22035 76TH AVE W.pdf�o
Boardmember Oaklief commented that although illuminated signs are not allowed in the downtown area,
this sign is small and appears to be appropriate, and there are other small neon signs which have been
approved.
r- r-,
Boardmember Rubenkonig pointed out that she agrees with Boardmember Oaklief s comments.
g
01
Board Chairman Young agreed also and commented that this sign seems to be a legitimate form of
0
Uj;
advertising which the Board typically supports and encourages. He stated that the size is in keeping with
the scale of the downtown area.
(1) U.
W 0i
Boardmember Chalupnik commented that he is concerned about setting precedent and would not be able
to support the neon sign due to the fact that it is not needed. He pointed out, however, that the painted
LL
sign is very appropriate.
U)
Boardmember Oaklief asked if approval of this application would be precedent -setting action.
X�
Z l-,
R;
John Bissell explained that any past approvals of illuminated signs for the downtown area included very
�
LU Lu�
specific wording in the motion to approve the applications,
U T
Boardmember Rubenkonig asked if the neon sign could be considered as secondary to the main painted
0
sign.
LU LU
X
John Bissell explained that the Code does not indicate primary and secondary signage.
LU U)
BOARDMEMBER OAKLIEF MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER RUBENKONIG , To
U !�
I— -,
APPROVE ADR-97-92 BECAUSE THE APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
0
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED CITY POLICIES, MEETS THE
Z
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SATISFIES THE CRITERIA IN THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.10.070, REGARDING ADB
CRITERIA, DUE TO THE SIZE AND SCALE OF THE NEON SIGN PROPOSED. MOTION
CARRIED WITH BOARDMEMBER CHALUPNIK VOTING NO.
A,
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING COM[MERCIAL
BUILDING TO A NEW SITE, AND TO CONTLETE SITE E%IPROVEMIENTS
Rob Michel
Oil 22035 - 76th Avenue West (New address for building)
Rob Michel, 8022 212th Street SW, Edmonds, was present.
John Bissell presented the staff report and explained that this proposal is a request to relocate an existing
commercial building from a site at 7218 218th St. SW, on which the Board has previously approved a
27-unit multi -family complex. The small, single -story, flat -roofed building will be moved to 22035 76th
0 Avenue West, where it will be used for commercial purposes. The existing building has lapped wood
siding with wood framed windows and the colors will remain red with brown trim. A building light at
the front entrance is proposed, however, no signage is planned.
Mr. Bissell pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan encourages retaining existing buildings when
possible. He explained that staff recommends approval of this application as long as the following
conditions are met: assuring that parking stall widths meet the standard of 8.5 feet; appropriate trash
enclosures or facilities are installed; and, drainage requirements are complied with.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 3 November 5, 1997
Rob Michel pointed out that his company is not associated with the new construction planned for the site.
He explained that the Code does not contain guidelines for buildings which are being moved, however,
Section 20.10.70 does discuss remodeled buildings and this proposal may more appropriately fall under
those guidelines. The building is usable and will fulfill a need at the new site, rather than being torn
down in the development process.
Boardmember Chalupnik asked about setback requirements.
John Bissell explained that the site is in the General Commercial (CG) zone and setbacks are not
required.
U.11 Boardmember Oaklief asked if there are any changes proposed for the outside of the building, after it i.,
0
�b-- I moved.
Rob Michel stated that once the building is moved onto its new foundation, it will probably be repainte�
on the outside. Once the colors have been selected, he will return to the Board for approval. No othei
remodeling will be required for the building's use.
Boardmember Rubenkonig asked about the adjacent residences and any impacts this building may have
on those structures from such elements as lighting, and whether any screening would be required. She
also inquired whether there will be any signage directing traffic off of 76th Avenue.
Koo Michel explained that the neighboring structures are either commercial or multi -family residential,
and that no signage is proposed.
John Bissell stated that during staff review, potential impacts to neighboring structures from lighting is
conforming and will eventually be changed. However, the Board can discuss this issue for possible
future changes if they feel that is necessary.
evaluated. Because this proposal does not include any lighting other than a standard building entrance
X
P H. light, it has been determined that there will not be a negative impact to an rr
0 y su ounding structures. He
Z also explained that there is nothing in the Code which requires screening and current zoning does not
allow residential uses on the first floor. Therefore, all the residences in that area are legal, non -
Board Chairman Young asked if the commercial nature of the business. is such that no signage will be
necessary.
Rob Michel indicated that the property was very recently rezoned and will probably be sold for a
commercial use after the building is located on the site. Future owners would be required to make
0 application to the City for any new signage proposals.
Boardmember Oaklief asked if any changes will be made to the building which will affect the
architectural design, or if there will be requirements by the City for changes.
Rob Michel explained that the City's Building Department has not yet stipulated any requirements they
may have on the building. If any changes are required they will be done to match the existing wood
exterior.
Bob Kleppinger, 8134 212th, Edmonds, stated that while this building is not considered a vintage
structure, it is a good, useful building and it makes sense to move it and continue its use. This is a much
more positive action than tearing the building down and encouraged Board approval of this application.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 4 November 5, 1997
0
U _:
a �,
Boardmember Rubenkonig stated that she concurs with comments made by other Boardmembers, but
U)
U) LU;
would like additional discussion as to whether the Board should require the building to be residential in
51
character, to be in keeping with the surrounding area, or whether this structure, being the first on the site,
(n U.
should set the design tone of the new neighborhood. She pointed out that ECDC Section 20.10.070a.
states that new buildings should be designed to avoid conflict with other uses in an existing area.
_j
LL <
::I
Rob Michel pointed out that the Code discusses new building design. This building is not new and is
S2 01
more closely defined as a remodeled building as far as the Code language is concerned.
Z
0,:
Board Chairman Young explained that the Board need only consider the building as it will be on the new
Z
site. This area has recently been rezoned from multi -family residential to commercial, and this will be a
LU LU-
commercial building in an appropriately -zoned area.
0—
0-1
John Bissell clarified that building permit applications cannot proceed until the Architectural Design
W
Board has given approval. There are instances when architectural changes are required, however,
3:
l_
typically they are very minor and do not require further review by the ADB. He suggested that any
specific areas of concern regarding potential design changes which may be required be addressed in the
Z
LU U)
Board's motion. Mr. Bissell also explained that buildings may change color in their remodel process and
staff has been given limited authority to approve that type of change without it being returned to the
ADB.
Z
John Bissell also suggested that when the Board considers how this building may fit into a neighborhood,
rather than looking at it as a newly constructed building, they evaluate how it will fit into the surrounding
area and how it will appear.
BOARDMEMBER CHALUPNIK MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER OAKLIEF, TO
APPROVE ADB-97-131 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THAT TRASH AND
RECYCLING FACILITIES BE INSTALLED; THE PARKING LOT DESIGN BE ALTERED TO
COMPLY WITH MINIMUM ALLOWABLE PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS; THE PROJECT
MUST COMPLY WITH THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS;
01 AND, THAT IF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUIRES ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES
DUE TO THE BUILDING'S LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY, THE APPLICATION BE
RETURNED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ITS
REGULAR AGENDA. THIS CONDITIONAL APPROVAL IS BEING GRANTED BECAUSE THE
APPLICATION IS FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
OTHER ADOPTED CITY POLICIES, MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND, AS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED, SATISFIES THE CRITERIA IN THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 20.10.070, REGARDING ADB
CRITERIA, AND 20.12, REGARDING LANDSCAPING. MOTION CARRIED WITH
BOARDMEMBER RUBENKONIG VOTING NO.
ADB-97-132 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NEW INFORMA17IONAL KIOSK FOR THE
PORT OF EDMONDS
Port of Edmonds
150 Sunset
Architectural Design Board Meeting
0
Page 5
November 5, 1997
LWM
Don Olmstead, Port of Edmonds, 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds, the applicant's representative, was
present.
John Bissell presented the staff report and explained that this is a proposal to install a new informational
kiosk in the northeast comer of the Edmonds Antique Mail parking lot, at the comer of Sunset and
James. The building will be a small octagonal structure with a gray, pre -finished, smooth metal roof and
blue, pre -finished, smooth metal siding. He pointed out that the structure will house a bulletin board and
an area where pamphlets and brochures will be made available, as well as a public telephone. There will
be a door into the back of the kiosk, and lighting will be used so that the information can be accessed
after dark.
Mr. Bissell stated that staff believes the Board can find that the proposal meets all necessary criteria and
is recommending approval of this application.
ir
Don Olmstead commented that this is a community project originally started by the Edmonds Alliance
for Economic Development. The Port of Edmonds is assisting with the technical aspects of the
building's construction. The colors were chosen by the Board of the Edmonds Alliance for Economic
z
01
Development upon the recommendation of the architect, Warren LaFon. The lighting will be low-level,
and used to make the displays readable in the evening. While there is no immediate plan for signage, in
M1
the future it may be appropriate to add an information sign.
0—
Mr. Olmstead stated that this facility will be used to list events, businesses and services in the Edmonds
a t
UJ
area for people traveling through the community by ferry. This facility is a community effort, with
'hotel/motel
funding for the kiosk being provided by a grant from Snohomish County through their tax.
In addition, the land owner has donated the property, the Port of Edmonds is donating expertise in the
Z,
areas of materials and costs, and the City of Edmonds will provide power to light the facility.
UJ
Board Chairman Young asked who the applicant is for this proposal. He also inquired as to why no
z
signage is planned at this time.
John Bissell commented that there are several agencies involved, however, from the City's perspective,
the Port of Edmonds is considered the applicant due to the fact that they completed the application,
Don Olmstead stated that this will be an eye-catching, free-standing building, will provide the closest
telephone booth, and will have a captive audience in the ferry lines. He commented that the need for a
sign will have to be determined.
0 Board Chairman Young indicated that he would support having a sign showing the sponsorship of the
11 facility, if one is proposed in the future.
Boardmember Chalupnik asked about the purpose of the door in the kiosk.
Don Olmstead explained that the door will provide access for utilities which will surface in the center of
the kiosk. There may be shelves inside for storage of additional brochures, and the door would also
0 access those.
Boardmember Rubenkonig asked if more of these information centers will be placed throughout town in
the future. She also asked Mr. Olmstead to talk about the.salmon sculpture which will be placed on top
of the kiosk.
Architecturai Design Board Meeting Page 6 November 5, 1997
E
�'77 _,�777
,"C
te
6. AAfiEND—A
FINAL APPROVAL REQUESTED:
ADB-97-92 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF NEW WINDOW -MOUNTED SIGNS
Julie's Nails
UJI
317 Main Street
BOARDMEMBER. OAKLIEF MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER RUBENKONIG, TO
V) 0,
APPROVE ADB-97-92 BECAUSE THE APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
LO Uj:
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED CITY POLICIES, MEETS THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SATISFIES THE CRITERIA IN THE
V) &L
10
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 20.10.070, REGARDING ADB
CRITERIA, DUE TO THE SIZE AND SCALE OF THE NEON SIGN PROPOSED. MOTION
CARRIED
:3
WITH BOARDMEMBER CHALUPNIK VOTING NO.
U. <
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL
z I-,
BUILDING TO A NEW SITE, AND TO COMPLETE SITE IMPROVEMENTS
0;
Rob Michel
us Uj:
22035 - 76th Avenue West
ni
'j �2
BOARDMEMBER CHALUPNIK MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER OAKLIEF, To
0
a t
APPROVE ADB-97-131 WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: THAT TRASH AND
Uj LU
RECYCLING FACILITIES BE INSTALLED; THE PARKING LOT DESIGN BE ALTERED TO
= 0
F— —
COMPLY WITH MINIMUM ALLOWABLE PARKING STALL DIMENSIONS; THE PROJECT
!I-
MUST COMPLY WITH THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY OF EDMONDS;
z
AND, THAT IF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT REQUIRES ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES
Uj 0)
DUE TO THE BUILDING'S LOCATION ON THE PROPERTY, THE APPLICATION BE
RETURNED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION ON ITS
Z
REGULAR AGENDA. THIS CONDITIONAL APPROVAL IS BEING GRANTED BECAUSE THE
APPLICATION IS FOUND TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
OTHER ADOPTED CITY POLICIES, MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND, AS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED, SATISFIES THE CRITERIA, IN THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 20-10.070, REGARDING ADB
CRITERIA, AND 20.12, REGARDING LANDSCAPING. MOTION CARRIED WITH
BOARDMEMBER RUBENKONIG VOTING No.
ADB-97.-132 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A NEW INFORMATIONAL KIOSK FOR THE
PORT OF EDMONDS
0
Port of Edmonds
336 Admiral Way
BOARDMEMBER RUBENKONIG MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER OAKLIEF, To
APPROVE ADB-97-132 BECAUSE THE APPLICATION IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AM OTHER ADOPTED CITY POLICES, MEETS THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SATISFIES THE CRITERIA IN THE
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTIONS 20.10.070 AND 20.12. MOTION
CARRIED.
Architectural Design Board Meeting Page 2 November 5. 1997
0 1 ri7
ui
LU 0
z
� � ®R
CITY ��OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
121 STH, AVENUE NORTH 4 EDMONDS. WA 98020 (425) 771-10220 -FAX (425) 771-0221
COMMUNITY SERVICES* DEPARTMENT
C.
Public Works Planning/Building Parks and Recreation e,Engineering Wastewater. Treatment Plant
Transmittal
Date:
November 12,1997
To:
AD13 Applicants
Subject:
ADB Meeting of 11/5/97
Transmitting
ADB Synopsis
For Your Information: X
As you requested:
For your file:
Comment: Your appeal for your item will be Up on
11/26/97. Please call if you have any
questions.
Note attachments:
Sincerely,
Diane Cunningham, Administrative Assistant
0 Incorpordled August 11, 18900
Sister Cities. International — Hekinan, Japan
It.,, C. 1 S913
Aft
CITY OF EDMONDS BARBARA FAHEY
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 MAYOR
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Public Works * Planning/Building * Parks and Recreation Engineering * Wastewater Treatment Plant
DATE: October 31, 1997
TO: Architectural Design Board Applicants
FROM: John Bissell, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: Architectural Design Board Agenda and Staff Report
Your application been scheduled for the November 5, 1997 Architectural Design
Board (ADB) Meeting. Enclosed are an agenda and staff report for the ADB
meeting. Please find your item on the agenda. A representative must be
present for each item, including the Consent agenda. The Board often moves
items off the Consent agenda and onto the regular agenda. If a representative is
not present, the Board will not act on the item.
Please note the statement at the top of the agenda. You must obtain sign
Permits, building permits and any other required permit from the Building
Division in addition to obtaining approval from the ADB. The review by the
AQ13 is not a substitute for review of building permits, and an approval by
the AQ1B does not grant construction approval.
Please carefully read the staff report pertaining to your item. If you find any
errors, missing information or if you have any questions, please call me at 771-
0220 before the meeting. It is important that items going to the Board be as
complete and clear as possible in order to avoid confusion during the meeting. If
the Board does not understand your project, they may not approve it.
Incorporated August 11, 1890 0
Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan
611)
N
ARCIIITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
STAFF REPORT
October 31, 1997
ADB-97-131 REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING
CONMERCIAL BUILDING TO A NEW SITE, AND TO
COMPLETE SITE IMPROVEMENTS
A. ApplicantlProperty Owner
Rob Michel
Jay Young
8022 212th St. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026
B. Site Location: 22035 76th Avenue West. (Note: This is the address of the existing buiWing� A new
address will be assigned to this building at the time of building permit application.)
C. Introduction: The Board has approved a new 28 unit multiple family complex located at 7218 218th
Street Southwest. The applicant is proposing to remove one of the existing buildings from that site and
relocate it to 22035 76th Avenue West. The applicant is proposing to landscape and develop the 76th Avenue
site. Since the 76th Avenue site is zoned General Commercial, the applicant is proposing to use the relocated
building for commercial purposes.
D. Background:
1. Description of Property: The subject property is a rectangular lot. The applica nt has proposed a
subdivision which is reflected in the site plan attachments. The subdivision is not complete as of the
date of this report.
2. Zoning: The property is zoned General Commercial (CG).
3. Environmental Review: The subject proposal is exempt from the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA).
4. Issues: Design of the building, site, and landscaping have all been addressed by the applicant in
their proposal, and the Architectural Design Board must determine the appropriateness of the proposal.
E. Staff Analysis:
1. Building Design: The building is a small, single story, flat roof building.
a) Materials:
The existing building uses lapped wood siding and wood framed windows.
b) Li�hting:
The applicant has proposed a building light at the front entrance.
c) Colors:
The building is red with brown trim. The applicant has not proposed to change the building color.
d) Signing:
No signing is proposed.
1 ADB-97-131
2. Site Design*
a) A5Lc��
The applicant has proposed access off 221st Street Southwest with three p�rkin stalls in-between
9
Street Southwest and the proposed building locationi
b) Lodscapin
The applicant has proposed to use sod as the primary
ground cover. Vine maples and azaleas are
proposed along the street with rhododendrons placed adjacent to the building and the eastern
_J property line,
U)
LU c) Trash Enclosure:
_J No trash enclosure is proposed, It is recommended that a condition be imposed upon the Application
(D U. that trash and recycling facilities be installed as required by the Public Works Division. Compliance
LU with this condition should be reflected on the building permit application.
3. Technical Review:
:3
U. <
a) Engineering Division:
x U)i The proposed parking stalls do not meet the width standard of,8.5 feet.
tb V * Short plat drainage requirements must be met.
Z fri 0 Water quality and quantity amendments may be required.
Of
b) Building Division
Compliance with the ADA requirements must be met.
F. Findings for approval: In order for the ADB to approve this item, the Board must make the
0
0 t following findings:
W
X
I . That the proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan and other adopted city policies. The
UL_A_ following are some policies from the Comprehensive Plan that address this type of development.
LU 2. That the proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance, or the city has approved a variance
or a modification under the zoning ordinance.
0 3. That the proposal as approved or conditionally approved satisfies the criteria6 and purp I oses ECDC
Z
section 20.10.070 - ADB Criteria and ECDC section 20.12 - Landscaping.
G. Recommendation: Staff believes that the application is in compliance wi th the above criteria with
the following conditions:
I . Trash and recycling facilities be installed as required by the Public Works Division. Compliance with
this condition should be reflected on the building permit application.
2. The parking lot design be altered to comply with the minimum parking stall dimensions.
3. The project must be made to comply with. the drainage requirements of the City of Edmonds.
0
Attachments:
I . Vicinity Map
2. Applicanes, elevations and site plan
2
a 4
A§g' I W'Ita
Will
a ON. 2 a
vicinity and Zoning Map
N
t
............
771
77
MLn LL.
— 0
z �-
;7- c
Z �-
Lu U
0-
a t
LU U
u-
LU fj
u
0
z
ELEV.
54.56
'5 r 0
NO SIGNAGE ON 61 9
y
G15 TYPE
5 T PE
tn
TR SH ENCLOSUI
S' E
aFFROVIDE
DAR FENCE)
i ca
t
WHEEL STOPS
----------------
cl
V EXTERIOR LIGHTING 60 WATT PORCH LIGHT
1024.55 ft�
PROPOSED RELOCATED 13UILDING
PROF05ED BUILDING HIGHT 100-o"
(INCLUDING FLAT ROOF)
FIZTREE
hTO BE REMOVE
ELEV. $00.75
ELEV. 100.00
r— — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
i INFILTRATION TRENCH
— — — — — — — — — —
BIRCH TREE
R
r
ELEV. 101.04 0 5 .00
ELEV. 101.00
ELEY. 98.66
NOTE: TOTAL IMPERVIOL15 AREA 1957.84.
THEREFORE, N05PECIAL DRAINAGE CONTROL REQUIREEY�
PLOT & DRAINACL"M'
PLAN
5CALE:
0
LX'i
LU
Lu LU
Ln
Lij
X. U
0
z
LU
y
0
z
E
ELEV. 10ID4
NOTE: TOTAL IMPERVIOU5 AREA = 1957.84.
THEREFORE, N05PECIAL DRAINAGE CONTROL REQUIRED
LANDOCAPE PLAN. Oct 199?
SCALE: t"=Ia-0"
01. 0771
LL
1B
Y
8
z
PLANTING SCHEDULE
AZAELEA,
SOALLON
VIDUKNUM DAVIDIV DAVIDVIBUR NUM
2GALLON
CHO15YA TERNATA / MEXICAN ORANGE
5 GALLON
TSUGA MEPTEN51ANAIMOUNTAIN HEMLOCK
G-lz
ACER CIPCINATUM I VINE MAFLE
&-10
PRUN U5 LAUR OCERASUSI OTTO LISYKEN
W�V
WHI[M DOGI&OOD
iz-e
CARFINUS BETULUS EUROPEAN HORNBEAM
W-16
RHODODENDRON/ lJNIQUV
24-W*
VINCA MINOR
4TOTSINPO.C.
AFCTOSTAPHYLO.- UVA-URSV KINNIKINNICK
4"FOtS/ 24� OC.
LAWN
Z
LLJ
<
LU L)
_j
L) 0
LO 0
y) LU
LU
_j
U) LL
0
W
2 1
<
CC
LL
Lu� -
z
0
Z
LU LU
cn�
C)
LU Ujil
LL 0
z
0
z
Ir
CO
Yl
*Additional Studies Required to Complete.Review.....
• Owner MICHEL/YOUNG.
• Property Address 22035 76TH "E. W.
Date of Application 10/8/97
Type Relocate Commercial bldgr,
Hearing Required: Yes x No._ Date of Hearing (if known)
X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11)
Fee X -.Site Plan (11 x 17)
APO List X -Legals (Existing & Proposed)
Title Report Environmental Assessment
X Vicinity Map
roof of 2-,Year Occupancy (ADU)
Elevations
eclarations (Variance)
Petition (Official Street Map) nvironmental Checklist
X Critical Areas Determination
RECEIVED
OCT. 1 -4 19971
ENGINEEkl�i3
N
ft-15
k4
z
0
a
LLI
LL
W
Y
I--
0
z
Ir"01111111
LP A
Date: October 20, 1997
To: Planning Division
From: Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator qc44,
Subject: Proposed Commercial building for MichelNoung at
22035 - 76th Ave. AL(ADB-97-131)
The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The Division has the
following comments on the application.
• The parking stalls as designed do not conform to the ECDC minimum width of 8.5
feet.
• A drainage condition was placed on the short plat that has not been met.
• This application indicates that only 1958 square feet of impervious surface will be
created. Our calculations indicate that 2014 will be created. Widening the parking
stalls to conform to the ECDC will increase that figure at least 30 more square feet.
• The applicant will have to comply with the terms of all future pemits.
The application is complete as submitted.
11
CMOFEDMONDS
ENGINEERING DIVISION
713LEM
Mi,
7T . ...... - -- ---
a
0
D
U
0
C3
LAJ
LL
0
z I--
�- 0
Z �-
LU LU
L) cn
0—
a
LLJ UJ
�L- C
U I (f,
U
z
V,
E
-APPLICATION ROUTING FORM
FILE: A DS-97-131
AND CHECKLIST
FROM: PLANNING
ROUTED TO:
RETURNED
OCT I If
Engineering 10/13/97
Engineering
PUBLIC WORKS DEpj
Fire 10/13/97
Fire
Public Works
Parks ex Rec.
Staff Comments: '14 -jao L40 6-
a4wj t.(. 42, "-t
n2�3 t"t-
*PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE?
*COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED
*Additional Information Required for Complete Application
*Additional Studies Required to Complete Review
• Owner MICHEL/YOUNG.
• Property Address 22035 76TH "E. W.
Date of Application 10/8/97
Type Relocate Commercial bldgr.
Hearing Required: Yes�_x No Date of Hearing (if known)
X A plication
p ite Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11)
Fee X Site Plan (I I x 17)
APO List X Legals (Existing & Proposed)
Title Report Environmental Assessment
x Yicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADLI)
Elevations Declarations (Variance
Petition (Official Street Map) nvironmental Checklist
X Critical Areas Determination
0
TO
< F�
Z
UJ
U.1
-j
L) 0
V)
V)
U.j X
-j �-
V) U.,
0
LLJ
2��
< - i
cc —j
LL <�
z
�- 0
Z �-
Lij LU
U
0
LU Lul�
U- 0
z
Uj
0
z
V]
E
FORM FILE: ADB-97-131
AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING,
L
ROUTED TO:
Engineering 10/13/97
Fir
06�w W& �L �Ibfrsi9r�y
Parks SE Rec. 10/13/97
Staff Comments:.
T 6 1997
RETU RNED
Engineering
Fire 101f -7 —W—;TA�
Public Works
Parks ex Rec. REC.LIVED
OCT 14 1997
IMMONDS NRETEIT,.—
*PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE?
*COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED
*Additional Information Required for Complete Application
*Additional Studies Required to Complete Review
• Owner MICHEL/YOUNG.
• Property Address 22035 76TH "E. W.
Date of Application 10/8/97
Type Relocate Commercial bldg.
I Hearing Required: Yes x No Date of Hearing (if known)
X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11)
Fee Site Plan (11 x 17)
APO List __K_Legals (Existing & Proposed)
Title Report Environmental Assessment
X Vicinity Map
Proof of 2-Yew Occupancy (ADU)
Elevations eclarations Nariance)
Petition (Official Street Map) nvironmental Checklist,
X Critical Areas Determination
0,
0 C71 11 10
Z
<
0
V) 0
Cf) LU
Uj
_j
LL,
Uj
CC
Ln a
Lu�
3:
z �_
�_ 0
Z �-
LIJ Uj
U (ni
0-
0
LLJ UJI
LL
LU rj)
0
z
MV-
as
rR21
Td,
-APPLICATION ROUTING FORM E
FIL KUB-9
AND CHECKLIST FWM. �LANNINGI
N
ROUTED TO: RETURNED.
Engineering 10/13/97 Engineering
Fire 10/13/97
Fire
Public Works 10/13/97 Public Works
Parks ex Rec
`W AWL=
Staff Comments:
*PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE?.
*COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED
*Additional Information Required for Complete Application
*Additional Studies Required to Complete Review
• Owner MICHEL/YOUNG.
• Property Address 22035 76TH "E. W.
• Date of Application 10/8/97
• Type Relocate Commercial bldg.
• Hearing Required: Yes x No Date of Hearing (if known)
X Application Site Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11)
Fee J� Site Plan (I I x 17)
APO List __2�_Legals (Existing & Proposed)
Title Report nvironmental Assessment
X Vicinity Map Proof of 2-Year Occupancy tADU)
...-Elevations eclarations (Variance)
Petition (Official Street Map)
nvironmental Checklist.
X —Critical Areas Determination
0
=
a
-APPLICATION ROUTING FORM 171�1.E: I ADB-97431,
AND CHECKLIST FROM: PLANNING
ROUTED TO:
RETURNED
Engineering 10/13/97
Engineering
Fire
Fire
Public Works 10/13/97
Public Works
Parks at Rec. 10/13/97
Parks 81 Rec.
Staff Comments:
*PER WHAT SECTION OF THE CODE?
*COMMENTS WITHOUT CITATIONS WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED
*Additional Information Required for Complete Application
*Additional Studies Required to Complete Review
• Owner MICHEL/YOUNG.
• Property Address 22035 76TH "E. W.
± Date of Application 10/8/97
± Type Relocate Commercial bldg.
* Hearing Required: Yes x No Date of Hearing (if known)
X Application
Fee
APO List
Title Report
X Vicinity Map
Elevations
Petition (Official Street Map)
X Crifical Areas Determination
ite, Plan for Short Subdivision (8.5 x 11)
Site Plan (11 x 17)
X egals (Existing & Proposed)
nvironmental Assessment
roof of 2-Year Occupancy (ADU)
eclarations (Variance)
nvironmental Checidist
1.1
M-
U_ i
:D�
(n C3 �
_F
z I
0
Z �-
W W;
W1
X
z
LU W
Uy
I- i,-
0
z
E4.
Fcity of emlonds 4
land use application OCT
0 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
3 COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
L3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
U HOME OCCUPATION
E) FORMAL SUBDIVISION
Q SHORT SUBDIVISION
13 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
L3 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
0 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT I
STREET VACATION
C3 REZONE
0 SHORELINE PERMIT
E3 VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE
EXCEPTION
0 OTHER
FILE# 07B -11 -1 3t ZONE C&
DATE 10181'9-7 REC'DBY
FEE " 0 -RECEIPT# _J
HEARING DATE
0 HE 0 STAFF 0 PB X ADB 0 CC
ACTION TAKEN:
Applican":--Z'a IA�' cjx'�5e 1&,W6 Phone 774 --.,2,21Z
Address nocv� '-11"L I "I -C.: CA_)
Property Address or Location Oh
PropertyOwner —Phone 72� - .214/
Address
Agent Phone
Address
Tax Acc # 0 9-9 70 S-;A - C) C) Sec. 627 Twp.c:� ? I*Y Rng.
Legal Description /-07 C;� ? C, " r
0'c
Details of Pr9ject or Proposed Use
AA7— 7/e—
os-e
The undersigned applicant, and his/ her/ its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of thE
application agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and at
damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upor
false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information fumished by the applicant, his/ her/ its agents oi
employees.
The undersigned applicant grants his/ her/ its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds
enter the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT
0
CA FILE NO.— -5-7
Critical Areas Checklist
Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation)
1.
Site Address/Location:
Z
<
2.
Property Tax Account Number:
Z
LU
3.
Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet):
<
LU
-i
U 0
4.
Is this site currently developed? "Xl,. yes;
— — no.
U) a
(n LU
If yes; how is site developed?
LU =
-i �-
5.
Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
U) U-
LU 0
Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
<
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a
LL
horizontal distance of 06-feet).
Ln
LU..
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15 % and less than 30 % ( a vertical rise
Z
of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
0
Z I--
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a
Ui LU
horizontal distance of less than 33-feet).
U U)i
0-
Other (please describe):
C3 tj
LU Ujf
M U
P
6.
Site contains areas of year-round standing water: A/-; Approx. Depth:
�i- 0
Z
7.
Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: Approx. Depth:
LU (n
What season(s) of the year?
0
8.
Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course.
Z
9.
Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-
round? A.L Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? _ ).
10.
Site is primarily: forested ; meadow _; shrubs mixed
urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) X'
11.
Obvious wedand is present on site:
107k
. ReVOM74
LU;
The CriticalAreas Checklist contained on
14. this form is to be filled out by any person
0 -preparing a Development Permit
Application for the City of Edmonds prior
J
to his/her submittal of a development
permit to the City.
Z I L
01
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable
1_1
City staff to determine whether any
potential Critical Areas are or may be
L
present on the subject property. The
0
information needed to complete the
LU
Checklist should be easily available from
observations of the site or data available at
z
City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps,
or soil surveys).
z An applicant, or his/her representative
must fill out the checklist, sign and date it,
Lk]
E
RECRIvED
MAR - 7 1997
COMMUNITY SERVICES
and submit it to the City. The City will
review the checklist, make a precursory site
visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary'to complete a
development permit application.
With a signed copy of this form, the
applicant should also submit a vicinity map
or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel
with enough detail that City staff can find
and identify the subject parcel(s). In
addition, the applicant shall include
other pertinent information (e.g. site
plan, topogmphy map, etc.) or studies in
cogimiction with this Checklist to assist
staff in completing their preliminary
assessment of the site.
I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are
factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below).
Owner / Applicant:
Name
Street Address
City State ZIP Ph
7'/_ _. � � 1/1
Signature Date
Applicant Representative:
Name
Street Address
City, Stec, ZIP Phone
sipa"
I=
E
m 0
-W 4
.... . .. .
OE
Uzi
Ar
rr