loading: We find, it uappropriate ..for. the study._to .rec_ ommend that single -unit .trucks, only be ;f site during working hours.' Even with this restriction, though, }there is'a•`potential hazard for trucks backing from the store parking area in front of the SR 524 driveway entrance to the loading .area on the east side of the building. This hazard is reduced to a reasonable level, however, by the proposed right -turn holding lane which would allow inbound cars to wait during the .trucks' backing movement without interfering with the flow of traffic on SR 524. Concerning the comment in the Centrac report that the right -turn holding lane could possible be used as a loading area for larger trucks, we would consider this practice to be unacceptable, in that the 'right -turn holding lane should be available at all times to avoid delays and accident hazards for westbound traffic. Also, an adequate sight distance to the east for vehicles existing from that driveway could not be maintained if trucks were allowed to stop in the right -turn holding lane... Parking The proposed development provides a total of.13 off-street parking spaces. According the City of Edmonds Engineering Department, this exceeds the number of parking .spaces required under city ordinances. Using the same criteria for estimating parking space requirements that. was used in estimating trips generated, it could P g P q 8 P 8 , reasonably be expected that the following parking spaces would be required: Convenience Store.: Employees - 1 . Customers 3 Hair..$.alon:. Employees - 4 ,'(t y;l`' I Customers - 2 Insurance Office: Employees - 2 _ Customers - 1 Total off-street parking required - 13 It appears, therefore, that the 13 of parking spaces proposed for this development would provide for a minimum number of allowable spaces. However, this number of spaces does not provide any additional parking for periods of peak usage, and no space appears to be available on the site which could be used for overflow parking. This could be a problem considering that no on -street parking is available in the vicinity. Speed Data: On July 7, 1983, a speed study was conducted on SR 524 adjacent to the site. This study indicated. an average speed of 32.8 mph, while the posted speed limit is 30 mph. This average speed is acceptable given the existing sight distances and roadway geometrics, and does not indicate an excessive average speed. Because. of the age of this speed study, we conducted an additional speed study consisting of a g bJ'A • . eta, -" � ' �'.:� ; �. ,. ® � � 1 �i Ali � � a °�� 1� �# $ mm ® S a 11141 As r .v 6•ti � � �Z t 5 ! hr N$t7Pll7T1'6i ?i. N u /lu a is\� NaN l - h{ 1 t. i y':°• r v rtsitt, s 1 ! t r d < "i ♦ ,� •'� ' ' ■ Inv-* ' ✓ ..t 54wtaesT= >y: i' .'l• dgq i AVON U AM f t Nu+' i 1 : � e p t � / s. \µ� ; q . �7'.u�t;;•S.S 3 !e- r .f . :.1 § i,iG SNYTJ I ,� ; y � � t � � �. �� r � ,- � ! • n t : i +t � AMYOOOiM�) By;&70 .y • :1� i s t'` y r a.e°o 1. As x �•H •I��t •irr .4� , t 1L 'tit.^^ � '.;• i '•( 1 rl . ix 1a � Yv iJ a •." ♦ ,n• - it t� "�lR� A�)d a+� Iz u a•IN 6 t� n 3 ,. �� 1 I!�_ t 1 1 C.3 ? _ .. ... ri � r,..yy,,'yyC��§ �}l� i ylt, j� t �? y � t, .:t 1 �.; �t',; ! 1. •' rvl'�r=�: t t i 'J Ic •�itv '.�n �;+�ittly- S .ww! it °`fit}:. ♦ lc4 � �' S, 1 r r t t'�a t .tY �'a : !� rs a Ip %h4Yt 9'.d1•, y4a ! t. .A 1. 'jj�p' •�rF ,S �,, d r; `.g -:i } ! y�gidA`y'li", f Mtat e i^til'�'i:I«lu''i. 7 :r aj 4pt� 'jh 5;' .,1 N a! • J i' , •VfM�M1+�t yet - 1, f f �} fl[ t • a{.,�t•'.�st,1�� 1 r Mo'� 1. •�6f.�t�� ' r' JI "x•\ Y U M1KL,. p i a i• s q JJ leN A!:List•.is h �t1.JS 3?`}YJi�t6'•i' ., A.".. -� t rt at waat � (. .. ! �� !2.. s�'ae 1 I .:�a .y ::�k,. y 4. � ,s. rt :t� � .• l,M «a I u ? fib• 1 •• `f•. •:, J }ll.fi.fl�lwww A ' �•�:•: �i: ?:� P S� i }�- T e �� 1 •.: �_ .. ` 3 w ��1. i d. ,y �•K• A t t•' �t pz � '''s J 'e s f• f t J '. t Y - - - '%•.� ` i /i alit �� i !j ;•. '�a� i.f v '`� 7 � � �W7 f s f � w �. y .-. ,'�. � :l :. '• 71YD1t M t 1'1' w \:•, Fir:.• e Q _ u wli i `/ w,t • gc 'da' r. f8 � � � a " � vie d { :d. � rt ./«ul a � u« li o a 1 •' r 1 v �i ul i �Y. � z �a " .;:s 6�4{'t n �•g'• •! ^ f t 'All NOS +' w• at 1' : t Natlt f = ' i ? > 4' l IV.UdsoN i w7v %� N Is NUK u 6 6 S ' S • uwa t ° 1 ri .' a > 7 •.. �-"" My SN3A719 a �7S„Mo ; 1' i Mi ASNult '� vNaKL f w > i it "'•.:t { J, "yyt , r� ■u Na•u �t * YJ a/ «a•le f ILLelt w • u • iYN . y w ••,{.a„ 1 t o Mt II Ml li t •- f M• i NltiL i N!•It atA vwft ,7r11Y1 I. llaewYM Yl ' ; r '�' •'u1 } `},� Mt1/Nl•It MtU NUI t • �" • 6'^S Mt t -Sigi f L Nlrli U _ r •;s s „` cN, .. w.0 wwla M.M.M. v Nlnt ~ i w, ia°IwiN AJAp IV NOIIOONof� N a 1�11W Y' MiUM It PI.1 1{ i � U UflYM f � _y`-r :iJt••� ti.. p.p,: .. $I_ ._- 6i ■tONOW07 { i � r, t ell U w°L� Ar ..•Vba4�.ar!W..::r1M - tM/ Mt It Nitli V y U 1 NUii YYY•lt is f d1to,1 6T �M a anwnM ' xwvl Y .i ®.'n•"�}. It v 6 ` It i\avw ' 1 •y4" Y. v ',7 } 4 F W < Te, yr•1• NL y 1 Nl•w V �{ " ar l ' '� '� O ! ; `b" i. • fl' tJl F rt Is w717� w Y > 1z 3 y� y s1a Wm w w K Ja,; t3?ry!i••aXY ai'- i1.. .. ri .J -' :'J. ��fr..e'h'. f t • It O[ U «IYw i. BMW f 1/ MIYw •� + - ' r0��ppt,i�•��j¢, Qt y >fOi17p� t v Nuu = y a Nuu z esV u nv a nn r +r K ' x� >'"+. •+;t'd �'^� x� �� f at1Vd E = r ,A i,, .1 1/ t0wewel ♦ . ?�. r .t S^.. .yt� 7%, ;j !�/ � S M• / aDO1M � � vNl•K ases e wr. 1 't} riYi w '7 S•' �• N1Ni i > f Nl•et t BNId f • u 1/ 1MIYW _ Ze,]I+eYWi U eYW + '•T 'a ._ r' '�•�pa,�'y�st"µ !y` a .� t,v� �t t M/ t r/ v r u : a:vve •�\ M =rfi•'z(y�+ t' � TI 'itf ra4 wYw1 t irot a«.rK .a v oYLK /u+� YYut • i U .Te ,/ .me INa NMe n r• It Gem g Not ye .aa�t- tr4 D7 - 7Nw rr! y�•Sr't,t r v • i '� o«tK YYYIn u AION� pl 3343 r!' ✓ �., Y •. '! f YO t •nYtn a/ r,ro,• �i, rwo,r r" .,, ♦Vy1f >��y(4(��s��lhk� �'} a-y. r/ vo«rK o« K > f i /.w.•.m 1.,a.. c .a -f 1 JI�"'`�t�, x 'tf•t�� r/uo«mi _y r a t NJM W le i'lIN =y �- 7C a4a 1» �{ M �'OIIOt tiS ''f .'t Mi a/ atlu • • ; 0o i 1dVW vuu a_ «wvoof I ff rlua .► r•,u+ �y� �•'le1•fi •:^ '%�•'�ilSA!_�i 7��5 U "� M/ li « �w/ ate' � «loK Y / . F a/ � •WM �� +.k tall + A'J-� !t N1N1 • lY w100Y i a a .. `?�,% �p7A •{�+'. 1. -.1 7 � a ,r <e t � � 1 Y LYtw,18 tt aX ` F { J• � l" � waMl � i i � 1N • N1N1 •\a Z •1r1 �. / S i * x+' :a k r }t,a + v ? i7 tt • a 7 r a �ooMSldv �' ,M °«v+rn. anew.« .�4" b . , - to ?� 7' i • t / a/ »aN f • Ye ;may eNYlrn z i •M7O7 A" M .+en.1, :C.i':y_yv�..:s:: (r,•t':a :`•1 rt • li�l•tt i qa rOI YZ 7 7WWAIO 'tO axlu •tn .It s t" w4•wwIIM1 W- .• .• LN,NI .� ... iF` j } l' jr + tIt• N1N1 •M at . � � tVaal � V h t, ; ,�• :J^;,1 r . ':: - Mt v Nar is «1• t tY i f "ar•1 v «iNl •• "N 1 °p•.aw • r ✓i »•r.{.v �,,`�5 °"i f:b'°•'i.` w v o.Nl 7 Y° • e • • v°.Nl s 3 �� n�l►uN .^: "! .[y y 4'Q t 7i o«ul r• at o«rK ■ I / i Ir ,.xwd vuuait top'4 .r « "'"'p' t ".;,Y;�°,; a4i' r.•- S " +i 7 / at «awl ° Ht313 Sl"3N iy x u «awl �./�{• a .•\,...'rlF 4,^y^�. v'`�'..., •dL Nl 3�35 =. .,. «.••1 �,. / d�.�L - �/!�� MOO��1�Ul�ti '�Y7fi i •�� i t d • •� 3 7� S a �♦ i � l� � 1r/LtL��I�r R,14 t �.. •� r/ a »1N1 V � r .�} rl.. •, If • � /. • �• f A• a/ «lUl •t•L NIa•IM Nll•1 rt L«aNl • • �tLl; "`� 1• g � M• L L d wt At STgEE7 FILE 8 9 0- 1 9 4- CITY OF EDMONDS 250-5th AVE N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 7 71-3 202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering February 23, 1989 Mr. Loren Landau Texaco, Inc. P. 0. Box 2969 Kirkland, WA. 98083 Dear Mr. Landau: LARRY S.NALIGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR I am enclosing copies of the sections of the Centrac Associates Traffic Study done for the developer's and Bell -Walker Engineers' review. I have highlighted the areas regarding truck traffic. It is my under- standing that only single unit trucks would be used for deliveries between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Larger trucks, such as those used for fuel delivery, would be allowed between 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. I am enclosing a City map that shows the preferable route for your drivers to take inbound and outbound, at least through the construction work on SR 524, between 88th Ave. W. and Olympic Ave. The route is SR 104 to Westgate, right on 100th Ave. W. (9th Ave.) to SR 524, follow SR 524 to the site. I request that your drivers be sensitive to this route because it does go through residential neighborhoods. Thank you. If I can be of further service, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, GORDON C. HYDE Engineering Coordinator GCH/sdt Enclosures G Alb is LANDAU/TXTST530 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan could be safely negotiated (adequate sight distance available). without significant delays in waiting for adequate gaps in traffic stream. If a future traffic signal were installed at the SR-524/Olympic View intersection, the SR-524 driveway could be limited to inbound movements only (as recommended by WSDOT District #1) to prevent conflicts with queued westbound vehicles at the signal. Parking spaces for the proposed retail/gasoline station development would be provided on -site without any parking required off -site, adjacent to bordering streets. A total .of 13 new parking spaces would be provided. At present, curb parking is not permitted on streets adjacent to the proposed development. Pedestrian facilities proposed at the project site would consist of: Sidewalks on streets adjacent'to the proposed development and crosswalks at the SR-524/Olympic View intersection. No additional pedestrian facilities are planned or necessary. Signs are posted on SR-524 warning motorists of the crosswalk at the Olympic View intersection. A truck loading area for the development is currently planned adjacent to the east side of the new buildings. Due to the space limitations of the proposed site and to reduce conflicts during peak traffic periods, it is.recommended that truck access to the site be limited to single-unit._type trucks during working. hours (8 AM - 6 PM). Larger trucks., such as those needed to service the gasoline pumps would access the site during off-peak hours and at night. The proposed right -turn deceleration lane at the SR-524/Puget driveway could also be used as a secondary load/unload area for larger trucks to minimize turning and on - site conflicts with customer vehicles. 10 C01-7 -�/-a C_ /Zsacia. 1,-IC vehicles and the level of service for westbound traffic entering the intersection do not warrant a protected right -turn lane. Also, creating a right -turn lane would eliminate the protected nature of the holding lane for the store entrance, in that vehicles intending to turn right at the intersection would also be entering this lane. Finally, extending the right -turn lane around the corner would increase the distance required for pedestrians to cross Olympic View Drive, which would increase the hazard to pedestrians using that crosswalk. Truck Loading: We find.. it appropriate for the study to recommend that single -unit trucks only be allowed on the site during working hours. Even with this restriction, though, there is a potential hazard for trucks backing from the store parking area in front of the SR 524 driveway entrance to the loading area on the east side of the building. This hazard is reduced to a reasonable level, however, by the proposed right -turn holding lane which would allow inbound cars to wait during the trucks' backing movement without interfering with the flow of traffic on SR 524. Concerning the comment in the Centrac report that the right -turn holding lane could possible be used as a loading area for larger trucks, we would consider this practice to be unacceptable, in that the right -turn holding lane should• be available at all times to avoid delays and accident hazards for westbound traffic. Also, an adequate sight distance to the east for vehicles existing from that driveway could not be maintained if trucks were allowed to stop in the right -turn holding lane. Parking: The proposed development provides a total of 13 off-street parking spaces. According the City of Edmonds Engineering' Department, this exceeds the number of parking spaces required under city ordinances. Using the same criteria for estimating parking space requirements that was used in estimating trips generated, it could reasonably be expected that the following parking spaces would be required: Convenience Store: Employees - 1 Customers - 3 Hair Salon: Employees - 4 Customers - 2 Insurance Office: Employees - 2 Customers - 1 r r� Total off-street parking required - 13 It appears, therefore, that the 13 of parking spaces proposed for this development would provide for a minimum number of allowable spaces. However, this number of spaces does not provide any additional parking for periods of peak usage, and no space appears to be available on the site which could be used for overflow parking. This could be a problem considering that no on -street parking is available in the vicinity. Speed Data. On July 7, 1983, a speed study was conducted on SR 524 adjacent to the site. This study indicated an average speed of 32.8 mph, while the posted speed limit is 30 mph. This average speed is acceptable given the existing sight distances and roadway geometries, and does not indicate an excessive average speed. Because of the age of this speed study, we conducted an additional speed study consisting of a f3'E.2,9..7eers /., c . lull ; r, R BAM Will MME C� �� ''ate• 3�!!1 Yf7� t ti" .i�ar_'F �.; t 1lJtt t�1 h. t Y h 5p' imp LPL 9, [3' art• u Lf. Ly EE I�.prwl rfl y 1 t rf Y f M CCtt \ S• '- ..tE_"ell 49 p� c ,1 .Ir. � M:r t L �r.�_.3}�J read. �x��•��r "+inbF1�(r. b5' trG irCr!!,-„j�'....'B:L`S.I.'S.`��J-y.'�'li..�: f aI J Y �,� ,r,Nlt(M,K.� sr Iri iWtfl Ws Sdm,d A4�' ..y.d di$�h4are}d fii� �1 "L7P.I�H GClI RFi'�2Y�&�il,Sas� r•rMn . . e_ r._tr-�--a vA L LE f GIJTTr K per? !ITT' `.TArJbAf2bS n Pie. \. /y a' ✓ �200F NATc-l-t \. Tv W STA U, Io � B ILE -SEA 17T1, Zz-11A-6, 2 0 'I / V/, l � i SITI_ LI rowE-1Z Ai- Z IVF•., cur c�U- 1 i [ .�,-• �. �- 1 S A Co!PY p -PUGET DR'VE STRE LE CITY OF EDMONDS STKET. FILE: ASSET INFORMATION SHEET 41 IJ NEW ❑ ADDITION ❑ RETIREMENT ASSET NO. 5�z cS ADDITION TO ASSET NO. DESCRIPTION �/9'"�2 - /Al 4 SERIAL NO. LOCATION DV, NO. * * PURCHASE ORDER NO. PURCHASE ORDER DATE COST * PROJECT NUMBER 1��0 %% PROJECT COMPLETION DATE COST B.A.R.S. ACCOUNT NO. ESTIMATED LIFE INITIATED BY DATE APPROVED BY **SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET WITH FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST *SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET UPON CLOSE OF PROJECT ACCOUNTING ONLY IL/J DEPRECIATE MONTHLY DEPRECIATION AMOUNT ANNUAL DEPRECIATION AMOUNT G.L. ENTRY REFERENCE DATE b P INITIAL DEPARTMENT FILE VERIFIED BY PROCESSED BATCH NO.- Q4 TT tii �rlj t I - ru 1`7 Z\Ni> 6ANO 1JwPLP_ SEFA t. flL F-M I T, p ':;-FC,T'IOM 75o Z, LJWPE o 0, v/A.S-1 A Tr- T I PUGET DAVE ,--- ;ZO('::>r- � ATCI-j VE p_lr-( Lw, VvIl AkZ H. F�io4-, To INSTAL -LA ''frF- DITL_ ZZIA-La A- G, �� t�'�\ r I 1-0 ST�, FILE COMPLAINTS MUST BE WRITTEN: NO VERBAL COMPIA=S WILL BE ACCEPTED. THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETE. .a STREET FILE DATE CITY OF EDMONDS Xiu ►� pWe Name: i I I l �1 ��'i O (� Phone: to %Z�l Address: 1 Zq Ol vm,D t G Vt �5-tt) 02, ADDRESS OF PROPERTY TO BE INVESTIGATED: �D `� UC�`I /Z• Name of Owner: Address: Phone: DESCRIPTION OF COMPLAINT: (—�Dt )1 D W t>�� l t ) I Cameo (A-) f=, U DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - FOR CITY USE ONLY CODE SECTION VIOLATION: TYPE OF ACTION EXPECTED: TIME REQUIRED TO INVESTIGATE / ACT ON COMPLAINT: RESULT OF INVESTIGATION: DATE: ('_ to, C-6 TIME IRED: ut�td...tp tJ 4 mil-ab►aum Sc,( W vet-1 (2,1 ce.,rr of �... y STREET FILE MEMO TO: Building Division FROM: Engineering Division// SUBJECT: /D/lr Ze_./- After review of the subject building permit application, we have the following comments: 1) Connection to City -water system required. 2) Connection to City sanitary sewer system required. 3) Right-of-way permit required for any work.on City property. 4) Driveway slope not to exceed 1410. 5) Back water valve required if downstairs plumbing is below elevation of upstream manhole. 6) Water and sewer lines to be separated by 10 foot minimum. 7) Builder/owner responsibl'e.for containing all temporary runoff and erosion on site and may 'not impact neighboring properties in any way. 8) Construction hours from `7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and 10:00 a.�m, to 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. 9) No burning of construction refuse withou -apprpv;il by Fire Dept. J,'12 N STREET FILE M E M O R A N D U M January 21, 1988 TO: Mayor Larry S. Naughten Members of th City Council VIA: Peter Hahn, ommunity Services Director FROM: Bob Alberts, City Engineer SUBJECT: DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS FOR PROPOSED CONVENIENCE STORE - OLYMPIC VIEW DRI'VE AND PUGET DRIVE This report is in response to Council's direction to further review the driveway locations for the proposed convenience store located at Olympic View Drive and Puget Drive. Attached is a copy of the drawing indicating the driveway locations, which will be used for the issuance of a right-of-way permit unless directed otherwise. Staff anticipates the request for a permit will be made sometime after February 2, 1988. The entrances will be at the same grade as the roadway and will have fifteen foot radii. This should enhance movement of traffic and improve the turning movement for trucks. The entrance on Olympic View Drive will be located at the same location as the existing entrance directly across from Grandview Drive. The project was again discussed with the State (see letter from Chris Beckman dated January 19, 1988) and the City's traffic consultant, Bell -Walker and Associates. The City also has a letter from the developer's traffic consultant, Gibson Traffic Consultants, supporting the attached plan. RJA/sdt Attachments CONVSTOR/TXTST530 CITY OF E®11i ON®S 250 5lh AVE. N. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (208) 771•J202 t COMMUNITY SERVICES II ' I I I�r 1 r i January 19, 1988 WRY &. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR Washington State Department of Transportation, District 1 15325 S.E. 30th Pl. Bellevue, WA. 98007-6538 Attention: Miguel Gavino, Traffic Operations Re: Retail Development at SR 524 & Olympic View Drive Dear Miguel: To -summarize our meeting of January 13, 1988'on this topic, you confirmed the fact that the City of Edmondsthas jurisdiction over driveway openings and WSDOT is mainly concerned with the roadway channelization, which is not affected on this project. .We concurred that there is an unlikely chance of SR 524 being widened in the future. After reviewing the latest site'plan'for the proposed development and how the drive openings relate to .the existing roadway, you expressed no need for changes. I will forward a copy of the final approved site plan to you for your. files. Thank you for taking the time to review this item with me. Sincerely, ; ,1 CHRIS BECKMAN, P.E. Engineering Coordinator CB/sdt A7berts SR5240LY/TXTST530 i PUBLIC WORKS • PLANNING • PARKS AND, RECREATION • ENGINEERING Fr--J;' CIT 4- �Z A-Z A IZL lo OS14- P A- V* Z. i.... A A =9A. W,1,1 kw" A - U rlice 0 (0) CV a L rW7 ru- rROV '7 UN T! Z- c<-A 7 DE HOOK Up C_Otj t4 To -HL>-r 1401_Kr_ W�_L_ c; ow TlHF_C.L.(,Y_K or-F TL (S D E L FIE- R C_ l"r__( j 4 • E-D P -ry W r HAL. VALU:1-f. Tt-K cl-ry s-rAHL > 5 4. Lik 7z- 6TUT 17Ts. Y V_ RAFFO 1 STREETLE77 Q OF �FILE O L 6210 144th Ave. N.E. Redmond. Wa. 98052 Attention To C L T-1 Or- IE,p h owo T PvO L4 L woV1{,c-f Address 2 50 — S-D!A-vv5/vc/ E "r-t c it.A r, t"6 g g o-L-o Project OF Lot�oywft1 Job No. Date VIA_ Subject L �✓L 0'J 0"4w"'" k S� PL'O*') /LE✓6J?oW-t 1I g /8 S J7 h TRANSMITTED Copies Description `Attached ❑ (Draft) Report l -l1 0Vt46- C- P.,1 . �0- yam- ei±4� ❑Specifications ❑ Cost Estimate ❑ Document ❑ Contract ❑ Shop Drawings ❑ Prints ®-C-opy of Letter Comments Chi44 S -_ 4 f/1- iF—'r Imo- D 1SC-VFJXj (-t WJ 0,J P 00►"E- , PL4M f- F04---A" O�R-t Gtiw4-�- 1,o I3o 6 Fodi-- CoVt✓C-,t L- 11-T-y. -1-b VL -+r, il�A�tca . .R/1-•1C REFERENCE R'For your review ❑ For your approval ❑ For your use 2As requested ❑ Return copies ❑ Signed Copies to TRAFFIC ENGINEERS AND TRANSPORTATION PLANNERS IF ENCLOSURES ARE NOT AS, NOTED, KINDLY NOTIFY US AT. ONCE 0 MOCH TRZMFRC COHOULUIHM. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING •TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 6210 144TH AVE. N.E. • REDMOND, WA. 98052 • (206) 885-2317 January 19, 1988 STREET FILE Mr. Bob Alberts, P.E. City Engineer City of Edmonds, Public Works 250 - 5th.Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 RE:; Olympic View Retail Development (SR-524.@.Olympic View Dr.) Review of New Site Plan - Driveways & Internal Circulation Dear Mr. Alberts: Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC) has been asked by Commercial Design Associates (CDA) to review the latest site plan revisions for the Olympic View Retail project; specifically, the driveway revisions and how the final plans accommodate traffic operations,` internal circulation and safety for vehicular traffic and: pedestrian travel. We met with CDA staff yesterday to review the new site plan and have discussed the recent revisions and background with Chris Beckman of your staff. ..It is our.. understanding that this letter summarizing our* comments on,the traffic issues may be needed at tonight's City Council meeting: Driveway Relocation on Olympic View: As we understand it, the proposed driveway onto Olympic View Drive has been relocated' about 10 feet north to the approximate location of the existing driveway. From a traffic safety/operations standpoint, this .revision is beneficial for the following reasons: 1)'.better alignment with Grandview Drive with no "jog" maneuver now required for crossing traffic movements;. 2) greater offset distance to Puget Drive (SR-524) intersection, which provides for longer queuing at stopline without blocking this driveway; 3) better protection of gas pump island area, i.e. better separation of inbound vehicles from vehicles parked on north side up pump island; and, 4) improved geometries for internal movements between this driveway and the pump island. The only disadvantage is the minor "jog" for exiting maneuver -by store patrons' vehicles parked in front of the convenience store. -This should not cause a traffic hazard since the driveway is designed with a desirable width (30 feet) plus exiting.vehicles will still have nearly 40 feet to negotiate the "jog" to the driveway. . Improved Turning Radii at Driveways: Turning radii at both driveways havebeen upgraded to 15 feet for all external curb returns and 10 feet for internal curb returns. The larger radii provide for easier and safer right -turn maneuvers to/from the site, and help warn crossing pedestrians of frequent vehicular movements during peak periods at both driveway locations. The proposed "higher type" driveway design (similar to minor intersections) should enhance the awareness of pedestrians along COUNTS/SURVEYS • SITE IMPACTS • LOS ANALYSIS 9 EIS 9 HEARINGS • SAFETY • SIGNALS • PARKING STREET+ILE Mr. Bob Alberts January 19, 1988 Page Two either street, compared with a lower "curb cut" type design. The increased internal radii should improve on, -'site circulation also, with reduced extra maneuvers and potential conflicts on -site. Other Comments on Final Site Plan: The 3,000 SF convenience store is slightly larger than the originally proposed.multi-use facility (with salon & insurance office). However, the total generated traffic by the convenience store plus two gas pumps (4 nozzles) would still be considerably less than estimated in Centrac's traffic analysis, which did not assume .any multi-, purpose site trips as characteristic of a mini: -mart. -facility. The striped pedestrian walkways added help identify wheregas and store patrons should cross the parking lots. from-the,_pump island or OVD driveway to the store, which ,should reduce potential vehicle -pedestrian conflicts on -site Removal°-'of`3-4 parking spaces.adjacent to the SR-524• entrance •and moving the handicapped stall to the east. end has eliminated'a:potential safety problem, with patrons backing out of stalls and colliding with entering vehicles from SR-524. Relocating the proposed sidewalk along SR-524 to the right-of-way line provides good separation between pedestrian and vehicular traffic, as.well as accommodates .future widening of the State highway at minimal expense. The electrical conduit extension under the SR7524 .driveway will permit installation of an additional streetlight near the SR-524 driveway if, traffic operational or safety problems, related to low. visibility at this driveway, develop after the mini -mart facility is open. This future street light would help supplement on -site lighting of this entrance, plus provide a better balanced lighting pattern on Puget Drive. Bob, we hope this letter is helpful to the City of Edmonds in completing its review of the Olympic View Retail development.: In our opinion, the revisions proposed by City staff to the site driveways and internal circulation should greatly enhance safe travel by both vehicular and pedestrian traffic at the.subject site. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 885-2317. Sincerely, GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS Terry L. Gibson, P.E. Traffic Engineer/President XC: Carl Pirscher, CDA Chris Beckman, City of Edmonds L. o 0 RAFFIC � B O OH TH&IFI DO COHOOOLUHUH TRAFFIC ENGINEERING *TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 6210 144TH AVE. N.E. • REDMOND, WA. 98052 • (206) 885-2317 January 19, 1988 Mr. Bob Alberts, P.E. STREET FILE City Engineer City of Edmonds, Public Works 250 - 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Olympic View Retail Development (SR-524 @ Olympic View Dr.) Review of New Site Plan - Driveways & Internal Circulation Dear Mr. Alberts: Gibson Traffic Consultants (GTC) has been asked by Commercial Design Associates (CDA) to review the latest site plan revisions for the Olympic View Retail project; specifically, the driveway revisions and how the final plans accommodate traffic operations, internal circulation and safety for vehicular traffic and pedestrian travel. We met with CDA staff yesterday to review the new site plan and have discussed the recent revisions and background with Chris Beckman of your staff. It is our understanding that this letter summarizing our comments on the traffic issues may be needed at tonight's City Council meeting. Driveway Relocation on Olympic View: As we understand it, the proposed driveway onto Olympic View Drive has been relocated about 10 feet north to the approximate location of the existing driveway. From a traffic safety/operations standpoint, this revision is beneficial for the following reasons: 1) better alignment with Grandview Drive with no "jog" maneuver now required for crossing traffic movements; 2) greater offset distance to Puget Drive (SR-524) intersection, which provides for longer queuing at stopline without blocking this driveway; 3) better protection of gas pump island area, i.e. better separation of inbound vehicles from vehicles parked on north side up pump island; and, 4) improved geometrics for internal movements between this driveway and the pump island. The only disadvantage is the minor "jog" for exiting maneuver by store patrons' vehicles parked in front of the convenience store. This should not cause a traffic hazard since the driveway is designed with a desirable width (30 feet) plus exiting vehicles will still have nearly 40 feet to negotiate the "jog" to the driveway. Improved Turning Radii at Driveways: Turning radii at both driveways have been upgraded to 15 feet for all external curb returns and 10 feet for internal curb returns. The larger radii provide for easier and safer right -turn maneuvers to/from the site, and help warn crossing pedestrians of frequent vehicular movements during peak periods at both driveway locations. The proposed "higher type" driveway design (similar to minor intersections) should enhance the awareness of pedestrians along COUNTS/SURVEYS • SITE IMPACTS • LOS ANALYSIS * EIS a HEARINGS • SAFETY • SIGNALS 9 PARKING Mr. Bob Alberts January 19, 1988 Page Two either street, compared with a lower "curb cut" type design. The increased internal radii should improve on -site circulation also, with reduced extra maneuvers and potential conflicts on -site. Other Comments on Final Site Plan: The 3,000 SF convenience store is slightly larger than the originally proposed multi -use facility (with salon & insurance office). However, the total generated traffic by the convenience store plus two gas pumps (4 nozzles) would still be considerably less than estimated in Centrac's traffic analysis, which did not assume any multi- purpose site trips as characteristic of a mini -mart facility. The striped pedestrian walkways added help identify where gas and store patrons should cross the parking lots from the pump island or OVD driveway to the store, which should reduce potential vehicle -pedestrian conflicts on -site. Removal of 3-4 parking spaces adjacent to the SR-524. entrance and moving the handicapped stall to the east. end has eliminated a potential safety problem, with patrons backing out of stalls and colliding with entering vehicles from SR-524. Relocating the proposed sidewalk along SR-524 to the right-of-way line provides good separation between pedestrian and vehicular traffic as well as accommodates future widening of the State highway at minimal expense. The electrical conduit extension under the SR-524 driveway will permit installation of an additional street light near the SR-524 driveway if traffic operational or safety problems, related to low visibility at this driveway, develop after the mini -mart facility is open. This future street light would help supplement on -site lighting of this entrance, plus provide a better balanced lighting pattern on Puget Drive. Bob, we hope this letter is helpful to the City of Edmonds in completing its review of the Olympic View Retail development. In our opinion, the revisions proposed by City staff to the site driveways and internal circulation should greatly enhance safe travel by both vehicular and pedestrian traffic at the subject site. If you have any further questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 885-2317. Sincerely, GIBSON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS �� , mod+-�►'�+�- . Terry L. Gibson, P.E. Traffic Engineer/President XC: Carl Pirscher, CDA Chris Beckman, City of Edmonds L. a� M-21) 0 0 H RAFFIC STREET FILE CITY OF E®MONDS 250 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES January 19, 1988 Washington State Department of Transportation, District 1 15325 S.E. 30th P1. Bellevue, WA. 98007-6538 Attention: Miguel Gavino, Traffic Operations Re: Retail Development at SR 524 & Olympic View Drive Dear Miguel: LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER. E. HAHN DIRECTOR To summarize our meeting of January 13, 1988 on this topic, you confirmed the fact that the City of Edmonds has jurisdiction over driveway openings and WSDOT is mainly concerned with the roadway channelization, which is not affected on this project. .We concurred that there is an unlikely chance of SR 524 being widened in the future. After reviewing the latest site plan for the proposed development and how the drive openings relate to .the existing roadway, you expressed no need for changes. I will forward a copy of the final approved site plan to you for your files. Thank you for taking the time to review this item with me. Sincerely, CHRIS BECKMAN, P.E. Engineering Coordinator CB/ sdt A its SR5240LY/TXTST530 PUBLIC WORKS • PLANNING • PARKS AND, RECREATION • ENGINEERING i t k C. . A. ►2E O V D/P0G e r DMZ. i VG- �2C-Ti} I L S FYI' 0 0 0 77me,: 2 Presek,': farI Pirscher, Mark Bob A I her �s , w Swi ; -FM, L► . xam; yte, Scree+ L4kf;Ky a;Qe-,.►� 604k fyP'n+aV - pnICI S -re4e* 1193 k+ (s Cc+ ke-aa- of u T " o� T>"e4- rDrIVe) • �alc�,hle wood- pole-s -�or pssltble; "C' a* ea.5+ N. 3iAe, pulek Dr, —�-�.5� �,,— O. \j . . IV A9r"-.oL +La.* a. -3maA I i9 Irv* rhamu) --f-i I I be des 1 rab le, OLt we.,5+ SDI d4-- o f ID � Dri've,o so ski u,o��p'v`'� Go nd.w + 4 be ins-fvdl • D ;,ROUND VERTICAL RTI ,,. A STREET 10/1 aperture 1. Diecast aluminum heat sink. 2. Mogul base porcelain socket with nickel plated screw shell. 3. Reflector/housing, .050 aluminum, specular Alzak processed. 4. Diecast aluminum plaster flange. 5. 90H5 100W, E-231/2 or BT25 Deluxe White Mercury Vapor lamp 90S3, S6 50W, E-231/2 or 70W, E-231/2 High Pressure Sodium lamp. Lamps not furnished. 6. Tenso-torque trim retaining mechanism. 7. Diecast aluminum stepped regressed trim finished in matte white w/gray steps. B. Mercury Vapor Specify Silent -Pak (Fig. A) or F.E. (Fig. B) ballast. Both types are encapsulated and sound isolated —20°F, HPF CWA. High Pressure Sodium Specify Silent -Pak (Fig. A) or F.E. (Fig. B) ballast. Both types are encapsulated and sound isolated —20°F, HX-HPF. 9. Prewired junction box and support bracket, 14 ga. C.R.S. 10. Ballast support bracket, 16 ga. C.R.S. 11. Adjustable mounting brackets accept standard 11/2" lathing channels (by others). LABELS. U.L. (Damp Locations) Through wiring. 6-No. 12 AWG-75° C TRIM WATTS BALLAST ..CATALOG NUMBER M 0 a DROP OPAL 10OW FE 901-15-100FE-M3 SP 90H5-100MV-M3 aQ Lu TEMPERED PRISMATIC 10OW FE -100FE-MB SP 90H5-1001MV-M8 Lu FRESNEL 100W FE 901-15-100FE-M71 sP 90H5-100MV-M71 p O U) DROP OPAL 50W FE 90S3-50HPSFE-M3 SP 90S3-50HPS-M3 70W FE 9056-70HPSFE-M3 SP 90S6-70HPS-M3 ¢ u) a 1'1 M TEMPERED PRISMATIC 50W FE 90S3-50HPSFE-MB SP 90S3-50HPS-MB 70W FE 90S6-70HPSFE-MB SP 90S6-70HPS-MB a = FRESNEL 50W FE 90S3-50HPSFE-M71 SP 90S3-50HPS-M71 70W FE 90S6-70HPSFE-M71 SP I 90S6-70HPS-M71 'FE—Industry standard ballast. Encased and potted. 120V/277V dual tapped. Contact factory for other voltages. SP—Premium ballast. Encased and potted in extruded aluminum housing for long life and quiet operation. 120V, 208V, 277V, 240V. Specify voltage. For complete ballast specifications, refer to pages 6 and 7. t"A" 6I6mm 107/16" D'a. t56mm 1lan•• 302"'" I I 226mm --1 ill 5 '4 , h �Gl+if a Y �:x y�7•tg�� t K < � � h. �ayt�.�r� ;5�. •' j� I*ts?iX�Fsr� fYr I'.L ; , i:,zt �'Id &•�:I ye r.r ,�F:.� ; 56 PRESCOLITE RECESSED H.I.D. LENSED ROUND VERTICA.4- A . 'A I O" aperture MERCURY VAROR 3 DROP ORAL -'Stepped Reg'reseed 1.00W, E-231/2.DELUXE.WHITE M.V.. ; SINGLE UNIT i MULTIPLE INSTALLATION CANDLEPOWER_ -,:' m3Tel8UT10N s BEAM ANGLE' e 165° ' OFIX1PEN NG MAXIMUM AVERAGE INITIAL FOOTCANDLESt „ 75 Bye ' DIAMETER' INITIAL - TO SPACING ROOM CAVITY RATIO 75e ' LIGHTED FT-C WORKPLANE (FEET) 1 5 9 150 - Bye i 82'- 1" 20 5'-6" 7% 1" 38 24 16 :� ''` ;' 300 55e iF 11 7'-6" 9% 8" 20 13 8 "'375 43e I A 7 9'-6" 12% 4" 12 8 5 4'so 525 I' dI 4 11'-6" 14'-11" 8 5 3 600 35e >tI 3 13'-6" 17'- 6" 6 4 2 i 'BEAM ANGLE S DIA. TO 10% MAX. C.P. ' tFT-C BASED ON 80/50/20 REFLECTANCE' iC 7 5e 15e, 25e RATEDLUMENS-4200 LUMINAIRE SPACING CRITERION -1.30 TEST NO.81134A i TEMREREO PRISMATIC =Stemmed Regressed a C, U 0� 0 qb EFFECTIVE CEILING CAVITY REFLECTANCE 80% 1 70% 1 50% 1 30% 1 10% 20% EFFECTIVE FLOOR CAVITY REFLECTANCE Cb WALL REFLECTANCE 70 50 3010 70 50 3010 50 3010 50 3010 50 30 10 .1 .49 .4 7 .45 .44[48 .46 .44 .43 .44.43.41 .42 .41 .40 .41 .40 .39 2 3 .45 .42 .39 .36.44.41.38.36 .42.37.34.31 1 .36 .33 .31 .39 .37 .35 .35.32.30 .38 .36 .34 .34.32.30 .36.35.34 .33.31 .29 4 5 .38.33.29.267 .32 .29 .26 .31 .29 .26 .30.28.26 .29.27.2F .35.30 .26 .234 .26 _23 .20.26.22.20 .25.22 .20 .24 .22.19 .33.27 .23.202 .26 .23 .20 .26 .22 .20 .25 .22 .20 .24 .22 .19 7 .30.24.20.16 .29.24.20.18 .23.20.17 .22.20.17 •22.19.17 8 .28.22.1 8 .16 .2 7 .22 .18 .16 .21 .18 .15 .20 .17 .15 .20 .17 .15 10 ,OEM .I4 .25 .20 .16 .1a .19.16.14 .19.16.14 .18 .16.14 .24 •18 .I4 .I2 .23 .17 .14 .12 .17 .14 .11 .I6 .13 .I1 .16 .13 .11 ,1 OOW, E-23-1/2 DELUXE:WHITE 'M.V':; i•. .,.CANDLEPOWER'. '`SINGLE UNIT i MULTIPLE INSTALLATION ) DISTRIBUTION BEAM ANGLE'- 127° FIXTURE AVERAGE INITIAL FOOTCANOLESt ' OPENING MAXIMUM _,160 also, ' DIAMETER'. INITIAL TO SPACING ROOM CAVITY RATIO t;,, 300 750 LIGHTED FT-C WORKPLANE (FEET) 1 5 9 0 22'-2" 41 5'-6" 6'- 8" 57 41 30 '4SSG 55e 39'- 3" 22 7'-6" 9% 1" 30 22 16 7so, 450 38'- 4" 13 9'-6" 11% 7" 19 13 1046'- 5" 9 11'.6" 14% 0" 13 9 6 i2oo 360 54'- 6" 6 lum16'- 5" 9 6 5 13fiO 1600 k' • 20%EFFECTIVE FLOOR CAVITY REFLECTANCE % WALL REFLECTANCE 70 50 3010 70 50 3010,50 3010 903010 503010 1 2 .63 .62 .60 .59 .62.60.59.58 .58 .57 .56 .56 .55 .54 .54.53.53 .60.57.54.52 .59.56.53.52 .54 .52 .50 .52 .51 .4 .51.49.46 3 4 .56.52.49.47 .55 .52 Ag .46 .50.48.46 .49.47.45 .47.46.44 .53.48.45.42 .52 .47 .44 .42 .46.43.41 .45.43.41 .44.42.401 5 8 .50 .44 .41 .38 .49 .44 .40 .38 .43 .40 .3 7 .42 .39 .3 .41 .39 .37 .47.41.37.35 .46 .41 .37 .34 .40 .37 .34 .39.35..34 .38 .36 .34 7 9 9 .44 .38 .34 .32 .43 .3 8 .34 .31 .37.33.31 .36 .33 .31 .35.33.31 .41 .35.31.29 .40 .3 5 .31 .28 .34 .31 .28 .33 .30 .20 .33.30.28 .39.32.29.26 .3B .32 .25 .26 .31 .28 .26 .31 .26 .26 . 00 .28 .25 10 .35.26.25.22 .34 .28.25 .22 1 .28 .24 .22 .27 ,24 .22 .27 .24 .22 -BEAM ANGLE S DIA. TO 10gb MAX- C_P 1FT-C BASED ON 80150/20 REFLECTANCE 50 150 Rye - RATED LUMENS - 4200 LUMINAIRE SPACING CRITERION -122 TEST NO.811348.'', FRESNEL LENS=Stepped Regi-essed ''•' . 1 OOW, E-231/2 DELUXE WHITE M.V.; CANDLEPOWER'. SINGLE UNIT i MULTIPLE INSTALLATION' OISTRIBUTION - .BEAM ANGLE'- 130" FIXI URE AVERAGE INITIAL FOOTCANOLESi... 160 B5o DIAMETER' INITIAL OPENING MAXIMUM' TO SPACING ROOM CAVITY RATIO , ' 700 75e LIGHTED FT-C WORKPLANE - (FEET) 1 5 9 450 B5e 23'- 6" 43 5'-6" 5'-11" 68 49 36 soo 55° 32'- 1" 23 7'-6" 8% 1" 36 26 19 7� 45° soo 40'- 8" 14 9'-6" 10% 3" 22 16 12 1050 49% 2" 9 11'-6" 12% 6" 15 11 8 in, 33° 57'• 9" 7 13'-6" 14% 8" 11 8 5 1750 20% EFFECTIVE FLOOR CAVITY REFLECTANCE % WALL REFLECTANCE 70 50 3010 70503010 50 3010 50 3010 50 30 10 1 2 3 4 5 .60.56.57.55 .59.57.56.54 .55 .54 .53 .53 .52 .51 .51.50.50 .57.54.51.49 .55.53.50.49 .51.49.47 .49.48.46 .48 .47 AS .53.49.46.44 .52 .49 .46 .44 .47.45.43 .46.44.42 .45.43.42 .50 .45 .42 .39 .49 .45 .42 .39 .43 .41 .39 .42 A0 *38 .41 .39 .38 .47 .42 .38 .36 .46 .41 .36 .35 .40 .37 .35 .39 .37 .35 .30 .36 .34 8 7 .44 .39 .35.33 .43 .38 .35 .32 .37.34.32 .37.34.32 .36.33.32 .41 .36 .32 .30 .41 .35.32.30 .35 .31 .29 .34 .31 .29 .33 .31 .29 9 .39 .33 .30 .27 .3B .33 .29 .271 .32.29.271 .32 .29 .27 .31 .28 .26 9 1 O 7 7 5 3 30. 7.2 7 4 6 4 29 26 24 .33 .27 .24 .21 .33 .27 .24 .211 .26 .23 .21 .26.23.21 .26 .23 .21 'BEAM ANGLE 6 DIA. TO 10gb MAX. C.P. tFT--C BASED ON 80/50120 REFLECTANCE RATED LUMENS • 4200 LUMINAIRE SPACING CRITERION • 1.08 TEST NO.81079A PRESCOLITE RECESSED H.I.D. 57 a Udorai i iJ tY l l •a>L t} r ` 1 .{Yr'd ' a1111`T SAzfi4','cY +tt� ♦� K 'S•*t rt't t•r Nt fir I L}nt 7 r` ii r d ' '. t.'3 + x' 43lr�; flt�+ttif 51i Jr+Tt," 'I�� `7 ��Ct��r ! 1 �.,�� {' L'. (A n iZ . iry ,� I •� t � �Y't r { �Af.r'fi�t( .1 a + �*•t � 7.T I ,.. I { i7 ta': rIJ�'t � �, )7 ti 3 { ia IV �" I ; c. ri, 3.�i sJ - ti t D 4 If• t' ,� J1 �. �. 'FLi { }r ✓,t kj '<5'4 M .>< tL to -+. JT +��.. 1 W :- f1..e titliw i ti I d 1 1+ r � 1I I L 1aLy}yS '(�` 1 V7a'rb�aBt i t { t��t �.�t 7;J � •I ��,r s f •�1, { �,jj 1 1• t J'.. ,� r {/'� s 1 ' I - d I sir. .1 ry'o �v } t Ai YY17 "'gth 'ti�+ *rr J.• r Sr 1T vt 111 jr L ��_ I F14� •r # r ty 1 5 �4 t r M>ti IV' I it 7 .' /{{ Y'JJR'{ r 1# { .Ne L-sy s ,•.ir�bSit r•..';=ri .X I • + ' , t .�' - �L'Z P 7.. 4 I I ,� s•' >< � d? J E.t1 { S ! n1,i t u+� a 8 fG off• �' � t d I s �{ t f,-.. a! 1 �, a )S.�J r s� S _1 ^ IA ;; },?• j�' iN�'r f�FeS'�ly It1�F ati�t w ±• , r +. r ?y.. i t1 7. A y � ) },i fi st, �,.. _ ° :.. _ ( lib l :.a�' r r u r )}{ f1 •� { G'Y eiiq�A�`�ks l�i it0 � 1 1 a ..- .. .?:1J,.;c w...lt.;i..r.�sl,..i_,11 ,!.I.,. t .:.:t rS,..�.,.. ......... fi...' �, tl ,'.•�.11 a w. �• � r J Y:,,. 9 ,t it 141 J'•+. e3 .{:' r.. .;Jb I L1 rz J • ,_ 1 1„ •, r F T Sry t t f-;vt G rt 1� 1 I r rI a N td.t yf I• r) 1t. INs 2 t i L+ ( I' r 4,t s%.:• 1 t :J .` r r t J �T p. I q I • vll ; st! s-�- + { - but}�e;• ry F � Z� �r1 r4 T-� P9• 1 s � A a TABLE 1. ILLUMINATION VALUES IN INITIAL Ftin-mamnF va LUMINAIRE LAMP* LAMP CODE POLE Hi. MTG. MT. ISOLUX CURVE VALUES AVERAGE MINIMUM ~ Q FOOTCAN.lF' FDOTCANoLfs t 1 A B C D E F G H ___ _LONCITUDINAi MST-N RATIO -� FOOTCANDLE MULTIPLIERS FOR ALTERNATE POLE HEIGHT', -. YD16.15411 1 B 175W MERC. 25OW MERC. H39KC•175/DX H37KC-250/DX t5' 15' 15' 1 16' 19' 14,5' 14.5' 17.5' 117.5' 5.3 10 21 10 20 15 2.3 t4 7.0 4.5 2.81 14 9.0 5.6 I6.714.312.71 I .13 B.5 1 5.3 .90 .601.35 .23 1.8 1.1 1 .70 .45 3.5 2.9 1.41.90 1.771 t11 .671 .43 3.3 1 2.1 1.3 i I J I N 1 L 14 09jI -.06 -04 .28 78 11 07 .56 .35 21 2 14 27 .OBJ .11 AS ;.11 07 1 1 4 5� 6 4 2.2 1.7 t4 .69 .34 17 6' 3.sz to' 3.z4 tz' z.Te 3.0 2.4 2_0 .83 .59 .28 t0 2.25 t2 2.25 t5 t 7B taa=-�' 6.1 4.9 4,1 1.6 .B3 .47 t2 tss J20 2.9 2a 1.9 .81 .54 .os9o,e1�13 1.00YD16.16411 YD18.15411 2 C YD16.15411 YD16.15611 4 2 D C 4 1 D 1 1 A 175 MH MS 175/HOR 20' 195' S4 36 2.3 14 .85 90 _53 .33 .21 .13 59 4.7 3.9 1.61 .81 1 .400.52VD16.16411 t'D16.15411 175 MH 250 MH 250 MH MS 175/C/HOR M250/BU-HOR M250/C/BU•HOR 120' 60 36 23 19 .09 .O6 .04 .09 .06 .04 28 22 1.9 .78� .71 1 .35 25 036 0,36 35 0.33 2.2 1.7 1.5 .71 .351 .17 3.1 2.5 2.0 85 561.28 6.2 5.0 4.7 1.7 85 .42I 3.7 2.9 2.4 LO .92 .46tj 1 2.9 2.3 1.9 92 ,461.23 4,111.2 12.7 1,7 .731 .371 6.7 6.5 5.4 221 1.1 1 .551 _. YD16-16411 2 C VD16.16411 YD16.16611 YD76.16611 4 1 1 D A i B 20 20' 20' 20' 20' 19.5' 19.5' 19.5' 19.5' 19.5' 10 21 6.9 6.9 14 7.1 14 4.6 9.2 4,5 2.6 9.0 5.7 1.8 3.0 1.8112 5.9 3.7 1.8 1.1 3.6 2.3 1.2 .70 .701.46 2.3 1.5 .71 ,q6 1,4 .90 .46 .30 .30 .92 .591 28 .571.36 .18 11 .09 .23 .14 .16 .12 .07 .OS Y016.16611 2 C .i5 .37 .121.07 .OS .23 .15 .09 YD16.16611 IFFFR TO I AMP nATA 4 I-T D o,.r I19.6' 28 1 18 12 j 7.41 4.6 3.0 1.91 1 1 .74 .46 .30 .19 tTHESE FOOTCANDLE VALUES APPLY TO THE SPACING TO MOUNTING HEIGHT NADOS INDICATED II E a, 5. OJ P01YQUAd 15 MERCURY & META[ HAWE Enclosure: Extruded aluminum housing. Lamp and ballast chambers sealed with silicone gaskets. Extruded aluminum door frame hinged at back and secured by tempered stainless steel latch at front to permit easy access to lamp and ballast. Tempered glass 1/8" thick. Davit arm included with luminaire. Reflector: Faceted mirror reflectors of specular anodized high purity aluminum. Reflectors and lampholder assembly can be rotated 90° to change the light distribution pattern without changing luminaire orientation. Lampholder is set to provide Type III IES distribution, can be readily changed in the field to provide Type II IES distribution. Ballast: Mercury vapor: constant wattage autotransformer, HPF. Metal halide: autostabilized, HPF. Mounted on removable tray with quick disconnect plug-in wiring for simplified maintenance. Finish: Black or bronze baked acrylic. Lamp compartment interior: heat resistant white. Poles: Selection shown on page 91. Drilling templates provided with luminaire. Wall Plates: Wall mounting plates are available for Polyquad 15 housing. Consult Outdoor Products Reference Guide. (Catalog numbers shown are 120V. For other voltages consult Outdoor Products Reference Guide.) YD16-15311 BLACK/YD16-15312 BRONZE 10OW MERCURY YD16-15411 BLACK/YD16-15412 BRONZE 175W MERCURY YD16-15611 BLACKI D16-15612 BRONZE 25OW MERCURY YD16-16411 BLACK/YD16-16412 BRONZE 175W METAL HALIDE YD16-16611 BLACK/YD16-16612 BRONZE 250W METAL HALIDE Ll STREET FILE CITY OF E D M O N D S LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR 250 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771-3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR DATE: FILE NO.: PROJ. NO.: TO: Z)ESiGAj Auc, �.� ve , 2 � l fg't6 S-. SW TRANSMITTING: As you requested _ For your information As we discussed For appropriate action — x For your file For posting in public place For signature and return REMARKS: �/eGt s G , M?2 s e inxz'sl�t s i TITLE PUBLIC WORKTRANSM;T/TXTpF � PARKS AND RECREATION • ENGINEERING IMPORTANT mORTAN -,)MESSAGE' :FOR A. -DATE' TIME OF HONE op, AREA CODE NUMBER. EXTgNSION, TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL CAME TO.SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAIN WANTS TO SEE YOU RUSH RETURNED YOUR CALL SPECIAL ATT TION', o. -MESSAGE- -SIGNED.. LITHO'IN U.'B;A. TOPS db FORM 3002P CDK,NC E RCIAL I A T E S STREET FILE 4230 V98th \_ '�. W _Vf :f W )(;D, WA'=,HIf L,`f CONFERENCE REPORT TO: CHRIS BECKMAN FROM: MARK SURYAN DATE: JANUARY 8, 1988 PROJECT: OLYMPIC VIEW RETAIL SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVISIONS IN ATTENDANCE AT MEETING: Chris Beckman Mark Suryan ® J A N 13 1988 ENGINEERING The following statements summarize our meeting on the above date: The sidewalk along Puget Drive is to be moved to one foot off the property at the southwest corner of the site. Curb cuts are required at the Olympic View Driveway. The radius is to increase at the Puget Drive driveway with the curb line brought in towards the building. CDA is proceeding with the project based on the above statements being correct. Please notify CDA immediately if there are any corrections or additions to this report. cc: Carl Pirscher Dale Chandler Sarah Mack 011188-029 ssi�M� I�CIAL STREET FILE DKINC. SOCIATES C4230 198th ST S.W. LYf\1f\JWOOD, WASHY 1GT()f J y°036 (-206) 77'1-'/--'300 'iL1;74 icO alci:4tSi1:111 TO: CHRIS BECKMAN FROM: MARK SURYAN DATE: JANUARY 8, 1988 PROJECT: OLYMPIC VIEW RETAIL SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVISIONS The following statements summarize our telephone conversation on the above date. Per Bob Alberts, the driveway radius, toward the street is 2 the opening width minimum and 10 feet minimum toward the site. The driveway is to be asphalt with a true curb and gutter onto the site. Paint striping is needed to designate a walkway from the gas pump island and Olympic View sidewalk to the sidewalk in front of the building. If possible, the curb cuts at the Olympic View driveway should line up. CDA is proceeding with the project based on the above statements being correct. Please notify CDA immediately if there are any corrections or additions to this report. cc: Carl Pirscher Dale Chandler Sarah Mack 011188-030 Emm mimm MEN mim I ml PAINT WHITE (USE TEMPLATE) 10" L 1'-6" 1 10" ,� PARKING ARROW �� NTS 1 A2 MTL. CAP W/ FULL WELD. GRIND SMOOTH CHAIN LINK FENCE (W/ STAINED REDWOOD OR CEDAR SLATS) 3" DIA. STEEL POST NOTE: GALV. STL. HINGES G LATCH EQUIP. W/ DROP BAR G GATE HOLDBACKS FULL OPEN POSITION 12" S BLUE BACK- GROUND W/ r k, WHITE SYMBOL 5M G/A-z m G LETTERING -�� to -- WHITE LETTERS W/ o t�Z t• �• \ STD. WORDING PER HANDICAP CODE REQ'MTS P L 2" DIA STL v CENTER POST CLEAR OF CAR ON HDCP. STALL H.C. SIGN D NTS 6" @ SIGN - PAINT SYMBOL W/ 3/4" STRIPE GRID FOR LAYOUT ONLY NOT TO BE PAINTED 4'-0 it @ PARKING PAINT SYMBOL W/ 4" STRIPE H.C. SYMBOL O NTS ------------PAINTED CMU W/MORTAR CROWN. SEE STRUC FOR - REINFORCING. 0 N P.T. 4X6 PLATE THREE SIDES W/ A:B. @ C.L. OF SIDES 6 @ 24" O.C. (COUNTER BORE HEADS) e• o - / y ' A 2 ]� 4" CONC SLAB W/ BROOM FIN. SLOPE TO DRAIN a„ DUMPS'TER ENCLOSURE �u NTS DUMPSTER ENCL BEYOND ASPHALT DRIVE WARP RAMP TO 1: 20 SLOPE MAX MED BROOM FINISH ACP FLUSH p T0- CONC - a . RO o ° O �O _a 4" THK CONC SLAB W/ 6/6 X W 1. 4/W 1. 4 '•i l WWM ON 4" ROCK BASE 6 #4 BAR CONTINUOUS — g CONC. RAMP NTS NNblK_Af- sIUN-S� c T I--. 5/A -2 \I1L,;�IGAt- S--([lSzoL - C r;;,rL 6P/A • z PAINT sTlzli'CS H.C. PARKING STALL 7 NTS a 8•-6" STANDARD STALL � NTS CURB CUT + NTS i .0 FINISH GRADE AT PLANTER. TYP . Sywl 4 M 4" M 'I W I" RADIUS EXTRUDED CONC. CONC. CURB CURB AND SIDEWALK EXPOSED AGGR. a• BONDING AGENT z ASPHALT PAVING to .p • • . . III • NON-SKID o M FINISH -) — COMPACTED FILL I- I I=1111I= 1111=111(=III I= I I II=Ii1 I I I I �' -rAc-rl L-L wAiz iq� i I I1_111 , 1-111 - 1111 SBTRooI =I NOITI=IEII: = CLASS 'B' 1. REINFORCE ALL CORNERS WITH ASPHALT EXTRA CONCRETE. 2. NO SQUARE OR "SHARP" CORNERS 6" ARE ALLOWED 6" RADIUS MIN k3 SIDEWALK/CURB 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 3. CUT CONTROL JOINTS AT ALL CURVE RETURN POINTS AND AT INTERVALS.NOT TO EXCEED 15ft ON CENTER. TOOL ALL EDGES. EXT. CURB 1 1/2" = 1'-0" cu :..- • CRUSHED `1 J - �'MATERIAL 1 ASPHALT DETAIL 3" = 1'-0" rr_rz GIr-( F-Ew'HI'>. rw ` L SITE PLAN �\ �J r - zo -o" SHEET A-2 f LnW m �w z a: ZU QI PAINT WHITE (USE TEMPLATE) PA RKING ARROW 0 sa" S BLUE BACK- GROUND W/ WHITE SYMBOL 515E. G/A•z DD B LETTERING -� -- 1" WHITE LETTERS W/-o STO. WORDING PER HANDICAP CODE REO'MTS 2" DIA STL CENTER POST CLEAR OF CAR ON HDCP. STALL nv�nu win 53 H.C. SIGN NTS MTL. CAP W/ FULL WELD. GRIND SMOOTH CHAIN LINK FENCE (W/ STAINED REDWOOD OR CEDAR SLATS) 3" DIA. STEEL POST NOTE: GALV. STL. HINGES G LATCH EQUIP. W/ DROP BAR G GATE HOLOBACKS FULL OPEN POSITION ,DUMPSTER GATE NTS 1 A2 6" @ SIGN 1 PAINT SYMBOL W/ 3/4" STRIPE GRID FOR LAYOUT ONLY NOT TO BE PAINTED 1 4'-0" @ PARKING PAINT SYMBOL W/ 4" STRIPE GH.C. SYMBOL NTS -------------PAINTED CMU W/MORTAR CROWN. SEE STRUC FOR - REINFORCING. 0 N P.T. 4X6 PLATE THREE SIDES W/ A.B. @ C.L. OF SIDES 6 @ 24" O.C. (COUNTER BORE HEADS) e• Lo � y 6 4" CONC SLAB W/ BROOM FIN. SLOPE TO DRAIN clo DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE NTS DUMPSTER ENCL BEYOND ASPHALT DRIVE WARP RAMP TO 1: 20 SLOPE MAX MED BROOM FINISH AC FLUSH — p TO-CONC a a Q I QDO 0 o OQ O p 0 O 1 o� IIII- _�p 4 " THK CONC SLAB IIII — p IIII W/ 6/6 X W 1 . 4/W 1 . 4 _ -- — WWM ON 4 " ROCK BASE 6" #4 BAR CONTINUOUS CONC. RAMP 9P NTS �< ��NuIcAP —INN-�r1= T -- 5/A - 2 br-wALk rAlgT STIzll'rS H.C. PARKING STALL 7 NTS r BUMPER OVERHANG r WHEEL STOP. CURB. SIDEWALK OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT 4" PAINT STRIPE TYP. STANDARD STALL 8 NTS CURB CUT 4 NTS IN —SKID ZOOM FINISH =7"I Lr' VA 0,4li. 6 1--,fl= R p� CONC. CURB AND SIDEWALK XPOSED AGGR. FIN t0 • V ' •' C III COMPACTED FILL IIII a r— I I CLASS ' B ' ASPHALT 6" SIDEWALK/CURB 3 1 1/2" = 1'—o° SITE PLAN s a FINISH GRADE AT PLANTER. TYP. r 4" r V RADIUS EXTRUDED CONIC. CURB a BONDING AGENT ASPHALT PAVING NOTE: ' 1. REINFORCE ALL CORNERS WITH EXTRA CONCRETE. 2. NO SQUARE OR "SHARP" CORNERS ARE ALLOWED ... 6" RADIUS MIN. 3. CUT CONTROL JOINTS AT ALL CURVE RETURN POINTS AND AT INTERVALS.NOT TO EXCEED 15ft ON CENTER. TOOL ALL EDGES. EXT. CURB 2 1 1/2" ASPHALT LQ) CRUSHED ROCK BASE :,1 "i MATERIAL ASPHALT DETAIL 1 3" = 1'-0" DATE.: CITY ENGINEER eI- X 0 PAINT WHITE (USE TEMPLATE) 10" 1'-6" 1 10" �„ PARKING ARROW �L NTS MTL. CAP W/ FULL WELD. GRIND SMOOTH 12" RESERVED BLUE BACK- GROUND W/ WHITE SYMBOL SSE co/A - z CD 8 LETTERING C . U -- I' WHITE LETTERS W/ CHAIN LINK FENCE (W/ STAINED REDWOOD OR CEDAR SLATS) 3' DIA. STEEL POST NOTE: GALV. STL. HINGES G LATCH EQUIP. W/ DROP BAR & GATE HOLOBACKS 0 FULL OPEN POSITION 11 DUMPSTER GATE NTS STD. WORDING PER HANDICAP CODE REG'MTS 2" DIA STL CENTER POST CLEAR OF CAR -41 ON HDCP. STALL H.C. SIGN 5 NTS 6" @ SIGN . PAINT SYMBOL W/ 3/4" STRIPE GRID FOR LAYOUT ONLY NOT TO BE PAINTED 1 4'-0 to. @ PARKING PAINT SYMBOL W/ 4" STRIPE H.C. SYMBOL 61 N-rs CMU W/MORTAR CROWN. SEE STRUC FOR REINFORCING. 0 N P.T. 4X6 PLATE THREE SIDES W/ A.B. @ C.L. OF SIDES & @ 24" O.C. (COUNTER BORE HEADS) e. 0" 22- y 4" CONC SLAB W/ BROOM FIN. SLOPE TO DRAIN DUMPSTER ENCL BEYOND ASPHALT DRIVE WARP RAMP TO 1: 20 SLOPE MAX MED BROOM FINISH ' ACP FLUSH — 4 p TO-CONC . ® O o C0000 o 0 0 l p p.. Q)_� p —1111 4" THK CONC SLAB I I I— p I III W/ 6/6 X W 1. 4/W 1. 4 x t4 t l N WWM ON 4" ROCK BASE / I� I - #4 BAR CONTINUOUS - L_ Lo '- c CONC. RAMP m W ,� 9 NTS z�w U>0 mco00 N�Nbl,t� sIUN-sic TL— 5/A--Z Il�;>r-VI/ALk 11�I>IGQP S'(1'1L�oL - G ffQINT STizll'1=S H.C. PARKING STALL 7 NTS r 8'-6" BUMPER OVERHANG WHEEL STOP. CURB. SIDEWALK OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT 4' PAINT STRIPE TYP. ..... _ .. _-. STANDARD STALL � NTS CURB CUT 4 NTS NON-SKID BROOM FINISH 0 CONC. CURB AND SIDEWALK EXPOSED AGGR.* _ Fz, FINISH r a •p � V ,. p, Q t° III= n COMPACTED FILL al.•a ' I� CLASS ' B ' ASPHALT 6' DSIDEWALK/CURB `� ' 1 1/2" = 1'-0" SITE PLAN FINISH GRADE AT PLANTER. TYP. ■ 4" " i" RADIUS EXTRUDED CONC. CURB a BONDING AGENT n p• - e ASPHALT PAVING r !D rl N®. CUT oingtE I-11 1=IIil-till-llll-1111= 1111=Ii11-1111=1111=IIii-1111 NOTE: 1. REINFORCE ALL CORNERS WITH EXTRA CONCRETE. 2. NO SQUARE OR "SHARP" CORNERS ARE ALLOWED...6," RADIUS MIN. 3. CUT CONTROL JOINTS AT ALL CURVE RETURN POINTS AND AT INTERVALS.NOT TO EXCEED 15ft ON CENTER. TOOL ALL EDGES. EXT. CURB 2 1 1/2" = 1'-0" cv . CLASS B ASPHALT r �--- CRUSHED ROCK v BASE IIII-IIII=IIII=IIII-` SUB —BASE MATERIAL 1 ASPHALT DETAIL 3" = 1' —0" FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL STAPLES . OR 212 X 14 GA. WELDED MIRAFI IOOX OR EQUAL WIRE RINGS WIRE FABRIC OR EQUAL (TYPICAL) �!!#r###!■liiiiii •�rrii�iRr/irir 1liffi!!#lrffr#i �lrff!!i!l#lift � trii#r!rlisriis fr#i!!!!ri#rri �r#it�iRr�lrrl �fa!!rlfrrr fllilrlirrr t###�irrsii Mwr�rirriii tt— T DOUGLAS FIR AT M • OF + ;, �IC MATERIAL ON ELEVATION FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL--- -...� 2 X 2 X 14 GA. W.W.F. GRAIle WASHED AHED PE A GRAVEL--., NEWLY GRADED OR i +" DISTURBED SIDE SLOPE i VARIES d ARI I , 6## P MIN. (MIN. YPCROSS SECTION SILT FENCE -DETAIL .. .1 rY .• 1. A .T. S. 15 L n 2 D. S 0 0 :.:::..... 'i f. t: Fl ,'�_ .:lit%itif'.;F>:r:•.`-:. •f fj u24 ASPH BERM 1�• ' +I N F+ 9 o. A5PH PAVEMENT SECTION O N.T.S. -� oF(NE PUCE ABBREVIATIONS ASPH ASPHALT CB CATCH BASIN EXST EXISTING IE INVERT ELEVATION LF LINEAL FEET NTS NOT TO SCALE SD STORM DRAIN SS SANITARY SEWER SSS SANITARY SIDE SEWER TE TOP ELEVATION TYP TYPICAL EX15T. IMPERVI0U5 AREA = 11 500 S.F PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA= 11____,9Q S.F. ADDED I MPERV 10US AREA = 200 S.F. >-�,anzm,-.;:a,a{>r••-gr-:!zs•s-.:i•:r•....:•r`i ••;;-:o'.:-;.w., r.;.-:. ..M. >rr.`.....-,ye>.r.::::.;. ... , . ,.::.::. ..r•� . u•%. suo-y 1 ..; . ✓'w.. 'lie. '�7.. .. ...: :;. ....: '• M':'< `.•,fir. ✓ /r. n. S ✓n <� , ,. f.. TO EXIST METER 50Yl DURING CONS T R (JCTION DIRECT RUNOFF TO �ILT F'EIVCE. THICKNESS QUARRY SPALLS GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRAN APRON MAINTENANCE: THIS ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOW OF MUD ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY. THIS'MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2-INCH STONE, AS CONDITIONS DEMAND, AND REPAIR AND/OR CLEANOUT OF ANY STRUCTURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. ALL MATERIALS SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED OR TRACKED FROM .VEHICLES ONTO ROADWAYS OR INTO STORM DRAINS MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. GRAVEL APRON -DETAIL N. T. S. QL VICINITY MAP N.T.S. SUBJECT SITE Ci o 5T 5VJ. STREET FILE. .' Z 0 cn w Q U w rr� LL a mi s y/1'aw e7) A�le,c lz 914 F / / � 7el Dz 6111LIDIFewV16 NOV 0 1987 PERMIT COUNTER I 91 LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lots 1 and 2, Block 44, Original Plat of North Edmonds, according to the Plat . recorded in Volume 2 of Plats on Page 75, Records of Snoho/VL Y. COS. Bl K44 mish County, I� 1 Washington; O� ALSO beginning at a point on the Westerly Line of Block 44 at a point 25.00 //VLE ? �O /q•, \ feet Southwesterly of the Northerly Corner of said Block 44; thence continue 88• Sd (/�/M) �� V CO� along said Westerly Line,South 3813410011 West for 85.00 feet to the Center Line of the Alley of Block 44; thence South 5102610011 East along the Center / rv/ 15 I% O' Line of the Alley for 135.00 feet,, more or less to the North Line for 57.08 / � dry/ feet; thence North 0803810011 East for 59.11 feet, more or less to a point �ti S/ n/ / 7� �2 25.00 feet Southerly measured at right angles from the Northeasterly Line / \ of.said Block 44; thence North 5112610011 West for 159.36 feet, more or less to the point of beginning; a �\ ALSO known as Parcel A; i� ems, LESS all that portion of hereinafter described Parcel A lying Westerly of an arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 35.00 feet; thence radial to the Center Point being opposite Highway Engineering Station 238 + 58.81 on SR. J �(� ? 5TO �s.� /� t\ \ 524 Line Survey of SR 524 Edmonds Junction SR 104 to 76th Avenue West �� (9 L�GN v and 55.00 feet Northerly therefrom said curve extending from the existing �'' / ° a�0 of/• 3 �5 Northerly Right -of -Way Line of said SR 524 Westerly and Northerly to existing Southeasterly Right -of -May Line to Olympic View Drive deeded to � / � � � 9Cj • � `SJ the State of Washington; Warranty Deed in Volume 1707 on Page 2695, -5 W M.H. ^ �J�/ Auditor's File #8104300004. 67.3 g G,r2jM� SL B FILLER gl / ^p CAP EXlS GQIe• PRO A 67 /MJ coAIC. 91.24 EX/S T//vG gam' 89 \\ A STAT/ON. J\ L/GNT . cJ �\`i` CoivT,eoL SL A STO. /L L CA M Q1 % Slam• 28 ,,�c GUTTE�2 Po/n�T- 52 �� N ��P� 9/• S / �1 00 7- 5PIKF— / � r L � o/lo • �� / .3lo"P//VE =/28°/Z47 5 S�P� �Z• 2 i7 '° 3.12i D• 9 ZD R.R.sp/K ��\ m �X PCQ1e N� /NLET GO / G. L- /L _ PGN W /02.49 (RI" 73. 32 , 1 L V'E T —A 3 2 ` w //VL ET / S TO. /SL'�N� L/ HT /G 9 1 /V u) I J �E�. J SLAB g3,o8 /3g NC• /�.95• > /DEAD D �7 7lv p R7 ELEC. /QUO• EA �M T. J �8A.F. # p 8 92 5/ N ✓ I3DX 98.5 /O 00 lN.M. BCo.57 _ _ CONG• 9.54-3 /O ./8 (R/MJ (3UTT .E' _ _ 121, - G7/7-7--F 85.37 / GUTT33 90 ESP C7•UTT i"B�M /1��7.OU .4S%!%M,E,D �'//�'% /NLET -- • 8 .72(R/ .I V9 - s _ d' N 89 o 48 Do ` m i Pw .Z U) W W Q 0 cc Q OAT E 17P ills i 0F i 0F (c> Vloo <51 fc) Tla-y) NOV 0 i2sl PERMIT COUNTER ST 9F�T ��F FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL STAPLES OR 2 X 2 X 14 GA. WELDED MIRAFI IOOX OR EQUAL WIRE RINGS WIRE FABRIC OR EQUAL. (TYPICAL) n 11 n n •wwww'r�wwwwwwwwwlwr •liMbtriilil�liHi! !/flliN!/iftliiii# ,tt�IUtttt#t�#!# tiriiilr�rlirir iM�llaii�ir#ii !r/!�iligr C 1lifiii!!r to, DOUGLAS• C. BURY BOTTOM OF FoBqIC MATERIAL i , ELEVATION FILTER FABRIC MATE R I A L ------....._, 2 X 2 X 146A.W.W.F. Ille WISHED RAVEL OR PEA GRAVEL -- i DOUGLAS •' FIR OR EQUAL NEWLY GRADED OR DISTURBED SIDE SIAPE II �+ VARIES � ARi i 1.6#4841MIN. (MIN. T yP R!QSS S E i` 10►N SILT FENCE -DETAIL N.T.S. SECTION O N.T.S. GRAVEL APRON DURING DURING GONSTRUGTION SEE DETAIL ---- -- — , CB TYPE I-C (APWA) T•E.=88.4 I.E. = 07.4 INSTALL APWA TYPE GA ` 4 OUTLET TRAP. COVER GRATE FILTER FABRIC DURING {e.i C W5TRUGTION ABBREVIATIONS ASPH ASPHALT CB CATCH BASIN EXST EXISTING IE INVERT ELEVATION LF- LINEAL FEET NTS NOT TO SCALE SD STORM DRAIN SS SANITARY SEWER SSS SANITARY SIDE SEWER TE TOP ELEVATION TYP TYPICAL EX15T. IMPERVIOUS AREA = II 500 S.F PROP05ED IMPF-RVIQUS AREA= II_____oo_S.F. ADDED IMPERVIOUS AREA = 200 S.F. ■si rillfaiiih THICKNESS QUARRY SPALLS GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANC APRON MAINTENANCE: THIS ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOW OF MUD ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF- AY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2- INCH STONE, AS CONDITIONS DEMAND, AND REPAIR AND/OR CLEANOUT OF ANY STRUCTURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. ALL MATERIALS SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED OR TRACKED FROM VEHICLES ONTO ROADWAYS OR INTO STORM DRAINS MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. .. %% .. ... ... ... ... ...:::.:::vn. v: •.: r.. +rn}r ... :. :::•...:�::•::::........ ...., :v; .:::: !iii:r;!..;;:...: \M {r - .. ......:........ .::: :i:' .rv:::L:<;:iii?.�: v:: v::v:i;::: •:::: .::::. Si -: c!:•:i}::i;i/ i •. ' ,... .. ..... .. .. .. .. ,. .. aft .. / ...... ...f .. t .. .. ...... .. .Y .. .. .. ... .t, "... +.' pl!!! . rYen.S`•::: • •Y.•.. .: ...:....:.. :. :,. .....:. J :.... ..: ......:....:..,. � .?/,•'• :J.. ,... ... rY`//r,:�.:: ...::.:::.::r::::i •.ii:/\L,'�.'r'��.¢,.ri:ii:�.: i':�'^`w iY ./fi`(CY�t:'^vi..i.. f.ry,.Y,:,aC •i/" ..J �,,Y-X,:/.:: .i 44: �?l •�� ,��, :jlv9^. r.. v: is ,gCyhS°`. •:.�+•.l ...:•i�'�: is ' ... .. .. EXIS-j NO`: E XIT :.+.,: 5S5 DURING CONSTRUCTION VIA THIS DRIVEWAY CONNECT TO EXIST SSS. LOGATION APPROXIMATE. VERIFY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION CONNECT WATER SERVICE OF BLDG. OR PLUMBING. TO EXIST METER 50-A, DURING CONSTRUCTION DIRECT RUNOFF TO .SILT FEIVCE GRAVEL APRON -DETAIL N. T. S. SUBJEGT SITE VICINITY MAP N.T.S. NOTES,: 1. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION, 1981. 2. CONNECT ALL ROOF DRAINS AND FOOTING DRAINS SEPARATELY TO NEW ON -SITE CATCH BASIN. 3. STORM DRAIN PIPE SHALL BE CONCRETE, NON -REINFORCED ASTM C-14, OR PVC ASTM 3034, SDR 35,. 4. SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE PVC ASTM 3034, SDR 35. 5. CALL ENGINEERING DIVISION (771-3202) FOR PREBACKFILL AND FINAL INSPECTIONS. 6. RF."PONSIBILITY FOR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF '',RAINAGE SYSTEMS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY IS THE RESPON- `1BILITY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. MATERIAL ACCUMULA- TED IN THE CATCH BASIN MUST BE REMOVED TO ALLOW PROPER OPERATION. 0114900 LBU .�i�ra� fa�r� 8/O/ IJWW V- wSs50376x STREET FILE 12/28/87 WSS/naa R: 12/30/87 BEFORE THE EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL In the matter of the appeal Application of Rainier of Harold Schnarre National Bank, Trustee, ADB-90-86 After notice given in accordance with law and ordinance,�". the Edmonds City Council heard the appeal of Harold Schnarre an November 17, 1987. Based upon the evidence adduced at the hearing, and the record before the Architectural Design Board along with all submittals received into evidence, the City Council of the City of Edmonds does hereby enter the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions in said appeal: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Rainier National Bank as trustee filed application ADB-90-86 for Architectural Design approval of a new retail building with gas pump island to be located at the northeast corner of Olympic View Drive and Puget Drive in the Neighborhood Business (BN) Zone. 2. The site contains a vacant gasoline service station and slopes generally west to northwest about 12 feet. The site contains approximately 19,400 square feet. 3. The site is bounded to the west by business development and a single family structure, to the north by a single family residence, to the south a playfield and -to the east by apartment uses. Zoning to the west and.east is Neighborhood Business (BN) and Single Family Residential (RS-12). Zoning to the north and south is Single Family Residential (RS-12). 4. The uses proposed for the site were the subject of judicial review of a prior City Council proceeding and have been confirmed as appropriate within the BN zone by order of the Snohomish County Superior Court. 5. The site will be accessed by vehicles and pedestrians from Olympic View Drive and Puget Drive.. 6. Ten off-street parking spaces are required by the provisions of City ordinance and 11 are proposed. 7. The Official Street Map requires 68 feet of right- of-way for Olympic View Drive and 60 feet of right-of-way for Puget Drive. . The existing right-of-way Olympic View Drive is currently at 68 feet, while Puget Drive is 40 feet. A ten foot dedication of property adjacent to the north side of Puget Drive will be required from the applicant for additional street right- of-way in order to conform to the requirements of the map. 8. On appeal Council finds that no material issue of fact or law has been raised regarding the building design, and the City Council therefore adopts the Findings ' of its Architectural Design Board as contained in its minutes of October 7, 1987, in paragraphs (B) and (C), the same being incorporated by this reference as if herein set forth. 9. With regard to site treatment, the City Council finds no serious issue of fact or law to have been raised regarding grading or an impervious surface, it being the Council's finding that no significant grading will be required and that the existing lot is currently covered with impervious surface. 10. Further, the Council finds that landscape buffers have been provided in a suitable manner, that the colors proposed are appropriate for the site, and the applicant has voluntarily proposed to limit the height of the structure to 18 feet above the finished floor or to a total maximum height of 21 feet, 6 inches. 11. The Council expresses its concern that oversized delivery vehicles may not have an adequate turning radius and may therefore inadvertently destroy landscaping. The driveway entrances are proposed at thirty (30) fee.t, the maximum currently permitted by ECDC 18.80.060(C)(1). Architectural Design Board found and recommended' -that signage should be used for the gas pumps rather than a public announcement system, and the Council finds that use of signage will reduce noise pollution in the area and therefore, conforms the plan to the provision of the Comprehensive Plan. 12. With regard to the lighting requirements of the _ Architectural Design Review, the Council finds that while there has been some discussion of the lighting, there is no evidence that light will leave the site in the amounts in excess of site development standards of the City, and therefore, no negative impact relating to lighting can be found. 13. The Council finds no material issue of law or fact has been raised by the appellant with relation to the design criteria contained in ECDC 20.10.070(C). 14. The project is exempt from SEPA review because the tanks proposed for installation and the size of the structure both fall within the categorical exemptions provided by State statute and City ordinance.. Schnarre Appeal - 2 CONCLUSIONS 1. The Council concludes that: A. Proposals consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City policies (see note below); ' B. Conforms to the provisions of the zoning ordinance; and C. Conforms to the criteria established by ECDC 20.10.070. 2. Approval of the Plan is conditioned upon: A. The height of the structure is hereby limited to the. height voluntarily proposed by the applicant of 18 feet above the finished floor or to a maximum height of 21 feet 6 inches. The compressor and other mechanical equipment shall be placed upon the roof and adequately screened or shall be contained within the structure within said limits. B. Signage shall be used for information at the gas pumps rather than a public announcement system. 3. While the Council is cognizant that this project is exempt from review under the State Environmental Protection Act because of its categorical excemptions, the Council believes that serious concerns have been raised regarding the impact of traffic on the adjacent arterial streets as that traffic leaves and enters the site. Because the issuance of driveway permits is vested by the Community Development Code in the staff under the provisions of Chapter 18.80, the Council finds and concludes that the decision regarding the width of the driveway and its placement relative to the structures on the site is not now before them. The Council, however, requests and directs the City .staff to review the conditions imposed upon the grant of such permit in order to determine whether the driveway entrances have been approved, where applicable, by the State Division of Transportation and in order to insure compliance with the provisions of Chapter 18.80. The Council urges the applicant and the staff to work together to address its concerns regarding adequate turning radius for delivery vehicles entering and exiting the site and to minimize the impact of traffic utilizing the site upon the adjacent neighborhood and Olympic View and Puget Drives. Should traffic revisions be required on.said Drives in order.to assist the flow of traffic, the Council directs the staff to make a prompt report back to the Council. DECISION The application of Rainier National Bank as trustee in number ADB-90-86 is hereby approved subject to the conditions Schnarre Appeal - 3 described herein. The staff is directed to review the conditions of permit issuance for the driveway in order to address the concerns of the Council and the citizens as raised at its hearings. DONE this day of ATTEST/AUTHENTICATED: ITYCLERK, JACQUELINE PARRETT Schnarre Appeal - 4 STREET FILE MEMORANDUM December 9, 1987 TO: Mary Lou Block, Planning Manager FROM: Chris Beckman, Engineering Coordinator 6/� SUBJECT: TRUCK ROUTING TO PUGET DRIVE/OVD VICINITY During the November 17, 1987 hearing of an appeal to the ADB 90-86 decision, the topic of delivery truck access to delivery locations was brought up. In June 1983, Section 8.56.020 of the Edmonds City Code was amended by Ordinance No. 2377 to read: 8.56.020 CERTAIN VEHICLES PROHIBITED FROM USE OF CERTAIN STREETS When signs are erected giving notice thereof, no person shall operate any vehicle, which has a licensed gross weight exceeding ten thousand pounds, at any time upon any of the streets or parts of the streets described in Section 8.64.080 of this code, except that such vehicles may be operated thereon for the purpose of delivering or picking up materials or merchandise, and then only by entering such street at the intersection nearest the destination of the vehicle and proceeding thereon no further than the nearest intersection thereafter. The most direct route from SR 104 to the site would be as I described in the hearing -- north on 100th Ave. W. (9th) to its junction with SR 524, thence north and east on SR 524. They would then have the.option of continuing eastbound on SR 524 or backtracking to leave the site in question. CB/sdt J A7berts March TRUCKRTE/TXTST530 CITY OF EDMONDS USE zoNE A NUMBER '�:,�,,,• CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION � �rii BUSINESS) NAME (OR NAME OF BUS JOB ADDRESS �O I� w MAILING ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION LID NO. I o f7o. &� 3 113ol CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER Zv PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. Lu"i�Z ' l9Z 3 EXISTING =�OUIRED DEDICATION _ PROPOSED W NAME �- v ADDRESS w �_ RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIRED STREET USE PERMIT REQUIRED C Z z Q w w Z co CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER SEE ENGINEERING MEMO DATED Z G , 7ol-2 Obb 771 REMARK 1[� NAME G 0 ADDRESS O V CITY METER SIZE BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE FIXTURE UNITS TELEPHONE NUMBER z O O STATE LICENSE NUMBER REMARKS w 3 Legal Description of Property - include all easements SIGN AREA ENV. REVIEW ADB NO.`a ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT AT �p_� (show below or attach four copies) �J I I oz SHORELINE # Ali NEW U RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING ADD/ALTER COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL ElREPAIR CI RETAINING WALL LJ SIGN DEMOLISH OR FILLTE ❑ FEN CE E] REMODEL PRE -MOVE PJ COMPLIANCE SINSP. x_FT) swim POOL ❑ WO D STOVE/ APT. BLDG El RENEWAL NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF DWELLING �/ / UNITS ,/�J I NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) Oj0r _Td VARIANCE OR CU PLANNING REVIEW BY DAT v YARDS 1 f HEIGHT LOT COVERA E i FKa/nrr SIDE— RE R / '�� i REMARKS 5 a CHECKED BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CODE HEIGHT o 1197-5-- SPECIAL INSPECTOR AREA OCCUPANCY OCCUPANT REQUIRED GROUP LOAD ❑ YES ❑ NO REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 z PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING G PLUMBING MECHANICAL This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADING/FILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. Permit Application: 180 Days STATE SURCHARGE Permit Limit: 1 Year - Provided Work is Started Within ENERGY CODE 180 Days "Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and N successors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold w harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, 2 employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of iwhatever nature, arising directly or indirectly from the issuance 0 of this permit. Issuance of. this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT o modify,. waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance x nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance provision." TOTAL AMOUNT DUE I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the information given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and state laws regulating construction; and In doing the work authoriz- THIS PERMIT ed thereby, no person will be employed in violation of the Labor AUTHORIZES Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- ONLY THE WORK NOTED do In rance_ . NAT RE (OW? OW ER AGENT) DA SIGNED INSPECTION DEPARTMENT / CITY OF EDMONDS ATTENTI O 771-3202 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC CHAPTER 3. 102.87 VALUATION FEE 3 /S'. oo 17960 APPLICATION APPROVAL This application is not a permit until signed by the Building Official or his Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged in space provided. OFFICIAL'S SIGNATURE DATE RELEASED BY: DATE ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor ./I / (6� e I /Ja jo � 3-a � w► . STREET FILE Sc0-,A-S.,ya., __tea 4-0- ItQ-- OCT ;?.1987 ni.4�1.. „n DEPT. 1028 Puget DriveV Edmonds, Washington October 20, 1987 Edmonds City Council Edmonds Planning Department SUBJECT: A.D.B. 90-86 October 7. 1987 I wish to appeal the decision of the ADB which grants approval, because the concerns about this development of myself and nearly four hundred residents in our neighborhood haven't been addressed properly. I and my neighbor.Yattended the October 7th meeting and expressed only a fraction of the neighborhood feelings about the effect of the combined convenience store--gas.station on the sensitive neighborhood environment. The proposed development conflicts with:. Chapter 15, Comprehensive Plan 15.20.010, Goals #4, #5, and #6. 15.20.000, B.000, B.3, B.4b and d._ - 15.20.010 A. 15.20.005 B.1, 2, 5.c 15,15.050 B., #6 15.15.040 B., #2 15.15.030 B., #Id, 4a,b.c,d 15,25.000 B., #1 16.45.000 A. and B. This development will certainly change the character of this ` neighborhood; if completed as planned. The corner and ,7,05-00 IPA `L9 #ID adjacent area are already impacted by the present high Pe,� traffic volumes and congestion nearby. Any additional A lei y24 development aat this intersection will cause those neighbors dJ-p- in residences close by to be unable to exit or enter safely from their properties. (Tka%e ov% pine+ Dr%ve ►aye- TvJLTL +a use)- The hours of operation until 11:00 p.m. exceed the Ns-J normal hours of the neighborhood. Past businesses at this location closed at 9:00 p.m. aX 5;9hfi The drive way location,,Puget Drive will create a safety b problem: and increased auto accidents can be expected on Puget Drive, where speeds reach 35 to 40 MPH. The sight distance on Puget Drive is poor. �►'�'�'`, I.t�'tixn �°. i � w k.ZY'� ? � s �-a.�e-r�w.t-i- �a-G%c-s> o�� •,.. } i` o-,.�, . From the information provided, the site plan is deficient.. There isn't enough room for the cars stacking atop ralb° u+' the gas pumps, which in turn means that the entrance may av blocked. Then traffic will back up on the arterial 04D e ,ee. " KOkck e. 5 \o.r.e, " 0 Sle S'LA Prop:d��t On -site there isn't room available for delivery trucks- 5P ��t ssdR' unloading in such a way to not block customer traffic. We feel that customers moving in and out of their parking spaces we dowb� will conflict with.gas pump traffic and accidents will occurs No safe walkway is provided for. gas customers .--11 wewFc�X�Qra�r.� swv�ace . Wt�.p,{ co ..ld� b.2 scLF�✓ !J-�d- Shill aC.(�o-ts' G;�rCu.�a�,7ov� The lighting plan does not restrict theglow and glare from our properties. The signage was not discussed with its lighting. a wo, wa ✓✓ed- i What the residents and those neighbors who use the +;me• intersection at Olympic View Drive want is a continuous right turn lane from Puget Drive, restriction of the entrance on_W",tA' o�OJ� Puget Drive ag�' west -bound, in -coming traffic. ZxU, ios Pfrowl�r®S A traffic light should be installed and the costs shared -no+ warra� �P% by the applicant. Additional information will be submitted for your consideration. Sincerely, _. Harold Schnar/re' OCT 211987 !)I APN 1r DEPT., + 1 -^,_ Aloft ID -- F o: 5 / (55 _' r/ Rodlvs Pc.•n t - :/:Ya/. RIW o -Coc ♦ r, ! ;% 'Q :I.'•. .\ ........................................ : 243 * /s04PC. r1 ) r�:: t 71RB1 - -'- -- — — — — — — tLAZ— MP// AI✓E. . 23 OL Y PT �1 r----- Ul i 91 (] d /00. l/ I •'. .. O .ice i - ♦ � O o f f-Z. N.Qi�,}sz .;::;.° �n7.• E` /00' 4043.67' I 24 7. P 7 r1Jn' iI •4100 .I •13922.pt — I ` 4V1p B— Iw _41'�e nl �, 11 �• E N . = ! 1 "DSO•. .. 184. 0, ,i (o s -' tTB: 9/(55Ro4/vs PC r 71' o \A . r, I`O a ,e• N; y5 • .0 o • 4-35 f . : ; • � �/6 Z ' � � � D `off`'• e \4s � � i:9o' Cl;�4 2ti3 � /S. 0 4 P. C. � ) `i '� i%Y 8� �� 05 cz v/�P� AVE 23.03^ 24 *73: 9 --- --- L 1 ; - .I 11 ; p .� /oo /f, f.7q:73;.: t� 4. �►. .1u - '•��... ,4r/�1�. •'�'�.�'••. ,o of -- W F3 •� r't _ •: a 1 M p: A NI. I s' —24 6 /. P. 7 o O 12 rN. AVE p� I — •�..�8 , i-soy'' j 7 ' r Lb '2 Of 10 5j 7/1 r T T _ i .. ..... .._._ t'" c. f e t>- ��,:_"E.�.'t� o_v�.�.5 � V_t ` �^ ��,► _ /c. � REETTILE t!oco--�,a� ov, t\ja`-' L.,S-� km r.,' 0Yr.,��.t�f'C- \%r'c.Lj LDYr-ttve �� v `" ID r t`,1•e.1 i1S too ( 9! 515v0.re LJ t` . c e, to G.c,. �t ct. o in- .n ( S •2 r ,� � `� �. r� �� t ` O t� (' ! � � (L• v �r � 1�J , tti C ,C C_ ((C. 1 Q .s 'C� • t[ ln. .c_ c r cl ; G.. C.'�` l,•...� ' d IA•�.Y' •4, •v yy'. J{ {ice ��( !•'�.. �bIr c =, V �'_ v -e ci W t ,'t- Pt c. T':! r a- V c. c- 4-c. iC 0 vt.. t,� q�! r kt 1.' cp V...S �_v' (`S �� ® $ & t/ a V-- �+ r 1 t lJ �V`o Jay -�ci t' �.,. �r��la Y„.( S wt s'►n,c�vc .� 10 vo rguar� ,,<< o Q,(� (00t,144( ' v�� ; G. sue`' 0 c. t' c�-Nll clj� ,�° a N- : t �. J a In C� q c, C/`s 1 li. t. Cf TL r.0-).T4�(a-.(�,.. rVr oV ,e %A o V-'C9 t-, 0.. �.f z �p .e •� Le v-- 7 ,! J e—t,a $� y- 4c, ,, � c, c K- o tom'' • f -L .'. �Q V, 0 P..y r,�� r� cn.3 i.,...0. tti 4L o � �. � a v � c? w t i /~ t� j �'L+• 'c)Wjr try (•�'��5"ii�� '. -J4�. L,ttti _Y`%/,C1 .9 CL PCG., ttvtt �!e I, ( , 7 00 --1 v a ,� - .� -,04. IV �e, I' ll� 1 4,o � G C v-)o5 S jo r o �p-4 v-' yl t.t `, c� v v+ Z 'Z) 00 0 9 b 0ov-z. •p e-1, REC,1e-il'VED 1 1 ��`T"'cz �r twd � � h -�. •� c � �t- e � ,�' �"•�.y.,�t C3'�n., r a ►� Gt a- w• �'C 1' Vic, cr L& o f trc�%,NX0LA V" a V 1 y-,e �-- -FL •2 +..(,-,a H 2.(:c'117 .a6vSV�a N 0 V w 01987 PERMIT COULTER �at,..y•� srs a.�lto� ®tn $e��eu..�,�v- 24- (9g°� o,4�v�t• e r l f `� 8 1 t o PLS t.-•.t' �- o �' . .� �<..`�"•� cl T-�. a T"" � o d �. x t�..�i r0 to . W i � � � �. 1' LA 1p, "J . 1. 'tt tt3f rt�tn•�e tr \'t'o V 1"( �l'•P.�. '" A-JY,,J rv(',o vs Avec— 1-mv- oQn s5 + . -00 .66. ?vv f4l l GGu 9l� F-0 LA rol v 1!recl, ,(� � �-�-rw.�. t' �. �. Fo i��s .•�.. 5 +' � � �c� r � � t,�a � �,. �• r. �.. � �..S r' � r'r~,s. , �x ,� �_ . to y�, /� tr c� � t,�. � c' •�% ,o � ton t " ` % ' C ( t,tB �- �. c o v z ¢. r 1t G t i t.t -c w �,p V t '� < r a.. 1 o ti G..� r can V. �„ („� � � V t.,��j tt,y (A I LIA,W 11 (eQ," IK If T'"r LA-20 I lam/ W c'- C9 VC. STREET FILE GLENN J. AMSTER JOEL N. BODANSKY LAURIE LOOTENS CHYZ MARK S. CLARK SALLY H. CLARKE T. RYAN DURKAN GARY M. FALLON ROBERT B. FIKSO RICHARD E. GIFFORD JEROME L. HILLIS GREGORY E. KELLER GEORGE A. KRESOVICH LAW OFFICES OF HILLIS, CLARK, MARTIN & PETERSON A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CORPORATION 500 GALLAND BUILDING 1221 SECOND AVENUE SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-2925 (206) 623-1745 TELECOPIER (206) 623-7789 TELEX 4947650 November 13, 1987 The Honorable Larry S. Naughten The Honorable Steve Dwyer The Honorable Laura Hall The Honorable Jo -Anne Jaech The Honorable Bill Kasper The Honorable John Nordquist The Honorable Lloyd Ostrom The Honorable Jack Wilson 250 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: No. ADB-90-86 Olympic View Drive/Puget Drive Dear Mayor Naughten and Members of the Council: SARAN E. MACK DEBORAH S. MALANE GEORGE W. MARTIN, JR. MARK C. McPHERSON LOUIS D. PETERSON RICHARD M. PETERSON STEVEN R. ROVIG -- MICHAEL F. SCHUMACHER MICHAEL R. SCOTT RICHARD S. SWANSON RICHARD R. WILSON C:(apy On behalf of the applicant, Rainier National Bank, as Trustee, we submit this letter in response to the appeal of the decision of the Architectural Design Board filed by Mr. Harold Schnarre. The appeal is set for hearing by the Council on November 17, 1987. The proposal is for a convenience store with one self-service gas pump island. Basis for Council Review. This is an ADB appeal. Pursuant to ECDC 20-10.080 and 20.105.040(C), the Council will conduct a de novo.hearing and will make its decision applying the same criteria used by the ADB. This project is allowed outright under ECDC chapter 16.45. No variances or zoning modifications are required. There is no issue about whether this proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance. This project is categorically exempt from environmental review under SEPA, RCW ch. 43.21C, and ECDC chapter 20.15A. Alleged off -site environmental impacts are not properly a part of this appeal. Nevertheless, Mr. Schnarre's appeal raises several issues unrelated to architectural design review. These Edmonds City Council November 13, 1987 Page 2 issues were not considered by the ADB (because it.is not its job to do so) and they should not be considered by the Council in this appeal. Response to Appeal. 1. Conflict with City Policies. The Board found the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City policies. Mr. Schnarre has supplied the Council with a laundry list of policies with which the proposed development supposedly conflicts, without further explanation. Several of the policies he cites are completely irrelevant; others are clearly the basis for the Neighborhood Business (BN) zoning designation on the site -- a designation which allows this proposed development. a. ECDC 15.20.010(B)(4),(5) and (6). These commercial land use goals are as follows: 4. The design and location of all commercial sites should provide for convenient and safe access for customers, employees and suppliers. 5. All commercial developments should be carefully located and designed to eliminate or minimize the adverse impacts of heavy traffic volume and other related problems on surrounding land uses. 6. Neighborhood scale commercial development (convenience stores) should be located at major arterial intersections and should be designed to minimize interference with through traffic. This proposal is consistent with these policies. Neither Mr. Schnarre nor anyone else has submitted any evidence or information to the contrary. The project architect testified before the ADB, and will testify before the Council, that this development has been designed to provide convenient and safe access for customers, employees, and suppliers, to minimize any adverse impacts of heavy traffic volume or other related problems on surrounding land uses, and to minimize interference with through traffic. Edmonds City Council November 13, 1987 Page 3 b. ECDC 15.20.000, B.000, B.3, B.4b and d (sici. Section 15.20.000 describes the scope of the Comprehensive Plan. It has no subsection (B). C. ECDC 15.20.010(A). This general commercial land use policy provides as follows: Past and present commercial development in the City of Edmonds has been oriented primarily to serving the needs of its citizens. It also has attempted to offer a unique array of personalized and specialty type shopping opportunities for the public. The recently completed Milltown shopping arcade is an excellent example of this type of development. `It is essential that future commercial developments continue to harmonize and enhance the residential small town character of.Edmonds that its citizens so strongly desire to retain. By the same token, the City should -develop a partnership with business, citizens and residents to help it grow and prosper while assisting to meet the various requirements of the City's codes and policies. This policy underlies the City's zoning of the site for Neighborhood Business. This project complies with all the requirements of the BN zone. d. ECDC 15.20.005(B)(1), (2), and (5)(c). These are residential development policies. They do not apply to areas designated Commercial/Business on the Comprehensive Plan map. See ECDC 15.20.000. e. ECDC 15.15.050(B)(6). The City's noise pollution goal is to "[p]reserve the quiet residential environment of the city by limiting increases in noise and reducing unnecessary noise where it now exists," in accordance with specific policies. Policy (B)(6) pertains to future street and arterial projects. It is irrelevant. As for reducing noise impacts, one member of the public testified before the ADB regarding her concern about the possible use of a PA system. The Board responded to this concern by imposing a condition prohibiting a PA system on the site. The Edmonds City Council November 13, 1987 Page 4 proposal is consistent with the City's noise pollution policies. f. ECDC 15.15.040(B)(2). The City has a goal of protecting and maintaining clean air by, among other things, encouraging "arrangement of activities which will generate the fewest necessary automobile trip miles while avoiding undue concentration of like uses." This has been accomplished by zoning. Also, this proposal will bring a mix of uses closer to the neighborhood it is designed to serve, thus decreasing automobile trips out of the neighborhood to buy gas or groceries. g. ECDC 15.15.030(B) (1) (d) , and (4) (a) , (b) , (c) and (d). These are beautification and urban design policies. Policy (B)(1)(d) encourages "the rehabilitation and restoration of older buildings and historic buildings in order to retain a variety of building styles and continuity with the City's past." This is clearly irrelevant here. Policy (B)(4), the Neighborhood Shopping Concept, provides as follows: a. General Appearance: Buildings, similar in scale to single-family houses, compact arrangement of buildings with safe pedestrian walkways. b. Signs: Use sign concept from downtown. C. Lighting: Oriented away from residential areas. Designed for safety rather than advertisement of uses. d. Landscaping. Buffer from street, provide transition from commercial areas to residential areas. The proposal is consistent with these policies, as the project architect will testify. h. ECDC 1.5.25.000(B)(1). This policy pertains to street and highway location and design. It is not relevant. Edmonds City Council November 13, 1987 Page 5 i. ECDC 16.45.000(A) and (B). These are the specific purposes of the BN zone: A. To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an everyday basis by residents of a neighborhood area. B. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings. These purposes are carried out in the BN zone regulations. This proposal complies with these regulations. 2. Conflict with the Purposes and Criteria of Architectural Design Review. The Board found the proposal consistent with the criteria and purposes of ECDC chapter 20.10. Mr. Schnarre asserts, again without explanation, that the proposal conflicts with certain purposes and criteria. His assertion has no basis in fact. a. ECDC 20.10.000(A), (B), (C), and (E). These are some of the purposes of the code's architectural design review provisions: A. To encourage the realization and conservation of a desirable and aesthetic environment in the City of Edmonds. B. To encourage and promote development which features amenities and excellence in the form of variations of siting, types of structures and adaptation to and conservation of topography and other natural features. C. To encourage creative approaches to the use of land and related physical developments. E. To minimize incompatible and unsightly surroundings and visual blight which prevent orderly community development and reduce community property values. Edmonds City Council November 13, 1987 Page 6 This proposal will replace an unsightly abandoned gas station with an attractively designed building using top-quality materials and extensive landscaping. It is completely consistent with the purposes of chapter 20.10. b. ECDC 20.10.070(A) (2) , (A) (6) , (B) (3) and (B) (8) . These are design review criteria for building design and site treatment. They provide as follows: 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area. 6. Size and height of buildings should be compatible with the character and existing views of the surrounding area. 3. Landscape treatment should be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. 8. Exterior lighting should be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness should be avoided. All lighting should be lowrise,.and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns should be compatible with the overall design theme. As the project architect will testify, the proposal satisfies each of these criteria. 3. Safety of Entry/Exit at Neighboring Properties. Mr. Schnarre states that "[a)ny additional development at this intersection will cause those neighbors in residences close by to be unable to exit or enter safely from their properties." To begin with, this is really a SEPA issue, not a design issue, and as such it is not properly before the Council. Second, there is absolutely no evidence supporting Mr. Schnarre's assertion. Although it is categorically exempt, this application underwent a lengthy SEPA review which resulted in voluminous information Edmonds City Council November 13, 1987 Page 7 on traffic conditions and impacts associated with this project. (See File No. CU-13-86.) These impacts were analyzed by Centrac, by Bell -Walker Engineers, and by the City's engineering staff. None of these experts opined that neighbors would be unable to safely enter or leave their properties as a result of this development. If Mr. Schnarre is suggesting that the City should, under the guise of architectural design review, prohibit any development on the site, his suggestion is untenable. Such an action by the City would violate the owner's constitutional and statutory rights. 4. Hours of Operation. Mr..Schnarre objects to the hours of operation allowed under BN zoning regulations. This is not a matter to be addressed in design review. 5. Safety of Driveway on Puget Drive. This is also a SEPA issue, not a design issue. Even if it were, there is overwhelming evidence that the location of the driveway on Puget Drive is safe (See File No. CU-13-86). Neither Mr. Schnarre nor anyone else has produced any evidence that the driveway location is not safe. 6. Sight Distance on Puget Drive. Mr. Schnarre claims the sight distance on Puget Drive is poor. He does not argue, nor could he, that the proposed development will interfere with sight distance. It will not. 7. Room for Car Stacking On -Site. Mr. Schnarre asserts that the site plan is "deficient" because cars stacking at the gas pumps will block the driveway entrances and cause traffic back-ups. There is no evidence that this is the case. The City's engineering staff has raised no objection to the site plan. Nor did the independent traffic experts who previously reviewed the site plan predict traffic back-ups due to car stacking. 8. Room for Delivery Trucks. There is a loading area on - site where trucks will not block customer traffic. Mr. Schnarre's assertion is incorrect. 9. Conflict Between Gas Pump Traffic and Customer Parking. Mr. Schnarre states that accidents will occur between cars leaving parking spaces and cars moving toward the gas pumps. This site consists of over 19,000 square feet. The project has been Edmonds City Council November 13, 1987 Page 8 carefully designed to industry standards in order to accommodate customers' needs, as the project architect will testify. Again, the City's engineering staff has raised no objection to the site plan. 10. Walkway for Gas Customers. Mr. Schnarre apparently believes a walkway should be designated between the gas pumps and the store. There is no evidence that this is necessary, nor did anyone suggest to the Board that one should be required. 11. Li�h�q. As the project architect will testify, the lighting design will minimize impacts on nearby properties. Mr. Schnarre's assertion is unsupported. 12. Signage. As explained at the ADB hearing, signs will be subject to a separate permit. That is why they were not discussed. 13. Puget Drive Improvements and Entrance Restrictions. Mr. Schnarre urges the Council to require the applicant to install a continuous right -turn lane on Puget Drive and a traffic signal. He also wants the Council to restrict the Puget Drive entrance to west -bound traffic (presumably limiting the driveway to right turns in and out). These are not design review conditions. They are SEPA mitigation measures which neither the Board nor the.Council has authority to impose. Conduct of Hearing. Mr. Schnarre's appeal letter states that "additional information" will.be submitted for the Council's consideration. We urge the Council to limit this "additional information" to testimony at the hearing, or to written material submitted sufficiently early to alloy consideration by the Council in advance of the hearing. Also, we request that the Council allow the applicant a sufficient amount of time to describe the proposal (since this is a de'novo hearing) and to respond to the appeal arguments of Mr. Schnarre. In addition, we request time to respond to any statements by other members of the public allowed to speak in support of Mr. Schnarre's appeal. If the Council sets specific time limits for the appellant and the applicant, we urge the Council not to allow the appellant's time to be enlarged by • /I Edmonds City Council November 13, 1987 Page 9 other members of the public donating their unused time; at a minimum, we would request that the Council provide an equal enlargement of time for the applicant. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Sarah E. Mack SEM/ma cc: John D. Wallace s. Mary Lou Block Mr. Dale Chandler Mr. Carl Pirscher Mr. Harold Schnarre 056377.M205 STREET FILE MEMORANDUM November 12, 1987 TO: Mary Lou Block, Planning Manager FROM: Chris Beckman, Engineering Coordinator SUBJECT: PROPOSED RETAIL PLANS AT PUGET DRIVE AND OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE - A.D.B. 90-86 The/on-site and peripheral traffic circulation has been studied by the applicant's traffic consultant and, subsequently, reviewed by Bell -Walker Engineers under City contract. The recommendations from both reports and staff review were included in my August 14, 1986 memo. The applicant's recent submittal design addresses those concerns and was, therefore, approved by the Engineering Division. Attached is another copy of the 8/14/86 memo. CB/sdt Attachments MC_ Qzz� �//,z 7 Al V r s ffardh PUG&OVD/TXTST530 R MEMORANDUM August 14, 1986 MEMO TO: Mary Lou Block Planning Director FROM: Chris Beckman Engineering Coordinator SUBJECT: OLYMPIC VIEW RETAIL DEVELOPMENT CU 13-86 FOR GASOLINE SALES On August 13, 1986 the firm of Bell -Walker. Engineers, Inc. submitted their review of the traffic impact analysis for subject property. They examined the Centrac Associates report, support data, comments by staff and others as well as the site itself. Their five page letter report plus two pages of pictures was thorough and generally supportive of the Centrac report. The areas that the review showed a concern about were: a. Use of right turn holding lan 4t (Previously referred to as a "deceleration lane") for truck unloading. b. Recommended pedestrian cross -walk on SR 524 to east of ;Olympic View Drive - needs more study during higher use 'periods. c. Extension of center two-way left turn lane to become available to hold left turns from Olympic View Drive prior to merging into eastbound SR 524. This minor.conflict potential is already mitigated by excellent sight distance. My recommendation would be to accept the Centrac report with the minor modifications pointed out by the Bell -Walker review, and issue the DNS with mitigating measures as specified in both documents. DDClD ❑D 00 BELL -WALKER ENGINEERS Inc. 3633 136th Place S.E. (206) 643-2002 Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98006-1451 RECEIVED. August 13, 1986 AUG 131986 Mr. Robert Alberts ENGINEERING. City Engineer City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 . Dear Mr. Alberts: As you requested, we have reviewed the traffic impact analysis for the Olympic View Retail Development prepared by Centrac Associates, Inc., together with citizen comments related to the above proposed conditional use at the intersection of SR 524 and Olympic View Drive. It is understood that the conditional use in question is the construction of a gasoline pump island, which is a conditional use as presently zoned, together with the construction' of a retail development including a convenience store, a hair salon and an insurance office, all of which are presently allowed uses. The site of the proposed development is the northeast corner of the "tee" intersection of SR 524 (Puget Drive) and Olympic View Drive. SR 524 has an east/west orientation, with Olympic View Drive intersecting SR 524 from the northeast. The site is presently occupied by an abandoned gasoline station. The immediate vicinity is predominantly single and multi -family residential in use. In addition, there is a retail development on the northwest corner of the intersection, consisting of a convenience store, a hair salon and a dry cleaners. On the south . side of the intersection is a private elementary school with a pedestrian gate near the southwest corner of the intersection. Our review consisted of the following: 1. Examination of the Traffic/Impact Analysis Report prepared by Centrac Associates, Inc., together with traffic count data, speed study data, and traffic accident data used by Centrac in the preparation of their report. 2. Examination of the site together with on -site observation of traffic in the vicinity during both peak and non -peak hour traffic volume conditions. 3. Spot sampling of speeds on SR 524 adjacent to the site during both peak and non -peak hour traffic volume conditions. 4. Examination of additional comments by Terry L. Gibson of Centrac Associates, Inc. andby Roger Hertrich, a nearby resident.to the site. Based on the above review, we have made the following findings: Bellevue, Washington • Boise, Idaho R N Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service: We found the traffic volume data used in the Centrac study and their method of adjustment to estimate current traffic volumes to be appropriate and accurate. We also concur with their assessment of the levels of service at the intersection. The study is correct in identifying the left -turn movement from Olympic View Drive to SR 524 eastbound as the critical movement at the intersection. Accident History: The three-year history of traffic accidents in the vicinity is an appropriate sampling for this study. However, in light of Mr. Hertrich's comments concerning the possibility of' there being a higher accident rate prior to 1983, when the now abandoned gasoline station was in operation, an examination was made of accident records for three additional years, from 1980 through 1982. These records showed a total of five reported accidents during that period, with two being injury accidents and three being property damage only accidents. Although these records show two more accidents during the three-year period prior to 1983 than the following three-year period, it would be impossible to determine what affect, if any, the operation of the now abandoned service station might have had on the higher accident rate, in that the total number of accidents in the sample is too small to rule out the possibility that the difference in number of accidents was coincidental. `Also, a much more likely impact on traffic safety, which could have influenced the number of accidents that occurred, was the widening of SR 524 in 1982, which included the construction of a center left -turn lane, together with the construction of curbs and gutters. Traffic Generation: Although the trip generation estimates for the convenience store and the gas station appear to be correct, we found the estimates for the hair salon and .the insurance agency to be low. Assuming a four -chair salon with four employees, and assuming . 50% customer occupancy for a nine -hour day, at an average stay of one hour per customer, this use would generate 52 average weekday trips, resulting in both an... A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip rate of three trips in and three trips out..- The I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual's statistics for insurance agencies is' based" on 'a 106,000 s.f. office building and is not appropriate for estimations for an 800 s.f. use. Assuming two employees and an average of ten customers per day; it is estimated that an insurance agency would generate approximately 28 average weekday trips, resulting in both an A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip rate of three trips in and three trips out. Adding these additional trips (three per hour in and out) to the total peak hour trips estimated in the study does not alter the levels of service as determined by Centrac in their study. Right -Turn Holding Lane: The proposed right -turn holding lane appears to be a reasonable mitigating measure for reducing delays or the threat of rear -end collisions for through westbound traffic while vehicles are turning•:into the proposed driveway. It should be noted that the 'Centrac .report described this lane as a deceleration lane, when in fact this lane is not of sufficient length to allow vehicles to enter prior to decelerating. As it is presently designed, it appears that this lane would primarily provide storage space for vehicles waiting to enter the parking area due to delays caused by other vehicles entering or exiting parking spaces, or by trucks backing into the truck loading area.. We would not recommend extending this lane on to provide a protected right -turn lane at the intersection.. The traffic volumes for right -turning vehicles and the level of service for westbound traffic entering the intersection do not warrant a protected right -turn lane. Also, creating a right-turn.lane would eliminate the protected nature of the holding lane for the store entrance, in that vehicles intending to turn right at the intersection would also be entering this lane. Finally, extending the right -turn lane around the corner would increase the distance required for pedestrians to cross Olympic View Drive, which would increase the hazard to pedestrians using that crosswalk. Truck Loading: We find it appropriate for the study to recommend that single -unit trucks only be allowed on the site during working hours. Even with this restriction, though, there is a potential hazard for trucks backing from the store parking area in front of the SR 524 driveway entrance to the loading area on the east side of the building. This hazard is reduced to a reasonable level, however, by the proposed right -turn holding lane which would allow inbound cars to wait during the trucks' backing movement without interfering with the flow of traffic on SR 524. Concerning the comment in the Centrac report that the right -turn holding lane'could possible be used as a loading area for larger trucks, we would consider this practice to be unacceptable, in that the right -turn holding lane should be available at all times to avoid delays and accident hazards for westbound traffic. Also, an adequate sight distance to the east for vehicles existing from that driveway could not be maintained if trucks were allowed to stop in the right -turn holding lane. Parking: The proposed development provides a total of 13 off-street parking spaces. According the City of Edmonds Engineering Department, this exceeds the number of parking spaces required under city ordinances. Using the same criteria for estimating„ parking space requirements that was used in estimating trips generated, it could reasonably be expected that the following parking spaces would be required: Convenience Store: Employees - 1 Customers - 3, Hair Salon: Employees - 4 Customers - 2 Insurance Office: Employees - 2 Customers - 1 Total off-street parking required - 13 It appears, therefore, that the 13 off-street parking spaces proposed for this development would provide for a minimum number of allowable spaces. However, this number of spaces does not provide any additional parking for periods of peak usage, and no space appears to be available on the site which could be used for overflow parking. This could be a problem considering that no on -street parking is available in the vicinity. Speed Data: On July 7, 1983, a speed study was conducted on SR 524 adjacent to the site. This study indicated an average speed of 32.8 mph, while the posted speed limit is 30 mph. This average speed is acceptable given the existing sight distances and roadway geometri.cs, and does not indicate an excessive average speed. Because of the age of this speed study, we conducted an additional.speed study consisting of a A ,1 sampling of 50 vehicles during a weekday morning non -peak volume period, and a sampling of 100 vehicles during a weekday afternoon peak volume period. The results of this study tended to confirm the findings of the 1983 study, with no significant difference attributable to the age of the earlier study. There was a significant difference in speeds, however, between those sampled during the peak volume period and the non -peak volume period, with speeds being generally higher during the period of lower traffic volumes. Although this difference was significant, meaning that the differences in speeds were not merely coincidental, the average speeds were not considered critically high. On August 11, 1986, during the morning non -peak sampling period, the average speed was 34.4 mph, while on the same day during the afternoon peak sampling period, the average speed was 33.51 mph. While average speeds were found to,be only slightly above the posted speed limit, it was noted that there were more incidents of isolated vehicles travelling at a high rate of speed than there were during the period of lower traffic volumes. As a comparison, the maximum observed speed during the lower volume period was 42 mph while during the higher volume period, the maximum observed speed was 46 mph. Sight distances from the proposed SR 524 driveway were verified by our staff. It was found that, as Photos #1 and #2 show, from a position 15 feet back from the edge of the existing roadway, there is a clear view of the center of the oncoming lane to the east for 420 feet, and a clear view of the center of the oncoming lane to the west for over 600 feet. As both photos show, there are two utility poles which are within the line of view of oncoming lanes but the narrowness of these poles renders their presence insignificant in considering sight distances. Based on an assumed speed of 30 miles per hour, the minimum sight distance required would be 300 feet, with an additional 100 feet required for each additional 10 miles per hour. Taking into consideration the occasional high speeds of oncoming vehicles, there appears to be adequate sight distance for exiting vehicles from the SR 524 driveway and from Olympic View Drive. Pedestrians: Although prevailing vehicle speeds do not appear to be excessive for vehicles attempting to exit onto SR 524, the occasional "speeder" does pose a threat to pedestrians using the crosswalk on the west side of the intersection. We concur with Terry Gibson's comment that, due to the proximity of the school south of the intersection and the likelihood that pedestrian counts would be uncharacteristically low while the school is closed for the summer, it would not be advisable to take pedestrian counts at the present time. Although representative pedestrian counts would be valuable in considering mitigating measures which might be taken in con- junction with the proposed development, we would not recommend, as Mr. Gibson recommended, that a second SR 524 crosswalk be installed on the east side of the intersection, in that this would further interfere with the movement of left -turning vehicles out of Olympic View Drive. We support the idea presented by Mr. Gibson that a school speed zone may be warranted, but we would recommend that first a study should be made of pedestrian volumes and movements and that any changes made to the pedestrian crossing be done as part of a single plan. Concerning;Mr. Hertrich's comments regarding pedestrians, it appears that while the proposed convenience store would be an attraction to student pedestrians, these student pedestrians should be considered passersby and the proposed store would probably not generate an appreciable number of additional pedestrians in the area. Center Lane Channelization: It appears that Centrac's recommendation that the center striped island at the east end of the intersection be removed and that the center turning lane be extended west to provide a holding lane for left -turning vehicles from Olympic View Drive is a reasonable method for improving the level of service for these left -turning vehicles. We are concerned, however, over the conflict that would exist between these left-turning.vehicles in the holding lane and the eastbound traffic attempting to enter the center lane to turn into the proposed store driveway. It appears that the higher priority should be to reserve the center holding lane for the Olympic View Drive traffic and to not allow eastbound vehicles to turn left into the SR 524 driveway. Instead, these vehicles would turn left at the intersection and use the Olympic View Drive store driveway. An additional consideration in reserving the center lane east of the intersection as a holding lane for left -turning eastbound vehicles is the conflict that could exist between these eastbound vehicles in the center lane and exiting vehicles from residential driveways on the south attempting to use the center lane before merging with westbound traffic. As Photos #3 and #4 show, there is a clear view from even the most westerly residential driveway of the intersection, and particularly of vehicles turning left from Olympic View Drive. It was observed by our staff on recent visits to the site that even during periods of peak traffic volume, vehicles tended to travel in groups of up to 20 cars, with gaps between groups often of over a minute in length. Given the traffic volumes on SR 524 during peak hours, and given the frequent gaps in traffic which have been observed, it is reasonable to expect that vehicles exiting from driveways on the south would have sufficient opportunity .to observe whether vehicles are occupying the center lane and to merge with westbound traffic with little delay. Traffic Signal Warrants: We find Centrac's assessment of the traffic signal warrant eligibility to be accurate based on the information presently available. Summary: In summary, our analysis of the traffic report for the proposed development at Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive indicates that we generally concur with 'the conclusions and recommendations with some minor adjustments. It is our opinion that there is sufficient capacity and safety for the development. The speed study did indicate a concern for excessive speed on Puget Drive during our speed studies. However, the increased traffic or operations as a result of the proposed development would not have a direct affect on speed. Control of parking on site for both customers and truck delivery will be an important part of the operation. Clear and free access to the site off of Puget Drive is essential at all times. i It is hoped that this information is satisfactory for you to evaluate the proposed developments based on traffic impacts.. If you have any questions or comments concerning this analysis please contact this office. Very truly yours, i BELL -WALKER ENGINEERS, INC. Theodore T. Bell, P.E. President STREET FILE restriping the street after the new overlay. Staff recommends that a public hearing be held to further discuss the issue. Councilmember Kasper inquired about the zoning in that area. Mr. Al'berts replied multi -family. Councilmember Kasper said he observed that the majority of housing was for rental purposes. Councilmember Jaech suggested that all homeowners on 76th Ave. W., south of 212th St. S.W., be notified of the hearing. A hearing was scheduled on October 6, 1987 to discuss elimination of all on -street parking on 76th Ave. W. between 212th St. S.W. and 220th St. S..W. ✓� EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC CONFIGURATION AT OLYMPIC VIEW DR. AND OLYMPIC AVE. INTERSECTION (6 MONTH REV1 RMRHREVISION) t,ry-�v City Engineer Bob Alberts reported that on -March 17, 1987, the Council approved Staff's plan to /> make modifications to Olympic View Drive at Olympic Avenue. The modifications included elimina- I- tion of the concrete islands and widening of the street. Mr. Alberts said widening of the street has improved traffic flows, and Staff is not aware of any problems or complaints associated with the modifications made. Councilmember Kasper said a resident informed him that he had observed over thirty cars per day making a left turn onto Olympic Avenue. COUNCILMEMBER DWYER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDED ACTION. Councilmember Hall expressed concern regarding the safety of the buttons in comparison to the raised islands. She inquired about the height of the buttons. Mr. Alberts replied one inch. Councilmember Hall requested Staff to investigate the location of a tree in the subject area that . could potentially create a safety hazard. Mr. Alberts said that tree was located on private property but Staff would approach the property owner. Councilmember Kasper inquired if the size of the "no left turn" sign would be increased. Mr. Alberts said if motorists continue to make left-hand turns onto Olympic Avenue subsequent to installation of the buttons, then the problem would become an issue of enforcement to be ad- dressed by the Police Department. MOTION CARRIED. City Clerk Jackie Parrett requested clarification of the motion. She noted that the recommended action was "none required". Councilmember Dwyer acknowledged Staff's recommendation as "none required". CONTINUED REVIEW OF COMPUTER EQUIPMENT NEEDS Councilmember Ostrom stepped down from the dais due to a conflict of interest. Administrative Services Director Art Housler reported that on July 7, 1987, the City Council acknowledged the need for additional computer equipment. However, a comparison of "compatibles" was requested by the Council before acquisition. Mr. Housler noted that only one company was found to have cloned the IBM display station. The price of the equipment manufactured by Decision Data is $989 (W/P) compared to IBM's price of $1,413 (W/T), which is a difference of $424. When considering the annual maintenance and life expectancy ($48 x 8 yrs), there is only a total difference of $40. The Data Processing Committee did not believe such a nominal savings warranted the purchase of the Decision Data display sta- tions because dependability, reliability, and proven maintenance are crucial to a computer sys- tem. IBM has a reputation for excellent maintenance. Subsequent to discussions of the issue with college computer instructors, field computer engi- neers, and sales people, Staff learned that all so-called compatibles are not 100% compatible. Some are as low as 50% compatible. Through an elimination process, the Committee identified a PC that is 100% compatible called COMPAQ. An extensive comparison was made to the IBM PC. The basic COMPAQ model, which includes sales tax and maintenance service for eight years, is $1,384 more than the IBM. Because of the price differential and less options, the Committee did not recommend purchase.of COMPAQ equipment. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the laser printer was necessary for the Public Works Department. Community Services Director Peter Hahn replied negatively. He said the laser printer will be EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 SEPTEMBER 8, 1987 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL STREET FILE AGENDA MEMO Item number: Ori4inator: Robert J. Alberts For Action: X For Information: SUBJECT: EVALUATION OF TRAFFIC CONFIGURATION AT OLYMPIC VIEW DR. AND OLYMPIC AVE. INTERSECTION (6-MONTH REVIEW AFTER MARCH REVISION) AGENDA TIME: 5 Minutes AGENDA DATE: Sept. 8, 1987 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Copy of 3/17/87 Agenda Memo _a Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SE C S ENGINEERING PARKS & RECR A ON PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE MAYOR COMMENTS: EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED• $-0- BUDGETED: $-0- REQUIRED: $-0- HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: On March 17, 1987, Council approved staff's plan to make modifications to Olympic View Drive at Olympic Avenue. The modifications included elimination of concrete islands, widening the street, and installing traffic buttons. The widening of the street has improved traffic flow. Staff is not aware of any problems or complaints associated with the modifications made. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None required. COUNCIL ACTION: EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO Item number: Originatbr:Robert J. Alberts For Action:x For Information:_ SUBJECT: HEARING ON TRAFFIC MODIFICATION TO OLYMPIC VIEW DR./OLYMPIC AVE. INTERSECTION 1 AGENDA TIME: 10 Minutes AGENDA DATE: March 17, 1987 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Copy of 2/10/87 Agenda Memo Copy of Modifications Drawing EXPENDITURE REOUIRED: $600.00 Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SERVICES � ENGINEERING 9,_C��" PARKS & RECREA�TgONN PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE MAYOR COMMENTS: AMOUNT APPROPRIATION BUDGETED: $600.00 REQUIRED: $0 HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: A public hearing for the proposed street improvements to the intersection of Olympic View.Drive and Olympic Avenue was requested by Council at the February'10, 1987 Council meeting. The proposed improvements were to be installed in response to a hazardous condition brought to staff's attention. Staff was directed not to make any modifications until after a public hearing was held. The existing raised islands, narrow travel lanes, and abrupt curve on Olympic View Drive invite motorists to collide with the raised islands. The islands act as barriers to prohibit left turns from Olympic View Drive onto Olympic Avenue. The proposed modifications would not change the traffic patterns, but eliminate the raised islands, widen the lanes, and improve the road curvature. Small buttons would also be installed on Olympic View Drive on each side of the curve to make motorists aware that they are approaching the curve. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize staff to modify the intersection as proposed to improve safety, but not to change the traffic patterns. COUNCIL ACTION: -000� C y�EIA, D O /NSrAZ g410S P� G A � 1--,' V o� t /NS7-.41 L BUTTONS OLYMP/C l//E{VOR,� OLYMP/C A�EMOO/F/CAT/ONS 2-87 STREET FILE "This visit of the four is the first exchange between citizens of our two cities. I hope their visit will increase Edmonds' citizens interest in Hekinan City and exchanges will be developed". Mayor Naughten said the exchanges are part of the preliminary formality to the establishment of the Sister City relationship. He said Hekinan has expressed an interest to engage in a relation- ship with Edmonds. Mayor Naughten introduced Mrs. Uhlman, Chairperson of the Sister City Committee. Mrs. Uhlman introduced the delegation from Hekinan, Japan and the host families each were staying with as follows: Mitsuhiro Suzuki, Norbert and Carol Noack; Masatomo Kato, Mr. & Mrs. Dennis Self; Yumiko Takahashi, Don and Jean Puckett; Hiroko Kobayashi, Bill and Jo -Anne Stevens -Morton. Mrs. Uhlman introduced Kenneth Horano, an Edmonds citizen who is assisting the delegation in translation. Mayor Naughten thanked the Sister City Committee and welcomed the guests from Japan. He ex- pressed his appreciation to the host families for sharing their homes. Mayor Naughten said nine students will also be visiting Edmonds in August, and the Mayor of Hekinan will make a visit in June. AUDIENCE Mayor Naughten opened the audience portion of the meeting. No input was offered by the public. Mayor Naughten closed the audience portion of the meeting. City Attorney Scott Snyder noted that the Council, on March 3, 1987, approved the utility agree- ment that would extend services for Allied Roofing annexation and tract and approve a schedule for review. He said the first of two hearings was to be scheduled on March 17 but it was not advertised. He requested that the first hearing be scheduled on March 31. The hearing was sched- uled on March 31, 8:30 p.m., Plaza Room. HEARING ON TRAFFIC MODIFICATION TO OLYMPIC VIEW DR./OLYMPIC AVE. INTERSECTION City Engineer Bob Alberts reported that a public hearing for the proposed street improvements to the intersection of Olympic View Drive and Olympic Avenue was requested by the Council on Febru- ary 10, 1987. The proposed improvements were to be installed in response to a hazardous condi- tion brought to Staff's attention. Staff was directed not to make any modifications until after a public hearing was held. The existing raised islands, narrow travel lanes, and abrupt curve on Olympic View Drive contrib- ute to the collision of motorists with the raised islands. The islands act as barriers to prohib- it left turns from Olympic View Drive onto Olympic Avenue. The proposed modifications would not change the traffic patterns but would eliminate the raised islands, widen the lanes, and improve the road curvature. Small buttons would also be installed on Olympic View Drive, one each side of the curve to make motorists aware that they are approaching the curve. Councilmember Wilson inquired about the number of complaints that Staff received from the public regarding the present configuration. Mr. Alberts replied four. Councilmember Wilson inquired if any accidents have occurred at the intersection. Mr. Alberts replied affirmatively. Councilmem- ber Wilson inquired if the island was the cause of the accidents. Mr. Alberts replied affirma- tively. Councilmember Wilson recalled that the island was installed to prevent left turns. He inquired what function the buttons would serve. Mr. Alberts said the Police Department must enforce the left turn restriction. Councilmember Wilson said he does not and never has had any trouble with the present configuration. Mr. Alberts pointed out that the ten inch raised buttons that were installed throughout the State, which are now being removed, were now thought to pose any problems until several lawsuits were filed and the plaintiffs prevailed. h.. Councilmember Hall recommended that a solid configuration of buttons be installed where the is- land now exists and an additional row of buttons be installed on Olympic Avenue and Olympic View Drive as depicted on the diagram. Mr. Alberts clarified that the buttons that are proposed are eight inch, reflectorized, triangular buttons. Councilmember Jaech inquired if the concrete dividers that are utilized on the freeway could be installed rather than the buttons. Mr. Alberts said those dividers could potentially create a more hazardous situation than already exists. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 MARCH 17, 1987 EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO Item number: 11 STREET FILE Originator:Robert J. Alberts For Action:x For Information:_ .SUBJECT: HEARING ON TRAFFIC MODIFICATION TO OLYMPIC VIEW DR./OLYMPIC AVE. INTERSECTION 1 AGENDA TIME: Ma r-eh AGENDA DATE: ')W-V -t v / 1/ / ° i 7 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Copy of 2/10/87 Agenda Memo Copy of Modifications Drawing earances: Dept./Indiv./Initials ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SERVICES ENGINEERING@ PARKS & RECREATION ION PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE (COMMITTEE (MAYOR COMMENTS: EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: $600.00 BUDGETED: $600.00 REQUIRED: $0 HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: A public hearing for the proposed street improvements to the intersection of Olympic View Drive and Olympic Avenue was requested by Council at the February 10, 1987 Council meeting. The proposed improvements were to be installed in response to a hazardous condition brought to staff's attention. Staff was directed not to make any modifications until after a public hearing was held. The existing raised islands, narrow travel lanes, and abrupt curve on Olympic View Drive invite motorists to collide with the raised islands. The islands act as barriers to prohibit left turns from Olympic View Drive onto Olympic Avenue. The proposed modifications would not change the traffic patterns, but eliminate the raised islands, widen the lanes, and improve.the road curvature. Small buttons would also be installed on Olympic View Drive on each side of the curve to make motorists aware that they are approaching the curve. • RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize staff to modify the intersection as proposed to improve safety, but not to change the traffic patterns. COUNCIL ACTION: 317li7 a� U' • • *, CNDs CITY COUNCIL C"R®le AGENDA MEMO Item number: Originator:Robert J. Alberts For Action: —For Information:x SUBJECT: OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE OLYMPIC AVENUE MODIFICATION UPDATE AGENDA TIME: AGENDA DATE: Feb. 10, 1987 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: earances: Dept./Indio./Initials ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SERVICES ENGINEERING PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE MAYOR COMMENTS: EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: $600.00 BUDGETED: $600.00 REQUIRED: $0 HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: In 1984 the City Council authorized improvements be made to the Olympic View Drive/Olympic Avenue intersection to resolve safety problems. The improvements included raised islands in Olympic View Drive, prohibited left turns from Olympic View Drive onto Olympic Avenue, the realignment of Olympic Avenue with Olympic View Drive, and the raising of Olympic Avenue and Puget Drive to provide a landing for vehicles and improve site distance. Since the improvements, the City has been able to observe the effectiveness of the improvements. There has been numerous complaints that there is a speeding problem, the curve on Olympic View Drive is too abrupt and narrow, left turns are still made by persistent motorists from Olympic View Drive across the raised media to Olympic Avenue, and the raised islands are an obstruction and hazardous to motorists. In investigating the complaints, staff found each one had merit. Staff feels improvements can be made to address all of the complaints, with the exception of motorists making left turns into a "do not enter" signed street. OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE/OLYMPIC AVENUE MODIFICATION UPDATE February 10, 1987 Page 2 HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT (CONTINUED): Staff is scheduling the following work for the intersection: a) Remove the raised islands and replace with low profile reflectorized buttons. b) Widen portions of the street to improve the road curvature and reduce the abruptness. c) Install small buttons across Olympic View Drive on each side of the corner to make motorists more aware of the curve and to slow down. d) Additional signing. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Council memo is for information only and requires no Council action. COUNCIL ACTION: • • a P}=MOVE R)llsED 15 LrI/yV1- ZNSTALL (jtiTFONS VIELV �KlVE � � 4 /n!s �� rnON c Y, ' \. -� �C 0 �Y / 1-NSTf7LL !,3 �17-FON S �Jc ~ 1 1 _ • •' • • • • • • • • e • e o r fyJTAL L a&1-70NS o e e -•, e -o- •- a—•-•- ° rA /NST,gL L BUTTONS 'Q C w/OEN/NGr�'P> OLYMP/C l//EWOR,� OLyMP/C Alf MOO/F/CAT/DNS 2-87 A* 0 0 • - • 0 1=NSTHLL O M o V E R►i 1SEO 15 LYIND1' U3 l T b/Y -7 0LyMP+C 1//E1N �KivE /Ns Tit L I- 13,,ln'o/V s Y, EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO i Item number: 421-0 • STREET FILE Originator:Robert J. Alberts For Action: —For Information:x SUBJECT: OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE/OLYMPIC AVENUE MODIFICATION UPDATE Clearances: Dept./Indio./Initials AGENDA TIME: ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE AGENDA DATE: Feb. 10, 1987 CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK EXHIBITS ATTACHED: COMMUNITY SERVICES c ENGINEERING G� PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING PUBLIC WORKS FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE MAYOR COMMENTS: EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPtROPRIATION REQUIRED: $600.00 BUDGETED: $600.00 REQUIRED: $0 HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: In 1984 the City Council authorized improvements be made to the Olympic View Drive/Olympic Avenue intersection to resolve safety problems. The improvements included raised islands in Olympic View Drive, prohibited left turns from Olympic View Drive onto Olympic Avenue, the realignment of Olympic Avenue with Olympic View Drive, and the raising of Olympic Avenue and Puget Drive to provide a landing for vehicles and improve site distance. Since the improvements, the City has been able to observe the effectiveness of the improvements. There has been numerous complaints that there is a speeding problem, the curve on Olympic View Drive is too abrupt and narrow, left turns are still made by persistent motorists from Olympic View Drive across the raised media to Olympic Avenue, and the raised islands are an obstruction and hazardous to motorists. In investigating the complaints, staff found each one had merit. Staff feels improvements can be made to address all of the • complaints, with the exception of motorists making left turns into a "do not enter" signed street. OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE/OLYMPIC AVENUE MODIFICATION UPDATE ~ February 10, 1987 Page 2 HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT (CONTINUED): . Staff is scheduling the following work for the intersection: a) Remove the raised islands and replace with low profile reflectorized buttons. b) Widen portions of the street to improve the road curvature and reduce the abruptness. c) Install small buttons across Olympic View Drive on each side of the corner to make motorists more aware of the curve and to slow down. d) Additional signing. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Council memo is for information only and requires no Council action. COUNCIL ACTION: �]j r� U I PY==MOVE IMSE0 IsL)INPr ZN S T-All C3y1iTo rJ S w OKIVE —. INS TpLL 13" T-ro /V iN5THLL QW TTaN S 01-yMPIC o- PF_ M O V E ROISEV Is L)INPr Z1iSTALL. 13V WoNS V,-=w pKlv,.. ZNSTRI-L UwTT-m 4 m iyy11)6N(TYR) Co i m m m O L'%/ M'PI C VIEW 991YEI O L\( MFIc. AVE MODIFICATIONS 2/87 V COUNCIL STREET FILE Councilmember Dwyer requested that the issue of a footprint 'of a building be reviewed with re- spect to the Architectural Design Board's authority. • Councilmember Hall said she recently attended the meetings of Snohomish County Cities & Towns at Nendel's. Jeanette Wood was elected as the new chairperson. Councilmember Hall noted that a future meeting will be held in Edmonds. /Councilme�ber, O.s,tgr.greFferred to the memorandum from City Engineer Bob Alberts regarding `•,. ��Ii'e?wi r�i a%OJly�n�)}�c�'Av�nu'e,,� Modifications. He said there were prior hearings on that issue w e L�ted meindo s ainInt of public interest. Councilmember Ostrom said he was uncomfortable in revising that area without holding another hearing. Councilmember Jaechrecommended that the issue be scheduled for either Council discussion and review or a hearing. Councilmember Hall acknowledged a letter from Quintana Roo Restaurant owners, Chris and Eileen Matt, received on February 5, 1987. The owners requested the Council to continue to seek public opinion regarding the relocation of the secondary sewer treatment plan and find a better solution than simply expanding the current site. Councilmember Nordquist said he attended the Health District meeting that afternoon. An exten- sive report was reviewed regarding the hepatitis outbreak as well as coping with AIDS. The Dis- trict, he said, is expanding its facility on Scriber Lake Road. Brochures addressing health issues are being sent to everyone who holds a health card. Councilmember Hall said a question was raised at the meeting if Dr. Hinds would eat in a restaurant which employed a person that had AIDS, and his response was "yes". The issue of requiring blood tests of persons employed in the food service business was brought up at the meeting. Councilmember Hall noted that the Silver King Restaurant in Snohomish was very cooperative with the Health District despite newspaper reports. Council President Wilson stated that Kirby White has been struggling with a serious bout of hepatitis but is on his way to recovery. Council President Wilson announced that the Council retreat is scheduled on March 13 and 14. Council President Wilson reported that he has had several interviews with applicants for the • Council Resource Person position and hopes to fill the position in the near future. Councilmember Kasper suggested that the Council Work Dinner meeting be taken off the schedule because there are six meetings scheduled in March. It was the consensus of the Council to wait to see if a meeting will be necessary. Council President Wilson said he received a notice in the mail that the water/sewer rate in Mount- lake Terrace will increase by 20% to be affective immediately and will increase through the year 1991. Councilmember Jaech noted that a rate increase will be discussed at an Administrative Services Committee meeting in February and will be presented to the Council. Councilmember Jaech said she received a call from a citizen regarding the issue that was before the ADB for the remodel of Doces, ADB-114-86. She said because there is not enough space on the commercially zoned property to provide an easement and the individual who owns the RM zoned property offered an easement on his property, the citizen questioned why RM zoned property can be utilized for commercial use. City Attorney Scott Snyder said the building is within 15 feet of the property line. Planning Division Manager Mary Lou Block said the easement will be utilized for required landscaping purposes and not for commercial purposes. Mr. Snyder said he did not think that use was prohibited. He suggested that the Council not discuss the issue at the present time because, if appealed, the issue would be presented to the Council for review and decision. The meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m. • EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 12 1FEBRUARY 10, 1987 I T- r L,,� I -T I I 1 1 Na_ _ ( ( t I t i � ' � s- �- —! Y � � I- -4-�-�-#-, ---�, --I- t--Ir -�- ��I T � _T� ''- .�-' '_ i I- i I T I- �_ � � ; I I I i � � � � � � I � 1 L 44 I -T-1-T -T 'I -,T r TV, I I I I I Y I I I lk 011 I i .4a i IN I I I I 1 11 N LNJ I A I , I Y, !I& I I I I I I 1 K, N I i (I t -77 Vcl- *n INN ------ 7 j- r I STREET FILE MEMORANDUM January 30, 1987 TO: Mary Lou Block, Planning Div. Manager FROM: Bob Alberts, City Engineer SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE AND PUGET DRIVE - CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS It was recently brought to my attention that the latest proposed site plan for the above referenced project included landscape improvements in the right-of-way, which also provided the curb cut radii for proper turning movements for the property. The plan needs to provide a minimum of a ten (10) foot radii on the property from the right-of-way line at each curb cut. This would allow for future improvements in the right-of-way without hindering an existing business. This criteria needs to apply to all commercial development. RJA/sdt .c �/L I�' CI1 OVD&PUGT/TXTST530 STREET FILE (ovo) 4-o- c5 �u ok i - STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771-3202 HEARING EXAMINER FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR REr EO q �NG,�EER1aG IN THE MATTER OF COMMERCIAL DESIGN FILE: CU-13-86 ASSOCIATES FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT; AND, IN THE MATTER OF THE APPEAL OF FILE: AP-10-86 ROGER HERTRICH INTRODUCTION The Commercial Design Associates, 4230 - 198th Street S.W., Lynnwood, Washington, 98036, (the Applicants) have requested approval of a conditional use permit for a drive-in self service gas station/retail store at 1018 Puget Drive, Edmonds, Washington, and on property more particularly described as set forth in Exhibit 4 to this hearing, which is attached hereto. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) the request was reviewed and on July 1, 1986, the City of Edmonds, the Lead Agency, issued a revised mitigated determination of nonsignificance. On July 28, 1986, Roger Hertrich (the Appellant) filed an appeal of the SEPA determination of the declaration of nonsignificance for the proposed conditional use permit. On September 18, 1986,.and September 25, 1986, hearings on the conditional use permit request and the SEPA appeal were held before the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds. At the hearings the following presented testimony and evidence: Duane Bowman Planning Dept. City of Edmonds Edmonds, WA 98020 Sally Clark 500 Galland Bldg. 1221 - 2nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98101 Jane Cunningham 1030 Grandview St. Edmonds, WA 98020 Diane Malloy Sarah Mack 4230 198th St..SW 500 Galland Bldg. Lynnwood, WA 98036 1221 - 2nd Ave. Seattle, WA 98101 Roger Hertrich 1020 Puget Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Joan Hertrich 1020 Puget Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Terry Gibson Karl Pirschir -1- Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: CU-13-86/AP-10-86 Page 2 Karen Utter Chris Beckman Eric Anderson Dave Chandler 600 University Seattle, WA Harold Schnarre 1025 Puget Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and admitted as part of the official record of these proceedings: Exhibit 1 - Staff Report If 2 - Application It 3 - Appeal Letter to 4 - Legal Description to 5 - Vicinity Map If 6 - Site Plan and Elevations If 7 - Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance It 8 - Centrac Study of 9 - Bell -Walker Study (Review of Centrac Study and Hertrich Appeal) of 10 - Revised Staff Report it 10a Revised Conditions it 11 - Environmental Checklist of 12a Revised Site Plan (Parking East) it 12b Revised Site Plan (Parking West) It 13 - April 22, 1986, Letter from Martin to Bowman to 14 - June 30, Letter from Centrac to Bowman If 15 - Survey of Residents in Westgate Area " 16 - Map Showing Project Site and Nearest Service Stations " 17 - Trip Generation Summary " 18 - Applin Letter If 19 - GeoMetric Profiles of Design Site Distance " 20 - Stopping Distance Chart It 21 - Map Showing Gas Sales (Hertrich) " 22 - Hertrich Drawing of Site . " 23 - Exhibit of Centrac Design (Hertrich) " 24 - Hertrich Turning Movement Map " 25 - Bell -Walker Report 08/20/1986 " 26 - Letter from Martin to Bowman, 04/11/86 " 27 - Letter from Martin to Bowman, 04/22/86 " 28 - Letter from Martin to Bowman, 07/18/86 " 29 - Hertrich Pictures " 30 - B & H Grocery Pictures (Hertrich) " 31 - Picture of Site (Prior Development - Hertrich) " 32 - Studies of Bell -Walker " 33 - Flood Insurance Rate Map (Edmonds) " 34 - Schoenberg Letter " 35 - 09/25/86 Bowman Memo " 36 - Photograph from Hertrich's Living Room -2- Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: CU-13-86/AP-10-86 Page 3 Subsequent to the hearing the Applicant was allowed to submit a response to the exhibits submitted at the September 25, 1986, hearing. The following were submitted and become part of the official record of these proceedings: Exhibit 37 - Letter from Sally Clark dated 10/10/86 " 38 - Letter from The initial hearing on the request of the Applicant was held on April 17, 1986. At that hearing the City withdrew its original declaration of nonsignificance pursuant to SEPA and the initial recommendation on the conditional use permit request. The hearing was continued and the Applicant resubmitted different plans and information. However, during the course of the hearings, reference was made to the April 17, 1986, hearing and the record established therein. As a result, the complete record of April 17, 1986, is also admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding. After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Applicant; evidence elicited during the public hearings; and, as a result of the personal inspection of the subject property and surrounding areas by the Hearing Examiner, the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of the decision of the Hearing Examiner. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Applicant has requested approval of a conditional use permit to develop property located at 1018 Puget Drive, Edmonds, Washington, (hereinafter referred to as property). It is the intent of the Applicant to develop this property with a retail store that will also have self-service gasoline pumps located on site. (Staff report.) 2. The City of Edmonds Planning Department issued a declaration of nonsignificance pursuant to SEPA for the proposed conditional use permit for the development of the subject property. This declaration of nonsignificance was appealed by Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, Edmonds, Washington, (hereinafter referred to as Appellant). (Staff report.) 3. The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive. The property consists of 19,410 square feet of land. The property at present does not have a commercial use. There is an abandoned gas station located on the property along with two pump islands. (Staff report.) 4. On April 17, 1986, a hearing was held on the request of the Applicant for a conditional use permit and an appeal of the Appellant of the City of Edmonds determination of nonsigni- ficance pursuant to SEPA. At the public hearing, following testimony received from members of the audience, the represen- Qcc Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: CU-13-86/AP-10-86 Page 4 tative of the City of Edmonds withdrew the City's determination of nonsignificance for the proposed project and withdrew the City's recommendation of approval for the conditional use permit. The hearing was continued to a later date. (Administrative finding.) 5. On August 21, 1986, the City submitted a revised Staff report to the Hearing Examiner on the Applicant's request and the appeal of the Appellant. The City, in the Staff report, recom- mended non-support of the requested conditional use permit stating that the request was not in conformity with the zoning standards of the City of Edmonds and the purposes of the zoning ordinances, especially the BN zone. In addition, the City claimed that the request did not satisfy the Comprehensive Plan criteria of the City of Edmonds. Subsequent to the sub- mittal of the Staff report, a continuance of the hearing was granted. The Applicant at that point revised the application and reduced the size of the building on the subject property to less than 4,000 square feet. As a result, the City of Edmonds Planning Department submitted a revision to the Staff report and submitted that they did not oppose approval of the conditional use permit provided conditions as set forth in the revised Staff Report dated September 18, 1986, were satisfied. (Bowman testimony.) 6. The proposed revised site plan for the development of the subject property provides for a 3,000 square foot building to be used as a retail store complex. The proposed store is projected to be located in the northeastern portion of the subject property. Immediately to the southwest of the store a parking lot is proposed to be developed. Approximately 125 feet from the parking spaces the Applicant intends to develop a gas pump island with gasoline pumps. This gas pump island will be covered by a 24 feet by 24 feet canopy. It is the intent of the Applicant to develop the remainder of the pro- perty, including the necessary setbacks, with landscaping and driveways. (Revised site plan, Exhibit 12.) 7. The subject property is zoned Neighborhood Business (BN). Excluding the gasoline pumps that are projected to be part of the development, the proposal is a permitted primary use. Section 16.45.010(A)(2) of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) allows neighborhood -oriented retail stores in BN zones. (Bowman testimony and Mack testimony.) 8. It is the intent of the Applicant to develop the facility with gasoline pumps. As a result, it must be determined if gasoline pumps,as proposed by the Applicant qualify as a primary use requiring a conditional use permit. Section 16.45.010(C) ECDC sets forth the primary uses allowed that require a conditional use permit in a BN zone. The subsection applicable to this application is subsection (3), Drive -In Business. (Administrative finding.) 9. The term Drive -In Business is defined in Section 21.20.040 ECDC. -4- Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: CU-13-86/AP-10-86 Page 5 The definition as set forth in the code is: Drive-in business means a business where a customer is permitted or encouraged, by design of physical facilities, service, a packaging procedure or similar factors, to carry on business, in the off-street parking area accessory to the business, while seated in his motor vehicle, including gas stations, but ex- cluding drive-in theaters. (ECDC.) 10. The gas pumps at the proposed development are projected to be self-service gas pumps. This will require an occupant from a vehicle to leave a vehicle and operate the pumps. After the gasoline is pumped, the money transaction will occur within the confines of the building. The customer will be required to walk across the parking lot and enter the building and pay the attendant. (Chandler•testimony, 09/25/86, tape 3.) 11. The Planning Department of the City of Edmonds has determined that the Applicant qualifies for a conditional use permit and that a conditional use permit should be granted. The City has recommended approval of the conditional use permit subject to conditions. (Exhibit 10a.) 12. In the revised site plan of the Applicant there is still pro- vision for the self-service gas station. No revisions to a full -service station in which a customer will carry on business while seated in his motor vehicle have been made. CONCLUSIONS 1. The application is for the approval of a conditional use permit for the allowance of a convenience retail store with gasoline pumps on property located at 1018 Puget Drive, Edmonds, Washing- ton. 2. The property is zoned BN, (Neighborhood Business). Section 16.45.010(A)(2) ECDC allows a retail store, such as that pro- posed by the Applicant, to exist in a BN zone as a permitted primary use. However, in order to operate the gas pumps, the Applicant must qualify as a primary use requiring a conditional use permit under Section 16.45.010(C). The proposed use for the gasoline pumps does not qualify under subsection (1), Community parking lots; subsection (2) Community facilities, as listed in the RM district; and subsection (4) Businesses open to the public between the hours of 11:00 p.m and 6:00 a.m. The use also does not qualify as a drive-in business (Section 16.45.010(C)(3).ECDC). 3. The proposed use with gasoline pumps does not qualify as a drive- in business because the design of the facility will require self-service and will necessitate the customer to conduct business outside his/her motor vehicle. The proposal does not qualify as a drive-in business under Section 21.20.040 ECDC. -5- Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: CU-13-86/AP-10-86 Page 6 DECISION Based upon the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions; the testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing; and, upon the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is hereby ordered that the conditional use permit for a retail store with gasoline pumps at 1018 Puget Drive, Edmonds, Washington, is denied. The basis of the denial is set forth in the preceding Findings of Fact and Conclusions. The subject property is zoned BN, Neighborhood Business (Chapter 16.45 ECDC). The purposes of the BN zone are: 1. All purposes of business and commercial zones as set forth in Section 16.40.000 (the purpose of the business and com- mercial zones); 2. To reserve areas, for those retail stores, offices, retail service establishments which offer goods and services needed on an every -day basis for residents of a neighborhood area; and, 3. To ensure compact, convenient development patterns by allowing uses that are operated chiefly within buildings. A convenience store that limits its sales to groceries, toiletries, etc. is a permitted use in a BN zone (Section 16.45.010(A)(2) ECDC). However, the selling of gasoline at a convenience store is not a stated permitted use and may only be allowed in a BN zone if it qualifies as a primary use requiring a conditional use permit (Section 16.45.010 ECDC). A review of Section 16.45.010(C) indi- cates that the only possible use permitted by this section in which the proposal of the Applicant would qualify is subsection (3) Drive- in Business. A drive-in business is defined in Section 21.20.040 ECDC as: "...a business where a customer is permitted or encouraged, by design of physical facilities, service, a packaging pro- cedure or similar factors, to carry on business, in the off- street parking area accessory to the business, while seated in his motor vehicle, including gas stations, but excluding drive-in theaters." (Emphasis added.) A close review of the language of this definition indicates that a drive-in business was intended to be one in which business was conducted while the customer was in his/her motor vehicle. As an inclusionary phrase the framers of this definition added gas stations. Clearly, the intent of the definition of drive-in businesses is to regulate businesses that can be conducted while in the confines of a motor vehicle. The intent of drive-in businesses was not to allow gas stations of all kinds to qualify as a drive-in business. Findings and Decision of the Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: CU-13-86/AP-10-86 Page 7 In order for a gas station to qualify as a drive-in business allowed with a conditional use permit in a BN zone, other sections of the definition of drive-in businesses must be satisfied. The gas station must encourage, or permit customers, to conduct business in their motor vehicle. The gas station must be designed to allow customers to remain seated in their motor vehicle and carry on business. The Applicant's proposal for a convenience store with self-service gas station does not satisfy either of these require- ments. There is no disputed testimony that the Applicant's facility is going to be a convenience store with self-service gasoline pumps. There will be no car attendants on site. The customer will be required to exit the motor vehicle for the purpose of operating the gas pump. The customer will also be required to leave the motor vehicle to engage in a monetary transaction for the fuel. The monetary transaction will occur within the building on site. With the type of activity required to use the gas pumps at this proposed facility, the business cannot be conducted while the customer is seated in the motor vehicle. Clearly, this type of commerce involving self-service gas pumps cannot be a drive-in business and cannot be granted a conditional use permit. It is appreciated that this ruling is a strict interpretation of the Edmonds zoning code. With the advent of convenience stores with gas pumps during the last five years,a new type of commercial activity has been created. Not as prevalent as in the past are the full -service stations where car attendants pumped gas, washed windows, checked under the hood, etc. However, the language of Section 21.20.040 ECDC (Drive-in Business) and Section 16.45.010 (CM) ECDC (Primary Uses Requiring a Conditional Use Permit in a BN zone) appears to contemplate only the full -service gas stations as those being allowed with a conditional use permit. To expand the meaning of the definition by including convenience stores with gas pumps as a drive-in business is outside the juris- diction of the Hearing Examiner and is reserved to the City Council. It is noted that the ECDC and the Washington law are silent on the key definitions needed to resolve this case. There are no defini- tions of gas stations, service stations, convenience stores, or retail stores. Therefore, the limited intent of the existing ordinances, especially Section 21.20.040 ECDC was considered. For the above reasons, the request for a conditional use permit for the allowance of gas pumps at the proposed site is denied. The Applicant may develop the site without the pumps and without a conditional use permit because the retail store is a permitted use. It is further noted that a review of criteria that must be made prior to use permit (Section 20.05.010 ECDC) such review is moot in light of the the conditional use permit approval of any conditional has not been made because above decision. Should this -7- Findings and Decision of the . Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds Re: CU-13-86/AP-10=86 Page 8 decision be appealed and the City Council of the City of Edmonds overturn same and determine that the proposed use as a retail store with gas pumps qualifies for a conditional use permit, the criteria of Section 20.05.010 ECDC will be reviewed and applied to the request. No additional hearings are necessary because all parties and the City have developed an extensive and adequate record at the hearings to make a decision on the conditional use permit. It is finally noted that because of the above decision, the SEPA appeal of the Appellant is moot. The Applicant's proposal for a convenience store is not required to be reviewed pursuant to SEPA. It is not within the density as required for SEPA review. Without the storage of gasoline on site in tanks, or the storage of any toxic material, no further SEPA review must be made. Accordingly, the appeal is set aside at this time. Should the City Council re- verse the above -made decision and require consideration of the criteria of the conditional use permit the SEPA appeal will also be addressed. Entered this 15th day of October, 1986, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. ring Examiner ICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington, 98020, within fourteen days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action. In this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior to 5:00 p.m. on October 29, 1986. �� EXHIBIT 4 LEGAL DESCRIPTION CRIGINAL PLAT NORTH EDMCNDS BLK 044 0-01 LOTS 1 L 2 ALSO BAAP WLY LN BLK 44 AT A PT 25FT SWLY OF NLY CDR SO BLK TH CCNT ALG WLY LN S38*34 OOW 85 FT TO C/L OF ALLEY BLK 44 TH S51*26 ODE ALG C/L OF ALLEY 135 FT M/L TO N LN CO RD TH N89*43 OOE ALG SO N LN 57.08FT Th N08*38 OOE 59.11FT M/L TAP 25FT SLY MEAS R/A FR NELY LN SC BLK 44 TH N51*26 CDW .159.36fT M/L TO TPB AKA PAR A LESS ALL THAT PTN OF HEREINAFTER OESC PAR A LY WLY OF AN ARC CF CRV TO R HAV A RAG OF 35FT TH RAD CTR PT BEING CPPOSITE HWY ENG ' STATICN 238 t 58.81 Ch SR E24 LN SURV OF SR 524 EDMO,NDS JCT SR 104 TO 76TH AVE h L 55FT NLY THEREFRDM SO CRV EXT FROM EXST NLY R/W LN OF SO SR 524 WLY E NLY TG EXST SELY R/vi LN OLYMPIC VIEW DR DEEDED TC ST CF WA. WD VOL 1707 PG 2695 AUD FILE NU. 8100430U N4 DATE o /� G FILE # --,,lam SITE PLAN t OF EDMONDS . BUILDING PLANS (3): ELEVATIONS ✓ • APPLICATION LANDSCAPE PLANf� to the ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RECEIPT # JITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD b i SIGN EXHIBITS FEE RECPT # PLAN MODIFICATIONS TO FILE NUMBER: HEARING. DATE /� 7 )WNER/REPRESENTATIVE Rainier National Bank PHONE (206) 621-4424 P.O. Box 3966/1301 - 5th Ave. kDDRESS Seattle, WA ZIP CODE 98124-3966 ►RCHITECT/DESIGNER Commercial Design Associates, Inc. PHONE (206) 771-2300 ADDRESS 4ZJ0 - 196tH bt. b.W., Lynnwood, OPERTY ADDRESS N.E. corner of Olympic View Dr. and Puget Dr: ZONING BN 'R .EGAL DESCRIPTION (See attached 'LANS SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: Building Plans - Preliminary Site Plan X Final X Landscape Plan X Sign Elevations Site Plan Landscape Plan Elevations X I. Modification of previous approval 'sXISTING USE OF PROPERTY Abandoned gas service station: iESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL Redevelop this commercial property by demolishing an existing gasoline service station and two gas pump islands, and construct a new gas pump island with canopy and a single -story retail building of approx. 3,000 s.f., as well as new curbs, driveways, asphalt and landscapina. cPPROXIMATE DATE WORK WILL BEGIN ON PROJECT :STIMATED TIME FOR COMPLETION OF WORK :ELEASE/HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT: The undersigned applicant, his heirs and assigns, in Consideration for the.City processing the application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and gold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages and/or claims for damages, .ncluding reasonable' attorneys; fees, arising from.any action or inaction of -the City whenever ;uch action or inaction is based in whole or in part upon false, misleading or incomplete .nformation furnished by the applicant, his agents or employees. 'ERMISSION TO ENTER SUBJECT PROPERTY: The undersigned applicant grants his, her or its per- iission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject iroperty for the purpose of -inspection and posting attendant to this application. (Signature of Applicant) LEGAL DESCRIPTION -CRIGINAL PLAT. NORTH EDMGNDS ; BLK 044 0-01 LOTS 1 L 2 25. ALSO BAAP WLY LN BLK 44TNTCCNTTALGFT SWLY OF NLY COR SO BLK WLY LN S38*34 DOW 65 FT TO C/L OF ALLEY BLK 44 TH S51026 COE ALG C/L OF ALLEY 135 FT M/L TO N LN CO RD.TH K89*48,DOE ALG SD N LN TAP025FTTG SLY MEAS R/A FR 59.11FT M/L NELY LN $C BLK 44 TH N51*2b 113W.159.36FT M/L TO TPB AKA -PAR A LESS ALL THAT PTN. OF HEREINAFTER GESC PAR A LY WLY OF AN ARC CF CRV TO R HAV A RAC OF 35FT TH RAD CTR PT BEING CPPOSITE HWY ENG STATION 238-+ 58.81 Ch SR S24 LN SURV OF SR 524 ECMCNDS JCT SR 1�4 70 76TH AVE h E S5FT NLY THEREFRDy SO GRV EXT FROM EXST NLY R/W LN OF SU SR 524 WLY & NLY TG EXST SELY R/ri LN OLYMPIC VIEW DR DEEDED TG ST CF WA. WD VOL 1737 PG 2695 AUD FILE NU. g1G430i,C34 �...Jtn._ t _ �....__.A_ �_t � ` —..L . —( �� < .— 1. ll L...n..-.��(. -�. (. �..._ ■ -�.,r ✓ r+/ L.��±/L-.— _L .__. — � � L .— .1 � 'ls_ -._.1 1_ w--.�._--�.------ 1 _ _,.L � t�rr. r t/lil., •t_ _ \ ,...� +rf�L . l�L� �— !_?"�..1��!!M,r..—Nor +i T — --- -------- ... . .. . ..... =111� �� .� i .® � � i Illlr � � .� .IID .!r i i ®® i i 0 i .!• ..r r.rr .i .� NORTHEAST ELEVATION DOFTOF MECHANICAL SYSTEMS ET W MECHANICAL WELL & NORTHWEST ELEVATION - CONCRETE SHAKE -TILE - NATURAL METAL COPING - LIGHT GREY 1X8 WOOD TRIM - MARINE BLUE — 6" TONGUE & GROOVE WOOD SIDING - MEDIUM GREY 6" TONGUE & GROOVE WOOD SIDING - LIGHT GREY (SIGN FASCIA) 2 5 L0„ MAX. - 1X3 WOOD TRIM - MARINE BLUE ��__ 1 _.x. �, _ _ � _�`____..._ - • _ art-- _ L ._-._J L _ J• ........._ _ __.�. _ i,-._.- ln_.,__ Jl_ — _ �.-�— a_ l ._ /L,- -.��._� �_ /L- �wn+' .t [__y, ter, _-.—kill mj SOUTI-IWE�� ELEVATION LGIANT BRICK -REDDISH BROWN - O ANODIZED ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM DARK BRONZE BUILDING ELEVATIONSLt__ � HIGH LIT SIGN RECESSED INCANDESCENT DOWNLIGHTS IN SOFFIT — 15OW NOTE: MATERIALS AND 1 / 8" = 1 — 0 DIMENSIONS ARE TYPICAL =o X t 1 G/N/A 6 .� V. �n�E�vs/on/5 C A/voP I' -TARP CUTOFF LUMINAIRES NDER CANOPY NORTHEAST SOUTHWEST II GREY TINE BLUE NORTHWEST SR675 - SOUTHEAST LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION COMMENT PRUNUS SERRULATA d 1 1 /2" CAL s KWANZAN CHERRY PINUS CONTORTA 6'-8' HIGH SHORE PINE 20' O.C. P H T N A FRA O I I SERI 1 8" -25" HIGH mod' PHOTI NI A AZALEA VARIETY 15`18" HIGH SHERWOOD ORCHID 36" O.C. TREASURE MAHONIA AQUIFOLIUM 1 5.-18" HIGH OREGON GRAPE 36" O.C. HEDERA HELIX 24" O.C. ENGLISH IVY GROUNDCOVER 1 GAL POTS SOD PER PLAN PROPOSED LANDSCAPING TO / � RM/o� s/w i w/.-P� cirr' / MAINTAIN THROUGH VISIBILITY /' l o� Et�.yoiYr.�s sT�wOrJs BETWEEN 30" - 60K � PUC 0) r) 01) olb( 1" = 20'-0" 9' HIGH DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE 6' HIGH SOLID FENCE L-OCATION: EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ZONED: BN (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) PROPOSED USE: RETAIL /GAS SALES SITE AREA: 19,400 SQ.FT. BUILDING AREA: 3,000 SQ. FT. PARKING REQUIRED: 10 STALLS PARKING PROVIDED: 11 STALLS LEGAL DESCRIPTION CR;GINAL PLAT NORTH EDMCNDS BLK 0Lt4 0-01 LOTS 1 L 2 .ALSO BAAP WLY LN BLK 44 AT W PT 25FT SWLY OF NLY COR SO BLK TH CCNT ALG WILY LN S38*34 DOW 85 FT TO C/L OF ALLEY BLK 44 TH S51*26 COE ALG C/L OF ALLEY 135 FT M/L TO N LN CO RD TH N89*48 DOE ALG SO N LN 57.08FT Th NG6�38 DOE 59.11FT M/L TAP 25FT SLY ?SEAS R/A FIR NELY LN SC BLK 44 TH N51*2b COW 159.361-1 M/L TO TP8 AKA PAR A LESS ALL THAT PTN OF HEREINAFTER GESC PAR A LY WLY OF AN ARC CF CRV TO R HAV A RAC OF 3SFT TH RAD CIR PT BEING CPPOSITE HWY ENG ' STATION 238 * 58.81 CA SR 524 LN SURV OF SR 524 EDMCNDS .JCT SR 1C4 TO 76TH AVE ►r E 55FT NLY THEREFRLiM SD CRV EXT FROM EXST. NLY R/W LN OF SO SR 524 WLY E NLY TO EXST SELY R/►, LN OLYMPIC VIEW DR DEEDED TC ST CF WA. WD VOL 1737 PG 2695 AUD FILE NU. 8104300 Cu4 VICINITY MAP I ti' is+tn qr ' ►-� i- ri 1991 H P ?� sip A �iC WA R S KE I T BilRRY 7 ✓� iyl w SST I !Er O t F&' T. 4+ - k 192ND S1 0 ivo r✓a cc H O Pl ♦ _ C OR stir 19 wIrk 1 TH av t wMIL t iMt.Y, r.+ 00 1 1 ✓�1^/ OR/VFJN.�'rY - _ __ �.�.� �__ Z€ G./3. + EXf 5T G. P3. D IVE o�x,sT M.14. 1 -I � ";),b c' STREET FILE Z 0 W cc W h Q cr Iq ac U Ir a 11"'1" STREET FILE CITY OF E ®M O o9 D S LARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (20G) 771-3202 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES .a October 2, 1986 Mrs. F.E. Graham 19316 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA ,'98020 Dear Mrs. Graham: PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR Earlier this summer, Chris Beckman and I briefly discussed with you the problems at Olympic View Drive and Olympic Avenue., I hope taking so long to get back to you hasn't caused you any inconvenience. Enclosed are four (4) drawings which were the alternatives reviewed prior to making a change at the intersection. We added your driveway, the stream, and hedge for clarification. Alternate 4 was the plan constructiz& I ask that you review the design and other alternates to determine if you feel there was a better choice or other improvements which could have been made to lessen the impact on your property. Please feel free to mark up the drawing. I will be doing the same. I would like to then meet with you at your convenience to discuss and ?4 hopefully determine a solution to your access problem. Please call me, at 771-3202. Yours truly, ROBERT J. ALB ERTS, P.E. City Engineer RJA:rm enclosures a,Y loz�G B66krian dt. PUBLIC WORKS • PLANNING • PARKS AND RECREATION ENGINEERING • MEMORANDUM September 25, 1986 TO: James M. Driscoll Hearing Examiner FROM: Duane V. Bowman Assistant City Planner SUBJECT: Staff Comments on Alternative Site Plans CU-13-86 During the public hearing on September 18, 1986, two new alternate site plans were presented by the Applicant for the proposed retail store/self service gas station at 1018 Puget Drive, under File CU-13-86. Of the two alternative site plans, the staff supports Alternative B, which has the service area and parking on the west side of the building. The reasons for our support of this plan are the residential uses are much closer on the north and east and the truck traffic would instead be oriented to the arterial street of Olympic View Drive and • not the immediate residential uses. Please enter this as an exhibit into the record. 0 W W W lW W a m coo v1 O O �N Ewa aaa AAA aaa RFC�jjvEo SEP 16 Wyse ENGINEEftIN C�QQ w-� -- I f Foe o M ET FILE V, K 4+Y 0 it 9-i 41 -8(o • • STREET FILE OD ❑D FID 00EDEIVED BELL -WALKER ENGINEERS Inc.„�, 2 �J ►�86 3633 136th Place S.E. (206) 643-2002 r- Suite 210 .ENGINEERING Bellevue, Washington 98006-1451 August 20, 1986 Mr. Robert Alberts City Engineer City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: SR 521and Olympic Dear Mr. Alberts: View Drive Traffic Analysis This letter is in response to your request for comments on the July 18, 1986 letter from David J. Martin of the Washington State Department of Transportation regarding the recommendation for a right -turn drop -lane on Puget Drive (SR 52,T) at the inter- section of Olympic View Drive. 624- It is our opinion that as long as the Olympic View Drive intersection remains stop - controlled, a right -turn lane is not desirable for the following reasons: I. The right -turn traffic volumes at this intersection are not large enough to warrant a separate lane. 2. The construction of a right -turn lane would necessitate moving back the curb. at the corner thus lengthening the existing pedestrian crosswalk. The lengthening of this crosswalk without protection of a traffic signal would have an adverse impact on pedestrian safety. Although we recommend that this right -turn lane not be constructed at the present time, a traffic signal may be warranted at this intersection in the future. If a right -turn lane was constructed at that time the sight distance from the driveway would be reduced for vehicles exiting the proposed development. Because of this possibility of a right -turn lane on SR.5.2-K, a review was made of the sight distances at this location. 5211+1 From the driveway at a point 15 feet back from the edge of the future right -turn lane, there would be a sight distance to .the east of 168 feet with the view being obstructed by an insurance company sign. If this sign were removed the clear view to the east could be extended to a distance of 235 feet, at which point the view is obstructed by the trunks of a row of trees running parallel to the roadway. The trunks of the trees and not the foliage, obstructs the views and trimming would not improve sight distance to the east. Based on an assumed speed of 30 miles per hour (speeds are frequently higher than this on this section), the minimum sight distance required would be 300 feet. It should be noted that SR 524 turns to the right further to the east and although the continuous view of the oncoming lane to the east is limited as described above, there is a view of the roadway beginning approximately 500 feet to the east and extending to approximately 1000 feet to the east. The view to the west on SR 524 is unobstructed from the driveway for over 600 feet. Bellevue, Washington • Boise, Idaho Robert Alberts August 20, 1986 -2- • Based on the addition of a right -turn lane, sufficient sight distances would not be available at the driveway intersection with Puget Drive. It is hoped that this information is satisfactory for you to review this proposed development with respect to traffic flow. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to contact this office. Very truly yours, BELL-WALKE]�,EN INEERS, INC. Theodore T. Bell, P.E. President gm • 0 STATE OF"WASHINGTON DAGf 1 OFZ STREET FILE W�ISo(RIT,,E10) No. POLICE TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT ® TRAFFICWAY POLICE COMPLAINT NUMBER 1 ` PRIVATE WAY DATE OF COLLISION DAY OF COLLISION TIME E A 1 COUNTY va). DAY YR. Sllu Mpu IvlS.'wFD i+URS.,I.,...S•T IUSE2dOpHOURI J COUNTY NO, CITY NO. - S„ LI F�l iHwA fq� r p URBAN ❑ N ❑ f L.P'N CITY/OR TOWN NAME 6 NO OF STREET OR HIGHWAY` FCT CLS M Cl PR IX ROUTE OR STREET CO RURAL MILES ❑ S ❑w �❑ OF �d D� -ONO/ O/ n i INTERSECTING WITH. STREET OR ROAD NON INTERSECT ION ...� I� % PREFFX EO. MITE POST a y BETWEEN I 3 / 16ET:g � STREET �, DISIANCE 8 DIRECTION FROM REFERENCE, CROSSSTREEt OR NEAREST MILE POST MILES N S E W ACCIDENT RAMP DIAGRAM DATA FEET ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ OF _f __ MILEAGE CODE COL II70TAL VOLVED� NO, - UEL MILESIN IN N N - ' TOTAL NO. NO. KILLED NO. INJURED ❑ SPILLAGE (;',H17 & RUN HUNDREDTHS X•RD INTERSECTING STREET OR ROgpOR REFERENCE (2J Of VEHICLES I1 �9ROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY ❑ ENTER CLS caaSSSTREETOR ROAD FIRE STOLEN • RESULTED ❑ VEHICLE OBJECT STRUCK If E OF OBJECT STRUCK AND OWNER'S NAME) EST. DAMAGE SPECIAL CODING USE 775-3 of cc o GPI¢ �La. J �Do0173 UNIT NO..1 UNIT NO.2 ❑VEHICLE - s DRIVER'S NAME: EAST FIRST MIDDLE ❑ PEDESTRIAN p PEDALCYCLIST ?' ' \! DRIVER'S NAME: LAST FIRST MIDDLE l /X` STREET ADDRESS � � STR T ADDRESS 6 CITY STATE ZIP CODE PHONE NO. D CITY STATE ZIPCODE PHONE DRIVER'S LICENSE NO. STATE SEX DATE OF IRTM I RIVER' LICENSE N MO DAY I YR. - 5 ATE SEX DATE OF BIRTH V DAY 1 YR 6 g OCC PATION FIRM NAME & PHONE NO. EYES (WEIGHT (HEIGHT E OCCUPATION � JI FIRM E B PHONE NO. EYES WEIGHT FEIGHT �` 2 R ❑ CHECK (.7 I OPERATOR WAS DRIVING AC MM CIA( VEHICLE AS AN FMPLOYEE OF ANOTHER. O CHECK F2_ CODES ►+ 3 INJURI AW VEHICLEA N EMPL LOYYEE OF OTHERFROMA U CUSS SVST[M /� S 11ECTI 6 S FETY CCODES ► + 9 INJURY SiRAINI rCLASS 4 S [TS [1ECTION MOTORCrCIE 27 INJURIES A U OF S'•'Hr Ip� RfMOvEDFROM ( INJURIES - GY7 SCENE ev ❑AMBULANCE ❑ U4CE ❑ C8816R ❑ PR 1ALE ❑NOT RfMOVEDFROM VFHICIE' TRANSP SCENE BY ❑ AMBUTAN^[ _❑ C 1 , HF[II R4IVATE NOT VEH. YEAR MAKE (DODGE-CHEV.) MODEL (DART -NOVA) STYLE (2 DR.•CONV.) V VEH. YEAR - �" ❑ COPIER ❑VEHICLE ❑ TRANI E(DODGE-CHEv.) MODEL ART -NOVA) YlE(2DR.•CONV.) IFCKe VLF %I COLOR LICENSE.PLATE NO. SEATE TRAILER RATE NOTLI N L TA AIL PLATE NO. STATE G A y )-1-66-,Z,c w VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION NO. C 29 3AU ` I I VEHICLE IDENTIf ICATIONN REGE TERED OWNER: I LAST 12 T FIRST MIDDLE PHONE NO. O REGISTEREDOWN ER- LAST I FIRST MIDDLE I ONE NO. '1 //F� F3 ADDRESS OF OWNER - W ADDRESS WNER 2 yo2•, �3�1, k,Rk�-[4Nn w� N NAME IS ADDRESS OF INSURANCE CO. OR AGENT E A IN URANC O. AGENT F.. R 32 DAMAGED AREA r�V H.I DAMAGECITATION. y •, X 2 3 • DISABLING FUNCTIONAL I I V H AMA IN TS OTHERDMG[ CHARGE DISH&INCv DAMAGED AREA 9 TOP CHARGE FUN At 2 3 A 1 S EST. DAMAGE DRIVEN REMAINED DRIVEN RDMGF 9 Cl ---_-_.- $ TOWED • TOWED AWAY EST. DAMAGE T 10801'TOM ❑ AWAY �RFMAINED S • ❑AWAY BY: '� ❑AWAY BY: $ DIAGRAM OF COLLISION: (USE SUPPLEMENTAL INDICATE NORTH DESCRIPTION OF COLLISION: (USE SUPPLEMEN7AL SHEET IF NECESSARY) ! 6 35 16, -" --'''jj—• jT 7JF. BY ARROW _.._.__.- _ J. ...... ..... a--"s A. 19 a/ Pe, NAME, ADDRESS & INJURIES OF PERSONS INVOLVED + CODES 1 OCCUPANTS / WITNESSES (USE SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET _ — 2 4 S 6 FOR ADDITIONAL NAMES) —SEX AGE TATUS IN VIw 'SEAL'- --• aTTC Y' NAME. PHONE PO, Cu4 - R SAFETY .. _..__ .._.._....'...._..-. __ _ NO . No r g REST EJECT ADDRESS - -� NATURCOF. " IN RI S M VE M ❑AMB ❑ �IRICE ❑ Hill,❑ RRIv. NAME PHONE SCENE BY: Cl VEH. ❑NOT TRANSP, 20 ... ..._ _. .... NO. DDPESS -- '-•-- - � � -- -�• NATURE OF REMOVED FROM I RI 5 AMB. POUC[ HfII. vary NOt NAME SCFNF BY• ❑ CAR ❑COPIER ❑ v1. ❑ b PH N roaNCP, ...._ .. .. NO AUUP1 SS NATUDE OF REMOVED FP M INIVR¢S Hl1I PI: [•1 NOI I It!V(S TIG AiING OFFICE R'S NAME 6 RA Nr SCENE BY O ❑ aM0 P(�IIfF I-_� �I E I RADC•f E1P ❑CaP ❑rn•na I .• STATE OF WASHINGTON SUPPLEMENTARY POLICE TRAFFIC COLLISION REPORT PAGE Z OF Z- i IDENTIFICATION OF COLLISION_ - I CASE NO. ;.. :VERITY OF COLLISION ❑ FATALITY ❑ INJURY PROPERTY DAMAGE ONLY S. S2� 3 83... DATE OF MO. DAY YR, COUNTY CITY STREET ROAD NUMBER OR NAME COLLISION LOCATION — �C� �a $y,• S✓lo�►o�iS� ��mvncJs.. I93/6- p.,•, - -. . . - ... .. .. G �. e«J..._D� NJ/ . NAME NAME AME DRIVERS Vs Vs " a v a -DESCRIP.,TION_,OF-COLLISION`; (USE FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHEN SPACE IS NOT ADEQUATE ON ORIGINAL REPORT OR AS A SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION SHEET TO CORRECT DRIVER'S NAAAE~OCCUPANT' ' LOCATION OR ANY DATA NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME THE ORIGINAL REPORT WAS COMPLETED.) ni 6 rya {� �-- �'A.r� c��_.�-� l� DRIVER/PEDESTRIAN NAME =' 'ENFORCEMENT ACTION =' -SOBRIETY HAD BEEN. DRINKING (CHECK) T.:`.�........, _. ::. �... CHARGE ,. .. CITATION NO...3.ABILFFY 'IMPARED '..' XALCOHOL OF OD, 'NOT IMPAIRED I i I • c DIAGRAM; OF. COLLISION • • . �... . DRAW DIAGRAM OF COLLISION SCENE IN REASONABLE PROPORTIONS. PROPERLY IDENTIFY VEHICLES AND HIGHWAYS. SHOW SKID MARKS AND OTHER MEASUREMENTS. INolui[ iioei« .. WITH AN ARROW ( IS ji p.jy II eutit i i ► ! CDC7L? C7 ; G7 I I I I I I i i i INVESTIGATING OFFICER'S NAME AND RANK :BADGE NO. :AGENCY �UNfIT/DIST. DET. ;APPROVED BY DATE OF REPORT re � C' - Crz2 h c� r2-� Oly (�, �e c..c./ �r� , ��-3s�/ STREET FILE process is only a year old, he had thought it was a problem worth discussing. He agreed with the suggestion of a form for an appeal and accepted the recommendation of the staff. Councilmember Jaech asked if the 30-day requirement had been extended. Ms. Block said the Planning Board did not recommend approval of a 60-day appeal period. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER JAECH, TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REGARDING APPEALS CRITERIA. MOTION CARRIED. Ms. Block added that there had been 226 actions submitted to the Planning Department of which 18 were appealed, resulting in an approximate appeal rate of 7.9%. REPORT ON TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT PUGET DR. AND OLYMPIC VIEW DR. Engineering Coordinator Dale Schroeder briefly outlined the history of this question. He noted that the staff had recommended continuation of the current flashing light because the existing equipment was antiquated and the reported accident rate was very low. Pedestrian counts were made on October 5 and 8, during peak pedestrian times, resulting in counts of five and eight pedestrians, which would not indicate need for a pedestrian activated signal, he said. Citizen concern regarding the limited sight distance at Grandview St. was found to be accurate. Additionally, he said, a radar reading taken on two days indicated the average speed was 34.1 mph westbound and 31.3 mph eastbound. The Engineering Department would recommend that a curb or buttons be installed north of Grandview on Olympic View Dr. to channel the trafffic,and the stop bar on Grandview be moved to the east, allow- ing traffic to pull further east allowing better sight distance. He said installation of a yellow flasher to the east of the Olympic View Dr. intersection with increased police enforcement should did in decreasing the speed. Councilmember Ostrom discussed the difficulty in making a left turn from Olympic View Dr. onto Puget Dr. during ferry arrival times and asked that a left -turn actuated light be studied. Councilmember 1 Jaech suggested that the yellow flashing light be placed east of the hidden drive that exits onto Puget Dr. further up the hill, with a notice of decrease in speed at that point. Mr. Schoeder said these were good suggestions and could be done, but the light for the intersection should be placed on the six -year program. He estimated that a full signal would cost $80,000; however, the sensor loops and conduits were installed by the State earlier and the cost could be less. Another suggestion from Councilmember Ostrom concerned the holding lanes for the eastbound left turn traffic on Puget Dr. attempting to turn onto Olympic View Dr. He asked if the lanes could be extended to provide additional room. City Engineer Jim Adams interjected that the intersection was designed with the shorter holding lanes because a signal was planned; however, changes in traffic patterns resulted in no need for the signal. He noted the island could be moved, providing storage for more vehicles as suggested. If a signal were installed at a later date, the storage could be reduced again. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO APPROVE EXPENDITURE OF $3,000 FROM Ay THE STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND TO MAKE CHANNELIZATION IMPROVEMENTS ON GRANDVIEW; TO PLACE THE INTER- SECTION ON THE SIX -YEAR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR STUDY OF SIGNALIZATION; AND TO IN- STALL A FLASHING YELLOW SPEED LIMIT SIGN EAST OF"THE OLYMPIC VIEW DP.. INTERSECTION. MOTION CARRIED WITH COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST NOT PRESENT DURING THE VOTE. ' COUNCILMEMBER KASPER MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER OSTROM, TO ENLARGE THE HOLDING LANES OF EASTBOUND LEFT TURN TRAFFIC ON PUGET DR.,TO BE FUNDED FROM THE STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND. MOTION ; CARRIED. COUNCILMEMBER NORDQUIST WAS ABSENT DURING THE VOTE. ~ DISCUSSION OF 1% FOR ART AND MUNICIPAL ARTS FUND Information and Arts Coordinator Linda McCrystal introduced members of the Edmonds Arts Commission present for the meeting: Chairman Jerry Ward, Ken Rose, Eleanor Granmo, and Gloria Mae Campbell. She reviewed the Commission's intent that the public art ordinance include only capital improvement projects, i.e., new buildings, new parks, new utilities and streets,and major remodelling. Since passage of the ordinance in 1975, $43,240 has been allocated for visual arts of which $31,350 has been spent. Estimated 1985 allocations would total $10,000 if all projects are approved. She noted that alternative methods of funding for the arts are difficult to find since most artists and art organizations are dependent on ticket sales plus donations and bequeathals from patrons. A new idea for funding has been with gift catalogues. She noted that Edmonds has led in support of the arts with transfers of funds from the -General Fund to the Municipal Arts fund and the establishment of the percent ordinance. In response to questions from the Council, Ms. McCrystal said Lynnwood is attempting to establish a percent ordinance. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 - October 9, 1984 .---- ��--�------ ---- -- 0 URGENT STRE�`�'"A"��' k'- ET FILL REPLY ENECEDSARY • 3633 136th Place. S.E. Suite i94.2 i o Bellevue, WA 98006-1451 T0: i "l R. CIS �� DATE : A U G V s / CI TY O F ODMO Na_$ pp CC Zso S-rW-A.,c. N., . . SUBJECT: s1Zs2-H OLY�+P%<- VIFw DR, Cn�••- o s � �� _9 S o 20 . _ FOLD FOLD A S XO.0 9.E-CQv?-s-rE9, A-7-MCHSO ,ARE. COQIES OF Z9-l-A Sk ZZ1S AAJp Cam-cam-r-c�,�s Fc� cZ TKO . SP6E� s--+J_o y FC cZ -c, . A.&G vE ekmj. 1- 12 /h I."'�w. G- S ur.fty r, -tom �..4o�-P ��-4so� o `r ..�Qiu Ew.�Y_ cav,�.Ts _ �A-i �A- co cA-�. _ C�� v � � £�►.CG _ - _ _ _ ... _w. t T-1 .. _7P-19 Q;T M,Q TZ.S' . (U t Tlf e L-TE PAN U A%- . SIGNED: SIGNED: SENDER: SEND WHITE AND PINK COPIES DATE: OD OF -I ODUO BaL•WALKE2 6VGINEE2S InC. Computations sir'=O S-JVc`/ Client COr--6 -Os File Project 01_yM I C V I f IJ QI—I A -I L D-1,N 2 L47- w Made_ ..,)\L Chkd Date Z<- I I -E-b _Of- Ate: g L-12 eo AM. Pos 2.0 5�� L,M rr- : 3 o MP N N ,w r 2 o G O g s 2v.A- l o,xr r2l. CO2 6 %��,GyIM �f1 S�GEc l�cr. rCJiLL`fii Z MO D31 , 35 sS I L2_ t. - P c c (Lz 16 c 2a.2S v,p� 3q,2S w.Q� 34. '76 t� Q 29. 20 w-y 1. q3 Q P£2 r,,u- 31', G 3 "74t,, = 2.R-• a-3 2 fio 3 g 411 �? z. %o 4 -t-a -, O . S 2p SSG Z.� �, f � S � ►vo . � . O .`'1'7 �O •a8'� R -r 'IS `�� c-o,� F C ro j CC L-t-\ A L- ► 4V I Q,+6 Z 0 46 z = 3 3.32. Ta 3 S. 3� 0 UV OO RR i wALKM M EERS W. Computations Client f —7:17M4 _5 File Project 1-nel -PI C , P,-, ��`T =1. _� V L Made J Chkd Date Of S _S:�� 2 C��Y�^p U,, w (��1� S',y2a� Tr)$;So PACE I _ — 107. $S%o 309. 2S . .30 31 . yo . . 4S 1`^, P. 1-4 . MINE MMEN OMNI. ONO OMNI.: ONO ONE , MEMO OD FIF� � eetWauKER ENGINEERS M. Computations Client C File Project ouy/,-PlL \/IFVJ (41A,i.•-Df.v- Made J K Chkd Date g' 12 , of SPC�o S�-t.oy ; S6L S2L4 OOL-yMPc Vt �R�,ti£. I/�6, 4,AiSq.., to Sias p,,.... Mooe->_. S�EEs�; ,3y MPS, p N.A PA�o,, s �� cSo .PE2«.,-n�) :� 3n2-.. a 6 M10(4. ^ W7-IZ u 41Z-111 r-t Q,f N G 1- PA ee. r G E 2Ff -ro 3 i (98'0&S,R\JATkO--Sz FO VO o P-TO—►64 Situ O bjt o k o,.j ; �-{ , 5 � \bb iz Cxjrer� f4EwNF�S IND AT CIS�o L;JFL I /1,F46c SP£FD Q.A�Ge= 32, L{3 II0 Computations Client C Or o, JC) i File Project rJLT- Pt c l II ��-,c_, �s �� %!�i L i Made -J 14- Chkd Date _ot_ S6z 52� o�-�sMF�.0 v�Sw vE`. S:o� to !` PH PocE too 90 $o ?a 10 fm n Er", Zti . 2S yo IS M P 1- SPEEC STUCY PAGE 1 i~ SR 524 M.P. 1.21 DATE: 7/07/83 LOCATION: JCT CLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE TIME PERIOD: 1305 TO 1321 VEHICLE TYPE: ALL • WEATHER: OVERCAST DIRECTION OF TRAVEL: BW THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT = 30 THE NUMBER OF OBSERVATIONS = 50 THE MEAN OR AVERAGE SPEED THE MINIMUM SPEED RECORDED = 25.76 THE MAXIMUM SPEEC RECORCED = 42 THE MODAL SPEED = 30 THE 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED = 36 THE 90TH PERCENTILE SPEED = 37 THE MECIAN SPEED 33 THE LOTH PERCENTILE SPEED =. 28 THE IN TERQLARTI LE RANGE = 5 THE TEN MPH PACE RANGE IS 29 TO 38 (INCLUDES 43 OBSERVATICNS COMPRISING 86 $ OF THE TOTAL) THE STANDARD DEVIATION 3.57 THE PROBABLE ERROR = 0.51 AT THE 99.7 PER CENT CONFIDENCE LEVEL, THE AVERAGE SPEED RANGE = 31.24 TO 34.28 SPEED FREQUENCY PER CENT ACCUM PRCNT 25 2 4.0 4. 0 26 1 2.0 6.0 _ 27 1 2.0 8.0 28 2 4.0 12.0 -T---- 29 1 2.0 14.0 -T---- E . 30 7 14.0 28.0 E N 31 4 8.0 36.0 N K- 32 4 8.0 .44.0 M P 33 6 12.0 56.0 P H 34 6 12.0 68.0 H P 35 5 10.0 78.0 P A 36 (85 ) 4 8.0 86 .0 A C 37 3 6.0 92.0 ..... C ----E- 38 3 6.0 98.0 ----.E- 39 0 40 0 41 0 42 1 - 2.0 100.0 0 - DENSITY DISTRIBUTION PAGE 2 ! . 50 t + t + LOWER + + t LIMIT UPPER LIMIT + + 10 MPH PACE 10 MPH PACE 40 + + 30 + + P E R • C E N • 7 .x . x .x xx . .x xx 10 + .x xxx .x xxx .xxxxxxx . . xxxxxxx . .xxxxxxxxx .xxxxxxxxx x x. xxxxxxxxx x x.xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx x xxxxxxxxxxxxxx x 0 + + 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 MPH r_ SR 524 M.P. 1.21 DATE: T/07/83 • • P E R c E N T 9 PERCENTILE DISTRIBUTION PAGE 3 + + + 100 LOWER LIMIT x 10 MPH PACE XXxx X. 90 4 (85%) ----------------------- ------ 80 x 70 x 60 x 50 40 x x .30 x 20 X. 10 x. x UPPER LIMIT 10 MPH PACE 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 lw P H SR 524 M.P. 1.21 DATE: 7/07/83 c Y OD 00 OD 00 BB.L•VALKER ENGINEERS W. Computations r Client File Project Made J /L Chkd Date TS-13--F6 of -TRtji TRtP A- 1-O2A L- 3gSa S. F. S OkF /`jAS' s %A-MoN =4 DAy CCv^-rs CJULy, Ak,G, vt °,Nrar. S;atZ:. C—P, loco SF� A w- ,AM IL H Q (4 n. ITS 2s SDI, g L+(. 7 u6s sT6,,0PER gut-, P) IT 13-3 • STREET FILE MEMORANDUM August 14, 1986 MEMO TO: Mary Lou Block Planning Director FROM: Chris Beckman C415- Engineering Coordinator SUBJECT: OLYMPIC VIEW .RETAIL DEVELOPMENT CU 13-86 FOR GASOLINE SALES On August 13, 1986 the firm of Bell -Walker Engineers, Inc. submitted their review of the traffic impact analysis for subject property. They examined the Centrac Associates report, support data, comments by staff and others as well as the site itself. Their five page letter report plus two pages of pictures was thorough and generally supportive of the Centrac report. The areas that the review showed a concern about were: a. Use of right turn holding lant (Previously referred to as a "deceleration lane") for truck unloading. b. Recommended pedestrian cross -walk on SR 524 to east of Olympic View Drive - needs more study during higher use periods. c: Extension of .center two-way left turn lane to become available to hold left turns from Olympic View Drive prior to merging into eastbound SR 524. This minor conflict potential is already mitigated by excellent sight distance. My recommendation would be to accept the Centrac report with the minor modifications pointed out by the Bell -Walker review, and issue the DNS with mitigating measures as specified in both documents. 1 1 1 / 1 OD ❑FI DD 00 • BELL -WALKER ENGINEERS Inc. 3633 136th Place S.E. Suite 210 Bellevue, Washington 98006-1451 August 13, 1986 Mr. Robert Alberts City Engineer City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Alberts: RECEIVED. AUG 131986 ENGINEERING (206) 643-2002 As you requested, we have reviewed the traffic impact analysis for the Olympic View Retail Development prepared by Centrac Associates, Inc., together with citizen comments related to the above proposed conditional use at the intersection of SR 524 and Olympic View Drive. It is understood that the conditional use in question is the construction of a gasoline pump island,.which is a conditional use as presently zoned, together with the construction of a retail development including a convenience store, a hair . salon and an insurance office, all of which are presently allowed uses. The site of the proposed development is the northeast corner of the "tee" intersection of SR 524 (Puget Drive) and Olympic View Drive. SR 524 has an east/west orientation, with Olympic View Drive intersecting SR 524 from the northeast. The site is presently occupied by an abandoned gasoline station. The immediate vicinity is predominantly single and multi -family residential in use. In addition, there is a retail development on the northwest corner of the intersection, consisting of a convenience store, a hair salon and a dry cleaners. On the south side of the intersection is a private elementary school with a pedestrian gate near the southwest corner of the intersection. Our review consisted of the following: 1. Examination of the Traffic/Impact Analysis Report prepared by Centrac Associates, Inc., together with traffic count data, speed study data, and traffic accident data used by Centrac in the preparation of their report. 2. Examination of the site together with on -site observation of traffic in the vicinity during both peak,and non -peak hour traffic volume conditions. 3. Spot sampling of speeds on SR 524 adjacent to the site during both peak and non -peak hour traffic volume conditions. • 4. Examination of additional comments by Terry L. Gibson of Centrac Associates, Inc. and by Roger Hertrich, a nearby resident to the site. Based on the above review, we have made the following findings: Bellevue, Washington • Boise, Idaho Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service: We found the traffic volume data used in the Centrac study and their method of adjustment to estimate current traffic volumes to be appropriate and accurate. We also concur with their assessment of the levels of service at the intersection. The study is correct in identifying the left -turn movement from Olympic View Drive to SR 524 eastbound as the critical movement at the intersection. Accident History: The three-year history of traffic accidents in the vicinity is an appropriate sampling for this study. However, in light of Mr. Hertrich's comments concerning the possibility of there being a higher accident rate prior to 1983, when the now abandoned gasoline station was in operation, an examination was made of accident records for three additional years, from 1980 through 1982. These records showed a total of five reported accidents during that period, with two being injury accidents and three being property damage only accidents. Although these records show two more accidents during the three-year period prior to 1983 than the following three-year period, it would be impossible to determine what affect, if any, the operation of the now abandoned service station might have had on the higher accident rate, in that the total number of accidents in the sample is too small to rule out the possibility that the difference in number of accidents was coincidental. Also, a much more likely impact on traffic safety, which could have influenced the number of accidents that occurred, was the widening of SR 524 in 1982, which included the construction of a center left -turn lane, together with the construction of curbs and gutters. Traffic Generation: Although the trip generation estimates for the convenience store and the gas station appear to be correct, we found the estimates for the hair salon and the insurance agency to be low. Assuming a four -chair salon with four employees, and assuming 50% customer occupancy for a nine -hour day, at an average stay of one hour per customer, this use would generate 52 average weekday trips, resulting in both an A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip rate of three trips in and three trips out. The I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual's statistics for insurance agencies is based on a 106,000 s.f. office building and is not appropriate for estimations for an 800 s.f. use. Assuming two employees and an average of ten customers per day, it is estimated that an insurance agency would generate approximately 28 average weekday trips, resulting in both an A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip rate of three trips in and three trips out. Adding these additional trips (three per hour in and out) to the total peak hour trips estimated in the study does not alter the levels of service as determined by Centrac in their study. Right -Turn Holdine Lane: The proposed right -turn holding lane appears to be a reasonable mitigating measure for reducing delays or the threat of rear -end collisions for through westbound traffic while vehicles are turning into the proposed driveway. It should be noted that the Centrac report described this lane as a deceleration lane, when in fact this lane is not of sufficient length to allow vehicles to enter prior to decelerating. • As it is presently designed, it appears that this lane would primarily provide storage space for vehicles waiting to enter the parking area due to delays caused by other vehicles entering or exiting parking spaces, or by trucks backing into the truck loading area. We would not recommend extending this lane on to provide a protected right -turn lane at the intersection.. The traffic volumes for right -turning vehicles and the level of service for westbound traffic entering the intersection do not warrant a protected right -turn lane. Also, creating a right -turn lane would • eliminate the protected nature of the holding lane for the store entrance, in that vehicles intending to turn right at the intersection would also be entering this lane. Finally, extending the right -turn lane around the corner would increase the distance required for pedestrians to cross Olympic View Drive, which would increase the hazard to pedestrians using that crosswalk. Truck Loading: We find it appropriate for the study to recommend that single -unit trucks only be allowed on the site during working hours. Even with this restriction, though, there is a potential hazard for trucks backing from the store parking area in front of the SR 524 driveway entrance to the loading area on the east side of the building. This hazard is reduced to a reasonable level, however, by the proposed right -turn holding lane which would allow inbound cars to wait during the trucks' backing movement without interfering with the flow of traffic on SR 524. Concerning the comment in the Centrac report that the right -turn holding lane could possible be used as a loading area for larger trucks, we would consider this practice to be unacceptable, in that the right -turn holding lane should be available at all times to avoid delays and accident hazards for westbound traffic. Also, an adequate sight distance to the east for vehicles existing from that driveway could not be maintained if trucks were allowed to stop in the right -turn holding lane. Parking: • The proposed development provides a total of 13 off-street parking spaces. According the City of Edmonds Engineering Department, this exceeds the number of parking spaces required under city ordinances. Using the same criteria for estimating parking space requirements that was used in estimating trips generated, it could reasonably be expected that the following parking spaces would be required: Convenience Store: Employees - 1 Customers - 3 Hair Salon: Employees - 4 Customers - 2 Insurance Office: Employees - 2 Customers - 1 Total off-street parking required - 13 It appears, therefore, that the 13 of parking spaces proposed for this development would provide for a minimum number of allowable spaces. However, this number of spaces does not provide any additional parking for periods of peak usage, and no space appears to be available on the site which could be used for overflow parking. This could be a problem considering that no on -street parking is available in the vicinity. Speed Data. • On July 7, 1983, a speed study was conducted on SR 524 adjacent to the site. This study indicated an average speed of 32.8 mph, while the posted speed limit is 30 mph. This average speed is acceptable given the existing sight distances and roadway geometrics, and does not indicate an excessive average speed. Because of the age of this speed study, we conducted an additional speed study consisting of a sampling of 50 vehicles during a weekday morning non -peak volume period, and a sampling of 100 vehicles during a weekday afternoon peak volume period. The results •of this study tended to confirm the findings of the 1983 study, with no significant difference attributable to the age of the earlier study. There was a significant difference in speeds, however, between those sampled during the peak volume period and the non -peak volume period, with speeds being generally higher during the period of lower traffic volumes. Although this difference was significant, meaning that the differences in speeds were not merely coincidental, the average speeds were not considered critically high. On August 11, 1986, during the morning non -peak sampling period, the average speed was 34.4 mph, while on the same day during the afternoon peak sampling period, the average speed was 33.51 mph. While average speeds were found to be only slightly above the posted speed limit, it was noted that there were more incidents of isolated vehicles travelling at a high rate of speed than there were during the period of lower traffic volumes. As a comparison, the maximum observed speed during the lower volume period was 42 mph while during the higher volume period, the maximum observed speed was 46 mph. Sight distances from the proposed SR 524 driveway were verified by our staff. It was found that, as Photos #1 and #2 show, from a position 15 feet back from the edge of the existing roadway, there is a clear view of the center of the oncoming lane to the east for 420rfeet, and a clear view of the center of the oncoming lane to the west for over 600 feet. As both photos show, there are two utility poles which are within the line of view of oncoming lanes but the narrowness of these poles renders their presence insignificant in considering sight distances. Based on an assumed speed of 30 miles per hour, the minimum sight distance required would be 300 feet, with an additional 100 feet required for each additional 10 miles per hour. Taking into consideration the occasional high speeds of oncoming vehicles, there appears to be adequate sight distance for exiting vehicles from the SR 524 driveway and from Olympic View Drive. Pedestrians: Although prevailing vehicle speeds do not appear to be excessive for vehicles attempting to exit onto SR 524, the occasional "speeder" does pose a threat to pedestrians using the crosswalk on the west side of the intersection. We concur with Terry Gibson's comment that, due to the proximity of the school south of the intersection and the likelihood that pedestrian counts would be uncharacteristically low while the school is closed for the summer, it would not be advisable to take pedestrian counts at the present time. Although representative pedestrian counts would be valuable in considering mitigating measures which might be taken in con- junction with the proposed development, we would not recommend, as Mr. Gibson recommended, that a second SR 524 crosswalk be installed on the east side of the intersection, in that this would further interfere with the movement of left -turning vehicles out of Olympic View Drive. We support the idea presented by Mr. Gibson that a school speed zone may be warranted, but we would recommend that first a study should be made of pedestrian volumes and movements and that any changes made to the pedestrian crossing be done as part of a single plan. Concerning Mr. Hertrich's comments regarding pedestrians, it appears that while the proposed convenience store would be an attraction to student pedestrians, these student pedestrians should be considered passersby and the proposed store would probably not generate an appreciable number of additional pedestrians in the area. • Center Lane Channelization: It appears that Centrac's recommendation that the center striped island at the east end of the intersection be removed and that the center turning lane be extended west to provide a holding lane for left -turning vehicles from Olympic View Drive is a reasonable method for improving the level of service for these left -turning . vehicles. We are concerned, however, over the conflict that would exist between these left -turning vehicles in the holding lane and the eastbound traffic attempting to enter the center. lane to turn into the proposed store driveway. It appears that the higher priority should be to reserve the center holding lane for the Olympic View Drive traffic and to not allow eastbound vehicles to turn left into the SR 524 driveway. Instead, these vehicles would turn left at the intersection and use the Olympic View Drive store driveway. An additional consideration in reserving the center lane east of the intersection as a holding lane for left -turning eastbound vehicles is the conflict that could exist between these eastbound vehicles in the center lane and exiting vehicles from residential driveways on the south attempting to use the center lane before merging with westbound traffic. As Photos #3 and #4 show, there is a clear view from even the most westerly residential driveway of the intersection, and particularly of vehicles turning left from Olympic View Drive. It was observed by our staff on recent visits to the site that even during periods of peak traffic volume, vehicles tended to travel in groups of up to 20 cars, with gaps between groups often of over a minute in length. Given the traffic volumes on SR 524 during peak hours, and given the frequent gaps in traffic which have been observed, it is reasonable to expect that vehicles exiting from driveways on the south would have sufficient opportunity .to observe whether vehicles are occupying the center lane and to merge with westbound traffic with little delay. Traffic Signal Warrants: We find Centrac's assessment of the traffic signal warrant eligibility to be accurate based on the information presently available. Summary In summary, our analysis of the traffic report for the proposed development at Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive indicates that we generally concur with the conclusions and recommendations with some minor adjustments. It is our opinion that there is sufficient capacity and safety for the development. The speed study did indicate a concern for excessive speed on Puget Drive during our speed studies. However, the increased traffic or operations as a result of the proposed development would not have a direct affect on speed. Control of parking on site for both customers and truck delivery will be an important part of the operation. Clear and free access to the site off of Puget Drive is essential at all times. It is hoped that this information is satisfactory for you to evaluate the proposed developments based on traffic impacts.. If you have any questions or comments concerning this analysis please contact this office. Very truly yours, BELL -WALKER ENGINEERS, INC. Theodore T. Bell, P.E. President a 's 1 . � ` t • � :ram �... _ AL .4, r�i r S• � � r �,i.�;r, �,�•a'+"`�d:'w'o •�� b � �. \:Y�" J i .J i� ,Ir•t �, � :l}i') �,'}�'��'1��Y'lM rFi`k 4� 1�`^^ ��b .,,r` +, ,,. ) .. ! .�%F�� ' � rt �x1 1 'r'uti'j"�e` �'�GZ�S'�t �Y �t aJ iSri� •�": . ','r"`;�. ��v . . ,•�` !+. >.,. ` ... u' - � 1',.rl. .f ,`s:.._.,-.+:"52'.is:=S �'tt. •s-�"R... c�'�'v�,�nS.•r,14.,. i.4 i4 ' I IrA July 28 1986 Duane Bowman, Assistant City Planner City of Edmonds 505 Bell St. Edmonds, WA 98020 RECEIVED JUL 2 81986 CITY OF EDMONDS RE: File CU 13-86 Appeal of Mitigated Determination of,_.Nonsignificance Dear Mr. Bowman: I am appealing because your conditions of mitigation do not go far enough to protect the neighborhood. The revised channelization as submitted by the applicant and "Centrac Assoc., Inc." completely changes the traffic pattern in front of my house and my p neighbors. When Highway 524 was widened the roadways shoulders were eliminated along.with off street parking spaces. In place the highway was ,pikta� lli d h designed with.a third middle turn lane to eliminate the rear encosons g westbound and promote a smoother traffic flow on the 524. The middle turn lane"' J has accomplished two major things: Safety was enhanced for me and my neighbors '. I� when slowing to turn into our driveways. It also provided a haven for our entering the heavy traffic on this arterial. As you know the more -driveways and more vehicle trips you ave 81T-6 y entering.or exiting an -arterial effects safety and the traffic flow.o�,ae� The data source for the traffic study is incomplete. The city should require traffic counters to be installed for more accurate traffic counts. A compre- hensive study needs to be made. �{ci,,..� •�yY��(.�� p o � What Centrac is proposing is to pdd- hundreds of vehicle trips into this middle turn lane. What the city should try to accomplish is evenly route the vehicles around the property using Olympic View Drive. The Centrac study has not shown the effect of their design with -the traffic movements of the residential properties on the south nor the existing businesses on the west. G The use of a deceleration lane is proper for cars enteringwestbound off of SR 4 71 524. I caution you that allowing any parking by unloading service trucks 411 would be unsafe. There exists east of the subject property a insurance sign and a long line of ; fir trees which block a exiting driver's view of the westbound traffic on SR 524. Any large truck parked in the deceleration lane would further block they fiy'e view and provide a significant safety hazzard. r` 4' To keep traffic flow moving safely on SR 524 westboundthe deceleration lane should continue around the corner to provide a safe slowdown lane for the U westbound vehicles turning north to Olympic View Drive. • I Berms are effective noise and sight screens. To provide screening from the neighbors on the south the planting area has to be, widened so the site distance can be maintained while allowing for a large enough berm to be effective in screening sight and noise. (, ! { �'-Y ✓ 6tJr�,J (.6 F=! V(:,, Ali 4a1�� ti ..�'� 5il f,, �.li.lidr._�j�{ 6--tr You fail to mention hours of operation. Our neighborhood BN closes down at 10 pm as does the 5 corners neighbor BN. Our area is residential. The hours of operation should be more restrictive than 11 pm closing. Our neighborhood petition of 400 signatures has expressed the desire to minimize not maximize impact. The present parking plan now places the loading.area 'on the north side along , with a garbage dumpster. I.am sure our neighbors, the Shoenbergs, on the .eastside object to this location, as I do. Any truck manuvering into this 9 location is going to partially block the SR.524 entrance. As speed is a major' problem on SR 524, all loading and trucks must have enough room to manuver on site. Trucks should.not block entrances on either street and should be kept especially away from the SR 524 entranceand the downhill speedy traffic. Your parking requirements for projected uses are not sufficient. Our code does not speak specifically to any design which is a combination of shopping 0 mall and gas station.- Before the city allows the development of four separate uses on this restricted site your Planning Dept. should .update parking requirements for uses such as a Beauty Shops. For example a beauty shop with 4 chairs, will have 4 operators and 4 customers and you need 8 parking places. Thirteen parking stalls are not enough to provide on site parking for a beauty shop and employees of three other businesses and their customers. The present • plan presents us with a picture of total congestion. - Centrac has listed no accidents at this location as a reason for no traffic light. Centrac study based it's recommendation on DOT figures, not Edmonds Police Dept. Records. Ask anyone in the neighborhood of the near misses over the last three years. Check the old records and you will find when a business existed at this location there were traffic"" accidents. During the last threg years the station was closed.. CCSC/ ? ear k- Changing the use from a single business use to four business uses will multiply the traffic problems from what they were when a gas station was in operation. Edmonds Community Development Code.does.not address this type of development in it's standards. I suggest the present design creates potential for on site accidents and for personal injury. On site traffic movements are not properly addressed. My appeal is based on a common sense approach in which the City of Edmonds should allow some degree of development which will not be detrimental to the existing neighborhood. Alternatives do exist. These alternatives would be addressed in an Enviromental Impact Statement. Sincerel •Roger He rich , 1020 Puget Dr. Edmonds Wa 98020 . F IL' 1 01 "REET 15'^-6" 13'-6" J''� rwlywlwr rwrrrwyrwrw ■r r■r ��11 � �1yy ■■1r�■ 12' -. 1rIMir11•::::III:N11.1«:1•M:I•�C::S:::r::M' • r+�ll l•1 ■W.:S' • *S -_ rrrrrrrr■rrrrr ■r.rrrrrr rrrrrrQrrri.rr irr�Piw r r NORTHEAST SOUTHWEST I�Tiii�� , I Q, NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST NORTHWEST ELEVATION MECHANICAL WELL METAL COPING CONCRETE SHAKE -TILE 4" WOOD SIDING LATTICE SIGN FASCIA ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM 25'-0" MAX. GIANT BRICK 21_W WOOD TRIM ■iiiiiiiiieiiiiiir _.J�_ ... _.�.__f._ _ J� . 6 �7! __..� ,. - .. s _..._—___..- --_C ...__—... L . 1 ri%Ir1�IriWWlri1•I�A:IrrrMlrii11r11•iiMr — .,— __s_n s _.. v 7�— __. rr�rrrrrrrrwr�rrrrsrrrrr ..�..___ _ ►rr warrrrrarr rr rrrrrrs _ ' '''" rr■ •rrrrrrrr•rrrrrrrrrrrrr ■rrrM11M11rrlMrllrrllrrrrrMrMrllr �•-��. ti— __ .._ n.. rrrrrrrrrrrarrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr rrr■rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr r rrrrurrrrrrrrrrrrrrr•rrrrSr�i . m ME � w1ma�i iirii imm�i11111101 INN _._.. i��i ■ in i-� ��w��our.. �■ski ou.. Mal Rol SIGHT DISTANGt TRIANGLE 24" HIGH EARTH BERM MAINTAIN VISIBILITY BETWEEN O� AND 6' ELEVATION 14'-0'' � 2 -0„. MAX. - "FARYA;,',,EDMONDS I st ►-" k` iJ r' •7..iM T lOSTN r `e toot" oL Sr �! • yt i0 � A (IOR7 7G4TN PL Isso'E S" a a E now& a a LANDae'CAr"A Um UuLE SYMBOL DESCRIPTION COMMENT FLOWERING CHERRY 1 1 /2" CAL, SHORE PINE 7' - 8' HIGH 20' O.C. MUGHO PIE 12" - 14" HIGH . • • RHODODENDRON 21" - 24" HIGH PHOTINIA 24" HIGH 36 O.C. SOD AS PER PLAN ENGLISH IVY CROUNDCOVER 1 GAL. POTS 24 O.C. /�n� <) 1% J.. DATA PROJECT!; .00ATION: w V NEDr' 'ROPOSED USE: ►ITE AREA: WILDING AREA: 'ARKING REQUIRED: ARKING PROVIDED: EDMONDS.WASHINGTON BN (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) RETAIL/GASOLINE SERVICI 19,400 SQ. FT. 4,000 SQ. FT. 13 STALLS 14 STALLS LEQ/-x',L DEZ'SUKHRIP"TION ORIGINAL PLAT NORTH EUMCNDS BLK 044 0-01 LOTS 1 6 2 ALSO BAAP NLY LN BLK 44 AT A PT 25FT SWLY OF NLY COR SO BLK TH CCNT ALG WLY LN S38*34 OOW 85'FT' TO C/L OF ALLEY BLK 44 TH S51*26 COE ALG C/L OF ALLEY 1.35 FT M/L TO N LN CO RD TH N89*43 COE ALG SD N LN 57.08FT Th N08*38 0UE 59.11FT M/L TAP 25FT SLY MEAS R/A FR NELY LN SC 8LK 44 TH N51*2b OOW 159.368 1 M/L TO TP8'AKA PAR A LESS ALL THAT PTN OF HEREINAFTER DESG PAR A LY WLY OF AN ARC CF CRV TO R HAV A RAC OF 3SFT TH RAD CTR PT BEING CPPOSITE HWY ENG STATION 238 + 58.81 CN SR E24 LN SURV OF SP 524 EDMONDS JCT SR 104 TO 76TH AVE h C 55FT NLY THEREFRUM SD CRV EXT FROM EXST NLY R/W LN OF SO SR 524 WLY & NLY TO EXST SELY R/W LN OLYMPIC VIEW DR DEEDED TC ST CF WA. WO VOL 1707 EXISTING 6" TREE TO REMAIN •�j` PUGET DRIVE -EXISTING 36" PINE TO REMAIN NEW PROPERTY LINE OLD PROPERTY LINE , ccr�e c"r !7 V1. > cou�vzfs/yYtor%en-��rifs li��a �Sf�'4��%, Y! 1. Vf A V TOPS: FORM 123 E P ),LITHO IN E BA 0 S+D REVISED.June 16, 1986 TO HE COMPLETED RY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR STREET FILE AGENCI' USE ONLY t c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation op- portunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: As this is a small commercial development, recreational facilities are not considered to be an important factor to be considered. 13. Historic and Cultural Preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preser- vation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so. eencrall), describe.. None identified. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological. scientific. or cultural importance known to be on or next .to the site. None. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: • N/A 14. Transporrariun a. identify public streets and highways serving the site. and describe proposed access to the existing sere=t system. Show on site plans. if any. Traffic access to the site is provided by Puget Drive (SR-524) and by Olympic View Drive. Access to the existing street system is via two (2) driveways, One is located on Puget Drive and the other on Olympic View Drive. b. is site currently served by public. transit'? If not. what is the upproxi.,,ate distance to the nearest transit stop'? Community Transit provides service to the site (Transit routes are: #140, 416, 740, 870). Bus stops are located at the intersection of SR-524/Olympic c. How man" parkins spaces would the completed project have? How many would the View. projcc: eliminate' Thirteen stalls provided. Parking areas are not marked on the :.existing property. d. WiiI the proposal require any new roads or str=s. or improvements to existing roads or streets. nut including, drive-.vays? If so. _enerally describe (indicate whether public or priv:,tej. There will be a 10' wide property line dedication along Puget Drive to the City of Edmonds. Recommended improvements are included in the attached Traffic Report. See "Mitigating Measures" section of the attached Traffic Report. e. `.Vitt the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail. or air transporta- tion' If so, generally describe. • No. f. How, many vehicular trips per day \vuuld be generated by the completed project". If known. indicate when peak volumes would ,occur. 1,100 new daily trips. Peak volumes would occur 7 to 9:00 a.m. and 4 to 6:00 p.m.,.on weekdays. See attached Traffic Report for additional information. TO fit COKIPLETH) BY At•PLACANl REVISED June 16, 1986 • g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: See attached Traffic Report. EV ALUnT10n' FUR AGENC1' USE ONLY STREET FILE 15. Public Services a. Vdould the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire pro section, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, eener:dly describe. No, only typfcal police, fire and aid services will be required. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. N/A 16. Utilities a. Circle ut' ities currentavailable at the site' electricity, CaiuraD—aa, ater use ser - tc ele ho ttar� sewer septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity �•hich might be needed. Natural Gas - Washington Natural Gas Electric service - P.U.D. of snohomish County Sanitary Sewer - City of Edmonds. Telephone service - General Telephone C.SIGNATURENo offsite utility construction activity is anticipated. The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. 1 understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: ...... yQ .....Zo,,.w-2_......... .................... Date Submitted: ..REVISED June 18, .....1986 .............................. -10- 17544 MIDVALE AVE. N., SUITE 100 SEATTLE, WA 98133 206 542-9474 CENTRAL ASSOCIATES CONSUiTINq ENGINEERS June 30, 1986 Mr. Duane Bowman Assistant City Planner City of Edmonds 250 - 5th Avenue .N Edmonds, WA 98020 RE: Olympic_ View -.Retail Development Comments on Traffic`Study.from (Chris Beckman) STREET . FILE (SR-524 @ Olympic View Dr.)-_ City of Edmonds Dear Mr. Bowman: This letter addressed the comments (interoffice memo to Duane Bowman from Chris Beckman, 6/19/86) received from the City of Edmonds on the traffic study prepared by Centrac for the Olympic View Retail Development. At a joint meeting held at Edmonds City Hall with CDA (Diane Monroe), Rainier Bank (Dale Chandler), City staff (Duane -and Chris) and Centrac (Terry Gibson), "traffic" comments and issues were thoroughly discussed as well as the timeline for future hearing dates. Each comment has been listed below along with Centrac's resolution of each comment. 1&6. On Site Traffic Pattern and Access to Truck Loading Area The original site plan restricted egress from the site to the Olympic View driveway, with the SR-524 (Puget) access being "entrance only." The intent of this concept was to provide one-way circulation (westbound) through the gas pump area, queuing space to the SR-524 driveway, and preclude site vehicles from existing onto Puget Drive. The latter condition was suggested by WSDOT if a signal were installed at SR-524/Olympic View intersection, to avoid hazards caused by left -turn in/out vehicles turning through queued vehicles on westbound approach. Since a traffic signal is not warranted (see Table 2 of traffic report) even with opening of the retail/gas station development, two-way circulation has been recommended for the SR-524 driveway with left -turn movements safely accommodated by existing two-way left -turn lane (2WLTL). One-way circulation through gas pumps would have caused traffic congestion and safety problems at Olympic View driveway since exiting vehicles from either. side of gas pump island would conflict with inbound vehicles. This safety problem is minimized by providing two-way circulation at both driveways, which also minimizes overall travel distance and del ay/inconvenience to gas station and retail customers. ALASKA IDAHO OREGON UTAH WASHINGTON WYOMING Mr. Duane Bowman City of Edmonds • June 30, 1986 Page 2 Truck access and loading at the project site was originally proposed off Olympic View Drive. The revised site plan provides an additional truck loading area east of the retai 1- building. Access/egress to the second load/unload area woul d be provided vi a SR-524 driveway. Inbound trucks woul d_� enter site via new deceleration lane, proceed forward to queuing area behind gas .pumps, and then back into loading.... -,., area without conflicting with 900 parking stalls adjacent to the retail building. Large trailer trucks could also be accommodated in deceleration lane without.impacting westbound traffic flow on SR-524 during peak periods', when gas pumps are over -capacity and access to designated truck., loading area on —site is difficult. 2. Data Source for Volume Counts Machine counts taken by WSDOT District #1 last November (Nov. 18-25, 1985) at the SR-524/Olympic View intersection provided the traffic data base for estimating daily (AWDT) volumes on impacted arterials and hourly volumes for the signal warrant analysis at the adjacent intersection. These hour -by -hour approach counts by WSDOT were taken during "poor weather," with snow on streets on 3 of 7 days counted. Centrac then compared approach volume counts for a weekday without snow (Wednesday, Nov. 20th) with peak -hour approach volumes counted by Centrac (Thurs., May 15th). This peak - hour volume comparison indicated that the May volumes were 39% higher than the winter counts last November. Thus, hour -by -hour approach counts by WSDOT were uniformly increased by 39% to estimate May 1986 volumes for the signal warrant analysis (Table 2 of report). Site -generated traffic was then added to this 24-hour data base to check for possible signal warrants (Warrants #1 and #2 per MUTCD- -see attached Signal Warrant Summary). 3. Accide-nt Types and Warrant Criteria Centrac requested all accidents at the SR-524/Olympic View intersection for the last 3 years (1983-85) from WSDOT District #1. We received a computer printout listing three (3) accidents that occurred at this intersection --two in 1983 and one in 1985. Accident types/causes were rear -end, left -turn and right-angle collisions with one person injured in.the left -turn accident. Left -turn and right-angle collisions are accident types correctible by signalization of the intersection, although five (5) "correctible" accidents within 12-month period are required to satisfy the • MUTCD Warrant #6 - Accident Experience. CENTRAC ASSOCIATES R55RS1-3 - _ - ACCIDENT HISTORY - -..-- -- -_ _.. _--------- --04/18/8b ------ BY SR-SRMP PAGE 1 SR 524 SRMP C01.20 TO SRMP 001.24 SAY -.. _. _.... _ --- -- - - -- ------ FROM 01/01/83 TO 12/31%85 PP RC -___-RR ACCDNT _.. DIAGRAM __AO S -..F _DATE_._..__ _..-__. ROAD- PROPTY EE REPORT ANALYSISMD .._-I E N A INT.-'_ RDWY -WAY ----LIGHT -'DAMAGE------- -" SR ID SRMP 12 NUMBER CATA PE V J T MODYYR TIME REL. CHAR SURF WTHR COND DOLLARS ACCIDENT DESCRIPTION 524._.00121 005805 LCA061CQB1 1 0 0 010683 1300 AT TNT. STR WET RAIN DAYLT 300 S.DIR-BOTH STR-ONE STOP -RE 524 00121 123503 3AC177BAD1 2 1 0 031585 1600 AT TNT. STR DRY CLR DAYLT .1.100 0.0IR- -ONE L.TURN- ONE STR - - 524 00121 042752 500023AAA1 1 0 0 060783 1445 AT INT. STR DRY CLR DAYLT 19500 ENTERING AT ANGLE v —.. -- -- - - - - c FSUMMARY: _ •- ___----------- TOTAL ACCIDENTS 3 FATAL ACCIDENTS 0 INJURY ACCIDENTS 1 PROP -DAMAGE ACCIDENTS 2 PERSONS KILLED 0 PERSONS INJURED 1 TOTAL PROP DAMAGE 2s900 TYPE=REAREND 1 TYPE=SIDESWIPE 0 TYPE=STRUCK FIXED OBJECT 0 • Mr. Duane Bowman City of Edmonds June 30, 1986 • Page 3 SrREEr FILE = 4. Discussion of Potential'Si na1 Warrants 661 2 of 8.covered - n report) - The attached "Signal Warrant Summary" discusses the warrant .=� criteria for each of the eight.(8) signal warrants applicable"to the SR-524/Olympic View intersection, as described in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) -Warrants -#1 and --Ware are thoroughly discussed in . Centrac's traffic report,, with only. 3 hours and 6 hours, respectively, being satisfied''of the required 8 hours. Warrant #3 (Minimum Ped. Volume) requires 150 pedestrians - per hour for 8 hours of the day.. According to our field -- count technician, only 18-20 pedestrians crossed this intersection between 4:00 and 6:00 PM on May 15, 1986. Pedestrian volumes would be higher for the two hours when school to south of intersection opens/closes, but still less than the 150 per hour required (with school buses and parent dropoff/pickup operations). Warrant #4 is satisfied when adequate gaps in major street (SR-524) traffic occur less frequently than one per minute. A gap study would be required to check this warrant, but this warrant is probably not satisfied based on SR-524 volumes and since WSDOT • deactivated the vehicular and pedestrian signals when SR-524 improved in the past (with MUTCD warrants not met Warrants #5 and #7 are not.applicable since this fogAA s "Isolated" and not interconnected to other signals. Warrant #6 is not satisfied as discussed in prior response to Comment #3. Warrant #8 (Combination Warrant) is satisfied since both Warrants #1 and #2 are satisfied for 80% of the required volumes per MUTCD. However, WSDOT District #1 presently installs traffic signals at locations which satisfy at least one of the common warrants (#1 through #6), with two warrants being satisfied to receive "high pri§ority" for signalization. The SR-524/Olympic View intersection is presently rated #179 on WSDOT District #1's recent priority listing (dated 4/24/86) of 250 intersections for possible signalization. 5, P*edestriin -Counts and Movements As mentioned before, specific pedestrian counts have not been taken recently at the SR-524/01ympic View intersection. During the 4:00-6:00 PM evening peak, approximately 18-20 pedestrians were observed crossing the intersection. The South Snohomish Christian School is located to the south of SR-524 opposite the subject site. Since school is presently not in session, follow-up pedestrian counts are not advised • since students crossing SR-524 to B&H grocery store at northwest corner of intersection represent a high percentage CENTRAC ASSOCIATES Mr. Duane Bowman City of Edmonds STREET FILE • June 30, 1986 Page 4 of daily crossing traffic. Other pedestrian movements at this location are by transit patrons to/from existing Community Transit (CT) bus stops on far side of both SR-524 approaches (NW and SE corners). Crosswalks are presently provided across .the north and west". .. legs of the intersection.. The gate entrance to the school yard is presently located to'- the east of` Olympi c View Drive; ? with students using south side sidewalk to west crosswalk to" reach grocery store on N.W.'corner. No pedestrian accidents 'have "been recorded the past,.3 years, and standard "school crossing warning signs and;.the flashing signal have been installed to adequately warn motorists of pedestrian crossing movements at this location. The primary traffic safety hazard is the high-speed westbound traffic down the SR-524 grade toward downtown Edmonds and the ferry dock. The proposed right -turn deceleration lane would minimize rear -end collisions between site and high-speed non -site vehicles. Installing standard "School Speed Limit - 20 MPH" signs (S4-1 through S4-4 per MUTCD) on SR-524 approaches to the intersection/crosswalks may help reduce travel speeds and improve safety for pedestrians during "school" hours. Installing a second crosswalk on SR-524 east of Olympic View Drive is recommended since this crossing movement does not conflict with heavy eastbound left -turn (301 vehicles during PM peak hour), but this additional crosswalk may be unacceptable to existing grocery store owner (who may lose some customers to new Plaid Pantry store on SW corner of intersection). We trust that we have adequately addressedyour specific comments received on the Olympic View Retail traffic study. Please feel free to call us if you have any additional questions or concerns as to traffic access and safety at the subject site. We have attached copies of the WSDOT traffic counts and accident data for your review and to place in your file. Thanks again for the time spent at our meeting last week and in.helping resolve the traffic issues for this development project. Si ncerely, CENTRAC ASSOCIATES, INC. TerryIL. Gibson, P.E. Senior Traffic Engineer n LJ L cr r CENTRAC ASSOCIATES CENTRAL STREET FI4EET: �/ OF ASSOCIATES BY: P'`v DATE CHECKED: DATE PROJECT 1911-A-1PIC V16L Zr-=TAiL- JOB NO. F&Il - IZ3 SUBJECT 5 6 ti/A L AIAP-P-Ai./ T pAIAl-V.SIS M u-rcD WaI?-ZA "-r WAZ7-At,)T WA2�1=1NT �Esc.r��T'io�l MST ? �. M) QIMLAM QeglCULfaZ VDL�tAN►E- SOD VPh on MU�Or 5Wr-e+ 0 Cb+D I 0- bV-p'l OPPYDI-61es) 150 Vp h DV) NI na✓ Sircc-+ �p{ a hrs C4 Ccn, GVr -nc,c ci0 2, `ln+urup+hor, vP -76o Vp>, S1-r�� (A-pkrl both G4 `76 Vpr M{nDe' Pt'�Ghe- h a ((Mc,ior J1U r S \,1rs o S G11 GPI e�-G,G e, 6 n j, . 3 M►tAIMUNt F6t) S-rZlv;Q VDLuMC — 6000 vpti C�D41_ bD-�) NO Gli,r L)nons Oh Mc. jor Skree_•i- W i �h 15o pedesA-rV s pu 4. � C�1001r CQoss�tiG -- Wllen 6&eeCA �^A4o �aF, less D C.c� r NO 60 '� ��'.JCa1<�SSI�JE MpVEMGr•1"r' SlGj11G��7��on 11� �21p�{ -}t, � j� MrAmi- kin pTbpe.0 �MUpinj ok \6Vj,CrleS and 1D hrDl �rwP S� eed. (0. CGIpaN-f eypc-lZaEnlGC — 1-\vC otZ more 6C.L1G1en+s K0 o o -h)pe czrrec-'We bu (A 1'r'4Ac, sitncil w�4411n G 12- rnorkh pec�vc1. V `7. Sy5T6mS WAr2zAt,4T - when the \f4ersec4hDn 0� Al,,�Jo q0 or more rn&401- mines has a -6W o� c�A lest (600 \,).e6cles OLAr „n q �e Pec,ti hot,�� o� G p►c� I t�eekd�� or for 5 h rs A�Urd0cj_ b,r Su►,ct,-�A. App Iles - D mc�lor Cook e.s d r\ I, . 4.1 d e.A ned in SeL+ On :Q-cl b4- -Fhc MUT(,(J... — Wc�rrG�i-s � 1�2,3 Gyre sG�s��l of �e re�u,recl �lalues. Whe,re 4wo or more o� YES At, -4 e ex+f,64 t,f bo'I �` W s� �`i" D � �s-�-t r.� � I �-fu�..;l�� cL� e � r...� �- n�a I-� ►�,,.� r4�-�=r{.ti,-- S"+��-..� .��'•'� / `Ar ark. is y: b 1 •^ �'• . • // y LZ � -17- :�77iik- t. ti �• At; `4YA .2...Y t 1. � .. \yam' _ _ -� ..k `:.lp� 1• ♦� i •(: yTYyt yyt •4 C y?' � Ay yam}.. y' ` �'4'' 1 r' ' �{. S �T Y .� �.�'=•9x 1 y i ,yam } r�.�..' y.s,e:.:._.. ..a� .� aC. c ..:G .�'V �+...s. . ;: ter.:-�'�9i... � r4srn...-i._. ..•-. REVISED June 16, 1986 • TO HE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT STREET F EVALUATION FOR IL.E AGENCI' USE ONLY e. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation op- portunitics to be provided by the projcct or applicant, if any: As this is a small commercial development, recreational facilities are not considered to be an important factor to be considered. 13. Historic and Cultural Prescry tion a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local prescr- vation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so. generally describe. None identified. b. Ger,crallN describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeologic:!. scientiriic. or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. None. c. Proposed mc_sures to -.-duce or control irnoacts, if any: N/A • 1-. Transportation a. Idc-;ify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access tO the cristir._ street sl•stem. Shoe on site plans. if an,.. Traffic access to the site is provided by Puget Drive (SR-524) and by Olympic View Drive. Access to the existing street system is via two (2) driveways. One is located on Puget Drive and the other on Olympic View Drive. b. is site currently served by public transit'? If not. %vhat is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop". Community Transit provides service to the site (Transit routes are: #140, 416, 740, 870). Bus stops are located at the intersection of SR-524/Olympic c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have" How many would the View. project c!iminate'? Thirteen stalls provided. Parking areas are not marked on the :existing property. d. W: I the proposal require any new roads or streets. or improvements to existing roads or sire-_:s. nut includiniz, driveways" If so. �ienerallv describe (indicate whether public or priv:te'I. There will be a 10' wide property line dedication along Puget Drive to the City of Edmonds. Recommended improvements are included in the attached Traffic Report. See "Mitigating Measures" section of the attached Traffic Report. e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transporta- tion'? If so. ;enerally describe. 0 No. C. Hu%v many vehicular trip, per day would be generated by the completed project'? If knu%vn. indicate %vhcn peak volumes Vuld ,occur. 1,100 new daily trips. Peak volumes would occur 7 to 9:00 a.m. and 4 to 6:00 p.m., on weekdays. See attached Traffic Report for additional information. _a- REVISED June 16, 1986 TO 1 t CUnll Hl' APITICnn'1 A t ` A I \ AL.t!ATIC) FUR u ft,L's [ 01: L )' g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: See attached Traffic Report. 14 • 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: firs pro- tection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so. ecncr:,lly describe. No, only typical police, fire and aid services will be required. b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if an).. N/A 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities curre available at the site- electricity, atura ca , ater use ser - Ic elepho Itar� sewer septic system, other. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity %;-hich micht be neLdcd. Natural Gas - Washington Natural Gas Electric service - P.U.D. of Snohomish County Sanitary Sewer - City of Edmonds. Telephone service - General Telephone C.SIGnATUReNo offsite utility construction activity is anticipated. The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowled2e. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature:»'t ....... . ................. Date Submitted: REVISED June 18 - 1986 ................................... -10- STREET FILE t o 1 Y TRAFFIC/IMPACT ANALYSIS OLYMPIC VIEW RETAIL DEVELOPMENT (SR-524 AT OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE) Prepared For: COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES Submitted To: CITY OF EDMONDS DUNE 1986 CENTRAL ASSOCIATES INC TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR OLYMPIC .VIEW RETAIL .DEVELOPMENT (SR-524/Puget Drive at Olympic View Drive) Prepared by: Centrac Associates, Inc. Prepared for: Commercial Design Associates Jurisdiction: City of Edmonds 7 1986 _. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 Street/Highway System 3 Existing Traffic Conditions 4 Traffic Volumes and Levels -of -Service 4 Accident Experience 4 Transit 5 TRAFFIC IMPACTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 5 Trip Generation and Assignment 5 Projected Traffic Volumes and Levels -of -Service 7 Safety, Parking, Pedestrian and Truck Impacts 9 Signal Warrant Analysis 11 PROPOSED MITIGATION--STREET/ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS 13 REFERENCES 17 APPENDIX Existing Traffic Counts and Turning Movement Summaries Trip Generation and Distribution Calculations Level -of -Service Calculations FIGURES 1. Vicinity Map 2 2. Trip Distribution and Site Traffic Volumes-- 8 AM/PM Peak Hours 3. Cha.nnelization/Access Improvements 14 TABLES 1. Trip Generation Summary 6 2. Hourly Volume Estimates and Signal Warrant Summary 12 INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the traffic analysis and findings by Centrac Associates for the proposed Olympic View Retail development on a site at the northeast corner of Puget Drive (SR-524) and Olympic View Drive intersection in Edmonds, Washington (see Figure 1). This traffic analysis documents the trip generation, traffic impacts, and recommended improvements for the proposed development.' The 0.45-acre site is currently zoned BN (Neighborhood Business) with 4,000 S.F. of total building floor area. A rezone is not required for the proposed land use. The development will consist of one building composed of a convenience store (2,400 S.F.), hair salon (800 S.F.) and insurance company (800 S.F.). The development may also include gasoline service with four (4) gas pumps.* Access to the proposed development would be provided via two driveways, with one driveway located on Puget Drive approximately 200 feet east of Olympic View Drive intersection and the other located on Olympic View Drive approximately 150.feet north of the intersection. Thirteen parking spaces (including one handicapped space) would be provided on -site for the retail and hair salon/insurance facilities. A truck loading area is also planned on the east side of the building. The primary sources of traffic volume data utilized for the traffic analysis were recent ATR (tube) counts taken by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) at the SR- 524/Olympic View intersection and supplemental turning movement counts taken'by Centrac Associates during the PM peak period. The machine counts by WSDOT were taken during October of 1982 and November of 1985, with the peak -hour turning movement counts . . -------------------- The developer's latest site plan includes gas pumps which may be retained or deleted subject to the review/approval by the City of Edmonds. . CENTRAC ASSOCIATES OLYMPIC VIEW RETAIL -_.TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY I FIGURE 1 .VICINITY MAP ow taken during May 1986. Centrac's signal warrant analysis is ' based upon warrants and methods as described in the latest edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Level -of -service calculations were based upon methods described in the Transportation Research Board's "Circular 212". EXISTING CONDITIONS Street/Highway System The existing street/highway in the vicinity of the proposed development is shown in Figure 1. Traffic access to the site would be provided via Puget Drive (SR-524) and Olympic View Drive. Puget Drive, which forms the south border of.the property, is classified as a major- arterial and is striped for two (2) traffic lanes plus a two-way left -turn lane (2WLTL). This State Highway (SR-524) connects I-5/Lynnwood with'.downtown Edmonds and the Edmonds -Kingston ferry. Olympic View Drive is a 2-lane collector arterial (4 lanes at its intersection with Puget Drive) which provides access to Perrinville and Meadowdale to the north. Speed limits are posted for 35 mph on Puget Drive east of the site (25 mph through downtown Edmonds), and .25 mph on Olympic View Drive. Curbs, gutters and sidewalks are presently provided on both sides of Puget Drive and on the west side of Olympic View Drive at the project site. Traffic control at the SR-524/Olympic View intersection consists of a 2-way flashing signal (spanwire mounted) with the SR-524 approaches flashing yellow and the Olympic View approach flashing red. Pedestrian signals have been installed on wood poles for the west crosswalk but are not presently in operation. The traffic signal controller is located on the southwest corner of the intersection_and mounted on a wood utility pole. `Pedestrian _ crosswalks are provided on the west and north approaches to the i me rs ect i on . 3 Existing Traffic Conditions Traffic Volumes and Levels -of -Service: Existing traffic counts on Puget Drive (SR-524) in the vicinity of the site indicate that this roadway handles approximately 12,500 vehicles per day (vpd) and 8,700 vpd to the west and east, respectively, of Olympic View Drive. Olympic View Drive presently carries apprximately 3,900 vpd on an average weekday. The "street" peak hour on Puget Drive occurs between 4:30 and 5:30 PM with a two-way volume of 1400 vehicles per hour (vph) west of Olympic View and 950 vph east of Olympic View. The Olympic View peak hour occurs between 4:00 and 5:00 PM with a two-way volume of 520 vph (see existing peak -hour turning movement volume summaries included in the Appendix). The worst levels of congestion and longest delays to motorists will generally occur during the PM peak period. A measure of the relative congestion levels can be made by comparing the level - of -service (LOS) at intersections., Level -of -service relates traffic volume demand to capacity and can range from LOS "A" ' (free -flow) conditions) to LOS "F" (forced -flow or jammed conditions) , with LOS "E'" being capacity conditions. LOS "D" (tolerable delays at intersections) is generally considered adequate for urban intersections. The stop -controlled Olympic View approach at the SR-524/Olympic View intersection presently operates at LOS "D" for the critical left -turn movement during the PM peak. The stopped vehicles experience significant delays at times waiting for adequate gaps in SR-524 traffic. All other movements at this intersection operate at LOS "B" or better. Accident Experience: According to accident records supplied by WSDOT District #1, there have been three (3) total accidents at the intersection of SR-524/Olympic View Drive for the 3-year period beginning January 1, 1983 and ending December 31, 1985. 0 1 These accidents involved one injury and a total of approximately $2,900.in property damage. Two of the three accidents occurred in 1983 and the other occurred in 1985. (' Transit: Community Transit of Snohomish County presently r#416, operates four bus routes adjacent the proposed site: Route #140, #740 and #870. Route #416 is operated through a contract with Metro Transit of King County and provides bus service to downtown Seattle. Routes #140 and #340 provide service between Edmonds, Lynnwood and Mountlake Terrace serving such trip ' attraction centers as downtown Edmonds, the Lynnwood Park-n-Ride, Edmonds Community College and Alderwood Mall. Far -side bus stops are presently located on all approaches to the SR-524/Olympic ' View intersection. No increase in existing transit ridership is expected as part of the retail development and no new transit ' facilities are planned. I TRAFFIC IMPACTS, OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ' Traffic Generation and Assignment ' Daily and peak -hour trips generated by the Olympic View Retail Development were estimated using trip generation statistics assembled by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (I.T.E. ' Trip Generation, 1982). Based on trip generation studies of similar developments, many of the trips generated by the proposed ' convenience store and gas station facilities would be diverted from the existing traffic stream. In order to estimate new trips generated by the proposed development, a 45% diversion for convenience store customers and a 55% diversion for gasoline customers has been assumed (i.e. 55% of all convenience store trips and 45% of all gasoline trips would be new trips). Daily and peak -hour trips generated by the various land uses of the ' proposed development on -an average --weekday are summarized in Table 1. S TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Area Total (New) Trips Generated Generator S.F. AWDT AM Peak2 PM Peak IN OUT IN OUT Retail Store 2,400 500 1�825) 66 66 56 56 (Convenience) (36) (36) (31) (31) Gas Station _ 4 pumps 532 4 3 8 7 (234) (2) (1) (3) (3) Hair Salon 800 33 2 2 2 2 Insurance 800 9 1 1 1 1 Total Trips w/Gas Pumps 2,074 73 72 67 66 (New Trips) (1,101) (41) (40) (37) (37) Total Trips w/o Gas Pumps 1,542 69 69 59. 59 (New Trips) (867) (39) (39) (34) (34) 1 Total "new" trips excludes local "passerby" trips by assuming a 45% diversion of existing traffic for convenience store trips and a 55% diversion for gas station trips. 2 For "worst hour" street peaks--7:00-8:00 AM, and 4:30-5:30 PM. 6 When fully constructed and assuming 100% occupancy of the retail buildings, the proposed development would generate approximately 1100 new vehicular trips on the average weekday, with the gas pumps (870 without the pumps).. It is estimated that 74 of these trips will occur during the critical PM peak* (only 68 vph without the pumps). During the.PM peak, the estimated directional split is 50% departures and 50% arrivals. Based upon existing traffic counts and the location of the proposed site with respect to existing residential areas, trip attraction centers and regional routes (I-5, Highway 99, etc.) it is estimated that 50% of arrivals and departures will orient to/from the west via SR-524, 35% to/from the east via SR-524, and 15% to/from the north via Olympic View Drive. Trip arrivals and departures were assigned to the existing street system assuming this distribution pattern and are shown in Figure 2. Projected Traffic Volumes and Levels -of -Service The additional 1100 daily and 74 PM peak trips generated by the retail/gas station complex were combined with the existing adjacent street traffic to estimate daily and PM peak volumes for 1987, when construction and full occupancy of the subject development is scheduled for completion. Av.erage weekday traffic volumes (AWDT) would increase by approximately 4.5% on SR-524 and 4% on Olympic View Drive with the proposed project. Both arterials have sufficient capacity to handle this increased volume. At the intersection of SR-524 and Olympic View, projected 1987'PM peak -hour volumes were analyzed for three critical movements=- southbound right -turn and left -turn from Olympic View, and the eastbound left -turn from SR-524. Projected 1987 PM peak 2-way -------------------- The PM peak is more critical than the AM peak.for the traffic impact analysis, since the existing PM peak hourly volumes on the adjacent street system are significantly higher than AM peak volumes. 1 t ! �d)pC) Q J 11 (10) 7 1 (7) -� 1 - OLYMPIC VIEW (10) - ��-- RETAIL! (23)._ SR-524 J7 PUGET DR. ' 7 7 28 _29 _ SR-524__l )' (7) -�( 7)—.*! (27) (27) '25- 30 (27.) 30 _ ('27) (23). I 5 0 /0 3 5 /o TCENTRAC ASSOCIATES LEGEND ' 28 AM PEAK TRIPS (27) PM PEAK TRIPS <5=0% TRIP DEPARTURE 96 OLYMPIC VIEW — TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY F i g u r e' --2 --- =-- - TRIP DISTRIBUTION AND .__-_-.:SLTE:-.TRAFFIC VOLUMES___ _-__ (AM/PM PEAK HOURS) volumes of 1470 and 1000 vph west and east of Olympic View Drive on SR-524, respectively, can be expected with a 2-way volume of 550 vph on Olympic View. Assuming the existing intersection geometrics and stop control, all movements would operate at LOS "B" except the critical left -turn movement from Olympic View which would experience significant delays (LOS "E") while waiting for gaps in SR-524 traffic. This is.due to the impedance created by the heavy eastbound SR-524 through and left turning traffic during the PM peak. With proposed mitigation (see "Mitigating Measures" Section) the projected level -of -service can be improved. from LOS "E" to "D". If the proposed project is constructed without the gas pumps, a 20% reduction in daily site traffic (AWDT) can be expected. However, since gasoline trips account for only 8% of PM peak ' trips to/from the site, elimination of the pumps would not appreciably affect the operating levels -of -service on the ' adjacent roadways during the PM peak. The level -of -service during the PM peak at the SR-524/Olympic View intersection would ' remain at LOS "E" (w/existing geometrics) and LOS-"D" (w/proposed mitigation) with or without the gasoline pumps. The majority of ' the trips (84%) generated during the critical peak period (4:14- 5:15 PM) are convenience store related. Safety, Parking, Pedestrian and Truck Impacts Providing driveway accesses on existing arterials can degrade traffic flows and/or create additional hazards if the driveways are not properly located and the impacts of new turning movements are not adequately mitigated. Single driveways off SR-524 and Olympic View Drive are proposed for the new development at approximate locations of existing site driveways. Each driveway would provide full access (all turning movements permitted) to the site. Both driveways would operate at LOS "A".during the critical PM peak period with existing roadway geometrics. Exiting left turn movements from the two "full access" driveways A could be safely negotiated (adequate sight distance available) without significant delays in waiting for adequate gaps in traffic stream. If a future traffic signal were installed at the SR-524/Olympic View intersection, the SR-524 driveway could be limited to inbound movements only (as recommended by WSDOT District #1) to prevent conflicts with queued westbound vehicles at the signal. Parking spaces for the proposed retail/gasoline station development would be provided on -site without any parking required off -site, adjacent to bordering streets. A total of 13 new parking spaces would be provided. At present, curb parking is not permitted on streets adjacent to the proposed development. Pedestrian facilities proposed at the project site would consist of: Sidewalks on streets adjacent to the proposed development and crosswalks at the SR-524/Olympic View intersection. No additional pedestrian facilities are planned or necessary. Signs are posted on SR-524 warning motorists of the crosswalk at the Olympic View intersection. A truck loading area for the development is currently planned adjacent to the east side of the new buildings. Due to the space limitations of the proposed site and to reduce conflicts during peak traffic periods, it is recommended that truck access to the site be limited to single -unit type trucks during working hours (8 AM - 6 PM). Larger trucks, such as those needed to service the gasoline pumps would access the site during off-peak hours and at night. The proposed right -turn deceleration lane at the SR-524/Puget driveway could also be used as a secondary load/unload area for larger trucks to minimize turning and on - site conflicts with customer vehicles. � 10 Signal Warrant Analysis As requested by the City of Edmonds, Centrac has performed a signal warrant analysis for the SR-524/Olympic View intersection to determine if signalization is required due to the additional. traffic generated by the proposed Olympic View Retail development. Centrac's analysis and methodology is based upon warrants and guideliness as described in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Division IV, Section 4C-1 through 4C-12. As stated in the MUTCD, "Traffi.c control signals should not be installed unless one or more of the signal warrants in this Manual are met". ' Warrant 1, Minimum Vehicular Volume - This warrant is satisfied when, "for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street -and on the higher -volume minor street approach t.o the intersection". MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUMES FOR WARRANT 1 ' Vehicles per hour on Number of lanes for moving traffic Vehicles per hour on higher -volume mi- on each approach major street (total of nor -street approach Major Street Minor Street both approaches) (one direction only) . ' 1................ I................ 500 150 2 or more........ I ................ 600 150 2 or more........ 2 or more........ 600 200 1................ 2 or more........ 500 200 NOTE: An "average day" is defined as "a weekday representing traffic volumes normally and repeatedly found at the -location".. J ■ To estimate future traffic volumes at the SR-524/Olympic View ' intersection for a "typical" weekday, Centrac estimated hourly volumes for the retail development for a typical 24-hour period. These estimated site traffic volumes were then added to existing hourly volumes on each approach_ to the i ntersecti on -(uti l izi ng recent WSDOT counts). Using this methodology, projected hourly 1. volumes were estimated as shown in Table 2. For three (3) hours I ABLE �. VEHICLE -VOLUME SUMMARY Department of Highways Traffic Operations -Date 5 =1(D -8(n Prepared by Mr--( S.R.5TA I?uGtT DRIVE Lanes 3 Speed 30 at 004mPIG VIEW bRIyE Lanes 2 Speed 25 51121JAL WA=Ar4T Va. MATO= /"Imorz lime major Major Minor Minor A 1 LegsBasic/ I Interval Leg Le Tota,7 Leg Leg Total I Total Interruot SR - 5z4- SR-5 SQ-5Z4. IayM. VW OQ. t1L`IM. Yu 1 1 I SDD�� 1-150/ -r u sT ISO ua0u►1 1 I 1 75 00-0100 1 ZS I Z6 I Gto 1 0 1 D 5(o 01-0200 1 J4 1 i 8 O o 2 02-0300 0 1 14 1 14, 1 a o14 03-0400 14 04-0500 0 14 1 14 1 1 14, 1 2$ 05-0600 53 1 Re 1 I 1" 1 153 06-0700 1 I D 1 I -7 0 1 2 S4- 1 1 84- 1 3s5 07-0800 I 23i I ?-15 1 512 2) 1 I 700 08-0900 00 1 3 4$ 1 IqS I 1 110 1 5440 1✓ 09-1000 "_& p 1 S I (0 I 5 Z WZ. I -7 S� 10-1100 323 So &Z& I I Z 147- l(o CLOSt 11-1200 S51 Z35 toSto I 14-Z. I4-7- -7 C.� 12-1300 40(o S47 -153 1 1(4- 1 1 II (v7 I I ✓ 13-140 0 1 4-T & 21 R `I 55 I 114 1 1 114- c1 1 14-1500 4-15 1 5+9 1 81 2 12q I 94-.S I✓ 15-1600 S80 4-06 1 1 8b I ISO 30 1 Illb I✓ 16-1700 15 4(o q I I ZZ3 1 1,91 1 157 1 14-10 17-1800 -7¢ 38 1 1i8I 1 II II(o 1 1303 ✓ 18-19oo 4to2 1 2-7 q 141 1 1 21b JZB I 6A 19-2000 2q0 23 3 5Z3 1 q q I CJq I (o22 20-2100 'LID 17 (0 4-Wv 1 44 1 1 44 1 SID 21-2200 228 143 3-7I 1 Z9 I I V1 I 4C)o 22-2300 12(v 1 S1 183 1 .42 1 42 1 t25 23-2400 I 5 (o I ZS I `b4 I I I D I S4- I 1 TOTAL I (0(0 10 I 5010 20 S(o I 12oS(,7 SI(aNAL. W/aQ.RANT ME,'f ? VcJAR{Z��JT � I N0 I KO � 2- of an average weekday, signal warrant 9 Y� s9 volumes are satisfied. Thus, future signalization of the SR-524/Olympic View intersection is not warranted based upon MUTCD Warrant #1. Warrant 2, Interruption of Continuous 'Traffic - This warrant is satisfied when, "for each of any 8 hours of an average day, the traffic volumes given in the table below exist on the major street and on the higher volume minor street approach to the ' intersection". MINIMUM VEHICULAR VOLUMES FOR WARRANT 2 Number of lanes for moving traffic Vehicles per hour on on each approach Vehicles per hour on higher -volume mi- ' Major Street Minor Street major street (total of both approaches) nor -street approach (one direction only) I................ I ...... ... 2 or more........ 1................ mil) ' 2 or more........ 2 or more........ 1 yp o RX) ................ 2 or more........ 750 00 1W ' The purpose of Warrant #2 is to provide signalization p g alization where excessive hazard or delay exists for minor street .traffic entering or crossing the high -volume major street. From Table 2, projected traffic volumes meet signal warrant volumes for six (6) ' hours of an average weekday. Therefore, signalization'of the SR-524/Olympic View intersection can not be justified based upon MUTCD Warrant,#2. Thus, despite recent channelization improvements at the Olympic Ave./Olympic View Dr. intersection to ' the north (which increased traffic volumes on Olympic View Drive at SR-524) and the proposed site development, signalization .i's not warranted at the adjacent intersection. 1 PROPOSED MITIGATION--STREET/ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS The following street/channelization, traffic control and access ' improvements (as shown in Figure 3) will be provided by the developer to mitigate the traffic and safety impacts of the ' proposed Olympic View Retail Development: 1 13 - Provide 30-foot wide driveways onto Puget and Olympic View Drives to accommodate ingress and egress turning movements. Standard turning radii would be provided for the curb return at the SR-524 driveway. Note: Circulation at gas pumps should not be striped to provide flexibility and minimize travel for customers and to eliminate the potential safety hazard at Olympic driveway (prior site plan had vehicles exiting from gas pumps at entry point from Olympic View Drive). - Extend 5-foot wide concrete sidewalks (and curb and gutter section) along Olympic View Drive adjacent to the project site per City of Edmonds standards. New wheel -chair ramps would be constructed at the existing crosswalk of Olympic View Drive and at the SR-524 driveway location. - Construct a new westbound right -turn deceleration lane at the SR-524 driveway to separate the site ingress traffic from through traffic destined for downtown Edmonds and ferry dock. Extension of right -turn lane west to the Olympic View intersection is not justified since turning volume is light (only 20 vph during PM peak) and since this would also reduce the right -turning radius at the intersection. However, the developer will dedicate 10 feet of property along Puget Drive (SR-524).for future street widening (additional lane) by'the City of Edmonds. - Construct truck loading zone east of the retail building to minimize on -site conflicts between truck and customer vehicles. ' - Extend the two-way left -turn (2WLTL) west to the SR-524/Olympic intersection to accommodate the critical left -turn egress ' movement from Olympic ingress/egress View Drive, as well as left -turn to/from residential driveway to south of the .intersection (requires removal of existing traffic buttons and ' striping revisions as shown on Figure 3). This improvement would it 1 15 ti significantly reduce the peak -hour delay (by approximately 50%) for stopped Olympic View vehicles and improve the traffic safety for all turning and through movements at this intersection. - Willing to participate in funding of a future traffic signal at SR-524/01ympic View intersection, when MUTCD volume warrants are satisfied for 8 hours of the day and other potential funding sources (City/State/Federal).have been identified. The developer agrees to contribute his proportionate share of the construction cost, with fee amount based on the 4-5% increase in daily traffic volumes at this intersection. IG REFERENCES ' 1. "Trip Generation," Institute of Transportation Engineers, Third Edition, 1982. 2. "Interim Materials on Highway Capacity," Circular 212, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 1980. ' 3. "Design Manual," Washington State Department of Transportation, Olympia, Washington, Current Edition. 4. "Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways," U.S. Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway ' Administration, September 1984 Edition. 1 ' 1-7 +rc� 7 i LOCATION CH=C: K D Z)ATE '-iNTER5ECT1oN 5Q 524 ' OL-ImPl C \/l5w DZ, Loc . No. 52 5Z4- (PuC1E-r t>c1 vt )i PR0.3EGT _OLD M- PJ-C . V. I q W.. FETAJ- - Jog L co4uzG I .... _ _. Engineers • Architects • Planners INDICATE NORTH WITH ARRow J� 5NEE-' TURNING i �tAG�;A`ri TIME PERIoD DAY 4 DATE T�ua 1SIIS/cY-e i I 01 t"1, �'_ L T S o � 20 -TIME PERIoD ¢: oo —�, vo Pry DAY DATE r� 0 4 ?-to I 2l0 �i LTA ILLSCIS cn , �ll l I � I 239 v I 13 N N Ln •i- { TRAC SHEET: �OF - C EN BY: M1 y DATE 15 ' ASSOCIATES CHECKED: '-/U DATE S/L-8(o PROJECT OLYN/v/C ViEw e5-rA/L JOB NO. S(L SUBJECT )RA9'F/ GE�•1�2A-riOr.l /l�r�-rP�r�.i-rr��l 1 R I p Ca 5 r4EZ-A-r i of 6AS 5-r/x-jlot l �i c2 TTE 544) 4 PL) m -P A w D-r = �}- (I 3 3= S 3 Z (7D�tx► Trz.r s A-5- mL: Sbo . dF ,Aw-DT -m-,PL RETp/L_ - (4, DOD SF 7V7AL� Z4D 0 sr goo SF 500 SF �&,l V 541 Fitt CAP - -5 TOR rn 6LI z AA/C F 5F CON VENT eiXe (NEW --TziPs� /Vi &JTEIZ = /. 00 (4 ) X-46"L 75 (4 3 u,4(o= I 1.5.s (4) _ x.4-Z = 3 = / 75 -7 u . 4-2 = 3 C % ETz .7-75 5 EGTI a n1 g 51 P6,e zr6 sc'cTio>J S51 45/ DF Pr-11 T]?AFF)C. A-(A-'PAs.`E,Z��/.(f nod new - rl p gene- 0-6-, fl on) TRIPS. -TD -na L Aw z�-r - Cn Z5.2 (Z , 4-) = )'Soo (-rarer Trz.r Ps � Q.1Etil ?iZt is AwD?= ISoo �.SS� = 8zS (Assume �o�� ►� �0�1� ouT �� P�i� -re.ns) CENTRAL sHEET: 2— OF ' ASSOCIATES BY : �1r,-4 DATE CHECKED: Tug— DATE PROJECT i7 IMPIC VIEW P,5 rA'L' JOB NO. 6 [I "IZ3 SUBJECT -TTZL��4�1 _ /-aFnlEfzATl�r.l %D1�71ZiRUT1 or.l Can1VEo I EntGE 57v12-F_ Tomu NEW Tle! PS AM FeA s< t—�mTm _ LAt -r (Z,+- x • ;o PM T5AIL ENTE _ GxiT = 4(0, -7 X . ro _ S(v X �AIZ SA��.1 (USE ATE SEc.ncrl '�1�. ) 4-o.-1 (. 2) _ 3 t� CE (`pez r, E S6c7nop.j = 9 AM PEAK EN-IEv, ::- Ex 1.-r = Z.3 6,a� _ r Z 2 7-0—rALs A-- Mt, llzt (532,) (/6,vv) (207+� (ZD 74) hv/ SpY I100 (4) (G6) /IM P6A K ENTE-R = Z -i- 3 ( f t -� r . = 4-1 C-73) �1 S(o f Z r 4-0 C72) PA-1 PEAK ENTrz = 3 f 31 + Z r I = 37 ((o-7.) Ex r = 3 + 31 -F Z C7) C5�) -t'2►�s ToTq.L NC.�J �e�Ps Am C .Jo-�rU. C7(5 ')/bz LEr�o t-W cm 04-J OL.�j M C- Ij I E�LA) 'DR (PM -40 4-51 aI L IJ! rt I 1 U 1 1 Unsignalized "T" Intersection Capacity Calculation Form Interaction S?-- SZ4- (� a\i m a e_ m FN1 D 2 Location Plan: 479 --- Counts: J� Date STZ- cJ_T Day. A 430 Iaf4 301 B Time 21 4—) Control OLyM Y Prevailing Speed Hourly Demand Traffic Volumes from to Approach A T B 7 C �Y Movement Ar— A, 1 B,, ` Br C,. --\ CR r' Volume ¢ 21 3a/ 473 /eir7 pch 9 we Tahlc l I531 Z Step I R*ht Turn from C Conflicting Flows = MH = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _ Capacity from Fig. 2 = Shared Lane — See Step 3 No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (fable 3) Step 2 Left Turn from B Conflicting Flows = MH = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _ Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (table 3) Step 3 Left Tum from C Conflicting Flows = MH = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 Ti = Capacity from Fig. 2 = Adjust for Impedance No Sham Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (table 3) Shared Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Right Turn Capacity of Shared Lane = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (fable 3) C, 1/2 AR + Ar = _L1_+ = 4-4-1 (p,a sec M.v,=M,= 5 an CR = Z! Ph LDS "S'• B,• r AR + Ar = --?=I— + -12,CL. = 4 �L sec M"O = Ms = BL = —315L Pch 100 (BL/M,) _ % P, _ M,—B,, "A Ltd " A � C,. 1 Ii2AR + Ar + BL + Br = +'_30+11� +473= 772- _� • sec MH, MN. XP2=M'= Pch CL = PC* M, - CL Los �0 CR+CL=CAL= _ (CR + C,,) M" (CR/M,) + (C,,/M,) M w = Pre M 13 — CAL = PC* i m Unsignalized "To' Intersection Capacity Calculation Form Intersection 152' 5Z4 ''> OLYM PIC b k] D77—! V6 Location Plan: Counts: 50c) --z= Date 5 Z4 Day. As B Time _ Control _ �l �4."dcJ "'lY Prevailing Speed DLyaq/ V-W Hourly Demand Traffic Volume from to m Approach A T B 7 C —y— Movement Ar — AR , Br, % Br f CL '\ CR /' Volume 45S 21 p 50,0 24 pch hcc Trhic l i _..: ..: ;: , ...: .. , , 2 .: .... . :. . 2Lo Step I Right Turn from C Conflicting Flows = Mn = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _ Capacity from Fig. 2 = Shared Lane — See Step 3 No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Step 2 Left Tltrn from B Conflicting Flows = MR = (from Fig. I ) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _ Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Step 3 Left Turn from C Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _ Capacity from Fig. 2 = Adjust for Impedance No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Shared Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Right Turn Capacity of Shared Lane = ' Available Reserve = - - Delay & Level of Service (rabic 3) Overall Evaluation L—OS u E 1 1/2R1"1 + 465 = 44 &A 0 sec M.vo = Ca Los "zN1- CR = 34 Pry B,, C. �Cfo7 f M f��AK W/O 2AJLTL uSE o,,j sz- Sz 4- AR + Ar = 21 + 4S5 = 41(o 5 • D sec MNo = Ms = 73a PM BL = Vch 100 (BL/M=) = 4& % p= = Mz—BL Lis " 19 O C, 1/2AR + Ar + BL + Br = I +4:�-5+3M+sao= 30S Pa Z , S sec MN. = MN,xP,=M3= SS PC CL = 2(0 P. M,—CL= —P, EN, 0 CR+CL=CRL = -Ph _ (CR + CL) Mla (CR/Md + (CL/M,) M13 = PrA M 13 Car. = PM- 0 qe rvten�S I 1 1 `r 1 1 1 I I. 1 Unsignalized "T" Intersection Capacity Calculation Form Intersection Location Plan: Counts: 50 p "OF _ Date Day A T 3Og B Time �� Za(O Control ZI C/ f y M P. f Prevailing Speed Hourly Demand Traffic Volumes from to . : m Approach A T B 'r C Movement A, — AR 1 BL % Br — CL —\ CR Volume 456 Z I 5D6 Z4' ZOL pch i�Y TaMc I I 33 210 2 Step I Right Turn from C Conflicting Flows = MN = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _ Capacity from Fig. 2 = Shared Lane — See Step 3 No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Step 2 Left Turn from B Conflicting Flows = Mx = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _ Capacity from Fig. 2 = Demand = Capacity Used = Impedance Factor from Fig. 3 = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (fable 3) Step 3 Left Turn from C Conflicting Flows = My = (from Fig. 1) Critical Gap from Table 2 T, _ Capacity from Fig. 2 = Adjust for Impedance No Shared Lane Demand = Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Shared Lane Demand = Shared Lane with Right Turn Capacity of Shared Lane = I Available Reserve = Delay & Level of Service (Table 3) Overall Evaluation L0 S ~ D C, I1R+�55- —L011L sec M.Y. = M, C,Q M, — CR Los "B' O AR + Ar = _ Z► + vpk 5• P sec MN. = M2 = 30 xA BL = �'' -- Dch 100 (BJM2) _ 0 % P2 _ �• ( �6 M2 — Bi _9 I peA C,, 'kAR+Ar+BL+Br= 11 +9�5+iv+� = 05 -7, 5 sec �J MNn = 23 o W, MI. xP2=Ma= 15� PcA CL Los " ��' CL = 12 0 CR + CL = CRL = yrA (CR + CL) M" (CR/M,) + (CL/M,) M w = D,,A MI] — CRL = PEA rct I�1bn -Fm � �k w/ zw L:-r u S t7� SrL -S� ?7,,ad s/3 6 /" 89p-194 STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - 5th AVE N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (206) 771 -3202 COMMUNITY SERVICES: Public Works ® Planning o Parks and Recreation a Engineering May 30, 1989 LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR Mr. Tom Stickland P. 0. Box 338 Edmonds, WA. 98020 SUBJECT: OLYMPIC VIEW DELI Dear Mr. Strickland: It has been brought to my attention that your gasoline supplier is using dual tanker trucks for filling the buried gas tanks. It was the Engineering Division's understanding during the review process for this project that only single unit trucks would be used. You may recall that traffic and the maneuverability of trucks both on and off the site was a concern. I would appreciate your review of the type of trucks used and make the appropriate change. If this causes you a problem, please give me a call. ' Sincerely, ROBERT J. ALBERTS, P.E. City Engineer RJA/sdt OLYVWDLI/TXTST530 o Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan TF— PL,4-s a ,A- TILE IT a STREET FILE w A 5 T-�. Ott 550 CITY OF E D M O N D S LARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 5th AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771-3202 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR April 18, 1986 Mr. Carl Pirscher Commercial Design Associates, Inc. 4230 198th St. S.W. Lynnwood, WA 98036 RE: Withdrawal of Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for CU-13-86 Dear Carl: • Pursuant to WAC-197-11-340 (3)(ii) and WAC-197-11-600 (3)(ii), I am writing to confirm the withdrawal of the Mitigated Declaration of Nonsignificance for the proposed retail/gasoline self-service complex at 1018 Puget Drive, Edmonds, under file #CU-13-86. The basis for this withdrawal is the lack of information contained in the environmental checklist regarding traffic impacts and the testimony presented at the public hearing that indicates a probable significant impact as a result of the proposed project. Before the City can continue processing your conditional use permit application, you must submit the following information to the City: 1. An amended environmental checklist addressing the issue of traffic impacts. 2. A detailed traffic analysis of the proposed project, prepared by a professional traffic engineer that addresses the following issues: a. The amount of vehicular traffic presently using Olympic View Drive and Puget Drive in the project vicinity. b. Peak hour traffic flows associated with the project. c. An analysis of the current traffic pattern including bus traffic. • d. Delivery Truck routes and turning movements on and off site. PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING PARKS AND RECREATION • ENGINEERING -Letter to Carl Pirscher CU-13-86 Page 2 rµ� 0 e. An impact analysis of the current street channelization in the project vicinity, including the intersections of Olympic View Drive and Grandview Avenue; and Olympic View Drive and Puget Drive. f. An impact analysis of turning movements created by the project. g. An analysis of the warrants for signalization of the Olympic View Drive/Puget Drive intersection, based upon proposed project h. The amount of vehicle trips that will be generated by the proposed project with and without the gasoline pumps. Once you have submitted the above requested information, I will reevaluate my SEPA determination within fifteen working days of its receipt. Si erely, I 1 uane V. Bowman Assistant City Planner cc: James Driscoll Dale Chandler / Chris Beckman V David Martin, Dept. of Transportation STREL'T FILE CITY OF E O M O N O S LARRY S. NAUGHTEN CIVIC CENTER - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 775-2525 MAYOR OFFICE OF THE MAYOR April 17, 1986 Frederick and Jeretta Graham 19316 Olympic View Drive Edmonds,.WA 98020 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Graham: .L�'V. 4..•.... 1•,�E...� APR 1 8 10966 COMMUNITY SERVICES DIR, First let me respond to your general statements before I address your specific concerns. I agree with your comments that the basic concept of government is to represent "the people" who live in a jurisdiction and pay taxes. I do however disagree with your statement that the -cur- rent governmental operation does not come close to that concept and that groups have expressed concerns to the City with very ,little positive response from the City. I feel the City is very responsive to the concerns of the public. You're not going to please everyone, but if you take care of 80% of the requests that is a good average. Given the City's present level of taxa- tion and employee levels, I'd say we have been responsive to the needs of our citizens. In fact, Edmonds has one of the lowest tax bases of all 19 cities in Snohomish County, and the lowest ratio of employees to citizens. The City works hard to provide a clean, safe, and liveable community and enjoys that reputation throughout Puget Sound. I personally know that the City has been very responsive to the public and I could give you hundreds of examples where we have helped citizens with their problems. Our recent Citizen Survey, the first in eleven years, reflects that the majority of our citizens are satisfied with the service levels the City provides. I have no idea what you are referring to about unethical and/or illegal.behavior to subvert or ignore the needs of individuals in the community. That is a fairly heavy indictment. I would really like to know if you have specific examples of any City employee who has engaged in these activities. This is unaccept- able as far as I'm concerned and I'd like the specifics. Now, let's answer your questions. Mr. and Mrs. Frederick Graham April 17, 1986 Page 2. INTERSECTION: Both the Traffic Engineer and the Police Depart- ment have reviewed this intersection and agree that there needs to be a redesign. The Traffic Engineer will schedule this analy- sis in May with recommendations to the City Council. The acci- dent history for 1985-86 shows five reported accidents at this intersection, indicating a problem. The Police Department does work Olympic View Drive with radar for violators, but from a resource/management standpoint, it doesn't have as high a priori- ty as other major arterials. The present design seems to con- tribute to the problem. The City has never used "speed bumps" to control traffic, but we are proposing these devices for a problem on 7th Avenue. They have been used in Bellevue to some success. STORM RUNOFF: This is a major problem throughout the city and is increasing as the City develops. By State law storm water cannot be diverted into the sanitary sewer system. During the storm season our streams and creeks overflow causing damage. We are embarking on a Comprehensive Stormwater Study. We need better information on dams, culverts, pipes, etc., and to set new policies for controlling the problems. One of the products of this study will be new guidelines and policies to deal with violators. I do understand City crews have repaired the curb near your home that was damaged. We did talk to the young man who had been washing his car about soap suds in the creek. We suggested that cars should be washed on the lawn and not on that street and he agreed. By the way, the Comprehensive Stormwater Study will include new aerial photos of the entire city with topography grids. The Study should be finalized in six months. My understanding on the William Lund property is that every- thing was done properly and legally. The owners of the lots wanted their trees removed fearing they were unsafe. They have the right to develop their property within standards. It appears you have had more than your share of problems - some we can correct, some we can improve or place more controls on. However, continual residential development impacts surrounding neighborhoods. This is the way any development must be accord- ing to our codes. In the past there may have been situations where this wasn't always the case. I don't know about that and I can't chase ghosts, but I can assure you that present and future development will :be by the Code and if not, we want to know about it.. Mr. and Mrs. Frederick Graham April 17, 1986 Page 3 I do feel you have a right to express your concerns and I would invite you to discuss them with Mr. Peter Hahn, or a member of his staff in the Community Services Department. Sincerely, CITY OF EDMOND Larry S. Naughten Mayor LSN/db cc: Peter Hahn, Director of Community Services Chief Dan Prinz, Police Department STREET FILE CITY OF E D M O N D S LARRY S. NAUGHTEN 250 51h AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 771.3202 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES PETER E. HAHN DIRECTOR April 14, 1986 Diane Malloy Commercial Design Association 4230 - 198th St. S.W. Lynnwood, WA. 980 ,�`5 SUBJECT: WATER, SEWER, STORM SYSTEM AVAILABILITY AT N.E. CORNER OF PUGET DRIVE & OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE Be advised, by this letter, that there is water, sewer and storm system availability at the above location. Very truly yours, 4 J,14� DAN SMITH Engineering Inspector DS/st Bob Alberts Dt Rhofida March Dt PUBLIC WORKS PLANNING PARKS AND RECREATION ENGINEERING MU-(-7C "CIA1 ST°EET HLE INC. SIATES 4�'30 198th OT S,W LYf 1' 1W WA -if T f 1Q= 77 1 -10 April 2, 1986 RECEIVED APR 1986 ENGINEERING CITY OF EDMONDS / 250 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 SUBJECT: WATER, SEWER AND STORM DRAINAGE for OLYMPIC VIEW RETAIL Edmonds, Washington Dear James: Our firm is in the process of developing plans for a building in your jurisdiction. The lenders have requested a written statement from you concerning water, sanitary sewer service, and storm water control availability to the site. In addition, please send the connection costs to these services and any easements of record. The legal description and preliminary site plan are attached. Your prompt response to this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Diane Malloy COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. D M/s ve Enclosures s t t a t 0 �� ° ,�t . 4 t •s . xy i j a s hill In . _n i r..— _.. .. .. . I r ....l.__ IS: u■w r ■rrr r alwrmole r rr rrrrrr w r r wrrrr■rrrrrrrrrr rorwr■r■■rrww■r■rrrr■r•rrrr■r■rr rrrrrr■rrrrr■wrr■ llir[i[�ii[iw�i't'lw""Ti lri '� wl'+�il'1■a"i'�i�wi['r■iii�iiiii�iiCa'fit'liiw'iii['iriirr[r'iiii"[iii[rie iiiir'[['iiiil'r+'iiii� Mom :eaaaaaaasaaaaeasaaeaaeaaaa SOUTHEAST ELEVATION 8 NORTHEAST ELEVATION - NORTHEAST NORTHWEST SOUTHWEST r rlrla eaeAral■laaa'11r1aaaaaMeaaaeaa'illal■Ieaeaalwfirlaaieaaaaaaeiaaal'/eiae�aaaa�eearleaaeeeiaeaei■Ilri�eaeaaaaal■Ilrlae�eaiiaii . ■MalrlaaM�raMare raeeeareaaa�aaa a'eee3aareeoaeaeeeeaeaaaesaaaaaaeaaseaeeeaaaaareaaaa::Ta:aa:..ea:aaaaee:e:esasa:e:see:::aeaaa:a::, rrr•rr ■ fHWEST ELEVATION MECHANICAL: WELL METAL COPING CONCRETE SHAKE —TILE 4" WOOD SIDING LATTICE SIGN.FASCIA ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM SOUTHEAST Ll 11CINITY MAP A27 1 TSS T Sr � ■� '' �, �» X11FAT I tt'V 1� a� 1 POorl r I - 1 lb A. i � MEs1 1 t¢ I a Ile • ai LN ' I ,. AtDAir 3 `£ARY EDMO S A UNDERWATER t PARK Y 1 Spa 11 5 DA N WA T NU 1 T _ lk N ELAND' /� tt WTI 'r 141MLOCK > ST U111L it 9f ES Rs N €'AA10 f ^ n PC):PARK R LN 1 fr A 5 C _ r[r[ t Di VMTA —, �}. AOT • ST SM a. r 1. N ST , ST > D By Tl �' [i r� an?Pl TH SM r itilstf..a RrocC s lC6TN j R i T AR > rw �U3T At�iADRt tic Pl 7DVTNzirl s. n ••s salrt �X� r Will t,r r 1 : wN tl •• A Nrr4 ow IT faim3 ST sft PL m s It TN 5r r t! Selk 1r r Z r M j> TST PL. Sr -4 1 Tol W4, DECIDUOUS TREE J 6'-8' HIGH O.C.EVERGREEN O.C. SITE PLAN PROJECT: DATA LOCATION: EDMONDS.WASHINGTON ZONED: BN (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS) PROPOSED USE: RETAIL/GASOLINE SERVICE SITE AREA: 19,400 SQ. FT. BUILDING AREA: 49000 SQ. FT. PARKING REQUIRED: 13 STALLS PARKING PROVIDED: 14 STALLS L E G A L l"j"'E S C R P" T 101 ORIGINAL PLAT NORTH EUMLNOS BLK 044 D-01 LOTS 1 L 2 ALSO BAAP NLY LN BLK 44 AT A PT 25FT SWLY OF NLY CUR SO BLK TH CCNT AL" WLY LN S38*34 IOW 85 FT TO C/L OF ALLEY BLK 44 TH S51*26 GOE ALG C/L OF ALLEY 13S FT M/L TO N LN CO RD TH N89*46 OOE ALG SO N LN 57.08F T Th NG8*j8 OuE 59.11FT M/L TAP 25FT SLY MEAS R/A FR NELY LN SO BLK 44 I-H N51*dia OOW 159.361- T M/L TO.TP8 AKA PAR A LESS ALL THAT PTN OF HEREINAFTER DESC PAR A LY WLY OF AN ARC CF CRV TO R HAV A RAC OF 36FT TH RAO CIR PT BEING OPPOSITE HWY ENG STATION 238 + 58.81 LN SR 524 LN SURV OF SR 524 EDMONDS JCT SR 104 TO 76TH AVE h & 55FT.NLY THEREFROM SD CRV EXT FROM EXST NLY R/W LN OF SU SR 524 WLY & NLY TO EXST SELY R/W LN OLYMPIC VIEW DR DEEDED TG ST OF WA. WO VOL 1707 PG 2695 AUD FILE NO. 8104300004 PUGET DRIVE 311A lanais NEW PROPERTY LINE OLD PROPERTY LINE Z 0 cn W 0. ®61�111101 r,0 DATE ORWG. b M CHECK JOB NO I Cj gam, Ii..j. I STREET FILE M E M O R A N D U M March 25, 1986 TO: Mayor Naughteen FROM: Peter Hahn fiv SUBJECT: Response to Mrs. Graham's Letters 1. The Lund Property Issues: Trees, Etc. Basically, Mrs. Graham does not like the fact that a property which had'been nice woods for a long time was developed. Everything was done properly and legally. Many of us, at one time or another, live next to. an undeveloped property which seems like a nice park or open space. Perhaps we live on a temporary dead end street. But cities grow and lots get sold to people who have a right to develop. 2. Traffic on Olympic View Drive. Definitely a problem -- she is right. This intersection and curve have been a problem for years. About 2 or 3 years ago the Council apparently addresed this problem and had a hearing -- that is when the current configuration was designed. There are still problems. I went out to look at it last year and told Mrs. Graham that we would . re-evaluate the situation when we get the new traffic engineer and when other work allows us. The main thing she wants is to get her boat out onto OVO -- she really thinks that because she has always done it, she has a right that comes ahead of the arterial traffic considerations. Unfortunately, with the curve, and with her high hedge, there is no way she can bring out her boat the way she used to. Our priority must be -the safety of motorists using the arterial, not her convenience. It appears that the only foolproof way to correct the problem will be to widen the paved surface and perhaps remove the hedge. Also, the island at the intersection of Olympic Avenue and OVD does need to be redesigned. I know she wants to be first on line, but with 7th, Ocean, the 1986 construction program needing to get out, we simply can't do them all at the same time. She does not like this answer -- but we are not giving her a runaround. Chris has been looking at the problem, compiling the accident history, and already looking at potential solutions. I am sure within 5-7 weeks we will have some alternatives ready for consideration -- perhaps before, depending on what happens on 7th. 3. Stormwater Run-off. Jerry Hauth had been contacted by Mrs. Graham, over the years and recently. This issue gets complicated. On one immediate problem, the break in a curb which directed run-off to a catch basin, Jerry directed City crews to repair the curb. This will prevent ponding on OVD. She also brings up problems about siltation on her dam and people washing cars near creeks and letting soap get into the creek. There is simply no way that we can have staff watching what people do near creeks. We cannot possibly watch for violation and go out each time someone washes a car and lets soap get into a creek -- we'd be doing nothing else. Storm drains do go into creeks and not into sanitary sewers -- that is what we are supposed to do, although Mrs. Graham does not agree. We also recognize that during 100 year storms every one will experience some problems. She worries about her dams -- but again, they will overflow during large storms. One thing worth mentioning is the Comprehensive Stormwater Study. We do need to have a better handle on what the system now has (dams, culverts, pipes, etc.) and some policies for handling problems. One of the products of the Study will be a comprehensive set of guidelines and policies to handle violations. But there is no way now we can accept responsibility for every situation similar to Mrs. Grahams. Summary: These issues get complicated. I will be happy to help you draft a reply if you need me. V�� STREET, FILE M E M O R A N D U M March 24, 1986 TO: Peter Hahn, Community Services Director FROM: Bob Alberts, City EngRkle-- SUBJECT: F.E. AND JERETTA C. GRAHAM COMPLAINTS LETTERS DATED MARCH 1986 Attached is Jerry Hauth's response to the storm drainage problem referenced in the Graham letter. The City is concerned about accidents on Olympic View Drive. The City's Traffic Engineer, Chris Beckman, is currently reviewing the history of accidents in the area, the causes for the accidents, and possible solutions to prevent or reduce the number of future accidents. The Grahams should be aware, however, that accidents aren't necessarily caused by the design of a road, or the increase in local traffic due to new developments. The driver could be the main contributor to any accident. RJA/st Attachments (3) "4. i j W I DE t-4 C v` 1 `i`0 FT TIC N p Kr -c��. �� 1�'i4 ��WHD OVD AT Mia M - r='- IT /a.'=,.-> C: L-C'5. TO. A. c5c>o POtSt> 1 R3 t. -S , ,a. DCP -s r O P f5' A < .UL_ PC-: 'SAC T pw aaT, e •�; � � :� .� +ii.r.www+w.w#�iww�arr�+MM.+��*^'+w �vw�wfwwww'�+rwrwwr�M+nNw tw+Wwibrwnrw+��Ww+�yr#.4�w+�w�wiw+u �ww+a+�a+�w,+re�nTYrrr++rrw�w+rirwrrwr�.�wmwmww`w,+nwn+w..yer�wwwiwM�yasv.K�waF�+�crtiro-vwwwM�rwwew�r �M!.w rw�rwmss4Ewr.a.....�.+++an.rF.usv.-,v.�f»r�e--rft+.Nun+wO-Y*e�+n�+++.wew+rwewwrir4+.+ww�.��+ssar�Wna�rw+«^w5wr.wrw.�vY.�+.wu+�wirwx�rtw��t.w+y'��.wMr`�+a>Mr+++MrYYYMaP��rwYs�wpy�wrwM.wM�wlAs�Y,/rseY.�inM*+YMKww!'�oi.wF��w4�a�M.wi.'.W.A�wn M�+ +MNk�Y��V�tM�e s'u.+y3i�wYPtAh=+�4r�y�u�'�a�n �mv�,�Wa�YY+Ypwu+i•+wrn�rMfYdw�+aW.wwxrwM�wn�rr•we' � ., �:,t F-a--A1 lc,�3N TH I=, O V, D A h.►c'::) O 1... YM PI C TO MAKE IT -At—> C.Lo5FE TO A 50-6 AS 1 :5'SIBLE PTO P=..: TURD 4 ON 70 OGYMPIC. tNEWUE. A SHEET ',o OFPoll �� STREET FILE CITY OF EOMONOS CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 • (206) 775-2525 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR March 18, 1986 MA 1 COMMUNITY SERVICES ��R• LARRY S. NAUGHTEN MAYOR F. E. and Jeretta C. Graham 19316 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Graham: Your first letter was received on March 6, 1986. Your letters are quite comprehensive and the many subjects af- fect several City departments, i.e. Engineering, Police, and Planning. Because of the complexity of your. inquiry it is not easy to quickly answer your concerns. I did forward your letter to each department for review. I will have a response to you as soon as possible. Sincerely, CITY OF EDMONDS L. -�,.. Larry S Nau hten Mayor LSN/db cc: Dan Prinz, Police Chief Peter Hahn, Community Services Director Mary Lou Block, Planning Manager Suspense 3-25 March 17, 1986 RECEIVED MAR 1.7 1986 �wt ive Offices City of Edmonds Office of the Mayor 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, INA., 98020 Attn: Mayor Larry Naughton Subject: Intersection of Olympic View Drive & Olympic Avenue; The stream - "Fruitdale-on-the-Sound.; The development of the Wm. Lund. property Refer: Previous letter, delivered by.hand to your office on March 6:1986 Dear Mayor Naughton: Regarding the above subjects, as we have not received any reply from you to date, we thought it appropriate to up -date the information. STREAM: "Fruitdale-on-the-Sound" As of 3/15/86 we have personally observed and photo- graphed the third occurence of our stream "filling up" with soap suds. This ha ens be . Cit f Edmonds has route its storm_c�iL9 ntn_.sai-d—s-t-ream;" Ti-ie rains ave. been aa:ed, only because of increased run-off, due to City -authorized development. We specifically request an answer as to what the city is going to do about this problem, as its effects are adversely affecting our property values,.. In addition, the increased flows during..heavy rains, mentioned above., appear to be above the levels ever previously experienced. We say this because we have experienced overflow of both of the dams involved in our part of the stream three times during the past two winter seasons. This has never happened before, in the memory of the Chittenden Family, who have lived here since 1933. We are concerned that, these increased flows may be adversely affecting the integrity of the above -mentioned dams. If that is the case, clearly our investment (and those downstream from us) are in jeopardy and it can only be such because of City - -2- authorized development. INTERSECTION: OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE OLYMPIC AVENUE Since the accidents mentioned in our previous letter, there has been an additionnloccasion of arcar "losing control" on Olympic View Drive and ending up in our hedge. And further, there has been three occurences of cars running into and breaking down the sign that is located in the- "traffic island" in the middle of that intersection*. In addition to the above, we have been giventa under- stand that the City ss:contending that our neighbors at 19309 Olympic View Drive are being blamed by the City for the run-off water that ends up on Olympic View Drive and theref orepart of the traffic hazard. How can this be? The changes that have taken place which affect. run-off are obviously and specifically caused by,the development above the (the previously- mentioned'"Zingler Addition"). DEVELOPMENT (TBE WM. LUND PROPERTY) This development and "clear -cutting," was mentioned to you in our.,previous letter. Because of the "clear cutting," the.pattern of wind has changed drastically and so has that of "noil-64e.."'. Our environment, with respect to view,`privacy,-noise and safety has been changed via this City -authorized development. o Our large trees are in jeopardy of high winds, as they never previously were and would not` be now, except fore the "clear - cutting" allowed by the City. o Our property has been adversely affected via opening it up to noi-se, people, traffic, and .unsightly views that were never a prob- lem and would not be exc�e-pt for the "clear - cutting" allowed by the City. Compared to the development of a.lot only two (2) houses a -may, where the previous owner personally required that only the minimum of t±ees: be cut, this development;: is: already a disaster for all adjacent property owners. There is only one house currently being built on Lund's property and it is only partially constructed. If the City delays longer, then another will be begun. I do not understand why the City cannot do something now to mitigate the damage and limit future damage. -3- We await your reply to these three problems. They have been going on for sometime. The time to address them is now. We �Mj , F.E.. and Jeretta C. Gr am 19316 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA., 98020 S STREET FILE RECEIVED MAR 5 1986 f Wubve. Offices City of Edmonds 3 50 Office of the Mayor ' 250 5th Ave , N. Edmonds, 1,VA , , 98.O2O Attn: Mayor Larry Naughton Subject: Living:. Environment - Edmonds .Dear Mayor Naughton: As ve understand the basic concept of gover•nmernt, it is there to represent "tree people". Further, we understand the �oricri`ties for. that repr•eseatation to b:.: 1) the people that currently 'Live xi.thi.n the juris- diction 2) the people who own assets in, but do not currently live within the durisdiction 3) the people xho may live in the jurisdictioli at some future ;late We do not feel that government or its agencies, e currently operating, is providing us Nith, representation that is even close to this concept. While we are writing, this letter to ,you ourselves and it expresses cur pecific concerns, ve hive taken the further step of provi, ing copLes of it to seveza.l of our neighbors. They hLGve ex- pressed similar (and sometimes exactly the same) concer_ris :from time to time. In :fact, there have been a number of occasions ,There groups have expressed:; these co kerns, f� with very little positive response from"the' cit�.14 r It is tempting to cite some form of unethical or illegal �behavior to "subvert" or ignore the needs of the i->divid- uals is the community. However, we' 11 avoid that for the sake of constructive reaction. Let us just say, at this point, that - we, the people who live in Edmonds, don't - have time to live with government's time table and shoul: n' t have to; we pay the bills for government and it shoL:ld arrange its sched.ule to be suitable to u.s. We too busy Narking to build cash f'lov, to pay for said assets, that represent your taxinE-, base. We have three (3) spe.cif'ic a.leos of cumplz-.,int s is-n _ eed specific response: I , The 1 1 e s i 6 n of tsle C1tl:I"c ECt7_ :n v V i l 1� Dr4Lve 6-, Olympic tivt:'Tlue, vvi. 1c.ii UCCU1-S 1,111 ct1, � in front of our property, II, The handling and lack of enforcement for protect- tion of "Fruitdale-on-the-Sound"(, a stream which runs through our property)during �Ievelcpment of the property previously. owned .uy the Zingler family. III, Protection of the "envlroament" and "ambience" of the neighborhood" uuring development of the Vim. �. Lund gropelty. In each case, we have spent; time, as have our neic;h.ber's, attempting to help avoid problems, prior to the city or the proprty owners' (II & Ill) cornmitti.nE funds. We have attended public meetings; vve have discussed each situa- tion with city employees and,oh numerous occasions, we have written letters - all to no avail. Our opinion, at this mriting, is that nothing, of positive benefit to tie people who live here mill happen unless we "take it to the Press" and or "take it to the courts". We hope you 'xill prove us •,vron.- 1, Design of the Intersection of Olympic Vie,v Drive and Olympic Avenue h, 'the current installation blocks our seeo.(1d*:-11-y dr1Ve,Vay , VhlC1i: � ✓ doe5rt� rr"^'+ WG� r;lk4 z, has eYsisted since before 1C)�O Iq es p q 1 v�� c �n rYew1+. has been a ed by us since lQ/0 fcr;4J � l/ a, f, t :� a :_ C e :� 1 t c r J 'c a i f�ZQ 61Pi S �LY1 t bay ( 1 &1- to �.Id from our prop ..r'ty J b, entraace and e:Cit for r.,ea,,,v e ;uipin Ent e5p� Pavr back -'hoe, dump truck, cranes- for' maintainance or our stream and. ponds installation ;Roes not solve the spee•'inc._ Vva.,n'f �h��i►1��L� ob1eT, on 0i`ill:N1c V i e s Drive. +0 OLAO( e,06 1 Ct-, e_ve steed-. ng cn any weekela,d n-J -ht you ,fl vl t-C I'lla-Me L. "ie haVE �,aSt�°inci u:c1�CJr' 1c.ma�?..E to Vui' L. :�CD e [' &. at; ica:-.�t four (:1) tilLes since this install- p7 ation, the la to t, n 1'To-vev ---r 1985 (;vr_ich. i�ea'. cost 32,800,00) and the onl,_y reason that Coal VVI � arot-i_ er occurnce didn' t cause data e to a OV Lj__e hecioe ,iia��t .t the P,ii.ID, po�•ler-g,Uy .ID,tPj , pole tcok t .e i .pact of she -car end ;,das V �/ s�'_Eare1 o.f , C . _rc %_`" c'_7;2' neer�_ ego. 'tt':Eht I --as riot L. o °,o �u r' y In lu a :s T ,. i^ a � V - C have e f� G _ c e r e G_ t nc nor r _ v, t'_ o f agrt,eeat ,e n _ble tc eit'�:�er _;top tl�e ;pre fynt-. the Cl asi. dl`,eJ s._meone haves t speEd t;r'ob' em `e is sto ,red? ) prop psed i_"'r i -V . nt i u. �St_'J.. ested1 and re:�uested that "lines.. of speed bu T!;'1s ('" dia. ) "r. )" e u:3ed ,( j 40 to slow the tr is on r,-)!:: ; APs c.�' -che curve on 01View Drive. ',';,e ,vei e t%J_'J th<.t "th-.t couid:.i't be 'one .levelly," However, , this method i s being T :ed , acid 'me ', pointed out a auiat)r-1- cf u1C'.e, ; ,er.e, at C ��.t? e time of that meeting., in Ljj _ini,!ccd. oT This L>etrod was used, subsequent to tnqt mcetin ,, ins e oe]_ieve , prior to i:e a� ' 01;,', View Dr./Oly. Eve, inst=:il:.ti ate �'_'O:�i. :� C.e:i ;l iUCk lil;rt.)1 of en Olymplic Avenue. \� `r',!hy can ti:i s method be use.t .;th r gut riot he re a. it' s c gee:)er i) it to be of ective c, It +.vould riot he e blocked uur rive',vnv d. i t hrol:ld not require a sign j_,i the I 4.le cf the ro, d(knecl:eci ;i_o,va by cars least five t, n;e-, that v'e kno,v of �_�G" Ve.14, eka h �� li Dr �20 e. it eVoulr l iot rotate ; ree,i 1 C•:?.; & l kj such that,Ni"len the`7 lose control, they either crash into our neighbor's hedge across the street or they over- compensate and crash into ours. 2, V e I ave tE.,lkr'd to Lire eagineer'iiig several times since the i.nstullation, Firs+-, ,,ve had one of' the people in the department out to view the problem personally. We were told that: a. "The speed problem has been reduced." That's an assertion, with nc substance-, the man doesn't live here. b, "You (meaning me) need to find some ether Nay to get Your boat in and out." INhy should I? I've been using this drive- i way longer than he's been a city employee and it has been in existence (and in our., family) longer than he has. C. "This installation is the responsibility of the city council; if ,you ;pant it L, changed, go to them."�" Since when :foes the city council make engineering decisions and recommendations? Secondly., ve talked to the police in each case wren another crash occurred. Their re- sponse consistently had been that vve' should go to the engineering department,,but the engineering department has consistently "passed the buck" by stating that the speed problem is the responsibility of the police department. -4- Further, when we have p:;inted out the numb r of' accidents associated,ith this instali6tion, both departments claim lack of knowledSe. I suppose that's the responsibility of some nonexsistent department, for keeping and coalatin, records, 1 „r Thirdly, we, again, talked to the enpineering department (after the December accident) . IN reiterated our request for the speed bumps and offered another suggestion. That was to install a flashing yellow light on.a pole that could be seen from both directions. We were told that "we can't do that, it might be dangerous," However, since that su—estio.n, we know of at least three such installations within the city and none where -we requested it. (One of those, by the way, is furt?)er north of us, on Olympic View Drive.) Why is it O.K. and good e.;nginee ring practice there and not here? tVe are, frankly, tired of all this obfustication and no -cost effective action. II. The handling and lack of enforcemnt for the protec- ion of the stream, '_mown as "Fruitdale -on-the-Sound, during development of property previously owned by .the Zingler family, ., .Tilis stream runs throuE_h our goner `-y and repre- sents a grel.t portion cf our home eavironment, ambience, investment and malntainanCe COSt, 1, The city's handling of protection for stream owners, down -stream of aevelopment has been consistent in its lack of existence or, where some protection is put in place, its lack of enforcement, This is not an assertion without basis, we have records going back for years that indicate such to be the case. -Situations- When the property, immediately up -stream was developed, the builder/then &Amer simoly "did what he wanted to to" and re-routed tr,e stream and placed rock, using his heavy contractor's °equipment as needed. No ccm:)laint about that development, but ire caused our silt catch basin to fill up with many tons of material. I asked �pf him to compensate by .7ia-i n€; out the mud and 1►�N was told I'd"have tc sue rim." I asked the - building/engineering depart�7ent for asSistence and was told I'd "ha,;e to tai•-e c�-re of it pri- vately or in court." Some protection, -5- 'khen the Zingler plea ,vus subm.,itted for approval in 1973, we objected at the public meeting; and protection for down -stream owners was included as part of the plat restrictions for ievelop_ment. The property ,was later sold to a local developer/ contractor and a new plat :vas submitted. Pro- n tection for down -stream owners is stated in that c/ plat, but each time we ask for help there has been no direct mechanism used to either stop damage, renew damaged assets, or compensate for damage. The net effect on us and our environment has been to put us in the position of maiting to be damaged and try to limit tl.at damage if ae can. The city forces its citizens to do the "watchdogging"i.n spite of the fact that it is chartered t uo so before and during the fact. <The latest situation mas during; our last heavy rain in January After having; our silt catch basin cleaned out t�::.i.s summer, at a cost of approximately $1,5j0.00, the rain (who is suprised by lots of winter rain in tt:is area?) has carried silt down from the now -developed (site preparetion) property, previously kncvn as the "Zingler Prop- erty". The way Edmc:ids City's "protection" pro- .e.vision's - go;. the: onis .is r on us,. to . �rovb ..damage in:: order to get any compensation fr;:,m the current owner. I'm sure he bought the. property in good faith; with his own charter in mind foil develop- ment. he could have done his budgeting for de velopment as could Norsk Constr•uctio:a, previously, as could the Bride famiiy, as could the Zinglers, including protection, for- down -stream owners, if the City had done their job. That job was to be .clear about protection of existing owners.- lown- stream and their assets. r`In further complaint, we're sure that the. current level of protection enforcement doesn't even meet the State regulations with respect to the protec- Lion ef:-fish or.,.protection of the water quality ,,,of the stream, Fruitdale-On-The-Sound; certainly "not the intention of those regulations. III. Protection of the "environment" and "ambience" of the neighborhood during the development of the Wm. Lund property. This is a "last -but -not -least" situation, because it is currently taking place. Public meetings were held, as the law requires, albeit held dur- ing the business day when it's most difficult to attend. The meeting mas well -attended and neighbors' concerns were expressed. -6- While we' re sure Mr. Lund was si race re in vvish- ing to be "sensitive to the neighborhood en- vironment'.'; by his lights, that judgement is supposed co be monitored by tLe representit- ives of the citizens: City Government. ; The developer involved has just started site </ development and has already cut down almost 100% of the major trees and shrubs on the property. If that is "environmentally sensitive" action then there is no such thing and anyone viewing the site before and after would agree in private if not in public. The city, allow- ing this development to even reach the stage of public hearing, without restricting lot size better than this and certainly stopping this "clear -cutting" , is absolutely irrespons ib1e.;• If this is "environmentally sensitive" development, tell that to the raccoons, opossums, and wild birds, both indigenous and migratory, that no longer have anywhere to go and no hope of habitat growing back in our lifetime. Not to digress too:far into personal feeliaos, it is clearly part of our environment: a. to.have regular distribution of 30 to 100 year old evergreen trees; b. to have a low density of housing and traffic; c . to have a. clear -run iina 6trea�-n on our property; As far as we're concerned, we are not receiv- ing adequate representation from the taxes �:ae .are paying and have been pa„ring for many Years. ',Ve specifically have avoided "pointing the finger" at any one individual in or:er to illus- trate the general points. {','ie would be pleased to spend some ti,r,e discussing ideas as to hox to solve these general problems and our specific complaints, but we are not interested in being given the "revolving door" treatment TAIhich seems_ to be the current City government modus o_eereadi,r /If Edmonds City Government is interested in citizen involvement and cooperation, we suR:gest -you consider providing better retura on cur in- vestment in ,you. Thank you for your attention to these matters. tNe la, , Frederick and Jeretta Graham 19316 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, VJA . 98020 STREET FILE AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO ACCEPT EASEMENT FROM PUD #1 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BALLINGER SEWER PROJECT Item H on Consent Agenda Councilmember Jaech explained that she removed Item (H) from the Consent Agenda because she had received a letter concerning this item and wanted to ask the City Attorney whether or not there was anything in the letter that needed to be addressed. City Attorney Snydernoted that he wanted to make the point that the letter was sent some time ago about the PUD easement form, and that the form is not well suited to dealing with another public body. He observed that the form is very restrictive, with a lot of provisions in it that you might expect to find in an easement form, but that are not suitable for the City of Edmonds' purposes. He indicated that he had discussed the matter with Jim Adams, City Engineer, who felt that the urgency of proceeding with the sewage project made it worthwhile to accept the form. However, the City Attorney added, in his opinion the easement is not a particularly good one. Councilmember Jaech asked if the problems that might arise from use of the form were problems that the City could live with. The City Attorney referred the matter to Mr. Adams, City Engineer, observing that the problem was more of an administrative problem. City Engineer Adams responded that the City now has a system that must be addressed. It was a question of accepting a not -too -good easement form, or having an over -burdened sewer system running in the streets. Mr. Adams felt it was wiser to address the sewage problem at this time, and argue the easement form at a later date. The City Attorney noted that the City should keep in mind that a slightly different form from what the City normally grants in easements might be appropriate. COUNCILMEMBER JAECH MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HALL, TO ACCEPT THE EASEMENT FROM PUD #1. MOTION CARRIED. AUTHORIZATION FOR MAYOR TO SIGN EARNEST MONEY AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF CHASE LAKE TOPSOIL PROPERTY. Item M of Consent A enda Purchase of the property is subject to the City obtaining permits sufficient to allow the construction of various municipal facilities on the RS 8400-zoned property, reported Jim Jessel, Property Manager. Councilmember Jaech felt that it was necessary to address the question to make a determination as to what the property was likely to be used for. Jim Jessel noted that the land was suitable for several uses, but if the property could not be used for what the City wants, then it would not be purchased. The councilmembers discussed the various uses to which the property might be put, including a Mini -park and storage facilities. Councilmember Jaech felt that the expenditure of $110,000 should be carefully explored; it was her feeling that the City had no clear plans for use of the property at present, and the expenditure. of $110,000 for property with no explicit use contemplated at present concerned her. Councilmember Ostrom expressed his primary concern with the kind of soil that was there. He wanted to know what problems, if any, could be expected from the soil composition, and the cost of sinking pilings. He expressed concern with construction problems that might arise. Jim Jessel stated that he would provide a full report on the capacity of the property. Councilmember Kasper felt that the City should take the option, or not take the option, at this time. COUNCILMEMBER HALL MOVED, SECONOED BY COUNCILMEMBER DWYER,TQ AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE EARNEST MONEY AGREEMENT. A ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN WITH COUNCILMEMBERS DWYER, HALL, KASPER, NOROQUIST AND WILSON VOTING 'YES'; COUNCILMEMBERS JAECH AND OSTROM VOTED 'NO'. MOTION CARRIED. HEARING ON REQUEST FOR SIGNAL CHANGE AT PUGET DRIVE AND OLYMPIC VIEW DRIVE Dale Schroeder, Traffic Engineer, reported to the Councilmembers that the Olympic View Drive/Puget Drive intersection has been considered as a prime candidate for signali- zation in the past. A temporary signal was installed in 1980 using spare parts from the Department of Transportation; it was installed on a fixed -time operation mode. The City of Edmonds applied for and received approval to install a permanent signal at this location. In 1982, the signal was warranted, Mr. Schroeder said, based on pedes- trian volume from nearby Olympic Elementary School, and by the fact that it was a truck route conflicting with pedestrian traffic. The Edmonds School District closed Olympic School in 1982, and the City Council passed an ordinance limiting loads to 5 tons on Puget Drive. These actions eliminated the factors which warranted a signal. The Engineeering Department reviewed the intersection to determine if current conditions warrant changing the flashing signal to a full -cycling, fixed -time operation. Traffic EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 2 - August 21, 1984 STREET FILE accident incidence was investigated, with four accidents being recorded over a four-year period. Traffic counts were taken for one week from July 25 through July 31; the count was 9,670, which is a high enough volume to warrant installation of a signal, Mr. Schroeder said. He recommended that the City continue the operation of the signal as it is at present, in the flashing mode. He felt that the intersection operates satisfactorily as it is, and noted that there is not a long wait for traffic coming down Olympic View Drive; there are not enough accidents to warrant turning on the signal, and even though the volume meets the requirements for a signal, it is still marginal. Mr. Schroeder recommended that the intersection be included.in the six -year program, as there may be a need in the future for a permanent signal, but not at the present time. Councilmember Hall said that she had received a call from a resident of the area who told her that Olympic View Drive was turning into a "speedway", and Councilmember Hall felt that a signal might slow the traffic down. The resident also told Councilmember Hall that the intersection was obscured by trees and shrubbery for left -turning vehicles. Traffic Engineer Schroeder replied that if there was a hazard at the intersection because of the shrubbery and trees, it hasn't shown up on investigation reports about the intersection. Councilmember Hall also noted that some residents complained to her about difficulties in getting in and out of their driveways. Mr. Schroeder said that some traffic improvements were planned for the area which he believes will have an ameliorating effect on accessibility. The meeting was opened to the public. Jane Cunningham, 1030 Grandview, told the councilmembers that she is finding it harder .to get from Grandview to Olympic View, or if she wants to go east on Puget Drive and up the hill. She felt that visibility and speed were both contributory problems; there are light poles, telephone poles, and a sign post which obstructs the view to the west, she told the members. She suggested that the pushbuttons, which have.been on the light since it was installed, and are not operative, should either be activated or removed, since they are confusing to persons unfamiliar with the area. Mrs. Cunningham indicated that she favored activating the signal. H. D. Propst, 802 Driftwood Lane, noted that there were problems with the signal, but he believed that the biggest problem was that pedestrian buttons were not activated to allow the children to go back and forth. He also felt that there should be a flashing sign, reading: "Dangerous Intersection - Maximum Speed 25 Miles Per Hour". He felt those two measures would alleviate the existing conditions. Mr. Propst was opposed to the full stop -and -go mode of traffic control; he observed that the slightest snowfall aggravated conditions under that system. He felt that there would be more problems with a full stop -and -go signal, than there presently are with the signal in a flashing mode. He suggested police surveillance to catch speeders, adding that the $80,000 to $90,000 which would be a necessary expenditure for a fully -activated signal could just as well be spent for police monitoring of the intersection. The public portion of the hearing was closed and the meeting returned to the Council. Jim Adams, City Engineer, recommended that the flash -mode be retained. He reported that the Uniform Traffic Control Manual of the State of Washington states that STOP signals should never be used for speed control. He said that the Engineering department will look into the matter of installing a walkway signal. He repeated that the signal operating in a flash -mode is better than being in a fixed -time mode, which would stop the flow of traffic whether or not there were vehicles approaching from the other direction, and this would be a traffic impediment. Councilmember Ostrom observed that he felt the testimony from residents clearly articulated the problem. However, he recalled.. when there was a fully activated signal there, and it was not successful. It almost completely stopped the normal flow of traffic. He wondered if the situation should not be studied more, and a traffic simulation plan worked out. Councilmember Hall reminded members that school would be starting soon, and asked if the flashing light suggested by Mr. Propst could not be installed before school started. City Engineer Adams replied that their department had looked at several other inter- sections recently which are more in need of scrutiny and remedy than this one, and before this intersection is moved to the top of the list, the others should be care- fully considered for installation of traffic control. He also noted, in response to a question from Councilmember Kasper, that the State regulates the speed limits of state highways, and this is a State highway; the City requested a speed limit of 25 miles per hour from the State, and the State countered with a speed limit of 30 miles per hour to be adopted. He recommended adopting the suggestion of Mr. Propst, that EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 - August 21, 1984 STREET FILE the staff determination. The appeal process determination will either uphold the staff determination or the operator of the day-care will be required to seek a home occupations permit. Mr. Bohan said the issue is not whether Edmonds needs day- care centers, but whether the day -cares belong in adjacent property backyards. There should be designated areas that are not conflicting with adjacent residences. He said most of the people present testifying for the day care center do not live close to the house. Opposition to the day-care is from property owners immediately adjacent to the day care. Councilmember Dwyer interrupted to say that Mr. Bohan was now trying to litigate an issue not now before the Council. Mr. Bohan asked that his name be placed on the list for notification when a hearing is scheduled. Natalie Shippen, 1022 Euclid, requested that the hearing on Sailor's Restaurant sign remain on the April 3 agenda. It is a new sign in a BC zone and the material coming to the Council from the Planning Board will have no bearing on the issue. Council President Jaech noted that the Council had agreed at their last meeting that the hearings would be continued if appellants concurred. City Clerk Irene Varney Moran explained that the items in question would remain on the April 3 agenda, otherwise notices and publications would have to be posted. Therefore, the April 3 agenda remains the same, but people concerned were notified there was a possibility that the hearings might be continued. Mayor Naughten assured Ms. Shippen that the hearing in question would remain on the April 3 agenda. Tena Carver, 138 Highland Drive, stated there has been a drainage problem on their property since 1980. She said the propertybehind and above them had built a massive rockery, 20-25' high behind which a swimming pool had been installed. Ms. Carver said she had taken the matter up with Mr. Adams and Mr. Reeves many times over the past years. She said a building permit was never obtained for construction of the rockery. She indicated that they are very frightened that the rockery is not safe. She said Mr. Reeves had told her,that.he could not get anything from.the people involved, either. The property is owned by Dr. Robert Lockyear, located at 127 Skyline Drive. During construction of the pool and rockery, the drainage had been dismantled from the home; there was a rainstorm and the Carvers had received the full drainage from that property. The resulting damage to their property included water, in the basement, loss of ground cover, and a crack in a 10" reinforced concrete 60' wall. When confronted the next morning, the Lockyears said the water and damage was the Carvers' problem. She said the Lockyear storm sewer is hooked into the regular sewer. She said she had tried repeatedly to talk with Mr. Tanaka. Last evening, the Carvers' had been contacted by the President of their Homeowners' Association, advis- ing them there is a leak in the swimming pool which was releasing about 100 gallons a day. She said, when the swimming pool collapses, there will be a lot of property damage and possibly lives lost. She would like to have the water drained immediately if there is any in the pool now. Mayor Naughten advised Ms. Carver that the City is working on the problem and would have information for her if she would call him tomorrow. HEARING ON PROPOSED TRAFFIC REVISION FOR PUGET DR. 8 OLYMPIC AVE. City Engineer Jim Adams introduced Traffic Engineer Dale Schroeder, who presented the three intersection alternates. Mr. Schroeder explained the decision making process employed in proposing the three alternates to be presented. Graphics of accidents occuring at the intersections of Olympic View Drive and Olympic Avenue and those occurring at Olympic Avenue and Puget Drive were displayed. After determining that the predominant accident is southbound Olympic View Drive left turning vehicles, he mentioned several characteristics that are contributing to the problem: 1. the oblique angle of the turn, 2. there is no protected left turn area. There are two predominant accidents at the intersection of Olympic Avenue and Puget Drive, the westbound Puget traffic turning right onto Olympic Avenue being rear -ended caused in part by the higher speed limit on Puget Drive and the tight turning radius; the other is the right angle accident involving southbound Olympic Avenue traffic with the eastbound Puget Drive traffic, caused by the upgrade on Olympic Avenue and some perceived sight restrictions at the intersection. Councilmember Kasper interjected the fact that all accidents recorded on the presentation graphs had occurred prior to that road's being rebuilt. Mr. Schroeder said the current year's data was not available when the diagrams were done. Mr. Schroeder displayed the three alternates and gave a detailed explanation of each. There was discussion between the Council and Mr. Schroeder to clarify the information presented. At the conclusion of the presentation, Mayor Naughten opened the public hearing. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 3 - March 20, 1984 STREET FILE Roy �ombley, 1112 Excelsior P1 gent eman man had said certain signs to slow downhill traffic intersection with Puget Drive. awkward for them. , said he had attended a hearing 6 months ago when a things would be done on a trial basis, such as adding and leveling of the grade on Olympic Avenue at the He said the closure of Olympic Avenue would be Grant Bush, 19315 Olympic View Drive, stated that he lived at the intersection where most of the accidents occur; i.e. Olympic Avenue and Olympic View Drive. It is his opinion that this is the most dangerous of the two intersections. He described accidents at the intersection that had occurred in 1983. He saw no improvements from the Engineering Department with which he is comfortable. He suggested Olympic Avenue be made one-way going north, which would eliminate any hazard at that intersection and would also alleviate the problems at the intersection of Puget Drive and Olympic Avenue. He said the majority of the traffic using Olympic Avenue was northbound. Roger Hertrich, 1020 Puget Drive, said the major problem is at the intersection of Olympic and Olympic View Drive and it needs a redesign construction. He is opposed to closing the street because it adds an increased load on Olympic View Drive but restriction to a certain direction would be helpful. He said left turns into Olympic Avenue from Olympic View Drive should not be allowed, since there is not enough right-of-way to allow a protected left turn lane, and this could be accomplished by ��-- creating a barrier on Olympic View Drive. At the intersection of Puget Drive and Olympic Avenue, when the road was widened, the landing was not increased to provide proper sight distance. This was an item agreed upon by Engineering and the neighbors that must be done. He said he disagrees with the idea of taking property to close the street. Mr. Hertrich said a large rock that blocked the view of northbound traffic on Olympic Avenue at Puget Drive had been removed, a hedge had been angled to provide sight distance up the roadway, a fence had been cut back behind the tree increasing sight distance, and the wire fence next to the apartment has been moved back, but could be moved a little more: He said there is a sign on one corner that could be removed also. A suggestion that was agreed to by Engineering was a flashing warning sign. He believes these suggestions should be tried before closing any streets. He reiterated that the major problem is at Olympic and Olympic View Drive, that southbound traffic should be restricted at that point, and the angle entering the intersection should be squared away. Jean Cunningham, 1030 Grandview, said she has always been amazed at thesignat the intersection of Olympic and Olympic View Drive. She believes the sign adds to the confusion at the intersection and suggested an immediate revision of the sign. She expressed fear that serious problems would result from an increase in traffic on Olympic View Drive. She said it is very hard to get out of Grandview because of the visibility. She said when the light was working at Olympic View Drive and Puget Drive, traffic flow was improved. She verified that people drive down Puget Drive very fast, sometimes turning across the double lanes to enter the store. She said she has noticed "No Truck" signs on 205th and 76th but Olympic View Drive is experi- encing heavier traffic from Perrinville to Puget with a large delivery truck. She feels the truck is too large for the area. Sheila Combley, 1112 Excelsior Place,, said she doesn't like the idea of closing off Olympic Avenue and making it one-way. When the road is icy, one cannot go up the hill and must turn around and go the other way. She said ambulances and first aid trucks would have difficulty with access to Excelsior, adding minutes to arrival times. She said it would be better if Olympic Avenue were leveled off where it entered Puget Drive. She had witnessed two of the accidents referred to earlier; both were reckless drivers. She suggested a "slow" sign would be of help in cutting down on speeding. Ken Angel, 1412 Olympic Ave, at the corner of Excelsior Place and Olympic Avenue, said Alternate 1 is unacceptable to him, establishing a turnaround at Olympic Avenue and Puget Drive. In the event of a serious accident, all access would be blocked off to fire or first aid for anyone living on the hill, creating a dangerous situation. He said signs would help on Puget Drive. He said there is a sign now reducing speed to 35 mph, but he believes traffic travels at 45 mph. He agrees that the sign should be redone at Olympic View Drive and Olympic Avenue. No one else wished to speak and the Mayor closed the hearing. Mr. Adams commented that both Olympic View Drive and Puget Drive are restricted to truck traffic, nothing over five tons is allowed on either street. The only time trucks are there is when they are making deliveries to a specific address, and then EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 - March 20, 1984 1., OTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS BY LCCAtION CItY OF EDMONDS re — A• ''J �� FOR THE P E R I OT1 00_1_:_19_��T�R UAL- 3�r�y 8 4ALL ACCIDENTS* PAGE 16 ..-'`• 7P.A•fFIChAY DIST. OIR. TRAFFICWAY AMT. NO. NO. NO. TYPE OF ACCIDENT DATE TIME DAY ROAD LIGHT PR1MaRY REFERENCE SE'CONDARY1 SECCNOARY2 P._p. INJ KL 1_GA,YR COf4D_._C,0NQ, 'I 524 GLYMPIC AV 3,000 1 0 1 FENCE 042663 1745 TUE DRY DAYLITE _ i 524 OLYMPIC VIEW DR 300 0 0 2 S.DIR-807H STR.-ONE STOP-REC1C623 1300 THU WET DAYLITE 524 0 U Y M P I C VIEW O R 1-t_5._0 0-0— 0 2---E-NJE_R-I-MG_AIJf,NO L E 06. 0 7 83_14 45-j.0 1`O.R Y_D.A Y L_1 T E_ ! 524 0250F N HOWELL 2,500 0 0 2 ONE VEH ENTERING DRIVEWAY C31383 1222 SUN WET DAYLITE 524 020OF W 80 11100 0, 0 2 S.DIR-BOTH STR-BOTH MOV-FEC60383 OC36 FRI WET DK-SL-ON � 524 80 AV W 3,_375_ C 0_ 4 S_ DIR-B.C)TH__S.7R-RQT.H N.OY_=FE.C:I_C2_Fi.3... 1.403 SUN_WET__DAYLITF___ 1I 524 0100F W 8C AV W 1r9J0 0 0 2 S.DIR-BOTH STR-BOTH MOV-FEG32583 2156 FRI DRY DK-SL-ON •i 524 524 29500 2 0 2 O.DIR-ALL CTHERS 052183 2010 SAT DRY DUSK 524 84 AV W 3,000 0 0 2 ENTERING AT ANGLE 0514E3 1310 $AT Ir[~T_DAYtLTE____ cc 524 84 AV W 1,500 0 0 2 ENTERING AT ANGLE 0628E3 0915 TUE DRY DAYLITE 524 83 AV W 510 0 0 2 S.OIR-BOTH L.TURN-1 STD-FEC21583 1845 TUE WET DK-SL-CN cn ? 524 196 SW 600 0 0 2 ENTERING AT -LLO-0 FF-I_DR-L_DAY-L.IT.E - j 6 AV N 010OF N GLENN 3,300 1 0 1 UTILITY POLE (PCWER,ETC) 081083 OF22 WED DRY DAYLITE 7 AV S 020OF S ALDER 550 0 0 2 ONE VEH PARKED-GNE MCV 123083 2230 FRI WET DK-SL-ON 72 0275F N 216 11300 0 0 2 ONE VEH L_EAV_LNG___QRJV WAY O-15_@3__1-795 W_EQ-D-Y_.p_/LYL.I_TE 73 AV W 0100F S 242 SW 1,800 1 0.. 2 ONE VEH LEAVING DRIVEWAY 062483 0640 FRI DRY DAYLITE 74 AV W 0180F S MCALEER WY 800 0 0 2 S.CIR-ALL OTHERS 12C5E3 1C15 MON WET DAYLITE I 75 AV W 0100F N 2.30 SW 1,200 0 0 2 ONE VEH ENTERIN4 DRIVEWAY C31bk3-1-�_05_WED DRY DAYLJ,-T_E- 76 0030F N 210 300 0 0 1 ALL OTHER NON -COLLISION C31483 1900 MON DRY DK-SL-ON 76 008OF N 212 1,654 1 0 2 S.OIR-BOTH STR-ONE STOP-FEG6C1E3 1650 WED DRY DAYLITE i 76 BETWEEN 212 76 AVE W 700 0 0 2 ONE VEH ENTERI�.G_QRIIEIZY C�_1T83_110DJLER...3RY._._D.AYLIi.`__- 76 O100F S 228 1,400 1 0 2 ONE VEH LEAVING OR•IVEWAY C72583 1710 MON WET DAYLITE 76 030OF N 76 AV W 1,800 0 0 2 ONE VEH PARKED-CNE MCV C31883 0145 FRI DRY DK-SL-ON 76 AV U050F S HWY 99 1100 1 _0 2_ 5_._OIR-pO_iH_ S-TR_-ONE_STOP_REC721.E.3._1.E30—J U_-D.R_Y D-AY.L-IT.E_ j 76 AV 030CF N 244 SW 1,150 0 0 2 ONE VEH LEAVING.CRIVEWAY 12C883 0731 THU WET DAWN 76 AV 6 350 0 0 2 S.DIR-BOTH STR-80TH MOV-PEC10583 1415 WED WET DAYLITE ?__76_ AV1'_ ._,. 0 1_0 2 S.CIR-pO,TH S_TR` DUTH MOV-FEC2C9E3 .L.4,1_q WED DRY DAILLI.TE___. MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS BY LOCATION CITY OF EDMONDS BALL ACGICENiS` PAGE 5 n; - _.. -.. ... - - _ - FUR THE PERICO --- -- — -- ...:....---------- -- ------ --- -- - -- - 01-01r1984 THRU 17_-31,1984 PREPARED BY — (RECORDS SECTION) tn. S. P. s� ` _.T.1'�E .DAY-_P.OhD.__...LIGHT.._-..;-. _ TRAFF1CV.AY__.___01ST. DIR._.._...-. REFERENCE ".._.".____.TRAFFIGWAY.____.________-__-A'iT._.AO•.-_NG•.-.NO...._TYPE.__OF.__AC.CLDENT_____-._...__.-.DATE SECCNCARYI S E C C N C A R Y 2 P.O. INJ KIL VEH MC/CA/YR COND. COND. p K I m A R Y 4.�000.--0 �..- 2---ENT.ERING._AT_.ANGLE....- p 4 - --- - -- 7�38 O 1C0 _ MON 0 -- DRY -...- AYL D ITE ..- . P.I'.E_ .-_. .... ._3.AV S. ----------- 3,700 0 0 1 WOOC SIGN POST G61784 0141 SUN DRY DK-SL- ON PINE 9 AV S 1,250 1 0 2ONE VEH PARKED-UNE MGV 101884 2G40 THU DRY DK-SL-IIN PINE 0250F W 6 AV S 300.- ENTER[NG._AT. ANGLE.._.._ _..._ ._ 1003E4 1 CUO WED DRY 0AYLI TE P 1 NE .. 5 S - .0.._.___0._"--_2-_ F 6,000 1 0 2 ENTERING AT ANGLE C50984 1P.21 WED DRY DAYLITE PINE 8 S 8,050 1 0 1 --- .-...... . _.. CURRE- ._.RA15ED TRAFFIC I S L 10C1E4 2340 MON DRY Dv-SL- PJGET DR 9 AV N S.DIR-801H,..STR-ONE_.STOF-FE103084 1520. TUE_.wET OAYLIIE P U G E T _-- .tiY....-_._-_ .---.. _0125F__.._W__-_CLYMPIG_VIEW.-DR------------------------4_,500__.0_._--.--_0____2 NOT STATEC 1,000 0 0 2 ONE VEH PARKED-CNE t•10V G622E4 2310 WED DRY OK-SL-ON -�• S=C,L.AMN DR 8EThEEN 171 - -- -- - -- - -= --- - - ------ - .. - - -- - --- -- ---- --- --- - - - - - 2r000 - --- 0 ------ 0 - 2 ENTERING AT ANGLE G6G7E4 1 E 4 0 THU WE T D A Y L I T E �. SCL'.0 VIEW PL �FARF , ONE PARKED-CNE-.,•CV_._...__G720_4-_2COO. FRI.CRY L._ DK-NU-S__; ..VEH _.SOU?JOVIEW.O.?....... ..-._�'000E-._._AT-._7400_SOUND.V.IEW-._._.__--_—_.-.___________3500:.9...__..-2_ 29300 2 0 2 ENTERING AT ANGLE 1128e4 OE00 WED DRY DAYLITE S?RUCE 9 AV - 300 0 0 2 S.OIR-BOTH STR-CNE STOP-PE101284 2340 FRI DRY DK- L- f SR 99 220 SW Q 2345 FRI WET STOK -....E.._-.--_--------_- ----.._....244.._._-.__".__-_--..-----.-.---------- ---------3U__0 ------ 4 NOT STATED 800 0 0 2 S.DIR-BnTH STR.-P.OTH MOV-SSCIlOE4 1E00 TUE DRY DK-SL-ON SUNSET AV BET WEEV MAIN 800 1 0 2 S.OIR-BOTH STR-BOTH NOV-SSC72184 1230 SAT DRY CAYLI7E SUNSET .AV 0 2 0 C F N JCMES y, -THU_DRY_. DAhN _... SUNSET AV 020�F._.N._.DAYTGN..ST-- - ----- — —___-..___450._..0--._._Q---_2-_S..0lR76OTH,_STR-BOTH-.MOV-SSC112E4..0703 660 0 0 1 MAIL BOX C83184 2220 FRI DRY DK-SL-ON VIEWLAND WY 11 PL N -- -------------------"--"--"--"'-- --- 1,500 ----- 0 0 2 S.DIR-ONE R.TURN-ONE STR I1C2F4 0950 FRI WET DAYLITE W E4 23 0 ENT ERING__AT-_ANGL_E.-------- ----,C3G9E4 0720..F.RI_CRY_._DAYLITE.....--- aALNLT`.' _.9.._- --------=-------- ----60.0..._.-0.-- --2-- 11C00 0 0 2 ONE VEH PARKED-CNE MCV C8C984 1245 THU DRY DAYLITE kALNIT BETWEEN 9 10 --- - ------------- -- "-" 650 0 0 2 S.GIR-ALL OTHERS C8C2e4 1C42 THU DF.Y DAYLITE C WALNUT 5 AV S 2,4C0-__0.._---.02---. ENTER ING.AT.ANGLE__-_..-_ .......... .C1C784-0337.-SAT. NET_- DK-SL-ON 700 2 0 2 ENTERING AT ANGLE C625E4 1E15 MON DRY DAYLITE LALNLT 9 AV S --,-_"-_-.-_"_._-___•-_____-._.---,____._-..___...._....._ 4,500 3 0 2 ENTERING AT ANGLE 102984 0910 MON NET OAYLIT WALNUT 9 AV S 2, 800 ENTERING. AT ANGLE__---_---_ 112584...1130. 113.0. SUN...WET..__.DAYL iTE...-- A LNLT. --.-..._..9 AV S....- -- ... --------- ---... - ....1 -...0... .... ..2.... - 500 0 0 2 ONE VEH PARKED-GNE MOV C620E4 1505 SAT DRY DAYLITE • NALNUT 0080E W 7 AV S --- _ 2,5C0 -- C - ----- 00 ---- 2 - S.OIR-BO1H STR-CN'E STOF-FEC91284 0750 WED DRY DAYLITE .. tiALNl7 0035F E 9 AV S A48 MOTOR VE-1ICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS BY LOCATION CITY OF EDMONDS FOR THE PERICD 01-01,1985 THOU 12-31.198 *ALL ACCIDENTS* PARED BY ( RECORDS SECTION) TP.AFFICWAY DIST. DIR. TRAFFICWAY AN,T. NO. NO. NO. TYPE OF ACCICC-NT PRIMARY REFERENCE SECONOARYI S.ECONOARY2 — P.D. INJ KIL VEH MAPLE7 AV S' 8,500 0 0 2 ENTERING AT ANGLE MAPL E 9 AV S PAGE 4 W. S. P. DATE TIME DAY ROAD LIGHT MC/CA/YR COND. COND. i C21285 1032 TUE DRY DAYLITE 0 0 2 ENTERING AT ANGLE" 04206 Y DAYLITE MAPLE 9 AV S 2,500 C 0 1 RETAINING WALL 111785 0230 SUN WET DK-SL-ON� 4APLF 050OF E 6 AV S ... 2,600 0 0 3 ONE VEH LEAVING' DRIVEWAY. 112085 1C00 WED WET DAYLITE ----P i MALE6000 0150F E 86 PL W 0 1 0 1 PEDESTRI AN-VEH GOING STR, 100185 1530 TUE CRY is DAYLITE ; MAPIF6COD DQ 200 SW 300 0 0 2 ENTERING AT ANGLE 1129E5 1700 FRI ICE f DK-SL-ON , ME=DCWCALF BCH 76 AV W 11000 0 0 2 S.CIR-ALL CTHERS 111985 1435 TUE WET DAYLITE MEADCI+DALE BE.AC 020OF E 74 21000 0 0 1 ROAOWAY'DITCH 073185 1000 WED WET DAYLITE !• MEADCWDALE RE^-C 1320F F 74 W 19500 1 0 1 EARTH BANK OR. LEDGE 05?185 1940 FRI DRY DAYLITE N MEaCCW 75 PL 1,500 1 0 1 OVER EMBANKMENT -NO GRDRAILC43085 0900 TUE DRY DAYLITE "1 MEaDOnOALE BETWEEN 75 N 73 W 500 0 0 2 ONE VEH LE AV[NG DRIVEWAY C8?G85 0745 FRI WET DAYLITE r ___N MF CCCW0ALE R D 75 PL W 1, 20.0-0-0--1—VEH OVERTURNED' • 120985 2225 MON ICE DK-51-ON N 235 035OF N AURORA 600 0 0 2 ONE VEH PARKED -ONE MOV 111985 2115 TUE SNOW DK-SL-ON NOT STATE) 050OF E 180 1,729 0 0 2 O.OIR-BOTH STR-SS 02C585 0930 TUE SNOW DAYLITE GLYMFIA AV VIEWLANO WY 11003 0 0 2 ENTERING AT ANGLE 110185 0800 FRI WET DAYLITE OLYMPIC AV OLYMPIC VIEW OR 29100:. 1 0 1 MAIL BOX 080765 2240 WED WET DK-SL-ON 1' CLYMPiC AV OLYMPIC VIEW OR 1,750-1 0 1 VEH OVERTURNED. 081385 • 0923 TUE DRY DAYLITE— OLYMPIC VI FW OR 400 0 0 1 TREE OR STUMP ( STATI ONARY) 102185 1336 MON WET r DAYLITE rLYMPIC VIEW OR TALBOT R.0 11150,'. 0 ... 0 ,.2, .ENT FRING AT ANGLE.-.":, ;. C90685 1445 FRI DRY DAYLTTF. CLYMPIC VIEW OR 050OF S TALBOT RO 3,000 C^0 - 2 O.DIR-BOTH MOV-HEAD ON 0201A5 0715 FRI SNOW DAWN ! YMPIC VI EW DR 0528F N ANDOVER 1,500 0 0 1 OVER EMBANKMENT -NO GRDRAILC5C285 0830 THU DRY DAYLITE GLIMPIC VIE'.,I DR PUGET 0 2 0 2" S.DIR-BOTH STR-BOTH MOV-FE051685 2030 THU DRY DUSK %LYMPIC VIEW DR 0050F W 72 AV W 1,200 1 0 2 S.DIR-BOTH STR-ONE STOP-PE07C485 2040 THU DRY DUSK OLYMPIC VIEW OR 1000F N 180 SW 11000 0 0 1 OVER EMBANKMENT -NO GRORAIL091585 0300 SUN WET DK-SL-ON CLY?4PIC VW OR 132OF W . TALBOT 61000 1 0 2 O.OIR-BOTH MCV-HEAD ON CSCSE5 2C25 THU DRY DAYLITE F, CLYMPIC V'.i DR TALBOT—R' 1,900 C 0 2 STRUCK OL�JECT THEN VEH IClE112785 1145 CEO SN'CM DAYLITE— j»i — OLYMPIC VW DR 0075E N OLYMPIC AV 2100 1 TREE OR STUMP (STATI ONARY)101225 2118 SAT OR OK-SL-ON. • -• OR VEHICLE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS BY LOCATION CITY OF EDMONDS *ALL ACC IDENTS* PAGE 18 •.' i FOR THE PERIOD 01-01,1935 THRU 12-31,1985 PREPARED BY (RECORDS SECTION) W. S. P. TRAFFICWAY DIST. OIR. TRAFFICWAY AMT. NO. NO. NO. TYPE OF ACCIDENT DATE TIME DAY ROAD LIGHT PRIMARY -- --- - ------ REFERENCE SECONDARYIS-EC-CNDARY2 _ _ P.D. MO/CA/YR CONO. CONO_-� 524 3 AV S 3,000 .0 0 2 S.OIR-BOTH STR-CNE STOP-AE110885 1355 FRI WET j . DAYLITE 524 010OF S DALEY 475 0 0 2 ONE VEH PARKED -ONE MCV 111785 2335 SUN DRY Dk-_L-ON '- 524 EDMCNDS 4,300 0 0 3 ENTERING AT ANGLE C90585 0935 THU WET DAYLITE 524 OLYMPIC VIEW OR 11103 1 0 2 O.DIR-ONE L.TURN-GNE STR 031585 1600 FRI DRY DAYLITE 524 HO AV W 4,000 1 0 2 ENTERING AT ANGLE 102885 2233 MON DRY DK-SL-ON 524 0080F E 81 PL W - 300 C 0 2 S.DIR_ALL OTHERS 06C565 1525 WED DRY DAYLITE 524 524 2,500 0 0 2. ENTERING AT ANGLE 042485 1105 WED WET DAYLITE 524 524 600 1 0 2 O.DIR-ONE'L.-ONE R. TURN 050785 1315 TUE DRY DAYLITE - 524 524 2,2.00 C 0 2 S.DIR-ALL CTHERS C92685 1630 THU ORY DAYLITE_ 524 524 2,300 0.. 0 2 S.DIR-ONE R.TURN-ONE STR C92685 1630 THU DRY DAYLITE 524 524 39000 0 1 1 RETAINING WALL 100985 1C35 WED DRY OAYLITE 524 524 2.,.000 0 0_ 2 ENTERING AT ANGLE 102485.-1358-THU WET DAYLITE-_'• 524 524 1,500. .l. 0 2 ENTERING` AT ANGLE 1112E5 0755 TUE DRY DAYLITE 524 0030F N 524 750 0 0 2 S.DIR-BOTH STR-BOTH MOV-SS050285 1130 THU DRY DAYLITE j -__524 0021F W 536 -440_-0 0 2 ONE VEH ENTERING DRIVEWAY 112185 1430 THU SNOW DAYLITE 524 84 AV W Br500 2 0 2 ENTERING AT ANGLE C32085 1745 WED WET DAYLITE 524 025OF E 85 2r400 0 0 2 S.DIR-BOTH STR-BOTH MOV-SS081585 1130 THU DRY DAYLITE 524 040OF W 76 1r100-1- 0 _ 2 S.OIR-ALL OTHERS C81585 2300 THU DRY OK-SL-ON 524 88 W 0 1 0 1 PEDESTRIAN-VEH TURN .LEFT 051085 1705 FRI WET CAYLITE 524 88 W 600 1 0 1 VEH OVERTURNED C6:085 1715 SUN DRY DAYLITE -_524 88 W -900_0- 0 - 2-ENTERING AT ANGLE_ I1C7E5. OE05 THU DR-Y DAYL_I TF _ 53 P L W 300 0 0 2 ONE VEH PARKED-.CNE MCV 022485 2100 SUN DRY DK-NO-SL 6 AV N BETWEEN BELL EOMONDS 500 0 0 2 ONE VEH PARKED -ONE MOV C3C585 0600 SAT DRY DK-SL-ON i F AV S 009OF N FORSYTH_LN -_ _39200-1 0 1 FENCE___ C81485_0145 WED DRY DK-SL-ON !. 60 AV W 0050F S SALAL DR 19300 1 0 2 ONE VEH LEAVING DRIVEWAY C4C5P5 0730 FRI WET DAYLITE 68 SW 0606E N 160 SW 5)O 0 0 1 GUARGRAIL,FACE OF -NOT THRUC712C5 2245 FRI ORY DK-SL-ON ; AV N BETWEEN DALY GLEN _949 _0 2 ONE VEH LEAVING PARK PCS. 081785 1930 SAT DAYLITE 4 --_7 I L 7-- *90 VIOS .49. 6), 243 �11504.PC. A . .. 23.. -.0... 3— 73. oz/m VZ. q,4 `t3 0 7 N3 6) L Cb -0 .74. ...... /0 4io rFA : ID t D co 98 r,� 7.' 0 W. U) 24 W. cc 22 W .94. JY N3 I 01� Q, 7.4 WX 5. 12 4 V�- 1,V --- - ---------- 77 Ai /3y 9' yr 0 0' 184. 04 40: Z." /00 Olt Q) IT (h. -54 777---, ,65 STREET FILE t 0 A LEGAL DESCRIPTION m Lots 1 and 2, Block 44, Original Plat of North Edmonds, according to the Plat /VLY. CDR. 6LK. 44 recorded in Volume 2 of Plats on Page 75, Records of Snohomish County, Washington; ALSO beginning at a point on the Westerly Line of Block 44 at a point 25.00 feet Southwesterly of the Northerly Corner of said Block 44; thence continue 88. Sd (RIM,) along said Westerly Line South 3813410011 West for 85.00 feet to the Center p �fZO 5� Line of the Alley of Block 44; thence South 5102610011 East along the Center / N/ Line of the Alley for 135.00 feet, more or less to the North Line for 57.08 North 08038'0011 East for 59.11 feet more or less to a point N 74 feet, thence p � �Z 25.00 feet Southerly measured at right angles from the Northeasterly Line \ of.said Block 44; thence North 5112610011 West for 159.36 feet, more or less to the point of beginning;. e ALSO known as Parcel A; Zg S/o •i, / spa � s- LESS all that portion of hereinafter described Parcel A lying Westerly of an arc of a curve to the right having a radius of 35.00 feet; thence radial to the Center Point being opposite Highway Engineering Station 238 + 58.81 on SR J �� T STIJ ems.= • /� n \ 524 Line Survey of SR 524 Edmonds Junction SR 104 to 76th Avenue West \ N 3 �o and 55.00 feet Northerly therefrom said curve extending from the existing D�� Northerly Right -of -Way Line of said SR 524 Westerly and Northerly to O 9j10/\f existing Southeasterly Right -of -Way Line to Olympic View Drive deeded to the State of Washington; Warranty Deed in Volume 1707 on Page 2695, M.N. ^ Auditor's File #8104300004. 67.36 (2/M) f� (50 6 S (FL.> CO G. ::IV SL B FILLER gl • / 0 CAR � EX�560 C6 M'L/Jll J 09 �� to,. O Q 40 87 /M) cowC. g1.24 EX/5 T/NG r. 50 a� 8.44 STAT/ON. �� Q ,► ,0� 8�.28 �\ can/reoL SLA ^J / \ PQj LL CA a� ��' om Q1 D� GUTTE,e PO//VT - �. 52 5, / i �� 9/ D / .00 ��c� T SPIKE �Q / r 57 � � � \ \ / � � o/la • Ol 3Co"P//VE 2 5Pl m j5x Cur- ` I /IVL E T O)/ I ZE g3 2� =35.0 9 �O� / G, L, . ,qlG �g 23 ®�) _ O p I W 102.49 (R/M> I/ \ L = 73.32 ► l/ L i/E CDN PUMP / SS 7 ' P-�• 101.3 //NLETHT STO. /G T/UN o g.l5 �� / 85.92(R/M) 5 0. , / g2 �O5 B / p' ED g5.Co8 9 p�W 9 /2" 1 to C. J SLA 93,og /�59• C NC- /� 95• ``� ALE EASM'T. A.F. # 8l30X 98.5 I /8/O ODO `� � �/M- . -®-/'• ' A•F#8/ogg250//3 G TTE /NLET 86,.57 _ _ _ coNC 9 5./3 /O .18 (Rlmj MH / 90. T T GU qUT TE�P 7.� /p0.00 A M,EO �P/M .72 pvl - 7' � _ _ � . a• m �. � o, o Q N 89048 , 0 I) W Q cc Q IMP DATE ORWG. CHECK . ,JOB NO 1586 SHEET tom... •;• - ,•r SU -1. ui ii OF allri " 10�1171-elc 41✓.E /o/y A�el 4e SuzvEy U V 01997 HERMIT COUNTER s � CT EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO Item number: 9 Originator: Planning Division For Action: X For Information: SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF QUIT CLAIM DEED FROM NANCY LOUISE ROWE FOR 10' DEDICATION OF STREET RIGHT OF WAY AT 1018 PUGET DR. AGENDA TIME: Consent AGENDA DATE: September 6, 1988 EXHIBITS ATTACHED: 1. Quit Claim Deed 2. Vicinity Map Clearances: Dept./Indiv./Initials ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ADMIN SVCS/FINANCE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK COMMUNITY SERVICES ENGINEERING PARKS & RECREATION PLANNING _ PUBLIC WORD FIRE PERSONNEL POLICE COMMITTEE MAYOR COMMENTS: EXPENDITURE AMOUNT APPROPRIATION REQUIRED: $0 BUDGETED: $0 REQUIRED: .$0 HISTORY AND SUMMARY STATEMENT: The City recently processed a request for a building permit at 1018 Puget Drive. Prior to issuance of the building permit, a dedication of right-of-way at the corner of Puget Drive and Olympic View Drive was required, in accordance with the Official Street Map. Nancy Louise Rowe has submitted a quit claim deed for this property. Attached are a copy of the quit claim deed and a vicinity map. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept the quit claim deed from Nancy Louise Rowe. QCROWE/COUNCIL ®COMMONWEALTH THIS SPACE MtWIDED Kilt ItEcoRDErS USE. IANDT(T1E INSURANCE COMPANY is CG 1C.. I V C L7 Philadelphia. Pennsylvania AUG 1 1$$ Piled for Record at Request of PERMIT COUNTER Name........................................................................................................ Addrea..................................................................................................... City and State ....................................... _................ .......................... _.._ i --------------------------- --------------= Quit Claim Deed THE GRANTOR NANCY LOUISE ROWE, formerly NANCY LOUISE STRICKLAND for and inconsideration of For Mutual Benefits To Be Derived conveys and quit claims to City of Edmonds the following described real estate, situated in the County of Snohomish together with all after ttcquired title of the grantor(s) therein: All that portion of Block 44, Original Plat of North Edmonds, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 2 of Plats on page 75. records of Snohomish County, State of Washington. Commencing at a point on the Westerly line of said Block 44 at a point 25.00 feet Southwesterly of the Northerly corner of said Block 44; thence South 51025'55" East, parallel to the Northerly line of said Block 44, for 157.02 feet;.thence South 14038'18" West for 48.95 feet to the point of beginning; thence continue South 14038'18" West for 10.34 feet; thence South 89048'00" West, for 159.41.feet; thence on a curve'to the right, having a radius of 35.00 feet, a central angle of 44024'15" for an arc length of 27.13 feet; thence North 89048'00" East for 186.54' feet to the point of beginning. Dated Attg tR 19, , 19 RR . anc Louise Rowe ( fvidual —' . � . BY By: R. T. Strickl(ant�vd�ier Attorney -in -fact By STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF.SNOHOMISH 1 u- I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ....... R.... T-". S t ri cklatici ........................... (NAME Or ►ERmw signed this Instrument and acknowledged It to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned In the Instrument. . / DMtd 15E i. at sraMP) A atom OF ...........T............ .... MY alWolnunm "Pins (FORM 3156 (Washington) (President) (Secretary) State of Washington, STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF .................................................. 1 ss. I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that ..................................................................................................................... (NAME OF PERSON) signed this Instrument, on oath stated that (he/she) was authorized to execute the Inswment and acknowledged It as the ..................................................................................................................... (TYPE OF AUTHORITY. E.G.. OFFICER. TRUSTEE. EM) of..........................................................................................................to be (NAME OF PARTY ON BEHALF OF WHOM INSTRUMENT WAS EXEaM D) the free and voluntary act of such party for the uses and purposes mentioned In the instrument. .............................��............................. .........................................................:.. (SEAL OR STAMP) Signature of Notary Public- ...........................k ........................... ..................MY appobtunent e�ltea ................. .. .. W 1561 119130 19128 1523 155I 1-642 I 1921c i535 1531 1592 /9222 �\ v \ 1521 t 531D \P0. t515 POND 1520 1505 A45 '� O 19 316 1427 14q 1 506 / 14 2 9 ° c< \ 506 a o 1gp1 O 1g2O o ,q` 1449 Q� 15t2 14 zJ. oN� � F 1402 1950 1439 \ o 1427 143o u 142o �'' S 1-40 c 141g M o �� 1417 o 14 29 1414 � tic �� 1047 Ho a 'MOSTONE t 30Z • 1405 � 1z33 1300 0/-j�j � 0719� 107 PUGET DRIVE P__r_ o1ect_site. .10 192a 1921 192