16111 76TH PL W (2)16111 76TH PL W
Message Page 1 of 1
IIII�lIII I (� l I l `7 v`v PL_ W
Graf, Jeannine
From:
Smith, Mike
Sent:
Thursday, November 17, 2005 12:00 PM
To:
Graf, Jeannine
Cc: Westfall, John
Subject: RE: Meadowdale Marina
The Fire Department will require as builts for the damaged and repaired sprinkler
piping. Permits will be required for repairing the fire line and the damaged portion
of the sprinkler system. This can be lumped together in one permit.
Prior to occupancy we will need:
1) Verification that the fire line to the building is repaired, on and functional.
2) Annual certifications from a licensed sprinkler contractor on both the dry and
wet automatic sprinkler systems that they are functional.
3) Work must be done by a licensed sprinkler contractor regarding repairs to the
wet system on the piping that broke when a portion of the building and pier
collapsed.
4) The sprinkler system requires monitoring off site.
I am sure other things will come up. I will advise if we add or delete to the above
requirements.
-----Original Message -----
From: Graf, Jeannine
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 9:45 AM
To: Smith, Mike
Cc: DST
Subject: Meadowdale Marina
Mike
Besides a scope of work and bid --what schematics/details, etc. will you want for the Meadowdale Marina
fire sprinkler repair work? Thanks JLG
11/17/2005
Nor , c K r,o zK::'a -I-
THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SERVICING THE
BUILDINGS ARE IN NEED OF REPAIR
BY ORDER OF THE CITY FIRE MARSHAL
DATED November 16, 2005
UNDER SECTION 901 OF THE 2003 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE OF THE
CITY OF EDMONDS
IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON OR PERSONS TO OCCUPY OR USE THESE
BUILDINGS UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM HAS BEEN
REPAIRED UNDER THE PROPER PERMIT AND TESTED AND INSPECTED
APPROVED BY THE CITY FIRE MARSHAL
ADDRESS OF VIOLATION
16111 76TH Place West, Edmonds
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE
CITY OF EDMONDS
FIRE MARSHAL
ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSON REMOVING THIS SIGN WILL BE PROSECUTED
By order of the Building Official for the
pity of Edmonds
All persons Are Ordered to
,dd,... /6NI Pl Wass
Property C)���nc;.r(if known). —
C ontractor (i f knotiv rr ):
We are unable to locate a valid permit for the work being done at this address_ A pc;nnit
is rec{uired fur ibis proicct. A,Vork SHAIL,_N-01 coritujue until a pemli.t has been obtained
and the v ork inspected lur conformance xvith applicable codes and ordinances. It you
have already obtai:ml the pemilt, please contact us at (425) 77I-0220 with the permit
number so vti,c can rcNi5e our ►-ecord4.
An application must he submitted or a response in writing
must be made to our office no later than 4:00 pm on
A VIOLATION FEE EQUAL OR UP To FINE TIMES
THE PERNIlT F'EE SHALL BE ASSESSED.
Posted this/6- duty of
f3u11d1n,g Official
WarninLx: The failure to stop this work or activi( and/or the
resuming of Nvork without permission or the removal,
mutilation, or concealment of this Notice is punishable by tine
and imprisonment.
City of -;dnittnds I)cvclopinclit So ices I)L'Partmoll Building DIN t"roit
121 -0' Ave A: • Edmonds. WA 98020 • (42's) 771 022 U
Of icc 11our,s 1t-F 0- 12 and 14
Graf, Jeannine
From: Graf, Jeannine
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:59 AM
To: Building Work Group
Subject: FW: Meadowdale Marina
Staff
City Council upheld the Hearing Examiner's decision on the Meadowdale Marina. Steve is the designated staff contact
person at this time for all inquires. If anyone attempts to submit a permit application Marie is the DST in charge and all
applicants must have an appointment. DO NOT ACCEPT ANY PERMIT APPLICATIONS UNLESS APPROVED BY
BOTH GRAF AND BULLOCK —NO EXCEPTIONS. Thanks JLG
-----Original Message -----
From: Chave, Rob
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 10:16 AM
To: Ross, Linda; Bowman, Duane; Gebert, David; Graf, Jeannine
Subject: FW: Meadowdale Marina
FYI for you also..
-----Original Message -----
From: Bullock, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:34 AM
To: Planning Work Group
Subject: Meadowdale Marina
If you are contacted by anyone interested in Meadowdale Marina, particularly appraisers, please forward them on to me.
Thanks. Steve
c 4M
ENGINEERING
September 4, 2009
7E U17.
Ann Bullis, CBO
Building Official 'SE n 0 4 21009
City of Edmonds
121 5'h Ave N SUL "
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Meadowdale Pier
Dear Ann:
The project owner (Mr. Milosavljevich) is requesting that the City allow a partial
resubmittal in order to obtain a repair permit for the existing wood building. The objective
is to prevent further damage of the building while the pier replacement permit is being
processed.
Currently the northeast portion of the structure is missing, which leaves the wood framing
exposed to the weather. Because most of the framing is not preservative treated, the
structural members are susceptible to further decay. The missing structure also leaves the
building more vulnerable to further damage under high wind conditions.
CG Engineering would revise the building repair drawings (sheets SR-1, SR-2 & SR-3) to
show the repair work to be done while the existing wood pier is still in place. This would
include details of the connection to the existing wood pier. Connection to the new pier
would be shown on the pier upgrade drawings and accomplished at the time it is
constructed.
Thank you for considering the owner's request. If you have any questions or comments
regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,VY C
CG Engineering
C. Chevy Chase, PE, SE , ro Q
Principal I -
cc: Milo Milosavljevic
Meadowdale Marina
List of questions and potential issues to discuss with City Attorney in issuing a repair
permit for the wood building only, as requested in their letter (attached):
General Comments
• _ _ Ito site for City inspections, fire fighter access,
worker access and construction equipment. Has BNRR approved access across
their right-of-way to the pier? Currently gated with concrete blocks obstructing
access.
Planning Comments:
• Mike Clugston unsure of how thGSh@wJiQe--pzEmit would be affected, wanted
your input.
• General question on 75% damage section in shoreline permit — does it include the
wood pier structure as well as wood building?
Building Comments:
• IBC 3401.2 requires that "buildings and structures, and parts thereof shall be
maintained in a safe and sanitary condition...."
• General Status of Pier and Buildings
o According to the Structural Engineer, the south steel building and pier
are in satisfactory condition
o There is deterioration of the wood building and wood pier due to lack
of maintenance
o Fire sprinkler and notification systems are not functional
o No electrical service to pier or buildings so there is no power for
minimum heat, lighting and emergency systems (exit signage,
emergency lighting, fire alarm, etc.)
o No restroom facilities since septic tank was removed
o In 2003 Building Official required the land entrance gate to be
secured, no trespassing signs to be installed around the pier, ladders
access points from the water to be removed until the pier and building
could be repaired or demolished.
o Multiple Stop Work Orders, Order to Correct Notices, Notice of Civil
Violation, Notice to Repair (fire sprinkler) have been issued over the
past years to the owner.
Based on the letter, the requested repair permit for the wood building would not
address all code requirements for fire and life-safet .cu (such as
functional fire sprinkler and notification systems; minimum egress lighting, heat,
restroom facilities, accessibility, weather barriers to protect the building, repair of
the pier, etc.)
---While the permit application is in process, we could consider
issuing a permit for "shoring and repair for maintaining structural integrity
only while the permit application is under review" rather than issuing a true
"repair" permit. t(i/C7117�--tom- OCCV7A,4 7
o Site access, safe access on pier and in building for inspectors and
firefighters is a big concern and must be addressed with any permit we
issue.
o This permit would also required repair of the pier and fire sprinkler
system to address the safe access/egress and Fire Marshal comments
during construction
o Should we require a separate permit for the structural integrity repair
or have him alter the existing scope of work for the building repair and
new pier permit applications. Need to discuss pros and cons and how
it affects other approvals, legal issues, etc.
• Discuss plan of action if permit applications for complete repair to the wood
building and pier expire with no action.
• If the wood pier and wood building are demolished, how would our codes look at
the existing steel building and pier that remains? Would owner be allowed to
build a pier from the land to access the building?
Fire Marshal Comments:
• If a repair permit is issued, IFC Chapter 14 sets forth minimum requirements for
Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition (IFC Chapter 14):
o Required means of egress shall be maintained during construction, demolition,
remodeling, or alterations to any building (IFC 1411.2). This includes the
building as well as the pier structure providing egress from and access to the
building.
o Approved water supply for fire protection during construction (IFC 1412).
Questions whether the City should/would turn the water back on to a line that
is supported by a dilapidated pieribuilding? Current backflow assembly on
fire line is only a single check valve (need double check valve).
o Designated Fire Prevention Program Superintendent throughout construction.
o How will power be provided to the building during construction for lighting,
tools, etc.
a
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 27, 2000
To: Jeanine Graf, Building Official
From: Mike Smith, Fire Inspector
Subject: Meadowdale Marina 16111 76th PL W
On 4-26-2000 I made contact with Terry, an employee at Meadowdale
Marina for a follow-up inspection. During my time there I noticed the
pier and wooden structure are sagging in many places. This is probably
due to the failing of the pilings holding up the pier. No vehicles are
allowed to drive onto the pier. Signs are posted allowing only owners
with boats in storage admittance. The area in question is limited to only
the wooden structure. I am concerned about the building from a life
safety standpoint and the possibility of collapse. The concrete and steel
portion built in the mid 70's show no visible signs of sagging or
deterioration.
While doing my inspection I noticed both dry sprinkler systems had been
shut down. Terry knew nothing about this and suggested I talk with Jack
Evans, the marina owner. On 4-27 I spoke with Jack and found out the
system had a pinhole in one of the pipes causing the system to go wet.
Jack was working on the A/S and assured me the system would be back in
service ASAP. I left my card and requested a follow-up call on the
progress.
City of Edmonds Fire Department
Graf, Jeannine
To: Bowman, Duane
Subject: Meadowdale Marina
//27/0-3
Director
Fire crews reported that a portion of the old pier collasped this weekend. Ann is going out at 2:OOpm with Mike Smith to
inspect the damage. Our options will be to post an Unsafe Notice and deny ped or vehicle access until a repair permit is
issued and repair work is approved. Or, we could post for Limited Entry or Safe. I will copy Bullock on this e-mail in case
there are planning discretionary permits required for possible pier repair. The owner is Meadowdale Marina LLC (Milo is
the rep for the LLC).
Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official
City of Edmonds
Meadowdale Marina
Page 1 of 1
Graf, Jeannine
From: W. Scott Snyder [ssnyder@omwlaw.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 2:45 PM
To: Graf, Jeannine
Subject: RE: Meadowdale Marina
You can order that the site be secured from all access --water and land. Whether you do so depends upon how
accessible the dock is. For example, since its a dock, I'll assume that its easy to tie up to. You could order
signage and the removal of ladders or that access points be fenced and signed. Your call.
I am not aware of any law which the city is required to enforce regarding stuff falling in the sound. I do know that
the state and fed's now prohibit the use of creosote pilings and given the age of this facility, it seems reasonable
to assume that the timbers may be treated. You might try calling DOE's regional office (425-649-7000) and then
sending them written notice of what is going on.
-----Original Message -----
From: Graf, Jeannine [mailto:Graf@ci.edmonds.wa.us]
Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 5:00 PM
To: W. Scott Snyder
Cc: Bowman, Duane
Subject: Meadowdale Marina
Scott
On 1/25 Fire crews responded to a sprinkler flow alarm at the Meadowdale Marina (majority of the pier is
wood with one heavy timber building and one steel and concrete building, both buildings are sprinkled).
The Marina has no current business operations and is vacant. The Fireman arrived to find a partial
collapse of the northeast corner of the heavy timber building. This morning Fire and Building staff met with
the General Manager of the LLC who owns the building (remember Milo?) and performed an inspection.
The Marina entrance from land is completely gated/fenced/barbed wired and has a No Trespassing sign
posted. The partial collapse encompassed an area approximately 20'x20', staff noted obvious soft spots in
the decking around the collapsed area and in some areas of the pier. Because of weathering the
dilapidation will continue to take place on this building (piers, beams, decking, due to dry rot). The majority
of the pier guardrail is also failing and or missing (not associated with the collapse, but a life safety item if
people use the pier). Milo only has liability insurance and of course he has little money to make the
required repairs so my question to you is: Am I obligated to require immediate repairs OR, since the
Marina land access is fenced and both buildings are vacant and unused, can the damage remain as is until
some time in the future when he is prepared to remodel or improve the Marina? A second question is, are
there State laws regulating the dilapidation of buildings into the Sound? We are aware that decking
intermittently fails and falls into the sound. A third question, technically boaters could access the marina
from the water side. Does this change the answer to question #1? Thanks JLGraf
Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official
City of Edmonds
1 /30/2003
Meadowdale Marina LLC
7411 1960' Street Southwest
Lynwood, Washington 9u8036
February 24, 2003
City of Edmonds
121 5h Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Meadowdale Marina @ 16111 7e Place West, Edmonds
Dear Ms Graf:
Please be advised that the old wood structure building is unsafe and beyond repair.
Therefore, it is our intent to dismantle the building and haul away all the material
removed The pier decking will remain undisturbed since it appears to be in good
condition. Furthermore, it is our intent to remove all
the machinery, equipment and other objects from the pier: The only structure left and
standing will be the metal building and the wooden dock.
We are certain that such action will drastically improve safety and appearance of this
property.
Please find enclosed an application for demolition permit.
Sincerely Yours,
VI ilosavlj (General Manager}
c
Graf, Jeannine
From:
Smith, Mike
Sent:
Thursday, February 27, 2003 10:04 AM
To:
Bullis, Ann; Graf, Jeannine; Westfall, John; Snook, Mike
Subject:
Meadowdale Marina 16111 76th PI W
I met Milo at the marina yesterday. The old gas tank, pump, and piping have been removed. A temporary power service
is in place.
And as a reminder, even when the dock is dry it is still treacherous walking out there.
Date: March 11, 2003
To: Building Department
From: John Westfall, Fire Marshal
Subject: PC #03-079 Meadowdale Marina Demolition 16111 76" PI W.
The Fire Department has approved subject plans with corrections. The following
comments and corrections are provided:
1. Maintain vehicular access area from 751h Place to the foot of pier on 761h Place
for the purpose of Fire Department apparatus access.
2. Maintain clear access to fire hydrant East of RR crossing and water utilities vault
for fire suppression use.
3. Maintain a 3' clear path to beach for workers during demolition and firefighters
for use in case of emergency. Gate may be secured to prevent unwanted
personnel from walking on pier.
4. Provide portable fire extinguishers on -site for ready use. Extinguishers should
be minimum 2A:10B:C rated and spaced no greater than 75' from demolition
operations.
5. Provide afire watch who will be dedicated to reporting any fire problems to 9-1-1.
A means of communication for reporting an emergency is required.
6. Remove combustible debris often. Do not allow debris to accumulate.
7. A "doghouse" will be constructed around existing fire sprinkler riser. Inside
temperatures must be maintained at 40 degrees F. or greater. Cap demolished
sprinkler system at a point inside sprinkler doghouse.
8. Automatic sprinkler system for remaining structure must be placed back into
service for Fire Department sign -off of demolition project.
Cc. Mr. Milosavljevic, 23423 Brier Road, Brier, WA 98036
Mr. Jim. Johnson, 7411 196" Street SW, Lynnwood, WA 98036
,v
City of Edmonds Sb Office of Fire Marshal
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSO
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Ih c . 1 B913 Planning • Building • Engineering
August 26, 2003
Vladan Milosavljevic
Meadowdale Marina LLC
7411 1961" Street SW
Lynnwood, WA 98036
RE: Plan Check # 03-079
Dear Mr. Milosavljevic:
Your building application for partial demolition of the Meadowdale Marina has expired.
If you wish to continue this project in the future, all new permit fees and applications will
apply.
Sincerely,
60*T
Jeannine Graf
Building Official
Cc: 23423 Brier Road, Brier, WA 98036
• Incorporated August 11, 1890
/oew AtceAw Sri 4ft,,,
fA
C� / yr- f�-li
.a 11-�Iolee-y 0(4 o�i•�iv�'
Z) 53 iVw ot Aee-,oboj f
,FeA-jo- An ,-Aw, d T�Xll ?
God ov4-vo' -vt ?
3) mA y "1104 % w/ooe
ave, r,✓�,
hlooal
C91 rs ol, show/,,-r Ae494 I O�Alo A/e4
-Z � 4w,&h 41- a m a/lxw 7 C le-S )
Ala v edu/d lk et%y , o q. t 4 /� Weevo�/tGetT Dto '-'evAm yw-
,od #,,vpd olen- rc ,f//,ow ^0 ofeee-" Ar LGo.eA41e 1,04.t
C(O 3� G►/!�1-f -off ► t r� ��r.�r� oar Ite %k-e- I%+/-4o&e
/-/v w O aW.S r9 c rL C� s r,,�4e i r��.9- aV
41) JAAY /s //-llwPf /Zv- Milo IV
/•w / rAge Ix /,v iwfi,vrto �
71VI- t4i // AC-rew-r
�) j�v�,✓ IIV%1 / /A u 4CI76 - ,If 4c7L 74(6
w4i /' / h U 1V.O"11t,4l 10j qko 7
N
Gf� Gf� CY4C�l� Gv-9J f% Ah"lwe
/ k", �fi /C"/ /- — %�O40u49/(/ I g2G�� LGG
C�) �I,,r f��dvyG I/14/�✓ �'1/I_
23
f�!lJ 67-c All, crcc✓w�
C,of) JAJ1v.,,1a1M4�W 00jol�010-ev ?
�p^'��r/ •+ems/cc �
��9m.ore ov� 77.�r
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 27, 2000
To: Jeanine Graf, Building Official
From: Mike Smith, Fire Inspector
Subject: Meadowdale Marina 16111 76" PL W
On 4-26-2000 I made contact with Terry, an employee at Meadowdale
Marina for a follow-up inspection. During my time there I noticed the
pier and wooden structure are sagging in many places. This is probably
due to the failing of the pilings holding up the pier. No vehicles are
allowed to drive onto the pier. Signs are posted allowing only owners
with boats in storage admittance. The area in question is limited to only
the wooden structure. I am concerned about the building from a life safety
standpoint and the possibility of collapse. The concrete and steel portion
built in the mid 70's show no visible signs of sagging or deterioration.
While doing my inspection I noticed both dry sprinkler systems had been
shut down. Terry knew nothing about this and suggested I talk with Jack
Evans, the marina owner. On 4-27 I spoke with Jack and found out the
system had a pinhole in one of the pipes causing the system to go wet.
Jack was working on the A/S and assured me the system would be back in
service ASAP. I left my card and requested a follow-up call on the
progress.
5-11-2000 I contacted Jack Evans at the Marina this morning. Two
employee's from Grinnell were there working on the A/S systems. At
1600 hours I got a call from Grinnell saying both systems were up and
operating.
City of Edmonds Fire Department
Inc. 1S°ly
CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSO MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.a.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
January 3 i, 2003
Meadowdale Marina LLC
Jim Johnson, Registered Agent
7411 196th Street Southwest
Lynnwood, Washington 98036
RE: Meadowdale Marina @ 16111 76`h Place West, Edmonds
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The purpose of this letter is to outline City requirements regarding the repair work to be
performed on the Meadowdale Marina. As you are aware, City Fire Department crews
responded to a fire sprinkler flow alarm on January 25th, 2003 and discovered a portion of the
pier and heavy framed timber building on the pier, partially collapsed. City Fire and Building
Officials met with the Marina General Manager Mr. Milosavljevic on January 28th, 2003 to view
the damage and discuss the repair issues. Mr. Milosavljevic indicated that he had the authority to
speak and make decisions on behalf of the LLC. If this is not true please inform my office
immediately.
Given this the following is required by the City:
• Contact PUD and immediately repair the stressed, electrical line that services the heavy
timber building.
• Take immediate action to protect the electrical service panels that are now exposed to the
weather due to the partial building collapse. A State Electrical permit may be required to
repair etc.; it is your responsibility to contact the State Labor & Industries Everett offices
for permitting requirements.
R Remove the abandoned fuel tank located on the westerly portion of the pier. A tank
removal permit ($45) is required. Obtain permit at Edmonds City Hall within 30 days
date of this letter. The City Fire Inspector must be on site to observe the cleaning and
removal of the tank while in process. -
• Remove the septic tank located on the east side of the pier and cap plumbing lines to and
from the tank. A compliance permit ($50) is required for this work. Obtain permit at
Edmonds City Hall within 30 days date of this letter.
• Obtain a repair permit to make all necessary repairs to the fire sprinkler system, (fee
based on contractor's repair bid for the work). Obtain permit at Edmonds City Hall
within 30 days date of this letter.
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan. Jauan
Mr. Johnson
January 31, 2003
Page Two
• Secure the pier from access via land and water within 30 days date of this letter.
Removal of ladders that allow water access to the pier and installation of "No
Trespassing" signs are required.
If in the future you decide to repair the damaged columns, piers, decking, or building, etc. you
shall be required to obtain a building permit for this work. It is also highly likely that some
Planning permits such as Shoreline permit, critical areas review, etc. would also be required. We
suggest that you schedule for a pre -application meeting with City officials for any future repairs,
remodeling or re -building for this site.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 during normal City
business hours. If you wish to meet in person please call in advance for a mutually agreeable
day and time as I am frequently assisting other citizens and not always available.
Sincerely,
44ky ": r:: )
Jeannine L. Graf
Building Official
Mr. Milosavljevic, 23423 Brier Road, Brier, WA 98036
s
Inc. 1890
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
August 28, 2009
Vladan Milosavljevic
Meadowdale Marina, LLC
23423 Brier Road
Brier, WA 98036
RE: Posting of No Trespassing Signs at Meadowdale Marina
16111 76th Place West, Edmonds
Dear Mr. Milosavljevic,
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
In City letter dated January 31, 2003 (copy enclosed), the Building Official required that
the pier be secured from access from both land and water and that "NO TRESPASSING"
signs be installed. The Police Department has informed me that the no trespassing signs
are no longer posted.
By September 10, 2009, post "NO TRESPASSING" signs on all sides of the pier to
clearly inform people approaching via the water, as well as at the land entrance gate. It is
your responsibility to maintain these signs.
Sincerely,
Ann Bullis, CBO
Building Official
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister Citv - Hekinan, Japan
Inc.18()Q
September
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www dedmonds,wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
18, 2009
Chevy Chase, PE, SE
CG Engineering
250 4`h Ave S, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Meadowdale Marina, 16111 76" Place West
Dear Mr. Chase,
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
The City received your letter dated September 4, 2009 requesting consideration of the
City to allow a partial resubmittal in order to obtain a repair permit for the existing wood
building. Staff met to discuss your letter and have the following questions before
responding:
• Is the owner intending to alter the scope of work for current permit application
BLD20080693 for this repair, or submit a new permit application specifically for
this repair? Keep in mind that alterations must still be made to the wood building
to accomm—nodate constriction Of the pier as well as attachm. ent to the pie:, zind
must be a separate permit from the pier construction since they are separate
structures.
• Is it owner's intent that the scope of the subject repair permit include bringing the
building into code compliance for occupancy?
• The owner has had nearly a year to respond to the City's plan review comments
for both the pier (BLD20080694) and wood building (BLD20080693), and have
only received a partial resubmittal. By making this request while permit
applications for the wood pier replacement and wood building repair are active,
what is the owner's schedule to submit the outstanding items to make the
resubmittal for these applications complete so the City can continue review?
• The current permit applications expire on August 12, 2010. Does the owner still
intend to proceed with the project to replace the pier and repair the wood
building?
Please provide written responses to these questions, so that we may respond to your
request.
Sincerely,
ok-
Ann Bullis, CBO
Building Official
Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
C 4M
ENGINEERING
September 4, 2009
C7V7
Ann Bullis, CBO
Building Official uED 0 4 2003
City of Edmonds
1215"Ave N BU1LCV4t-''k:..:
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Meadowdale Pier
Dear Ann:
The project owner (Mr. Milosavljevich) is requesting that the City allow a partial
resubmittal in order to obtain a repair permit for the existing wood building. The objective
is to prevent further damage of the building while the pier replacement permit is being
processed.
Currently the northeast portion of the structure is missing, which leaves the wood framing
exposed to the weather. Because most of the framing is not preservative treated, the
structural members are susceptible to further decay. The missing structure also leaves the
building more vulnerable to further damage under high wind conditions.
CG Engineering would revise the building repair drawings (sheets SR-1, SR-2 & SR-3) to
show the repair work to be done while the existing wood pier is still in place. This would
include details of the connection to the existing wood pier. Connection to the new pier
would be shown on the pier upgrade drawings and accomplished at the time it is
constructed.
Thank you for considering the owner's request. If you have any questions or comments
regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
CG Engineering
C. Chevy Chase,
Principal
cc: Milo Milosa)
250 4th Ave. South
Suite 200
Edmonds, WA98020
I
Phone:425.778.8500 ;
Fax: 425.77 8.5536
j
J
Bullis, Ann
From: Clugston, Michael
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 10:43 AM
To: Zach Lell; Bullis, Ann
Subject: Meadowdale Marina shoreline permit
Good morning,
After our call yesterday, I went back to the WAC and our code to try to better determine if what Milo is now proposing
would require a revision to the shoreline permit, if the proposal could be considered an emergency, or if a new building
permit to stabilize the structure would meet the intent of the existing SSDP.
The issue does not qualify for an emergency exemption as described in WAC 173-27-040(2)(d) - "As a general matter,
flooding or other seasonal events that can be anticipated and may occur but that are not imminent are not an emergency."
The question then is whether the existing SSDP would need to be revised or whether the temporary work meets the intent
of the existing SSDP. WAC 173-27-100 describes revisions to existing permits. It states:
A permit revision is required whenever the applicant proposes substantive changes to the design, terms or
conditions of a project from that which is approved in the permit. Changes are substantive if they materially
alter the project in a manner that relates to its conformance to the terms and conditions of the permit, the master
program and/or the policies and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW. Changes which are not substantive in effect
do not require approval of a revision.
Based on what is being proposed for the new building permit, it doesn't appear to me that the changes are substantive.
The temporary fixes could be considered an intermediate step toward the eventual completion of the existing SSDP. All
work - temporary or permanent - would have to be performed in accordance with the SSDP and associated regs.
Mike Clugston, AICP
Planner
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
P: 425-771-0220 1 F: 425-771-0221
michael.clugston@ci.edmonds.wa.us
6/5/09
Milo scheduled an appointment with Theresa Umbaugh to resubmit for his permit applications
BLD2008-0693 and 0694. Ann Bullis and Theresa Umbaugh met with Milo at the front counter at
approximately 11:00 am.
He submitted one copy of the appraisal for the wood building and a written estimate for the repair.
Theresa and Ann went through the remaining items needed to complete the resubmittal. He argued
the cost estimate for the site improvements and traffic control, saying that he was not doing any site
improvements. Ann recommended that he read the Engineering corrections and contact Jeanie
McConnell if he still had questions. This was reiterated to him by Theresa several times.
Theresa wrote out the four items the City would need in order for the NOV fines to stop (as required
in the Notice of Civil Violation issued due to pier repair done without first obtaining a building
permit.
1. Written responses and/or plan changes in response to 9/25/08 fire dept comments
2. Written response with possible change to plans for planning comments #3 dated 1/29/09
3. Itemized cost -estimate for both on and off site (right-of-way) improvements, including
traffic control — indicated that Milo should talk to Jeanie McConnell if he had any questions
concerning this.
4. Complete Fire Connection plans and application must be made. He said he had a guy
working on this.
Milo explained that he cannot get BNSF approval until we say we are going to approve the permits.
Ann stated that the Special Inspection agreement form requirement, signed contractors
acknowledgement and BNSF RR approvals would not be required to be submitted to satisfy the
requirements of the NOV
Milo said he didn't want the fines to continue to accrue forever. Ann explained that the NOV fines
will stop when these 4 items are received, making the resubmittal complete. She reminded him that
the NOV is a result of him doing repair work to the pier without a building permit, he said he knew,
but he didn't have time to come and see us. Ann reminded him that he started the work on a week
day when City hall was open and he could have called us. He didn't disagree.
Milo said that it was going to be a long time before he could submit for these items because he
doesn't have any money. He said he wanted to only get the permit for repair of the wood building
and will do the pier later. Ann said that the plans as they are currently drawn, including sequence of
events notes on the plans, show the pier being constructed first and the building repaired second.
The piers will be installed down through the roof of the building. Ann also explained that the
building repair plans show a new pier under the wood building with connections to the new pier, so
the plans would have to be revised to reflect the accurate conditions and construction that he is
proposing. He looked puzzled, then said all he wanted to do was repair the building so it didn't
continue to dilapidate. Theresa reiterated that the plans would have to be revised. Since the project
affected so many departments, Arm suggested he write a letter explaining his new plan to only
repair the building at this time and why, and we would review with all departments and respond to
him. Ann cautioned him on the expiration of his permit applications. He thanked us and left.
October 2, 2009
ENGIRiEERIiVG
Ann Bullis
City of Edmonds
Building Division
220 4'h Avenue South
Edmonds, WA 98032
Plan Check Number: 2008-0693 & 2008-0694
Project Name: Pier Replacement (0694) & Building Repair (0693)
Project. Address: 16111 761h Ave W
Dear Ms. Bullis,
itemized below is the response to the comments contained in the September 18, 2009 letter for
the above referenced project.
• Is the owner intending to alter the scope of work for current permit application
BLD20080693 for this repair, or submit a new permit application specifically for this
repair? Keep in mind that alterations trust still be made to the wood building to
accommodate construction of the pier as well as attachment to the pier, and must be a
separate permit from the pier construction since they are separate structures.
The owner would like to alter the scope of work for the current permit application
(BLD 2008-0693)
• is it owner's intent that the scope of the subject repair permit includes bringing the
building into code compliance for occupancy?
No. The scope of work would be to repair the structure to prevent fitrther tlantage
The owner has had nearly a year to respond to the City's plan review comments for
both the pier (BLD20080694) and wood building (BLD20080693), and have only
received a partial resubmittal. By making this request while permit applications for the
wood pier replacement and wood building repair are active, what is the owner's
schedule to submit the outstanding items to make the resubmittal for these applications
complete so the City can continue review?
The owner is awaiting a decision front BNSF Railroad before the response to
the City's plan review conrntents can be completed It is the owner's intent to
submit the outstanding heirs at that tine.
• The current permit applications expire on August 12, 2010. Does the owner still intend
to proceed with the project to replace the pier and repair the wood building?
Yes. The owner intends to proceed with the pier replacement and mood building
repair project.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the responses to this .review please do not
hesitate to call.
2504thAve. South Sincerely,
suite 200 CG Engine. -ing
Edmonds, WA98020
Phone: 425.778.8500
Fax: 425.778.5536 C. Chevy Chase, PE, E
Principal
A.
I
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
Res ue
APPRAISAL REPOR' JUN 05 2009
q � �1ilO�M�T
REPLACEMENT COST ESTIMATE
BARN BUILDING AT MEADOWDALE MARINA
1611176M PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
As of
June 2, 2009
Vladan Milosavljevic
2947 215" Place SW
Brier, Washington 98036
By
Rick Mellen, MAI
The Eastman Company
925 North 130" Street
Seattle, Washington 98133
9076
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
The Eastman Company
Rick Mellen, MAI
Donald K. Melton
Paul Zemtseff
Kevin Congleton
Carl Bolstad
Mitch Vander Broek
Mike Gage
June 2, 2009
Mr. Vladan Milosavljevic
2947 215t" Place SW
Brier, WA 98036
Real Estate Appraisers/Analysts/Consultants
925 N. 130th Street
Seattle, WA 98133
(206) 363-6611
(888) 251-2921
Fax (206) 363-5507
appraisers@wavalue.com
RE: Replacement Cost, Barn Building, Meadowdale Marina,
16111 76t' Place W, Edmonds, WA - Our File No. 9076
Dear Mr. Milosavljevic:
At your request, I have completed an appraisal of the real property named above. The appraisal
states my opinion of the replacement cost of the building, subject to various Assumptions and
Limiting Conditions described in the accompanying report. Per client instructions, this is a
summary appraisal report.
This appraisal report was prepared in accordance with the instructions provided by the client and
is subject to the Code of Ethics and the Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal
Institute and the Appraisal Foundation.
PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION/ADDRESS
The subject of this appraisal is a barn building located on the pier of Meadowdale Marina, 16111
76t'' Place W, Edmonds, Washington.
OSTENSIBLE OWNER
Meadowdale Marina LLC
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
TAX PARCEL NUMBER
00 5139 001 007 00
CENSUS TRACT; MAP REFERENCE
CT 509.00, Thomas Brothers page 475,A2.
APPRAISAL AUTHORIZATION/CLIENT
Appraisal authorization was given by Vladan Milosavljevic. The client and intended user is
Vladan Milosavljevic.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Meadowdale Tidelands Block 001 D-00, all lots 7-11, inc Block A
PURPOSE OF THE APPRAISAL, INTENDED USER AND RESTRICTIONS ON USE
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the replacement cost of the building. Use of this
appraisal by any party other than the client and for any purpose or use other than the stated
intended use is expressly prohibited. Any others using or relying on this report are unintended
users.
USPAP COMPLIANCE
It is my intent that this appraisal conforms with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP) adopted by the Appraisal Foundation in 1987.
REPLACEMENT COST DEFINITION
Replacement Cost is defined by the Appraisal Institute's Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal
as "the estimated cost to construct, at current prices, a building with utility equivalent to the
building being appraised, using modern materials and current standards, design and layout."
PERSONAL PROPERTY
No personal property was included in the appraisal.
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
PROPERTY RIGHTS APPRAISED
The property rights appraised herein are the fee simple estate of the subject property. Fee simple
estate is defined by the Appraisal Institute's Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal as the "absolute
ownership unencumbered by any other interest or estate; subject to the limitations of eminent
domain, escheat, police powers, and taxation."
SCOPE OF INVESTIGATION
Per client request, this is a summary appraisal, with only the replacement cost being developed.
This appraisal is based upon a physical inspection of the subject property. Specific data on the
subject was obtained from the property owner, representatives of the city and county, and from
records of various public agencies. It is assumed that all information gathered from various
sources is correct and accurate and that any changes or modifications of this data may invalidate
the conclusions contained herein.
APPRAISAL DATE/VIEWING DATE
The subject property was viewed on June 2, 2009. The date of this report and the effective
appraisal date is June 2, 2009.
IMPROVEMENTS DESCRIPTION
Address
16111 76' Place W, Edmonds, Washington.
Building Description
This is a Class D wood frame barn building located on the pier at Meadowdale Marina.
Dimensions are 70' x 160', for an area of 11,200 sf. Reportedly, the building was constructed
circa 1920 and barged to the current site circa 1939. The exterior is wood siding. The roof is a
pitched wood type, with 2" x 10" sheathing and composition shingles. The floor, being part of
the pier, was not included in the replacement cost estimate. Construction includes 8" x 8" wood
posts 16' on center around the perimeter and two rows of posts running down the center of the
building, supporting a barn roof structure. There are two sets of double doors at each end of the
building and one door near the northwest corner of the building. Several windows are also
located at the northwest corner of the building. Height to the eaves is 14' and 22' to the crown.
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
There are no interior partitions. The building does not have electric power, plumbing or heat.
The building appeared to be in poor condition, with a section of the roof sagging. An 18' x 100'
section at the northeast corner of the building was missing, with walls, roof and structural
members missing.
The appraisal assignment was to estimate the replacement cost of the entire building.
The appraiser relied upon cost data from Marshall Valuation Service, a nationally recognized
source of cost data, which is regularly updated.
The subject was considered a low quality Class D general purpose barn building in Section 17,
page 30. This is described as having a dirt floor and no heat, electric or plumbing. The base cost
was $11.00/sf. Modifiers were applied to base costs for height, perimeter, time and local costs,
resulting in a cost of $11.82/sf. 11,200 sf @ $11.82/sf = $132,3 84, rounded to $132,000.
REPLACEMENT COST
$132,000
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
CERTIFICATION
I, Rick Mellen, certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
The statements of fact contained in this appraisal report are true and correct.
The appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation
or the approval of a loan.
The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions
and limiting conditions and are my personal, unbiased, professional analyses, opinions and
conclusions.
I have no present or prospective interest in, or bias with respect to, the property that is the subject
of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved.
My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting
predetermined results.
The compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in
value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a
stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
The reported analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report has been
prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards
of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
I have personally inspected the subject property and I am competent and qualified to perform this
appraisal assignment. As of the date of this report I have completed the requirements of the
Continuing Education Program of the Appraisal Institute and I am currently certified by the State
of Washington as a general classification real estate appraiser.
I do not authorize the out -of -context quoting from or partial reprinting of this appraisal report.
The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review
by its duly authorized representatives.
No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report.
Based on the descriptions, definitions, assumptions, data, and conclusions presented herein, it is
my opinion that the Replacement Cost of the subject property, as of June 2, 2009, is: $132,000.
�i
ck Mellen, MAI
Washington State Certified General
Real Estate Appraiser (1100811)
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
LIMITING CONDITIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
SUMMARY APPRAISAL REPORT
1. This is a Summary Appraisal Report which is intended to comply with the reporting requirements set forth under
Standard Rule 2-2(b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for a Summary Appraisal
Report. As such, it might not include full discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the
appraisal process to develop the appraiser's opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data,
reasoning, and analyses is retained in the appraiser's file. The information contained in this report is specific to
the needs of the client and for the intended use stated in this report. The appraiser is not responsible for
unauthorized use of this report.
2. LIMIT OF LIABILITY:
The liability of The Eastman Company and employees is limited to the client only and to the fee actually received
by the appraiser. Further, there is no accountability, obligation or liability to any third party. If this report is
placed in the hands of anyone other than the client, the client shall make such party aware of all limiting
conditions and assumptions of the assignment and related discussions. The appraiser is in no way to be
responsible for any costs incurred to discover or correct any deficiencies of any type present in the property;
physically, financially and/or legally. In the case of limited partnerships or syndication offerings or stock
offerings in real estate, the client agrees that in case of a lawsuit (brought by lender, partner or part owner in any
form of ownership, tenant, or any other party), any and all awards, settlements of any type in such suit, regardless
of outcome, the client will hold appraiser completely harmless in any such action.
3. COPIES, PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, USE OF REPORT:
Possession of this report or any copy thereof does not carry with it the right of publication, nor may it be used for
other than its intended use.
The Bylaws and Regulations of the Appraisal Institute require each member and candidate to control the use and
distribution of each appraisal report signed by such member or candidate; except as hereinafter provided, the
client may distribute copies of this appraisal report in its entirety to such third parties as he may select; however,
selected portions of this appraisal report shall not be given to third parties without the prior written consent of the
signatories of this appraisal report. Neither all nor any part of this appraisal report shall be disseminated to the
general public by the use of advertising media, public relations, news, sales or other media for public
communication without the prior written consent of the appraiser.
Use of this appraisal by any party other than the party(ies) identified within this report, and for any other use or
purpose(s) than the stated intended use, is expressly prohibited. The appraiser assumes no responsibility or
liability for the use of this report, or any information contained herein, including the valuation conclusion, by any
party not named as a user of this report.
4. CONFIDENTIALITY:
This appraisal is to be used only in its entirety, and no part is to be used without the whole report. All
conclusions and opinions concerning the analysis as set forth in the report were prepared by the appraiser(s)
whose signature(s) appear on the appraisal report unless indicated as "Review Appraiser." No change of any
item in the report shall be made by anyone other than the appraiser and/or officer of the firm. The appraiser and
firm shall have no responsibility if any such unauthorized change is made.
The appraiser may not divulge the material (evaluation) contents of the report, analytical findings or conclusions,
or give a copy of the report to anyone other than the client or his designee as specified in writing except as may
be required by the Appraisal Institute as they may request in confidence for ethics enforcement, or by a court of
law or body with the power of subpoena.
5. TRADE SECRETS:
This appraisal was obtained from The Eastman Company or related companies and/or its individuals or related
independent contractors and consists of "trade secrets and commercial or financial information" which is
privileged and confidential and exempted from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552 (b) (4). Notify the appraiser(s)
signing the report of any request to reproduce this appraisal in whole or in part.
6. INFORMATION USED:
No responsibility is assumed for accuracy of information furnished by work of others, the client, his designee or
public records. The comparable data relied upon in this report has been confirmed with one or more parties
familiar with the transaction or from affidavit or other source thought reasonable; all are considered appropriate
for inclusion to the best of our factual judgment and knowledge. An impractical and uneconomic expenditure of
time would be required in attempting to furnish unimpeachable verification in all instances, particularly as to
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
engineering and market -related information. It is suggested that the client consider independent verification as a
prerequisite to any transaction involving sale, lease or other significant commitment of funds for subject property.
7. TESTIMONY, CONSULTATION, COMPLETION OF CONTRACT FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES:
The contract for appraisal, consultation or analytical service are fulfilled and the total fee payable upon
completion of the report. The appraiser(s) or those assisting in the preparation of the report will not be asked or
required to give testimony in court or hearing because of having made the appraisal, in full or in part, nor engage
in post appraisal consultation with the client or third parties except under separate and special arrangement and at
an additional fee. If testimony or deposition is required because of any subpoena, the client shall be responsible
for any additional time, fees and charges regardless of issuing party.
8. EXHIBITS:
The sketches and maps in this report are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property and are not
necessarily to scale. Various photos, if any, are included for the same purposes as of the date of the photos. Site
plans are not surveys unless shown from separate surveyor.
9. LEGAL, ENGINEERING, FINANCIAL, STRUCTURAL, OR MECHANICAL NATURE HIDDEN
COMPONENTS, SOIL:
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character or nature, nor matters of survey, nor of any
architectural, structural, mechanical, or engineering nature. No opinion is rendered as to the title, which is
presumed to be good and merchantable. The property is appraised as if free and clear, unless otherwise stated in
particular parts of the report.
The legal description is assumed to be correct as used in this report as finnished by the client, his designee, or as
derived by the appraiser.
Please note that no advice is given regarding mechanical equipment or structural integrity or adequacy, nor soils
and potential for settlement, drainage, and such (seek assistance from qualified architect and/or engineer) nor
matters concerning liens, title status, and legal marketability (seek legal assistance), and such: The lender and
owner should inspect the property before any disbursement of funds; farther it is likely that the lender or owner
may wish to require mechanical or structural inspections by qualified and licensed contractor, civil or structural
engineer, architect, or other expert.
The appraiser has inspected as far as possible, by observation, the land and the improvements; however, it was
not possible to personally observe conditions beneath the soil or hidden structural, or other components. We
have not critically inspected mechanical components within the improvements and no representations are made
herein as to these matters unless specifically stated and considered in the report. The value estimate considers
there being no such conditions that would cause a loss of value. The land or the soil of the area being appraised
appears firm, however, subsidence in the area is unknown. The appraiser(s) do not warrant against this condition
or occurrence of problems arising from soil conditions.
The appraisal is based on there being no hidden, unapparent, or apparent conditions of the property site, subsoil,
or structures or toxic materials which would render it more or less valuable. No responsibility is assumed for any
such conditions or for any expertise or engineering to discover them. All mechanical components are assumed to
be in operable condition and status standard for properties of the subject type. Conditions of heating, cooling,
ventilating, electrical and plumbing equipment is considered to be commensurate with the condition of the
balance of the improvement unless otherwise stated. No judgment may be made by us as to adequacy of
insulation, type of insulation, or energy efficiency of the improvements or equipment which is assumed standard
for subject age and type.
If the Appraiser has not been supplied with a termite inspection, survey or occupancy permit, no responsibility or
representation is assumed or made for any costs associated with obtaining same or for any deficiencies discovered
before or after they are obtained. No representation or warranties are made concerning obtaining the above
mentioned items.
The appraiser assumes no responsibility for any costs or consequences arising due to the need, or the lack of need
for flood hazard insurance. An Agent for The Federal Flood Insurance Program should be contacted to determine
the actual need for Flood Hazard Insurance.
10. LEGALITY OF USE:
The appraisal is based on the premise that there is full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local
environmental regulations and laws unless otherwise stated in the report; further that all applicable zoning,
building, and use regulations and restrictions of all types have been complied with unless otherwise stated in the
report; further, it is assumed that all required licenses, consents, permits, or other legislative or administrative
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
authority, (local, state, federal and/or private entity or organization) have been or can be obtained or renewed for
any use considered in the value estimate.
11. COMPONENT VALUES:
The distribution of the total valuation in this report between land and improvements applies only under the
existing program of utilization. The separate valuations for land and building must not be used in conjunction
with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used.
12. AUXILIARY AND RELATED STUDIES:
No environmental or impact studies, special market study or analysis, highest and best use analysis study or
feasibility study has been requested or made unless otherwise specified in an agreement for services or in the
report.
13. DOLLAR VALUES, PURCHASING POWER:
The market value estimated, and the costs used, are as of the date of the estimate of value. All dollar amounts are
based on the purchasing power and price of the dollar as of the date of the value estimate.
14. INCLUSIONS:
Furnishings and equipment or personal property or business operations, except as specifically indicated and
typically considered as a part of real estate, have been disregarded with only the real estate being considered in
the value estimate unless otherwise stated. In some property types, business and real estate interests and values
are combined.
15. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS, CONDITIONED VALUE:
Improvements proposed, if any, on or off -site, as well as any repairs required are considered, for purposes of this
appraisal, to be completed in good and workmanlike manner according to information submitted and/or
considered by the appraisers. In cases of proposed construction, the appraisal is subject to change upon
inspection of property after construction is completed.
16. VALUE CHANGE, DYNAMIC MARKET, INFLUENCES, ALTERATION OF ESTIMATE BY
APPRAISER:
The estimated market value, which is defined in the report, is subject to change with market changes over time;
value is highly related to exposure, time, promotional effort, terms, motivation, and conditions surrounding the
offering. The value estimate considers the productivity and relative attractiveness of the property physically and
economically in the marketplace.
In cases of appraisals involving the capitalization of income benefits, the estimate of market value or investment
value or value in use is a reflection of such benefits and appraiser's interpretation of income and yields and other
factors derived from general and specific client and market information. Such estimates are as of the date of the
estimate of value; they are thus subject to change as the market and value is naturally dynamic.
17. MANAGEMENT OF THE PROPERTY:
It is assumed that the property which is the subject of this report will be under prudent and competent ownership
and management; neither inefficient nor superefficient.
18. FEE:
The fee for this appraisal or study is for the service rendered and not for the time spent on the physical report or
the physical report itself. Neither the employment to make the appraisal nor the compensation is contingent upon
the amount of the valuation reported.
19. TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
The appraiser is not qualified to detect hazardous waste and/or toxic materials. Any comment by the appraiser
that might suggest the possibility of the presence of such substances should not be taken as confirmation of the
presence of hazardous waste and/or toxic materials. Such determination would require investigation by a
qualified expert in the field of environmental assessment. The presence of substances such as asbestos, urea -
formaldehyde foam insulation, or other potentially hazardous materials may affect the value of the property. The
appraiser's value estimate is predicated on the assumption that there is no such material on or in the property that
would cause a loss in value unless otherwise stated in this report. No responsibility is assumed for any
environmental conditions, or for any expertise or engineering knowledge required to discover them. The
appraiser's descriptions and resulting comments are the result of the routine observations made during the
appraisal process.
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
20. ENDANGERED SPECIES:
It is assumed that there are no endangered species present on or near the subject property which would adversely
influence the potential development of the site, and in the event that any such restrictions are identified, the
conclusions contained in this appraisal report are subject to revisions.
21. CHANGES, MODIFICATIONS:
The appraisers and/or officers of The Eastman Company, reserve the right to alter statements, analysis,
conclusion or any value estimate in the appraisal if there becomes known to us facts pertinent to the appraisal
process which were unknown to us when the report was finished.
Appraisal report and value estimate subject to change if physical or legal entity or financing is different than that
envisioned in this report.
22. ADA DISCLAIMER:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. I (we) have not made a specific
compliance survey and analysis of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various
detailed requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey of the property together with a detailed
analysis of the requirements of the ADA could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of
the requirements of the act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since I
(we) have no direct evidence relating to this issue, I (we) did not consider possible noncompliance with the
requirements of ADA in estimating the value of the property.
23. FIRREAIUSPAP:
The Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA), Title XI, was implemented
to protect federal financial and public policy interests in real estate related transactions requiring the services of
an appraiser. Regulatory agencies (FDIC, FRB, NCUA, OCC, OTS, and RTC) have issued virtually identical
regulations to provide uniformity in requirements for appraisals. It is our intention that the following report is in
compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice as promulgated by the Appraisal
Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation and the regulatory agency, if applicable.
24. ACCEPTANCE OF, AND/OR USE OF, THIS APPRAISAL REPORT BY CLIENT OR ANY THIRD
PARTY CONSTITUTES ACCEPTANCE OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS. APPRAISER LIABILITY
EXTENDS ONLY TO STATED CLIENT, NOT SUBSEQUENT PARTIES OR USERS, and it is limited to
the amount of fee received by appraiser.
The Eastman Company
Meadowdale Marina Building
File No. 9076
QUALIFICATIONS OF APPRAISER RICK MELLEN, MAI
EDUCATION:
B.S. Business Administration — Florida State University
M.B.A. — U.C.L.A.
TYPICAL PAST CLIENTELE:
Evertrust Bank
Mt. Rainier National Bank
Washington Mutual Savings Bank
Key Bank
First Mutual Bank
City of Renton
Port of Edmonds
Seattle Public Schools
Seattle City Light
U. S. Postal Service.
Kent Public Schools
Buchan Brothers Investment Properties
Various Commercial and Residential Developers
King County — Real Property Division
King County Open Space Division
Various Private Individuals, Residential Developers
Charter Bank
Wells Fargo Bank
PROPERTIES APPRAISED:
Regal Financial Bank
Bank of Washington
Pierce Commercial Bank
METRO
U.S. Bank
Chevron, USA
Melco Industries
Boy Scouts of America
Security Pacific Bank
Viking Community Bank
Puget Sound Bank
First Interstate Bank
Frontier Bank
Kitsap Bank
Anchor Savings Bank
Columbia Bank
Arguss Communications
Twenty years experience appraising in the Puget Sound area, including:
Shopping Centers/Retail Complexes Motels
Residential Subdivisions Apartment Buildings
Right of Way/Condemnation Special Purpose Properties
Mobile Home Parks Mixed -Use Properties
Industrial/Manufacturing Properties Office Buildings
Land Valuation — Residential/Commercial/Industrial Marinas
DESIGNATION: Washington State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
(1100811)
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS:
Appraisal Institute — Designated MAI
The Eastman Company
September 4, 2009
Ann Bullis, CBO
Building Official
City of Edmonds
121 5'h Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Meadowdale .Pier
Dear Ann:
The project owner (Mr. Milosavljevich) is requesting that the City allow a partial
resubmittal in order to obtain a repair permit for the existing wood building. The objective
is to prevent fiu-ther damage of the building while the pier replacement permit is being
processed.
Currently the northeast portion of the structure is missing, which leaves the wood framing
exposed to the weather. Because most of the framing is not preservative treated, the
structural members are susceptible to further decay. The missing structure also leaves the
building more vulnerable to further damage under high wind conditions.
CG Engineering would revise the building repair drawings (sheets SR-1, SR-2 & SR-3) to
show the repair work to be done while the existing wood pier is still in place. This would
include details of the connection to the existing wood pier. Connection to the new pier
would be shown on the pier upgrade drawings and accomplished at the time it is
constructed.
Thank you for considering the owner's request. If you have any questions or comments
regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely, ,VY
CG Engineering � � �0� vd�s����y
.✓ �'� A A
C. Chevy Chase, PE, SE ("d
Principal
cc: Milo Milosavljevic
250 4th Ave. South
Suite 200
Edmonds. WA 98020
Phone: 425,778.8500
Fax: 425.778.5536
10
Bullis, Ann
From: Clugston, Michael
Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:17 PM
To: Bullis, Ann; Zach dell; McConnell, Jeanie; Smith, Mike
Cc: Chave, Rob; English, Robert; Thies, Mike
Subject: RE: DRAFT Meadowdale Marina letter Oct2009.doc
Good afternoon,
Conditions 2 & 3 of the Shoreline permit (SM-05-94) describe what has to happen
"2. The nonconforming buildings may be maintained and repaired. However, the building footprint or volume may not be
expanded in any way. Also, if the overwater structures are damaged to a point where the damage exceeds the thresholds
described in ECDC 17.40.020 or in the Shoreline Master Program, or if a building is moved any distance at all, it must be
demolished.
3. Prior to issuing permits for the repair of the timber building, the applicant must submit an appraisal for the value of that
structure. They must also submit an estimate for the cost to repair the building. As noted above, if the timber structure is
moved to allow for the reconstruction of the pier, the building shall be demolished."
First, if the building "is moved any distance at all, it must be demolished." If I recall correctly, the current permit to restore
the pier envisioned tipping the timber building up to fix the pier underneath. "Any distance" would seem to include the Z-
axis as well as the X- and Y-. As a result, tipping the wood building to fix the pier underneath is not allowed. In the long
run, does allowing band -aid fixes on the wood building help or hurt the original permits in that case? It might be easier to
get at the pier through the hole in what is left of the wood building. That is, if the numbers pan out...
I believe Milo submitted a cost estimate to repair the wood building at about $16,000. That seems pretty low. In the end,
that number cannot exceed 75% of the replacement cost of original structure or it must be removed. We need to know
what the 100% replacement cost would be.
Second, ECDC 23.10.160.E lists the possible uses for the site. Bait shop is not a permitted or accessory use. If his intent
is to re-establish that use, he cannot according to 23.10.220.E:
"If a nonconforming use is discontinued for 12 consecutive months or for 12 months during any two-year period, any
subsequent use shall be conforming. It shall not be necessary to show that the owner of the property intends to abandon
such nonconforming use, regardless of the conforming or nonconforming status of the building of structure in which it is
housed."
Wouldn't we need a list of uses for the wood building to permit the band -aid?
Finally, the nonconforming code was updated on September 5, 2008, approximately one month after Milo applied for the
two original building permits on August 8, 2008. The current building permits are vested to the old nonconforming code.
The new code would apply to a new building permit, however. According to ECDC 17.40.020.F:
F. Restoration. If a nonconforming building or structure is destroyed or is damaged in an amount equal to 75
percent or more of its replacement cost at the time of destruction, said building shall not be reconstructed except
in full conformance with the provisions of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Determination of
replacement costs and the level of destruction shall be made by the building official and shall be appealable as a
staff decision under the provisions of ECDC 20.1.05.030. Damage of less than 75 percent of replacement costs
may be repaired, and the building returned to its former size, shape and lot location as existed before the damage
occurred, if, but only if, such repair is initiated by the filing of an application for a building permit which vests
as provided in ECDC 19.00.015, et seq., within one year of the date such damage occurred. This right of
restoration shall not apply if:
1. The building or structure was damaged or destroyed due to the unlawful act of the owner or the owner's agent;
or
1
i
2. The building is damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the
owner's agents.
Sub (2) would indicate that the right of restoration does not apply to the marina since the wood building has been
"damaged or destroyed due to the ongoing neglect or gross negligence of the owner or the owner's agents." Since this
provision is now currently more strict that the Shoreline Master Program, this nonconforming section would control.
In the end, it seems like the Shoreline permit would allow the band -aid proposal but the new conforming code does not.
That's my two cents... I'm going on vacation and will be back next Thursday.
Mike Clugston, AICP
Planner
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
P: 425-771-0220 1 F: 425-771-0221
michael.clugston@ci.edmonds.wa.us
-----Original Message -----
From: Bullis, Ann
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 3:49 PM
To: Zach Lell; McConnell, Jeanie; Clugston, Michael; Smith, Mike
Cc: Chave, Rob; English, Robert; Thies, Mike
Subject: DRAFT Meadowdale Marina letter Oct2009.doc
<< File: CG ENG Meadowdale Marina 10-2-09.pdf >> << File: Meadowdale Marina Letter from Engineer.pdf >> <<
File: DRAFT Meadowdale Marina letter Oct2009.doc >>
Please review the draft response letter and email me any changes using "track changes" by the morning of 10/21/09
so I can send that day. Mike and Rob C., Zach would like you to make sure the Shoreline permit is not affected by the
subject wood building repair permit.
Zach, should we include anything about the environmental complaints we have received, or should we deal with that
under separate cover to the owner?
Thanks,
Ann Bullis, CBO
Building Official
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds, WA 98020
425-771-0220
ammok C
`ENGINEERING
250 4th Ave. South
Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.778.8500
Fax: 425.778.5536
d✓/�1I�/r93
COPY
RECEIVED
AUG 12 2008
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Project: Meadowdale Marina
Job No.: 07256.12
Existing Wood Building
Field Rep.: Mike Maechler,
Assessment
Dennis Titus
Report No.: 1
Date of Observation: 04/08/08
Location: 16111 76th PI W
Purpose of Site Visit: Structural
Edmonds, WA 98020
evaluation of existing building
Client/Owner:.Milo Milosavljevic
General Contractor: N/A
OverviewG'`V
A structural field observation was performed on April 8, 2008 at the Meadowdale
Marina to evaluate the condition of the existing wood framed building. Based on
the evaluation, we are providing structural repair drawings as required to restore the
building to its predamaged state as described in Section 506.2.4 of the 2006 Sys T
International Existing Building Code. The building will remain in i s current location �,
while the existing dilapidated -wood deck, pile caps and piles beneath it are removecgW
and replaced with a new concrete deck and pile caps on steel piles.
Observations
The existing building is an 11,200 sq. ft., one story, wood post -frame type building
constructed in 1939(sometimes referred to as a pole barn or post -and -beam
structure). It is 70ft wide by 160ft long by 33ft tall and is currently being used for
storage of miscellaneous building materials. The Foof framing is comprised of 1x
decking over 3xl0 rafters spanning between post -and -beam lines which are
supported on the deck of the pier. The roof framing on the south side of the
building consists of plywood sheathing over 2x10 rafters. There are (3)-interior
post -frame lines along the length of the building made of 8x8 posts and beams.
The exterior side walls consist of 6x6 post -frames with intermediate 3x6 vertical
members and 2x6 horizontal members for nailing of the 1x12 vertical wood siding.
The end walls are made of 8x8 post -frames and intermediate horizontal and vertical
members. There is a 900 sq. ft. room in the northwest corner of the building
enclosed by 2x partition walls with 2x ceiling joists and a plywood lid.
At the time of the observation approximately 1,850 sq. ft. at the northeast corner of
the building was missing (see photo .3�. The portion of the wood pier which
supported this area of the building had fallen away. Alternating 8x8 posts along the
center interior post line had been cut off near the top, leaving the top 5ft of the post
hanging from the roof framing (see photIng
Also, the steel angles which secure
the 8x8 posts to the deck were rusted. was also missing in several places
along the south side wall. The composition roofing was covered in moss and
appeared worn.
The existing wood framing members appeared to be in good condition with no signs
of rot discovered during the observation. The underside of the 1x decking and
plywood roof sheathing appeared to have water stains in some places.
Fvleadowdale Marina Existing Wood Building Structural Assessment April 8, 2008
` CG Project No. 07256.12 — Report No. 1 Page 2
Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on our assessment we have determined that the existing building has sustained less
than substantial damage as defined in section 202 of the 2006 International Existing Building
Code. According to section 506.2.4 of the 2006 IEBC, the purpose of repairs for damage
considered to be less than substantial damage is to restore the building to its predamaged state
using the materials and strengths that existed prior to the damage. The new structural
members and connections for the repair must comply with the detailing provisions of the IBC.
The missing posts and beams, siding, and roof framing at the northeast corner of the building
will be re -built to match the existing. The 8x8 posts which had been cut off shall be replaced in
like kind. Also, the rusted 8x8 steel post base angles shall be replaced with new Simpson
connectors to anchor the posts to the new concrete deck. New exterior siding shall be installed
where it is missing around the perimeter of the building. We recommend that the worn
composition roofing be replaced in like kind.
Refer to the structural repair plans and details on sheets SR1.1 and SR1.2 for more information.
In addition to the repairs described in this report and on the plans, the contractor performing the
structural repair work shall inform CG Engineering immediately if any further damage or rot of
existing framing members is discovered.
rSVY C I
2372V ,
EXPIRES: 7/6/2008
DISCLAIMER
This observation was performed on April 8, 2008 and is the professional opinion of CG Engineering PLLC based on the information
time of the observation or evaluation. This report was prepared subject to the
available during this observation or evaluation. This report does not warrant or guarantee that all conditions were discovered at the
standard of care applicable to professional services at
the time the services were provided.
400IIV13TRtJCTi4iN C0PMPANY
Kaiser Enterprises
Customer: Milo
Location: 1611 76th Place W
Edmonds, WA
Project: Pier
Date: 05/15/09
Job # 05.00.09
Description of Work Company uanti _ Description__- Total
Wood Building
Kaiser
Repairs as per C&G Engineering
Plans and specs for wood building only
Cost
$14,780
Tax $1,344
Total $16,124
ESUB
Kaiser Enterprises • 22725 44th Ave W e Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
Contact: Chris Gochev Phone: 425-876-6464 Email: Kaisertrucking@gmail.com JUN 05 2009
'�'UILOIN
CITYOF9 ONN7QART
mw%
Recap: v M
Applicant is requesting that the city allow a partial resubmittal in order to
obtain a repair permit for the existing wood building, with the objective of
preventing further damage of the building while the pier replacement permit is
being processed.
How we handle this request is important in the big picture because it affects the
overall permit process, timelines for permit applications, the intent of the codes
we are required to enforce, what direction enforcement goes, and the timeline for
enforcement.
Please be prepared to discuss the three permit scenarios below at our meeting tomorrow,
including pros, cons, what is or is not allowed by code, Shoreline permit, etc. Please
also keep in mind:
• We have a current code enforcement action for the work done to the pier without
a permit. How does this fit into the 3 scenarios below?
• Do we have any reason to believe that BNSF has denied the owner access across
their right-of-way to the site?
• We are requiring BNSF approval prior to permit issuance for work in their right -
of way. Is their approval required for any other reasons?
Scenario #1 • jD I
Require new permit application for repair to maintain structural integrity of the
ing only while permit applications BLD20080693 and BLD20080694 are in
process. This would include plans for temporary repair of the pier to provide safe
egress, firefighter access, and City inspector access during construction. Ultimately
the permit would be good for a total of 3 years if required progress inspections are
being made prior to renewal as required in the code.
This is the scenario currently in the draft letter. To provide information for some of
the questions or issues raised:
Repair bid would be $16,000.00 or less (based on contractor's bid received June
5, 2009) and the Appraisal report dated June 2, 2009 notes the replacement cost at
$132,000.00. Appraisal states that it was based on the building in its current state
with no power, plumbing or heat, and as a "general purpose barn building".
Based on 17.40.020(F)(2) in Mike Clugston's email, how do we define or
differentiate between "ongoing neglect" or "gross negligence" vs. general damage
or destruction noted at the beginning of this section? What extent or percentage
of damage or destruction is applicable? Based on the appraisal for replacement
cost of the wood building ($132,000) and contractor's bid for the repair of the
wood building ($16,000), could one say the damage or destruction is only 12.12%
of the replacement cost? Is 12.12% considered "ongoing neglect" or "gross
negligence" that is not permitted to be restored?
From a building code perspective, the permit is being requested to
maintain the structural integrity ONLY while the permit applications for
the pier replacement and building repair (for occupancy) are being
processed. If repair permits were not currently in process, we would
be actively pursuing enforcement against the owner to repair or
demolish the dilapidated structures. By requiring a new permit
application specifically for maintaining the structural integrity while the
permit applications for complete repair are in process, shows intent to
bring the structures into compliance with the building codes. Issuing
such limited scope repair permit without permit applications in process
to fully repair the structures for occupancy doesn't really meet the
intent of the building code. So it seems important to have the scope of
the current applications remain unaltered with an August 12, 2010
expiration date.
• IBC 3401.2 requires that "buildings and structures, and parts thereof
shall be maintained in a safe and sanitary condition....".
• Although the permit can ultimately be good for 3 years, we should
require a time schedule as to when the work will be complete, taking
into account any environmental constraints.
• The pier repairs that were done without permit could be addressed as
part of the temporary access to the wood building. We can condition
the permit, and also have the structural engineer include on his plans
that the pier repair is temporary only for the limited repair for structural
integrity and is not intended to be permanent.
• What reviews would need to be done? SEPA, Critical
Areas... specifically for this new scope of work so the other agencies
can comment?
• Engineering Concerns: Assuming foot traffic only from land to the
building and DCDA required for fire sprinkler
• Fire Concerns: Want fire sprinkler operational? Want it to remain
operational after structural repair is done — if so engineer needs to
accommodate that in temporary repair of pier.
Scenario #2•
Accommodate their request and allow them to alter the scope of work for current
permit application BLD20080693 for repair to maintain structural integrity ONLY
while permit applications are being processed to replace the pier and repair the wood
building for occupancy. This would include plans for temporarypair of the pier to
provide safe egress, firefighter access, and City inspector access during construction.
Ultimately the permit would be good for a total of 3 years if required progress
inspections are being made prior to renewal as required in the code. A new building
permit application must then be submitted for the repair of the building for
occupancy, including repairs made to install piers down through the roof of the
building, as they are currently proposing. This essentially creates 2 permit phases
(under two permits) for repair of the wood building and pier: 1) to maintain structural
integrity and access/egress to the building; and 2) to finish complete repair of both the
pier and building for occupancy.
This scenario requires that they submit a new building permit for the
Phase 2 repairs to the wood building, which falls under a new
application timeframe (application would expire in 2 years). It assumes
the main structural repair to the wood building would be done with
Phase 1 permit. If we go with this scenario, I would recommend that
we require that the repair permit for the wood building for occupancy
be submitted when the scope of work for the current repair permit is
altered to keep the intent that the repair will be done, and to keep the
clock ticking.
• Although the permit can ultimately be good for 3 years, we should
require a time schedule as to when the work will be complete, taking
into account any environmental constraints.
• The pier repairs that were done without permit could be addressed as
part of the temporary access to the wood building. We can condition
the permit, and also have the structural engineer include on his plans
that the pier repair is temporary only for the limited repair for structural
integrity and is not intended to be permanent.
• What reviews would need to be done? SEPA, Critical
Areas... specifically for this new scope of work so the other agencies
can comment?
• Is there a danger in allowing the piecemeal approach to repairing the
wood building for application of the non -conforming code? Does
issuing the repair in two phases affect the application of the non-
conforming code?
• Engineering Concerns: Assuming foot traffic only from land to the
building and DCDA required for fire sprinkler
Fire Concerns: Want fire sprinkler operational? Want it to remain
operational after structural repair is done — if so engineer needs to
accommodate that in temporary repair of pier.
Scenarin 93-
Require that repair permit be for occupancy of the wood building, with the
understanding that the work under the permit would be done in 2 phases. The first
phase accommodating their request that they be allowed to structurally repair the
building while the pier replacement permit is being processed. The second phase
would be for occupancy of the building after the pier replacement and final repairs to
the wood building are complete. A permit would also be required for repair of the
pier to provide egress, firefighter access, and City inspector access during
construction. A condition of the repair permit could be that the pier permit must be
obtained on or before August 12, 2010 (expiration of the current pier permit
application). Ultimately the permit can be good for a total of 3 years if required
progress inspections are being made prior to renewal as required in the code.
Might assist in applying the non -conforming ord so the permit for the wood
building repair is under one ordinance, not 2. Shows intent to bring the
structures into compliance with the building codes through to occupancy.
Danger of pier permit expiring while repair permit continues active
How do we want to deal with the DOE complaint and citizen complaint regarding
debris, alleged to be from Meadowdale Marina, washing up on shore?
For the non -conforming ordinance, does the bid for restoration include plumbing,
heating/ventilation, fire sprinkler, fire alarm, etc?
If they choose to let the new permit application run for and additional 2 years,
would the new permit application inhibit the future enforcement process? Could
we require him to obtain a repair permit faster than the 2 year application time
frame based on the dilapidated condition of the pier and wood building?
inC.1890
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.d.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
October 28, 2009
Chevy Chase, PE, SE
CG Engineering
250 4th Ave South, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Meadowdale Marina, 16111 76th Place West
Dear Mr. Chase,
This letter is in response to your letters dated October 2, 2009 (received October 8, 2009)
and September 4, 2009.
Repair of wood building
Our understanding from your letters is that the owner desires to obtain a permit for
limited repair of the existing wood building for the purpose of only maintaining the
structural integrity of the building while permit applications (BLD20080693 &
BLD20080694) are being processed. Also, the purpose of this repair permit would not be
to bring the building into full code compliance for occupancy; that would be included in
permit application BLD20080693.
Since you confirm in your letter that the owner still intends to proceed with the project to
replace the pier and repair the wood building for occupancy, those permit applications
(BLD20080693 & BLD20080694) must remain active. If the owner wishes to obtain a
permit to only repair the structure to prevent further damage as you describe in your
letters, a new permit application would be required, including construction plans showing
the proposed structural repair work to the building and temporary repair of the pier to
provide safe egress, firefighter access, and City inspector access during construction. A
water supply approved by the Fire Marshal for fire protection during construction will
also be required.
In order to apply the City's non -conforming codes to the overall repair of the wood
building, a written contractor's bid must be submitted at the time of permit application
for the all of the work to be done to bring the building into compliance for occupancy.
This bid must be itemized and broken down into three sections; 1) the repair permit to
maintain structural integrity only, 2) the remaining work for occupancy (including but
• Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
not limited to electrical, water, sewer, fire connection, fire sprinkler, fire alarm,
plumbing, mechanical, etc.), and 3) the temporary repair of the pier for access as
discussed in the previous paragraph.
Any work proposed through a new building permit must be in compliance with the
approved Shoreline Substantial Development Permit that exists for the site (SM-05-94).
This includes all conditions from the Hearing Examiner's decision of December 8, 2005,
and the associated Biological Evaluation as well as those found in the permits from the
Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of
Ecology, etc. Please contact Mike Clugston, Planner, if you have questions.
For purposes of inspecting the permitted work, City personnel will require access to and
from the project site. Accordingly, please confirm in writing that the owner/applicant
still has legal access across BNSF right-of-way, so we are assured that we are not
trespassing when doing inspections.
Please schedule an appointment with Theresa Umbaugh, Permit Coordinator for the
project to submit the permit application.
Also, please note the conditions of approval set forth in the previously -issued Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit for the project site. Nothing in this response or any
subsequently issued building permit should be construed as waiving, limiting or
otherwise relieving the owner/applicant's responsibility for fully complying these
conditions.
BNSF Railroad decision:
Regarding your response to the third item where you state "The owner is awaiting a
decision from BNSF Railroad before the response to the City's plan review comments
can be completed. It is the owner's intent to submit the outstanding items at that time,
we would like to clarify that the City is not requiring approval or a decision from BNSF
Railroad to be submitted as part of the outstanding items to make the resubmittal
complete so that plan review of the applications can continue. This item must be
addressed prior to permit issuance.
On June 5, 2009, Mr. Milosavljevic told staff at the public counter that it may take a long
time to obtain BNSF approval. He was told by staff that response regarding BNSF
approval (as note in Item 3 of plan review comments from the Engineering Division
dated September 22, 2008), was not required for the resubmittal, but must be
addressed/submitted prior to permit issuance. Mr. Milosavljevic also said he had not
chosen a contractor yet, so could not submit the Special Inspection Agreement and signed
Contractor's Acknowledgement Statement. Staff told him these items could also be
submitted prior to permit issuance. This information was also emailed to you on August
10, 2009 by our Permit Coordinator.
Outstanding items in response to City plan review comments for Building Permit
Applications BLD20080693 & BLD20080694:
The following is the list of remaining outstanding items that must be submitted to the
City to make the resubmittal of BLD20080693 and BLD20080694 complete so plan
review of these permit applications can continue (see email to you dated August 10,
2009) and to help assure correction of the violation underlying the Notice of Civil
Violation issued May 15, 2009:
1. Written responses to all plan review comments (copies attached for your
convenience) as well as any plan changes necessary.
2. An itemized cost estimate for both on -site and off -site improvements, including
traffic control (Item 1 of Engineering Division comments dated 9/22/2008).
3. A Fire Connection permit application/plans need to be submitted and issued with
the main permit (Item 1 of Fire Department comments date 9/25/2008)
Please feel free to contact us if you have questions regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
Ann Bullis, CBO
Building Official
cc: Vladan Milosavljevic, Meadowdale Marina, LLC
Mike Clugston, Planner
Mike Smith, Acting Fire Marshal
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
Mike Thies, Code Enforcement Inspector
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
City Attorney
of E°4.0 CITY OF EDMONDS
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
LSr. �g90 (425) 771-0220
City Website: www.cLedmondsma.us
DATE: September 25, 2008
TO: Mr. Milosaveljevic
Meadowdale Marina LLC
milollc @ yahoo.com
FROM: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
RE: Application #: bld2008O693
Project: Meadowdale Marina — Repair Woodframe Building
Project Address: 16111 76`h Ave W
During review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information,
corrections, or clarifications are needed. Please redline plans or submit three (3) sets of revised
plans/documents with a written response to each of the items below to Theresa Umbaugh.
City of Edmonds handouts and standard details can be referenced on the City wbsite under
Development Services Department, Engineering Division.
All utility work is being reviewed under permit application bld2008O694 for the pier
replacement project. Please add a note to these plans referencing the associated utility work
under separate permit.
2. Provide a sequence or phasing of construction for the pier replacement and building repairs.
3. Provide an erosion control plan.
4. Provide a traffic control and haul route plan.
Please contact me at 425-771-0220 or by e-mail at mcconnell@ci.edmonds.wa.us if you have
specific questions regarding these plan corrections.
76th PI W-16111_bld2008O693_Mead Marina
e-mailed 9/25/08 Page 1 of 1
F Ell A-
teeX
EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 25, 2008
To: Building Department/File
From: Mike Smith, Acting Fire Marshal 425-775-7720
Subject: Plan Check 2008-0693 Meadowdale Marina
The submitted plans have been reviewed under the 2006 IFC, the ECDC and NFPA 303
Fire Protection Standard for Marinas and Boatyards.
1) A Fire Connection Permit will be required and must be issued with the building
permits. Please refer to the City's handout.
2) Per NFPA 303 a Class I Standpipe System will be required. This is a deferred
submittal and can be designed by your fire sprinkler contractor.
3) Permit for Fire Sprinkler Modification is required and can be a deferred submittal.
Since fire sprinkler systems already exist you will need to submit new Sprinkler
Hydraulic Calculations to justify the downsizing of the fire main to these systems.
4) A Fire Alarm Permit will be required for Sprinkler Monitoring and other devices
per NFPA 72.
5) During Demolition and Construction a Fire Prevention Program Superintendent
appointed by the building owner will be required (2006 IFC Section 1408). Have
this person call me prior to construction for instructions.
6) Designated Fire Lanes and stripping will be required. Contact me for specifics.
7) A Fire Department Lock Box will be required for emergency access. Call my
office for authorization to purchase a box from our vendor.
8) In the permits and correspondence it appears you plan to return the project to its
original condition. Are there plans for repairing, fueling and maintenance on
boats, reopening bait and tackle shop, an eating establishment, etc? These
should be addressed as soon as possible.
As the review process continues other issues and requirements will be addressed.
OV ED4o City of Edmonds
1P PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
BUILDING DIVISION
rsr. 1 g90 (425) 771-0220
DATE: October 16, 2008
TO: Meadowdale Marina, LLC
23423 Brier Road
Brier, WA 98036
FROM: Ann Bullis, Building Official
RE: . Plan Check: 2008-0693 & 2008-0694
Project: Pier Replacement (0694) & Building Repair (0693)
Project Address: 16111 76`h Ave W
During review of the plans for the above noted project, it was found that the following information,
clarifications or changes are needed. Please provide written responses as to where the changes can
be found on the plans, and submit revised plans/documents to a Permit Coordinator.
Pier Replacement (2008-0694)
1. Sheet G-l:
a. Under Scope of Work, add the following to the end of the second to last sentence:
The existing wood building..... throughout construction of the pier and repair of the
building.
b. Under Scope of Work, add the following to the end of the last sentence: The existing
concrete pier ....... and no work is to be done to the pier or building.
c. On the site plan, move the "separate permit" note under the repair note for the
building to eliminate confusion.
d. On the site plan highlight the pier replacement area of work under this permit to
distinguish from the existing steel pier and building where no work will be done.
e. Under the Separate Permits list, add fire sprinkler modifications, fire alarm
modifications, State electrical,
2. On Sheet C2.1, show the fire sprinkler line branch to the wood building (currently there is only a
branch to the south building).
3. As discussed in a meeting with Milo, provide a statement on the plans as to how the pier will be
used.
4. Special Inspections are required for all items noted on Sheet S1.1.
City Consultant Comments for Pier Replacement
1) Provide signed contractor's acknowledgement statement per IBC 1706.
2) The concrete specified on Sheet S 11 and used for inside the steel piles and for the concrete
frame work above should be specified for use in salt water environments. Similar corrosion
provisions should be specified for the steel construction including handrails, couplers, chain
anchors, and other connectors and anchors.
3) I do not have access to RAM software information about what the output is in the engineer's
design for the inverted pendulum. Could they please show me what exactly the following are
and where they occur relative to the floor plan on Sheets 2-013 to 2-015:
a) How the - base - of the inverted pendulum was determined given that the lengths of the piles
are different relative to the sea bed and that the upper portions of the sand which give little
lateral support to the structure also vary in their depth? ASCE 7 Section 12.2.5.3
b) Exactly where the center of mass is located relative to the center of rigidity. That eccentricity
is what will provide the inherent tensional moment for the pier. ASCE Section 12.8.4.1
c) The - accidental torsion - is determined by 5% of the parallel or perpendicular direction
lengths and is additive to the - inherent torsional moment - of the pile. Section 12.8.4.2. The
information given on Calculation sheets seem to miss the - inherent torsional moments or
assume that it is the - accidental torsion.
d) The resulting movement for that design should result in some way to ensure the utilities
shown on Sheet C2.1 do not fail in such a seismic event as predicted by the design procedure
by the use of expansion joints or flexible materials or other means.
Repair of Wood Building (2008-0693)
5. As noted in the Preapplication Comments dated December 20, 2007, and discussed at our recent
meeting, provide a floor plan, show all walls and label the uses of space, note the Type of
Constriction, existing and proposed occupancies, occupant load calculations, number of stories,
show all exits, exit signage, emergency lighting, interior and exterior finishes, accessibility
requirements, etc.
6. Show location of restroom facilities and provide restroom calculations per WAC 51-50 Chapter
29.
7. Provide elevation views, including exterior finishes.
8. Provide written itemized contractor's bid for the proposed repair of the building.
9. Provide an appraisal (by a certified appraiser) for the building to be repaired.
10. If any portion of the building will be heated, note the proposed type of heating system on the
plans, show the location of the heating unit(s) on the plans, note the insulation R-values on the
plans and show how/where insulation will be installed with details, and complete the Non -
Residential Energy Code forms on the following website:
http://www.n.eec.net/resources/resources.html. If the building will not be heated, note on the
plans. WSEC 1132
11. The Interior and Exterior Lighting Summary Forms submitted are incomplete. Please submit
complete forms.
12. You noted at the meeting that the building will be used for boat storage. Show how the boats
will be stored. How will boats be moved in an out of the storage building? If with a fork lift,
how is it powered? How will boats be lifted in and out of the water? Will any fuel or other
hazardous materials be stored on site? If so, show the location, type and quantities.
13. Specify bolts installed in concrete. Special inspection will be required.
14. Please revise structural evaluation report of the wood building to reference the IBC since the
City (nor State) has not adopted the IEBC.
Page 2 of 3
City Consultant Comments for Wood Building
1. I have read through the Assessment Report and generally the recommendations therein are
satisfactory. However, I do have some specific comments that need to be addressed before I can
completely state that yet complies with code provisions.
2. You told me that the City of Edmonds has not adopted the International Existing Building Code.
As the designers cite the IEBC in their set of calculations, this fact should be pointed out to the
designers and the plans and calculations need to be revised. However, everything that applies
can be found in IBC Chapter 34.
3. Note 3/SR-2 uses the term - in like kind- for the rebuilding of the damaged portion of the
structure. Chapter 34 of the IBC does not use that term (neither does the IEBC as far as I can
read) - See Section 3403.2. Their interpretation of the IEBC was that nothing has to be done
extra with the building if they build it back as it was originally constructed.
But Section 3403.2 actually means that they need to make sure that the portion of the structure
the addition connects to has a consistent load path that provides resistance from the wind
pressures resistance through shear wall action into existing shear walls and -or uplift to the deck
level.
4. The 20 d nails shown in Section 1/SR-3 and should also be evaluated to what the existing
construction actually used was. In addition, such nails will have to be predrilled as indicated in
the NDS and the minimum embedment needs to be shown on that cut Section.
5. The 20 d nails shown in Section 1/SR-3 and should also be evaluated to what the existing
construction actually used. Additionally, such nails will have to be predrilled as indicated in the
NDS and the embedment show on -the Section, at least, needs to be identified.
Page 3 of 3
CITY OF EDMONDS - 121 5" AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020
PHONE: 425.771.0220 - FAX: 425.771.0221 - WEB: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING - BUILDING
January 29, 2009
Vladan Milosavljevic
Meadowdale Marina, LLC
23423 Brier Road
Brier, WA 98036
RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS 3 FOR PLAN CHECK # 2008-0693
REPAIR OF TIMBER BUILDING AT MEADOWDALE MARINA
16111 76TH PLACE WEST
Dear Milo:
As you are aware, we are still anticipating receipt of an appraisal and cost estimate for repairs of
the timber frame building. Without this information, we cannot continue our review of the
building permit. The Hearing Examiner in his decision on the shoreline substantial development
permit #SM-05-94 required this as a condition:
"3. Prior to issuing any permits for the repair of the timber building, the applicant must
submit an appraisal for the value of that structure. They must also submit an estimate
for the cost to repair the building. As noted above if the timber structure is moved to
allow for reconstruction of the pier, the building shall be demolished."
That said, during a previous review of the plans resubmitted on December 22, 2008, the
following concern was identified:
1. Uses within timber building: Sheet SR-2 shows an Existing Floor Plan with uses
listed as "existing restaurant and bar" as well as "existing tackle and bait shop" and
"existing storage", presumably for boats. It is uncertain how these `existing' uses are
being defined or where they have come from.
Even assuming, without conceding, that these alleged uses of the structure may have
occurred at some point in the past, after reviewing city business license records, it
appears that there hasn't been a commercial business license for this site since at least
2001. Further, there has been no reported commercial revenue from the property since
2001. Likewise, the City's utility records indicate that utility service was discontinued
in October 2001 at your request.
Since the restaurant and bait shop uses are nonconforming, Section 23.10.220.E of the
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) applies. This section states:
If a nonconforming use is discontinued for 12 consecutive months or for 12
months during any two-year period, any subsequent use shall be conforming.
Because there are no permits or business licenses on file describing the `existing' uses,
and because those uses have apparently been discontinued since at least October 2001,
any nonconforming rights to those uses have expired. To be clear, any historical uses
of the timber building have ceased and the nonconforming rights to them are no longer
valid.
Going forward, as stated above in 23.10.220.E, "any subsequent use shall be
conforming" to applicable code requirements. In the case of Meadowdale Marina, the
applicable requirements are those found in the Urban Mixed -Use II shoreline
environment (ECDC 23.10.155) and the CW zone (ECDC 16.55) sections. Courtesy
copies of these sections are enclosed for your information. The Healing Examiner
decision reemphasized this point.
An important consideration in defining future uses for the timber building is that, per
ECDC 23.10.155.F, overwater structures are not permitted within the Urban Mixed -Use
11 shoreline environment with the exception of:
a. Moorage structures and facilities as regulated in ECDC 23.10.160.
b. Public access as regulated in ECDC 23.10.145.
c. Boat gear storage lockers not to exceed 18 square feet in area and three
feet in height. Only one storage locker is permitted per boat slip. This
provision does not apply under covered moorage structures.
Most importantly, per ECDC 23.10.160.J, covered moorage is prohibited.
If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. Please make all submittals to
a Development Services Permit Coordinator, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
Sincerely,
Mike Clugston, AICP
Planner
Cc: Zach Lell, City Attorney
Rob Chave, Planning Manager
Duane Bowman, Development Services Director
Enclosures
Qt ED40 CITY OF EDMONDS
Ci PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
. N
ENGINEERING DIVISION
�sg90 (425) 771-0220
City Website: www.ci.edraonds.wa.us
DATE: September 22, 2008
TO: Mr. Milosaveljevic
Meadowdale Marina LLC
miiollc@yahoo.com
FROM: Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
RE: Application #: bld2008O694
Project: Meadowdale Marina - Repairs
Project Address: 16111 76`h Ave W
During review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information,
corrections, or clarifications are needed. Please redline plans or submit three (3) sets of revised
plans/documents with a written response to each of the items below to Theresa Umbaugh.
City of Edmonds handouts and standard details can be referenced on the City website under
Development Services Department, Engineering Division.
GENERAL
1. Please provide an itemized cost estimate for both on -site and off -site (right-of-way)
improvements, including traffic control.
o A bond is required to be placed for all right-of-way improvements. The amount of the bond
will be based on 120% of the City approved estimate for all right-of-way improvements.
The City will inform you of the appropriate bond amount after review of the cost estimate.
Bond forms can be obtained from Theresa Umbaugh, Permit Coordinator — 425-771-0220 or
umbaugh@ci.edmonds.wa.us
o Inspection fees for this project will be calculated at 2.2% of the 120% City approved
estimate for all improvements.
2. Please submit a traffic control plan for review and approval.
3. Separate approvals from Burlington Northern Sante Fe may be required for work within and/or
adjacent to their right-of-way. Submit plans to BNSF and provide a copy of their approval to the
City.
4. The grinder pump permit will need to be issued at the same time as the building permit. Please
provide additional information, consistent with the requirements outlined in City handout #E61.
❑ Provide design and calculations stamped by a licensed engineer
❑ Provide specs for specific grinder pump model
76th PI W-16111_bld20080694_Mead Marina Page 1 of 3
❑ Show pump chamber on the plans and how it will be installed
❑ All pipe and fittings for the grinder pump shall be 2-inch High-Mol (200 psi) polyethylene
pipe from the grinder pump to the existing gravity sewer stub at the property line.
Please revise City signature block on civil plan sheets to say "Engineering Division" versus
"Assistant City Engineer".
A separate Fire Connection permit is required and shall be submitted, reviewed and approved
prior to issuance of this building permit. Please contact Theresa Umbaugh for permit submittal
requirements.
7. Storm Water Engineer Jerry Shuster is currently reviewing the sizing of the storm filter
cartridges. Any comments will follow.
G-1 COVER SHEET
Please revise haul route #2 to require trucks to head south on 76th Ave W to 196"' St SW. There
is a weight limit of 10,000 GVW on North Meadowdale Rd.
2. Revise the Construction Sequence as follows:
ADD: Schedule pre -construction meeting with City Engineering Division at 425-771-0220, ext.
1326.
ADD: Review ESC notes.
ADD: Call for utility locates.
ADD: Install ESC measures and maintain dust control.
ADD: Remove ESC measures once site has been permanently stabilized and construction has
been completed.
3. Please indicate how piles being disposed of will be offloaded to a transport vehicle. Will this
take place outside of Edmonds or on site?
4. List all entities having permitting authority over this project on the face of the plans.
Please verify that right-of-way lines are shown accurately. It appears as though there is a gap
between the east edge of the subject property and the 100' wide railroad right-of-way. The City
of Edmonds also has right-of-way (75`1' Ave W) in this area which is not currently shown or is
not clearly labeled. If the DCDA vault, domestic backflow and other private utilities are located
within BNSF right-of-way; you will be required to obtain approval from BNSF. If any private
utilities are located within the City of Edmonds right-of-way, you will be required to obtain a
separate encroachment permit from the City.
C1.1 CIVIL NOTES
The General Notes appear to be standard plan notes, but are not necessarily applicable to this
project. Please revise as necessary and as follows:
#1 — Revise to reference 2008 or Current WSDOT standards.
#5 — Revise to require as -built drawings also be submitted to the City of Edmonds prior to final
of the building permit.
#17 — Revise notes to address direct release of the storm water from rooftops versus filtering
storm water from decking.
#27 — Revise to read a minimum of 2 weeks advance notice.
#28 — Revise to read accepted by City of Edmonds and owners representative ...
76th PI W-16111_bld2008O694_Mead Marina Page 2 of 3
#30 — Will a foam cushion also be placed between fire and domestic lines in the 18" galvanized
CMP encasement that runs along the trestle?
2. Please revise the Storm Drainage notes to be consistent with the specific construction at this site.
3. Remove Sheet Index from this sheet. A complete index has been provided on sheet G1.
C2.1 UTILITIES AND DRAINAGE PLAN
The sanitary sewer force line shall be 2" High-Mol (200 psi) pipe. Force lines are typically
buried at a 3' depth. It is understood that the force line, for the most part, will not be buried and
will be enclosed in 8" sch. 40 PVC. The plans state the pipe will be attached to the pier per the
structural plans. While Detail 4 on Sheet S3.2 shows the pipe under the pedestrian grating it
does not indicate how the pipe will be attached. Sheet C2.2 indicates the pipe will be attached
to a concrete or steel beam with a strap @ 4' on center.
a. Please revise plan sheet C2.2 to reference appropriate details and plan sheets for pipe
attachment.
b. Indicate type of strap to be used in this application.
c. Provide a detail of the pipe configuration in the 36" steel casement under the railroad
tracks.
d. Clearly indicate pipe size, material and bury depth for the section of sewer located
between the 36" steel casement and the sewer main.
2. The City Public Works Department has TV'd as much of the existing sewer lateral as possible.
They have determined the existing sewer connects to a City sewer manhole and does not wye
into the sewer main as shown on the plans. 6" sewer pipe runs out of the manhole for
approximately 12' and then reduces to 4". At some point the existing 2" force line connects into
this 4" pipe. Please revise the plans to show a new poly force line from private property directly
into the manhole channel. The existing 4" and 6" pipes could be used as encasement. Where
the 6" pipe and 2" force line tie into the manhole, the void area around the 2" force line should
be mudded.
3. The existing double check detector assembly is an 8" assembly. City records indicate the
backflow assembly was tested in 2005 and failed. A new assembly and vault, per City standard
details E7.8 and E7.8.1, is required.
4. The existing domestic water meter is located in the existing double check vault. The 1" meter
will need to be located outside of the vault in a separate meter box, per City standards.
5. An RPBA in a hot box is required immediately after the meter, per City standard detail E7.11
(above ground) or E7.11.2 (for semi -buried).
6. Provide a detail on how the downspouts will be routed to the Sound. Will the downspout pipe
run through the interior of the building or through the concrete topping slab?
7. Provide a detail on how the storm water will discharge from the storm filter catch basins into the
Sound. Will there actually be an outlet pipe?
8. It is noted the concrete apron at the railroad tracks is to be replaced. Please indicate concrete
thickness required at this location.
9. Any deteriorated sections in the existing driveway approach off 76"' PI W shall be overlayed per
City standards.
Please contact me at 425-771-0220 or by e-mail at mcconnell @ci.edmonds.wa.us if you have
specific questions regarding these plan corrections.
76th PI W-16111_bld2008O694_Mead Marina Page 3 of 3
l OC ED4
0�0
�`sr. t 890
DATE: October 3, 2008
TO: File
CITY OF EDMONDS
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
(425)771-0220
City Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
FROM: Jerry Shuster, P.E., Stormwater Engineering Program Manager
RE: Application #: BLD20080694
Project:' Andersen Meadowdale Marina
Project Address: 16111 76"' Pl. W
During review of the above noted application, it was found that the following information,
corrections, or clarifications are needed.
Item reviewed:
• Drainage Report & Calculations dated April 22, 2008
• Plan sheets C2.1-C2.2
Drainage Report & Calculations
1. Page 1, 3`d Paragraph states that the six-month 24-hour storm is equal to 1.28". Edmonds
Municipal code defines this storm as a 1.0 inch rainfall event over a 24-hour period using
the SCS type IA rainfall distribution.. The water quality storm flow rate should be re-
calculated using the lower precipitation value. The model should be run separately for
each area that is draining to a stormwater filtration catch basin.
2. An operation and maintenance plan for the planned sto>mwater treatment devices must be
included in the drainage plan.
Plan Sheet C2.1
The plan sheet should call out the location and type of each stormwater filtration catch basin
device and not say "Typ. (2)-places."
Please contact me at 425-771-0220 or by e-mail at meconnell@ci.edmonds.wams if you have
specific questions regarding these plan corrections.
r F M ,
v
EDMONDS FIRE DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Date: September 25, 2008
To: Building Department/File
From: Mike Smith, Acting Fire Marshal 425-775-7720
Subject: Plan Check 2008-0693 Meadowdale Marina
The submitted plans have been reviewed under the 2006 IFC, the ECDC and NFPA 303
Fire Protection Standard for Marinas and Boatyards.
1) A Fire Connection Permit will be required and must be issued with the building
permits. Please refer to the City's handout.
2) Per NFPA 303 a Class I Standpipe System will be required. This is a deferred
submittal and can be designed by your fire sprinkler contractor.
3) Permit for Fire Sprinkler Modification is required and can be a deferred submittal.
Since fire sprinkler systems already exist you will need to submit new Sprinkler
Hydraulic Calculations to justify the downsizing of the fire main to these systems.
4) A Fire Alarm Permit will be required for Sprinkler Monitoring and other devices
per NFPA 72.
5) During Demolition and Construction a Fire Prevention Program Superintendent
appointed by the building owner will be required (2006 IFC Section 1408). Have
this person call me prior to construction for instructions.
6) Designated Fire Lanes and stripping will be required. Contact me for specifics.
7) A Fire Department Lock Box will be required for emergency access. Call my
office for authorization to purchase a box from our vendor.
8) In the permits and correspondence it appears you plan to return the project to its
original condition. Are there plans for repairing, fueling and maintenance on
boats, reopening bait and tackle shop, an eating establishment, etc? These
should be addressed as soon as possible.
As the review process continues other issues and requirements will be addressed.
CITY OF EDMONDS • 121 5`h AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020
PHONE: 425.771.0220 • FAX: 425.771.0221 • WEB: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
."y DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING • BUILDING
September 18, 2008
Vladan Milosavljevic
MIR Enterprises
milollc @yahoo. corn
RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS FOR PLAN CHECK # 2008-0694
REPLACEMENT OF PILINGS AND DECKING AT MEADOWDALE MARINA
1611176rH PLACE WEST
Dear Milo:
I have reviewed the above building permit application for the Planning Division. Before I can sign
off on the permit, however, the following information needs to be clarified:
Ecology Permit #3388: Please submit a signed and dated copy of Attachment A, the
signature page that accompanies the Department of Ecology's Order #3388.
2. DNR Lease: 'Condition #1 of the Hearing Examiner's approval of SM-05-94 states that
"[t]he Applicant shall provide proof of the Department of Natural Resources lease that
allows the pier facility to project beyond its property lines." Please submit documentation
indicating such DNR approval.
Make all submittals to a Development Services Permit Coordinator, Monday through Friday, 8:00 am
to 4:30 pm, except on Wednesdays when we are closed for permit review. If you have any questions,
please contact me at (425) 771-0220.
Sincerely,
Mike Clugston, AICP
Planner
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.dedmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning • Building • Engineering
September 15, 2009
Jeff Ross
Olympic Hills Plumbing
FAX: 425-742-4970
SENT VIA FAX
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
RE: Request for Alternate Methods and Materials — Air Admittance Valve @ 316 Walnut St.
Dear Mr. Ross,
The City is in receipt of your request for Alternate Materials and Methods of Construction Equivalency
(reference plumbing permit application BLD20090222) for installation of an air admittance valve for 5
kitchen sinks. Please provide the following information and pay the outstanding fee so that review
may continue:
• Pay outstanding fee in the amount of $210.00.
• Revise plans on file for the above referenced plumbing permit application to show the specific
locations of the proposed Studor Vents and what fixtures they will serve (in looking at the
plans, it appears they may also serve dishwashers).
• Provide statement in your letter and backup information showing code equivalency as required
in UPC 301.2.
• Provide a letter from the building owner that they understand that air admittance valves are not
an approved method of venting in the State adopted Uniform Plumbing Code, are aware of this
request for use of an air admittance valve as an exception to the code, and understand the
maintenance requirements of the air admittance valve.
Please provide response to the above information and we will review concurrently with the resubmittal
for the Tenant Improvement permit application.
Sincerely,
Ann Bullis, CBO
Building Official
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
!n c 180�0 Planning • Building • Engineering
September 18, 2009
Chevy Chase, PE, SE
CG Engineering
250 41h Ave S, Suite 200
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Meadowdale Marina, 16111 76 h Place West
Dear Mr. Chase,
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
The City received your letter dated September 4, 2009 requesting consideration of the
City to allow a partial resubmittal in order to obtain a repair permit for the existing wood
building. Staff met to discuss your letter and have the following questions before
responding:
Is the owner intending to alter the scope of work for current permit application
BLD20080693 for this repair, or submit a new permit application specifically for
this repair? Keep in mind that alterations must still be made to the wood building
to accommodate construction of the pier as well as attachment to the pier, and
must be a separate permit from the pier construction since they are separate
structures.
• Is it owner's intent that the scope of the subject repair permit include bringing the
building into code compliance for occupancy?
• The owner has had nearly a year to respond to the City's plan review comments
for both the pier (BLD20080694) and wood building (BLD20080693), and have
only received a partial resubmittal. By making this request while permit
applications for the wood pier replacement and wood building repair are active,
what is the owner's schedule to submit the outstanding items to make the
resubmittal for these applications complete so the City can continue review?
• The current permit applications expire on August 12, 2010. Does the owner still
intend to proceed with the project to replace the pier and repair the wood
building?
Please provide written responses to these questions, so that we may respond to your
request.
Sincerely,
4k-
Ann Bullis, CBO
Building Official
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
DMANAM"M.' 0 D BUSINESS /\A
MAILING ADDRESS
14111
4 19 1# 1 - -,/ 'Pl • Lti/
C/'I/T1Y (� ZIP TELEPHONE r4 5,6
NAM:
1 �C�
ADDRESS
q 2—
CITY ZIP ITELEPHONE
NAME m 0to ICBLk
PERMIT EXPIRES
USE
PERMIT
ZONE
NUMBER
JOB
SUITE/APT#
ADDRESS
PLAT NAME/SUBDMSION NO.
LOT NO.
LID NO.
LID FEE t
RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
TIEPUBLIC
RW Pe Approves
RW Permit Required
EXISTING
PROPOSED
street Use Pemtk Req'd
Inspection Required O
Sidewalk Required E3
REQUIRED DEDICATION FT
Underground
Wiring required 13
METER SIZE
LINE SIZE
NO. OF FIXTURES
PRV REQUIRED t7
YES 0 NO 13 _
W
REMARKS
z
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE Z
W
cc ADD2 -3 25
��\� � Q 16
O CITY Zl/" f TELEPHO
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE I CHECKED BY
TAX
❑ NEW
❑ RESIDENTIAL
❑ PLUMBING / MECH
❑ ADDITION
XCOMMERCLAL
COMPLIANCE OR
❑ CHANGE OF USE
❑ REMODEL
MULTIFAMILY
SIGN
❑ REPAIR
❑ GRADING
CYos
FENCE
❑ (X FT)
❑ DEMOLISH
J��7ANK
❑ OTHER
GARAGE
❑ CARPORT
�❑ ROCKERY R AINING WALL
F RE ❑ FIRE AALARSPRINKLER
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINE§S OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
GNUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL
OF DWELLING AREAS
O 41
STORIES UNITS ,ems NUMBER
DESCRIBE WOR TO BE DONE
HEAT SOURCE I GLAZING % I LOT SLOPE %
PLAN CHECK NO: ' VESTED DATE
THIS PER11fT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLX ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS
PERMIT LIMM 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
-APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION. -
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 1 HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT 1 AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
TION; AND IN DOING WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOL6TION OF TVIF LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
WORK 'S C SATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
SI R (O R R AGENT) DATE SIGNED
TANK FILL, R
i REVIEWED BY
DATE
FIRE REVIEWED BY
DATE
U.
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINE OR ADBM
INSPECTION
BOND
REO'D
I
POSTED
DYES ❑NO
$
SEPA REVIEW
SIGN AREA
HEIGHT
COMPLETE
EXEMPT
ALLOWED
PROPOSED
ALLOWED
PROPOSED
EXP
LOT COVERAGE
REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.)
PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
ALLOWED PROPOSED
FRONT SIDE
REAR
FRONT L/R SIDE REAR
c7
z
z
z
PARKING
LOT AREA
PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE
d
REQ'D I PROVIDED
REMARKS
CHECKED BY (TYPE
SPECIAL INSPECTION (AREA
REQUIRED ❑YES
REMARKS
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 1
VALUATION
Description
Plan Check
Building Permit
Plumbing
Mechanical
Grading
Engr. Review
Engr. Inspection
Fire Review
Fire Inspection
Landscape Insp.
Recording Fee
CALL
FOR INSPECTION
(425)
771-0220
OCCUPANT
GROUP
OCCUPANT
LOAD
O
INSPECTION READ a
m
FEE Description
State Surcharge
FZO City Surcharge
FEE
Plan Chk. Deposit
Receipt #
Total Amt. Due
Receipt #
APPLICATION APPROVAL
This application is not a permit until signed by the
Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
RELEASED BY
I
ATTENTION EXT 1333 I
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- ORIGINAL - FILE YELLOW - INSPECTOR
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK - OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR
04/02 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES GREEN -ACCOUNTING
FINAL PROH!CT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: //' .� C___2 FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE
PLEASE SIGN
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE
PLEASE SIGN
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
SITE ADDRESS 61( / 7,2 (;- r L G.i
PERMIT # %DD �� ADB# DATE INSPECTED_ 2
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED1? vc14L (/— i�l�-nC—A ,0
A field inspection was conducted to determine final compliance with approved plans. Final approval
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of:
'<-GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
u Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
1.
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
u Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inspector
1.
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Sign
ocaprvl. doc.l: temp:bldg: forms 10/O 1
l
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
Footing ......................
Wall..........................
Pier/Porch .................
Retaining Wall ...........
Slab Insulation ..........
PLUMBING:
Underground .............
Rough -In ...................
Commercial Final ......
HEATING:
Gas Test ....................
Gas Piping .................
Equipment .................
Commercial Final .......
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
NAILING ..........................
FRAMING ........................
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING...
INSULATION ...................
Floor Insulation .........
Wall Insulation ...........
Ceiling Insulation .......
SHEETROCK NAILING ...
SPECIAL INSPECTION ...
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY
�L�/I.l /17�/i./•_��
..................
aor�3%--0sa ✓
.L
ATE RECEIVED
"J
G7 = PERMIT EXPIRESSE
CITY OF EDMONDS
PERMIT
ZONE NUMBER
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
JO8 suITE/APT#
ADDRESS
/
alllOWNER
NAMEMAME OF BUSINESS
_ (1 w (1 ) &
/ I
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO.
LOT NO.
LID NO.
LID FEE S
Q
MAILING ADDRESS %` /�
T� Approved
O
ice• `^�.5.[_
�j
1 1 1
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
RW Permit Required
V
EXISTING PROPOSED
REQUIRED DEDICATION FT
Street Use Permit Rp'd
inspectiDOReci'drb 0
Sidewalk Required 0
UWirinr
CITY ZIP
TELEPHONE
v tiA f
O6 —V7
s
—f--;NO.
required O
NAME
METER SIZE LINE
SIZE
OF FIXTURES
PRV REQUIRED
t7
YESI❑ NO 13
_
a[
W
ADDRESS
REMARKS
Z
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROOSSIION CONTROL/DRAINAGEZ
O
Q
V
W
CITY ZIP
TELEPHONE
'
NAME
CBL #
6-� O /) D �
/ vO`
�- ) n
G. / (!
/ U
ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY DATE
ADDRESS
�
FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE
Q
•
CITY ZIP
TELEPHONE
o
rL
t>'
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINE OR ADB#
INSPECTION
REO'D
BOND
POSTED
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE
S
CHECKED BY
❑YES. ❑NO
S
SEPA REVIEW
COMPLETE EXEMPT
SIGN AREA
ALLOWED PROPOSED
HEIGHT
ALLOWED PROPOSED
G
O
PROPE TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. �D
EXP
❑ NEW ❑ RESIDENTIAL ❑ PLUMBING/MECH
LOT COVERAGE
ALLOWED
REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.)
PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
FRONT SIDE REAR
PROPOSED
FRONT SIDE REAR
L/R
O
COMPLIANCE OR
❑ADDITION COMMERCIAL
❑ CHANGE OF USE
=
z
❑ REMODEL ❑ MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN
z
PARKING
REO 'D I PROVIDED
LOT AREA
PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE
❑ REPAIR GRADING CYDS FENCE ❑ ❑ ( X FT)
REMARKS
❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK �0( tywolL
❑ GARAGE iNING WALL ❑ FIRE �R
❑
CARPORT ROCKERY FIRE ALARM
UWE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVEXPLAIN:
V
/J�
! vJAd
CHECKED BY E OF CO STRUCTI N
CODE
//
OCCUPANT
GROUP
w
7
NUMBER
OF
NUMBER OF
DWELLING V
CRITICAL
AREAS /� %
m
SPECIAL INSPECTION
AREA
OCCUPANT
O
STORIES
UNITS �(/
NUMBER
REQUIRED ❑ YES
LOAD
DESCRIBE WORK to BE DONE
REMARKS
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108(FINAL INSPECTION READ
9
5
m
2ZZ97-A± -rAIVIC
Q G qL
VALUATION
$
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
Plan Check
State Surcharge
HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % LOT. SLOPE %
F7
Building Permit City Surcharge
PLAN CHECK NO: VESTED DATE
Plumbing
Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
t
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
Grading
7
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Engr. Review
W
PERMIT APPLICATION: ISO DAYS
If
PERMIT LIMIT.1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
y
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit
r�
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
ea
EDMO� S, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
Fire Inspection Receipt #
ALL CL7UM5 FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
S
FROM ThE Q ISSUANCE OF THIS PERAI� ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEME TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR RFC U ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
Landsca Ins
Pe p• Total Amt. Due
=
NOyR LIMITJIN ANY WA1foTHE CTt6 S / UTY TO ENFORCE AtJY ORDINAN(�E PROVISION.'
Recording Fee Receipt #
/
1 HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
APPLICATION APPROVAL
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the
TION; AND IN DOING THE RK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
IN VIOLATION OF THE L&ffOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged In space provided.
WORKMEN'S OM N N INSURANCE AND RCW /8.27.
OF LS SIGNA E DAT
SIG WNER AGENT) DATE SIGNED
(425)
7tom
7.1 -0220
RELEASED B AT
A'ftNflON
Off 1333
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI-
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109
ORIGINAL - FILE YELLOW - INSPECTOR
PINK - OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR
04/02 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES GREEN -ACCOUNTING
�3Ea3-oZo
WEST ELEVATION **
If
EAST ELEVATION
rAl
1�
Iii
' �Ie
.s
.i«
/(rM
• e
Y t
r
y
i7.
t-�
sip
.r
rl•
y r
a;.
• .y
.1►
•.R
•r.
I r
+�r
♦•♦IY
Y ti r
M�i II L.
_ / 1Ll�I/•ri
�jyi/1 yG�
WO
WO
10 y
� 1
rIllul
ll.r•
y
r �YKYasa+r.. AYw�. n : Y
�t� I
tK�
•1
v`
�r
i1
`f=
1
31
�tt
T`
I ``1
(i
i
i�
l� �r
i
•