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 e 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