The URL can be used to link to this page

508 5TH AVE S.PDF1111111111 lill 14697 508 5TH AVE S DING DE-PARTMEWIr Applicant Fill SE -MIT BER ZONE Inside Heavy Lines. PERMIT APPLICATION JOB ADDRESS NAME (OR NAME OF BUSINESS) I j LEGAL LOT LOT AREA SUBDIVISION NO. All If Yes El NO pqj.jj:i.,G ADDRESS . z3: q0 CL. V STREET R/W EXISTING STREET Rlr—g=�> FT. DEFICIENCY THIS PROPERTY;, Ft. 0 CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER COMP. PLAN St. R/w9=C:3 FT. REM N I- E to a U W ADDRESS P,0 STREET AND/OR UTILITY WO R/W PERMIT REQUIRED U ,,TELEPHONE NUMBER REQ'D. . 0 YES E3 NO NAME UNDERGROUND WIRING REQ'D. YES NO TYPE CONNECTION []YES VERIFIED By m 0 ADDRE 11,- C-60 SANITARY SEWER El NO PERMIT r4UPABUR U e .;;_ ELEI:11 SEPTIC SYSTEM CITY ENG. C3 Y 11 S M CITY APPV'D By No z 0 U STATE LICEN E NUMBER CIT REMARKS �:, � — 5i` tio) o 1111111 , op rty (Show Below or Attach Four Copies) SIZE 0 7:1111 U17 SUPPLY SIZE ;)� W A::! S Ir z 01 U In Id .J 0 W RKS 1--tifs-k-3 LA-M6 fk S U SIGN AREA F �NTV. REVIEW A011 Co. ALLOWED PROPOSED O.PL.T. EXEMPT A li REMARKS VARIANCE OR'CU YARDS FRONT NEW RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL . El GAS LINE SIGN FIRE ZONE —E E] ADD ALTER DEMOLISH EXCAVATE OR FILL — El I RETAINING I WALL. FENCE I_ X _FT) CIAL INSPECTOR REQUIRED El YES El N 0 REPAIR 1:1 PRE -MOVE INSP. El swim POOL NUMBER OF STORIES C NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS z�3 N =7��F D 0 N E ATURE.OF WORK TO B PLAN CHECK PROPOSED USE NO. z 2 3 F , PLOT PLAN IRMCiVIE BUILDIIR; 9ETBACKS, BUILDING ABUTTING STREETS) u r; PLUMBING W HEAT & GAS LINE FENCE SIGN RETAINING WALL SWIMMING POOL PLANNING REVIEW BY 1A LOT COVII SIDE REA VF� CO N-70 ZTI-7-7-? DE 14x AREA OCCUPANCY GROUPF THIS ITE IS LOCAT DIN THE I OF E MONDS. LOCAL SALEIII SHOULD BE CODED 3t04- VALUATION Pea N " ENGINEERING RE( "�N - MENTS FOR BUILDING CITY 01" H1)'--1ONDS PUBLIC WORKS DEPAHrR4ENT DFVISION PERMIT, APPLICATION SURJECT. Subdi vi s ion Plat PRD Multiple Commercial GETIERAL REQUIRD-4ENTS oil Coordination of the location or any structure with resnect to'utilities, streets, Droperty lines and di,iveway grades is the responsib.�.lity of the contractor. The ccnstra,�tor is required to keep the abutting street cleane . d of dirt and debris,caused by the construction 7-30'.200 Violations - Penalties 7.30.290. A "Righ�-Of-l-fay Construction Permit" is required from the Engineering Division of Public. Works for any work within the Public right-of-way or public easement. 7.30.010 Violations Penalties 7.30.290. SPECIFIC -REQUIRE--1ENTS, UNDERGROU-M PO'VE R Underground Wiring Req ' d Not Req1d SANITARY SE1,ER (P1iH,1IT REQ, n—connection to S,,tnita-ry Sewer Req'd ��Back Water Valve* Req'd on Side Sewer 0 Septic Tank Pei-init Reald. Desip Vs belovi -�et-eWW6% 31 Approval Req-1d %J Ta"00%. Approved Dt. Permit Number STORM SE'�-ILR Sys=-1 (PER CITY CODE El Drainage Plan Req I d 11 Site Drainage to be Contained on Site ROADWAY Ei-IH�CvEi,ILWS A1'TD DRIVEWAY RJY-,)UIRLT;1EJ-JTS -Drive,,.ja <ceed 11�1 y Slone Not to E, 2�Drainage Plan Anproved Dt. E) Site Drainage to be Connected to City System --�4 Drivel.-iav Pavin- Req'd EJ Driveway Culvert Req'd Size 70r TtJ—Vertical Curb Req d El Sidewalk Req'd El Street Pavil-t.-'., Req d' E] Approved Desipi Req'd X—�ond Reqod for Public Improvements [�a�ubmit Cost Estimate Note: Inspections 7*�-.-n',-J. , Engineering Division RL-Foundation . .. 0. Sep tt-Sade Sewer t i c Tank ��Iater Service Fire Protection Drainage 2LSite 1114-)I�Oven�rlts A 24 - hour notice is requirf-d for inspection i)y Engineering, call 775-2525, extension 220. FRED F. IU�RZBERG, P.E. C i t. ly I 7-or I � - : I., j 4 (1, i!i t) f , ! 1! !,*1 :' 1'�� ... ... 4kUBLIC YORKS DEPA1Zrt4DTr CHEGUAS BUTIDING PER,[IT REVID4 'qW Z, — g:�n --� ? f��Date R-2 C4 Street Right -of -Way Existing REQD Access Easements Existing RtQD. Utility..Easemen . t Existing -.--n BFQD Lot per 'Subdivision -::f,2 Plat Assessor.Map Site Plan Checked for Accuracy Underground Wiring Reqd. Check Accuracy, of LegaLDesc-giptliOn <:::!-_N L c-- Envirorunentally Sensitive Area Environmental C.he�klist �eqd. m&A,�w C 4 Flood Hazard Zone Shoreline Managem.ent Area Slope, Soil, Vegetation [,—j r-- Stream, Creek, Drainage Basin Existing Zo"'Per Code Amenitiesb�sign Board*Approval Reqd., ADB # Approval ,Board,of Adjusitment.Approval Reqd. RpvjLew._ty: Date: ' Size -Water Main Reqd. 3ervice Une Requ. Hydrant Size Existing Hydr'ant.Reqd. Per Firefode Detector Check Meter Reqd.. I/ ALA Size ..Cross.Connection Inspection Fire Department Comments Water Meter Charge.Re d 4 Review by: . -Date: 77 liepac -ianic uesign ikpprovea Septic Tank Permit Reqd. SanitarySewer Availability Dra%%ring No. Side Sewer Availabilf6�_ Sanitary Sewer Revie%T By: SAdclress Date: Permit No. Proj. Open Dktch Existing. Reqd. Culvert Reqd. -Size r4 CaLcll Basin Reqd. _11:'.Thdicate on Site,Pl.an 1. . I '...O_ . -ij, vii.ntain collection on sw Shoulder drain, T n ale,bpen rmoff -ite on Site v 11101.e /reqd Indic. Plan Soil. Conditions and Ground I -later Field Mocked Revie%.j by Dab Street Paving Reqd. '6tt6r Reqd. ,Curb and G Sidcwalk Reqd. -ivewa Curb Cu t for DL �eqd."/ _'Ye r_ cr�i A0. r4 ii Right-of4lay Construction Pemit -Reqd..Ze5v,'�-_Cfttd. X. jBond Reqd. for Public In-provem--i-its e Street Narm- Sign Reqd. r 0 ot- c t-her Signing Read. L 1. Pre Pen-iiit Site Inspection mde on BY: SS,,IER u VIAWR S'11T- ET F _N1 GINEERING Special Rcquirel..,imLs listed in mo-iTO to Comminity Devbloprwnt Deparbm-rit, 13WLI.dinc, Division BY Date 0 All iteirs filled in on Building Perndt Application 13Y ate D, Drawings Staii-ped and Notations IL-ide BY -Date 10� Approved by pub, l. i c "Porks D e� 1) a i - Li -,,,c i t Revised: 1-v 10-19-/7 311A .!!�Zfd - -e- , L- I -,:;� VIVO ?H-L 'ao1y3-H -L �MH.L, VOIV all ,IVA-40-L- 'W-M '4VI' glfJ- ��' 7V,2 GERALD W. LOVELL P.L.S. JURGEN P. SAUERLAND P.L.S. ,57" E HT FILE L Lovell-Sauerland &Associates, Inc. S Surveyors 9 Development Consultants 9 Planners October 9, 1978 File No. 78-303 Storm -Drainage Calculations for OCT'l 8 1978 MAGNA HAGEN - 12-Unit Condominium 1. Site - Runoff.Coefficients Existing 0.46 Ac. @ 0.20 Developed .Roof - 0.17 Ac. @ 0.90 Parking - 0.10 Ac. @ 0.90 Sidewalk - 0.05 Ac. @ 0.90 Total - 0.32 Ac. @ 0.90 Landscaped Area - 0.14 e 0.20 Avg. Cd = 0.20(0.14) + 0.90(0.32) = 0.69 0.46 2. Retention Volume for Site Farthe8t point fPOM N.E. corner of propepty to collection point is 210 ft. @ 7,% Avg. slop(,., UndeVelOped Plow volocity = 1.5 fps. Time of Conc. = [2101 (1.5 x 60)] + 10 = 12.3 min. Rainfall Intensity i = I . 45 in. /hr. using Chart #10 , 10-yr. freq-.iency Qu = Cu i A = 0.20(1.45)(0-46) = 0.13 cfs. Runoff bypassing retention reservoir A = 0.06 @ 0.20 Qb = C i A = 0.200.45)(0-06) = 0.02 cfs. Q Allow. = Qu - Qb = 0 - 13 - 0.02 = 0. 11 cfs. 00 = Q Allow. = 0.111 0.35 cfs./Ac. A x C�- 0.46(0.69) For orifice with head T = -25 + /1-762 = -25 + [17-62 = 46.3 min. i -d V 0 .35 Vs = 28207 - 40 QoT = 2820 (46.3 40 (0-35 ) (46'.3 1183.0 cf./Ac. T + 25 -(2�-6. -3 F 25) Total Storage Volume Req Id. = VsACd = 1183.0 (0-35 ) (0.69) = 285.7 cf. 23168 - 100TH W. EDMONDS, WASH. 98020 PHONE 775-ir.94 0 Storm Drainage Calc. - Magna Hagen, 12-Unit Condominium -2- 2. Retention Volume for Site (cont'd.) Check for Roof and Paved Area Runoff Qo = Q Allow.. 0.11 0.38 cfs./Ac. A x Cd 0.32(0.90) For orifice with head T = -25 + rl-76-2 = -25 + P-762 = 42.9 min. i -To— V -6 73-8 Oct. 9, 1978 Vs = 2820T 40 QoT = 2820(42.9) - 40(0.38),(42.9) = 1129.6 cf./Ac. T = 25 .(42.9 + 25) Storage Volume Required for Roof and Paved,Areas Runoff 1129.6(0.32)(0.90) = .325.3 cf. which is greater than required for Total Site. Sizing of Pipe V/L = sf./ft. 325.3 =,-3.5359 sf./ft. 92 Try 2411 dia. 88 - 2411 @ 3.1416 sf./ft. 2 - 48" CHMH (2.0 + 2.44) @ 12.5664 Total Storage Provided 1. Orifico Calculation 0 Allow. = 0.11 cfs. H = 2.44 ft. 2 2G = 64.4 ft./sec. Cd = 0.62 A 0 Allowd [Cd(2GH)j] D F4A = 1.61 in. 'rr Yr Use 1-5/811 dia. 276.5 cf. 55.8 332.3 cf. 2 0.11/ ( 0-62/��(2�.44)) =+0.01415 sf. = 2.04 in . Actual Outflow 0 = 0.0144 x 0.62 / 64.4 x 2.44 = 0.11 cfs. OK CZ 1,000 r� Dom 7T7-: _FORSYTH —LANE ---------- I TABLE 1 RUNOFF FACTORS FOR STORM -SEWERS FLAT ROLLING .0-5% 5% UNDEVELOPED LAND: Wood & Forest 0.110 0. 15�' Sparse Trees & Ground Cover 0.. 1 5,� Light.Grass to Bare Ground DEVELOPED AREA,' Pavement! & Roofs 0'..9.0 9 0 Gravel Roads & Parking L�t� . ... . . . 0.:7-5-' .0- .:-.'0.80.. City Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.,'8's :0. 9 0 Apartment Dwelling Areas . . . . . . 0..80 0.85. Industrial Areas (Heavy) . . . .. . .. . . 0.70 0.80... Industrial Areas (Light) . . . . . . . 0.,,60 0.70 Earth Shoulder . . . . . . . . . . 01..50.1 0.5.0 Playground 0..25. 0.30 Lawns, Meadows & Pasture; 0.20' 0.25 Parks & Cemetery .. . . . . . ... . . . 0.15' 0.20 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Unit/Gross Acre) 1.0-1.5 DU/GA . . . 0.30 1.5-3.0 DU/GA . . . . . . .. . .. . . 0.35 3.0-3.5 DU/GA . . . . . . : : :.. . . . . . . 0.40 3.S-4.0 DU/GA . . . . . . . - ...' - - - .. 0.45 4.0-6.0 DU/GA . . . . . . : . ...,0.50. 6.0-9.0 DU/GA . . . ... . . . . .. . . 0.60 9.0-15.0 DU/GA . . . . . .. . . . 0.70 14 2/1/77 A mmoomme ; SO ; ON so on Be INEEIIIIIII MONSOON mommal sloolot m �RE'luLoNwrIONO/�iiETCwNi�ION�13A71N —LUUAI-IUNb ro 10 YEAR . IGN STORM AREA TYPE OF OUTLET PEAK STORAGE MAXIMUM STO AG5 TIME (MINUTES) VOLUME (FTVAC RENTON- * SEATTLE C14A A 10 TACOMA C-HhR-f 12 NORTH BEND 2 YEAR D MGN ORM PEAK STORAGE MAX'IKUM(STS%G TIME (MINUTES) VOLUME FT AC vs = 2138 f 1 W762 2820 --25+ 8 --iTo— —T-+-n _ OT 00 ORIFICE WITH HEAD IT=-25+ n 40 Q CONSTANT FLOW T= -255+� 1175 Qo ff 8 1 _:7:5 T=-25+ 0', ORIFICE WITH HEADI QO CONSTANT FL6w T=-25+ f;12570 (TO 2255 ORIFICE WITH HEAD I T 2 5 + V, --G— CONSTANT FLOW -Ifl 503 T=-25+'y J'�4 0 �76 .i�� ORIFICE WITH HEAD T=-25+ 0_ d4 SNOQUALMlE--- 0 to PASS' r 2718 CONSTANT FLOW T=-25+� Qo C HUT 33 SKYKOMISH CHAR7 2— TE26 �0:3:— ORIFICE WITH HEAD I T=-25+ 0 Q0 CONSTANT FLOW T=-254 1735 1 -� _0 vs = 2820 T _ 60 Q T T+25 0 vs 3000-1 - 40 QOT T+25 VS = 3000 T 60 QOT T+2�- - vs 40 QOT T+25 VS 3607 — � —T 6D QOT T+25 vs 6522 T 4 0 QOT T+25 vs = 6522 T T+25- 60 QOT VS = 4164 T 40 QOT T+25 Vs = 4164 T T-+-z-5 - 60 QoT 25 T=-25 0 f2 4 Q0 T=-25+ n- ]IE4161 3 T=-25+ Q QO vs = 3420 T 40 QoT T+29- V s 3420- T' 60 Q T T+25 0 vs 3510 T 40 Q T+25 vs 3510 T 60 QOT T+25 VS -J2 7 4329 �O6 T -.2 5 +. 0 - 61_ T+25 40 Q ()-T vs -1 T1_80 44. T7-25+ 4329 T T+25 _60 QOT vs 5013 - �T 8020 T —f 40 + 2-5 vs 41— B020 T T=--25 T+ 5 60 QoT vs -f3 E17 5 T=-25+ 0', Qo 4920 T -f+25 40 QoT vs 2_:5:'0,)7— T?—O 4920 T T=--25+ 0. Qo T+25 60 QoT �111��Mmmm ImEr 010111000111 FOO Milli FMOOO 5,0 2 o1w F, 0' 0-011; e. m OF.&' m i 0.0000- ENN . 00-0.0 EIA 100 .0. IWO, w_.m 'goo lie wo-M®R Idgaf, W-111'" prMM-wrA"OIwFF. AnEW P., 115 e m WE 1; a 0 MAN on 10 ro_ � O-.Ww 5 i Yo IWO rz IIMMI i t T - S iEET FILE P [A HAPrISOH CITY OF EOM"ll"00-S DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WOPKS DAT E -7 0 0 M-0, WpTa = W� i -- m TRANSHITTING: AS YO,U .�REQUE.ST,ED: FOR YOUR FILE: FOR YOUR INFO: REVIEW & C01-2,1ENT- AS-VTE DISCUSSED: COM14ENT & RETURN. FOR YOU R APPROVAL: FOR APPROP. ACTION: REMARKS: ,157 Z-4 A.) HAS hp,op/zo v /Z v &vr,- PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTHENT B y M-1-1100 0 May 30, 1979 Mr. Harry Whitcutt Building Official City of Edmonds Civic Center Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Harry: STR"EET FILE '* DONALD R. WESTLIN ARCHITECT DONALD E. COUNSELL ARCHITECT P�.'b- B-OX 1332 LWWWOOD, WA 98036 (206) 778-0171 . ea Y 1979 City Ot CCFrn '-OMW - un; "'. oncts �W- Dent I want to bring you current on my contractual agreement on the working drawings titled 1112 Unit Condominium for Magna Hagen Inc. Builder" to be constructed.on the corner of 5th Avenue South and Holly Drive, identified by our Job No. 78-5H. You are well aware that the City Council has reduced the concept to eight units, however, you may not be aware that Dr. Robert Bettis and Dr. Mark Hanson are the prime developers of the project and they have engaged the services of another architect to make the final revisions. They have not fulfilled the total financial obligation to us as yet, however, more important is the fact that the permit should not be released until we have had the opportunity to make a final check of the drawings. I do not want my signature on any documents that have been changed outside of this office. Our ,structural engineer is of the same opinion and would require his review of the final documents. Under a separate cover I am addressing all of these issues with Drs-Bettis and Hanson and will keep you advised as to their response. Very uly yours, Donald R. Westlin DRW/nb cc Dr. Robert Bettis Dr. Mark Hanson Structural Design Associates CITY 0FS1i&66hN36 HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR CIVIC CENTER -- EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 775-2525 COMMUNITY DEVCLOPMENT DEPARTM�NT June 1, 1979 Donald R.. Westlin P.O. Box 1332 Lynnwood, Wa. 98036 CONDOMINIUM AT 508-5TH AVENUE SOUTH BETTIS, HANSON, HAGEN- - This is in*answer to your letter of May 30, 197.9. The City's.function is simply to review the submitted plans,for'code compliance, including any revisions submitted as a result of Council action. When.it has been determined that they are in compliance, the permit must be issued. Any contractual agreements -between the owner and architects are outside the.scope of the City's function. V Harry Whitcutt Building Official HMW/ae . .. cc: John Wallace TQ June 7, 1979 FILE ARCHITECTURE ENGINEERING PLANNING Mr. Harry Whitcutt Building Official Building Dept. Edmonds.Civic Center 250 Fifth North Edmonds, WA Subject: Structural Plan Check 12 Unit Condominium for Magna Hagen Inc. Dear Mr. Whitcutt: We have reviewed the resubmitted drawings removing the top floor. We take no exception to the modifications. Very truly yours, WHITELEY, JACOBSEN & ASSOCIATES It ?Jack H. Whiteley, P.E. P sj President JHW/jf encls. WHITELEY JACOBSEN AND ASSOCIATES 2118 THIRD AVENUE, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 (206) 623-0331 7 1---- i-4T FILE -Ilk /19 0 "Jig, 7e' Tilt �))-JkY)L 1 L f r9L�,I�yj,14 -Wit, i�lol� t 13 pa� 5�� --- Ootr 5% 4 fl 21 kA7_0 E-L/ /4,(AJ-4-7� o/(_ oc-c- -ro 75 CIT Y OF EDMON I DS 4-7� 'EET. FILE - S T R Apartment & Commercial Plan Review Checklist PROJECT DATE RECEIVED PRELIMINARY - ADDRESS OWNER FINAL PLAN ARCHITECT PHONE USE F--1 t P,& C, CODE /973 FIRE ZONE c9l OCCUPA14CY (501) NO. STORIES' TYPE 'OF CONSTRUCTION OCCUPANT LOAD, 1. AREAS & VALUATION BASEMENT A9- SQ. FT.@ S Q. FT..= lst FLOOR- SQ�FT.@ —SQ. FT. 00 2nd FLOOR SQ. FT.@ 16 SQ.FT.= $ 65666 li d Ftbe&, —SQ.FT.@ SQ.FT.= $ OTHER_l�A"l&lLs_ SQ.FT.@ SQ. FT. 6 $ Z? 0 40 TOTAL: 'r rl PER14IT FEE PLAN CHECK FEE $ 3/0', 2.' PLUMBING NO. FIXTURES "42 tFfl FIXTURE UNITS DISTA14CE TO METER METER SIZE Z, BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE PEPJ4IT FEE $ MATERIAL 41 477 asd Edmonds Building Department Apartment & Commercial Plan.Review Checklist 3.* MECHANICAL HEATING SYSTEM OTHER APPLICANCES PERMIT FEE $ REMARKS 0 /4. BASIC ALLOWABLE AREA (Table 5-0 00 (All fl oors) (505b) "K I SEPARAT ION ON. SIDES NEARESTDISTANCE. (5506) % ALLOWABLE.INCREASE (506) TOTAL ALLOWABLE AREA (all floors) HOOT Sq.jt. AREA SEPARATIONS (505d)� F-1 .00CUPANCY SEPARATIONS (503)(1102) ,5. EXIT FACILITIES (Chapter 33) NO. REQUIRED EXIT*S (3302a) WIDTH (3302b) ARRANGEMENT & DISTANCE (3302c,d) EXIT DOORS: (3303) CORRIDORS (33.04) STAIRWAYS & RAMPS (3305,3306) EXIT ENCLOSURES (3308) EXIT SIGNS (3312) ILLUMINATION OTHER (EXIT COURTS) 6. LIGHT, VENTILATION & SANITATION (Chap.6,7,9,10,11,12 13,14) WINDOW SIZE SANITATION YARDS & COURTS CEILING HEIGHT OTHER V,'�7. FIRE ZONE RESTRICTIONS (Chapter 16) ROOF COVERING (1603) (4307)� OTHER C Edmonds Building Department Apartment &,Commercial Plan Review Checklist 8. REQUIREMENTS BASED ON TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION-1 (Chat.).17) ELEVATORS (1706) WEATHER PROTECTION (1707) PARAPETS (1709) PROJECTIONS (1710) TOILET FACILITIES (1711) GUARDRAILS (1716) BLDG. C,LASSIFICA"LIONS(1701) Lz- OTHER 9. SPECIALREQUIREMIENTS PROVISION FOR ACCESS BY HANDICAPPED SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL (ChaD. 35 ApT.)e-ndix) f -ZI6-ZQO THEIIU�IAL INSULATION (H.B. 98) .STAIR CONSTRUCTION ROOFS 0. GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (Chap. 23) V/1 LOADS (2302) DEFLECTION (2.307) ANCHORAGE 14ALLS & STRUCTURAL FRA11IN9 SPECIAL LOADS (Table 23-c) ENGINEERING CALC'S ENGINEERING DESIGN 1 1. MASONRY (Chap. 24) REINFORCEMENT 10 RTA R —LINTELS— GROUTING 12. WOOD (Chap. 25) STRESSES IDEINTIFICATION BEMNI DESIGN COLUMNS UPLIFT LATERAL SUPPORT CONNECTIONS 4/77 asd -3- Edmonds Buildin!g Department kpartment & Commercial. Plan Review.Checklist IAPHUIGMS RAWL SPACE(2517) LATES, SILLS POSTS OUNDATION VENTILATION EXTERIOR WALL COVERING S GIRDERS JOISTSr WALL FRAMING BRACING ROOF FRAMING NAILING V.13. CONCRETE �—ix STRENGTH REINFORCEMENT ADMIXTURES TESTS SPECTAL INSPECTION COVER DESIGN CALC'S 14. STEEL & IRON (Chap. SPECS CONNECTIONS 'SPECIAL INSPECTION COLUMNI BASES. WELDER QUALIFICATIONS 15. EXCAVATIONS, FOUNDATIONS AND RETAINING WALLS (.Chap.29) SOILS REPORTS TESTS SOIL PRESSURE FOOTINGS WALLS ,-PLATES AND SILLS OTHERS 14 _A_ Edmonds Building Department Xpartment &.Commercial Plan Revie w Checklist V SHEATHING V//ATTIC ACCESS-,,- VENTILATION A EA SEPARATIONS DRAINS SCUPPERS SOFFITS 17. F-IRE,EXTINGUISftING�!SYSTEMS'(Chap.38) SPRINKLERS STANIDPIPES MISCELLANEOUS a) 'INTERIOR "WALL & "CEILING"FINI-SH (Chap. 42) b) FIRE -RESISTIVE STANDARDS (Chap. 43) b. 1 PROTECTION OF -STRUCTURAL MEEMBERS -b,. 2 �CEILINGS b. 3 VALLS & PARTITIONS b. 4 FLOOR"CEILINGS b. 5 OPENINGS V��zb. 6 DAMPERS /c) MARQUES, -AWNINGS �(Chap-.-45) d) GYPSUM WALLBOARD e) PLASTICS (Chap.47) f) GLASS & GLkZING (Chap.53,State Code) g) SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL h) FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS -5- 4/77 STREET FILE 10, '1, 192,9 or bow �l UN, mol, fAlr-, Lelfk i", fD oof �44C �c �AWL(k� P\kt fo� �1, lbb/T6 $ �(. 4w6Oj 04 f4m lAAjpl\q/A I I I kv, (All �OVWU,� WLblf Wifio4151 ?o MCC k fuLL Wl Of tmA Nif Wv fAf, U- NL, ftfm� 6", �o 41v� , t L Wlt(- Q-) asf wwl Nor, To Rt 6111f do PAj Ikki OA WA, 16 1 It W;OA vq&/ <ft7 STREET FILE �HARVE H. HARRISON CITY OF r=DMOFMDS MAYOR CIVIC CENTER - EDMONDS. WASHINGTON 98020 (206) 775-2525 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT August 2, 1979 M. T. Hanson 21616-76th Ave.. W. #111 Edmonds, Wa.* 98020 P ERMIT'FOR 508-5th AVENUE SOUTH In accordance with your request dated July 30, 1979, your permit application date of expiration has been extended to February 1, 1980. Harry M./Whitcutt Building Official HMW/ ae 11 'n �' 13 J/�u floe, ST "C`kEET FILE 21616 - 76th Ave. W. #111 Edmonds, WA 98020 July 30, 1979 Mr. Harry Whitcutt City of Edmonds Building Dept. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Permit Application 508 - 5th Ave. So. Pursuant to our discussion and to discussion with Wayne Tanaka we request a six month extension on our building permit application. As discussed our reasons are: 1) The prolonged delay in litigation with resultant delay in finalization of plans. 2) This pushed back the time that we could begin requests for bids and in 'turn the time for application for financing. We have been proceeding as rapidly as possible and are currently at the point of receiving bids. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Yours very truly, [�Ti*\� M. T. Hanson R. B. Bettis MTH: rek 9 0 STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR CIVIC CGNTER �DMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 775-2525 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT July 25,,1979 Mark T. Hanson. 21616-76th Ave. W. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 PERMIT APPLICATION 508-5TH AVENUE SOUTH Unless action is taken by you to obtain the above permit beforeAugust 3, 1979 the application will be null and void. H a"r r y M. %whitcutt Building Official HM14/ae -STEIEE f FILE CITY OF EOM01MOS CIVIC CCNTR - EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 775-2525 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: June 11, 1�79 TO: Mark T. Hanson 21616-76th Ave. W. Edmonds, Wa. 9.8020 SUBJECT: * Project -at 508-5th Ave. S TRANSMITTING: xxx AS YOU REQUESTED: — FOR YOUR FILE: REVIEW AND COM'14ENT: COMMENT AND RETURN: FOR CORRECT I -(IN,S) AND 0 HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR RE -SUBMITTAL: REMARKS: Site improvement bond to be completed Restrictive Covenant to b-e completed, recorded at the Assessor's Office in Everett and a copy of the recorded document to us before issuance of permit. [IARRY M. WH I TCUTT Building Official [imw/ae attachments 1) LA � M I ip A P F'L i UAI'i 0 N 1, 011 4 PURIAC v,,Olim I,,; --:PAH '11. U1, El, H I I JEER J� I f V I S [(.A S TI;R�E E T F I E f DAM,: _I 'T n � E SU&JECrP: Subdi vi s iot 1 !11 2. Plat P11T) Multiple Corriercial (IUIERAL REQUU�04L'f,Tji�c.) Coordination of the location or anv ' s tructu_re I-jith to utilities, I streets, Droperty lines and driveway gr,,jd(-1s is the responsib.`-Jity of' the contractoi-. Th2- dcristracror is -required to J�eep the abuttirig . street cleaned or dirt and del) . ris caused by the construction 7. ' 30.200 Violations - Penalties 7.30.290. A "Right -0 r- jjay Construction, Peririitll is required fPOm the L-Agineel'ing, Division of' Public Works f'or any work -v1ith.in the Public r.ig)it-of-1-14Y or Public easerent. 7.30-010 Violations Penaltl'es'7.30.290. J�LQUJf3j��.IL14T, SPEC'IFIC UNDERGROUi�TD'PO',-.-T7R f�j- Under:--tolind �,Jiring Ren d Not Req d SA14ITARY SEI-JER (HT�,ilT RE0,D) nL-COnnection to :�'anitar, y �ewer Req d 9-Back 1,!ater Valve 9eq d on Side Sewer Septic 'ila V6ff6V14 Req'd. Desif.:7-i Approval Req-',�] bQ16W Approved f,,t. vu� PerTait 11turber STOPH SE!.-IE�i (FER C= CODE D Drainarre Fl,-jjj Req,d C� Site Drainage to be Contained oil Site ROADWAY RL1-AJ1RLA1,1U FPS ljct to Drive-.-iay Favin- Req I d 17:Y-Vertical Cla,l) fie,11d EJ Street Favin,_, R�,fjl(j 9�brairvu,e Plan A-ri)-roved Dt. El Site Drainage to be'Cora I iected to City System EJ Driveway Cuiv,-,rt Req'd Size El side'.-Ialk Req ld El Arprov--l" F)esiir�i F3cq,d 9—Bond RetIld f'or Pub.1-ic -Improvements 12��-ubmjt Cost Estimate Note: I kr�, 5��oundatiorj Side ��ewer Se -eptic Tank /a Service. ter. EJ i,'i re Protection Drainage �te ljiuroveny,�nts ))out' 110ticO i r.equirf�d for in�.;pection :!Nl Engineering, call 775-25'., extension 220. C- I 1ERZBER( C i 1 v I J) :' -�CC44,4 5 STREET FILE THE PROVISION THAT THE ADDITION OF THE 10 LEASED PARKING SPACES FROM DI AMOND PARKING WILL BE A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL. COUNCILMAN GOULD ACCEPTED THAT ADDITION. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED AND ADDED TO, THEN CARRIED, WITH COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST VOTING fNO. Councilman Carns returned to the rostrum. REVIEW REVISED ELEVATIONS�FOR MAGNE HAGEN CONDOMINIUM Councilman Herb had not taken part in the previous hearings on this matter because of a possible conflict of interest, so he again asked to be excused from this review. He left the meeting at this time. Community Development Director John LaTourelle displayed the site plan and elevations. The building had been reduced in size from 12 to 8 units and now was only 25' high. Eight parking spaces on Holly Dr. had been eliminated. Those were the requirements the Council had made. The building was slightly closer to the creek but was still out of the creek bed. Discussion was opened to the audience. Joseph Dwyer of 529 Holly Dr. said Councilman Gould had requested that there be no parking on Holly Dr. and that the exit be on 5th Ave. That was not included in the approved motion. Bill Mathias of 540 Holly Dr. felt the building had been moved closer to Holly Dr. Willard Aldridge, architect for the project, said the building presently was located exactly as it had been previously. He said he had made only the changes required by the council. Audience participation MOTION: was closed. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN GOULD, TO APPROVE THE REVISED ELEVATIONS FOR THE MAGNE HAGEN CONDOMINIUM. MOTION CARRIED. PROPOSED ORDINANCE RE TAXICAB LICENSES Police Chief Marlo Foster stated that the proposed ordinance had been reviewed by Don Gudgeon, the person who had brought this matter before the Council, and that he was MOTION: satisfied with the ordinance. COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO ADOPT ORDINANCE 2069 REGARDING TAXICAB LICENSES. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Nordquist was not present for the vote. I PROPOSED CONTRACT ON RECREATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STUDY The proposed contract with Northwest Research Analysts was presented for review. Community Development Director John LaTourelle stated the consultant would do the job for $10,000 but would need the services of the City in an amount from $2,500 - $6,000. If the City were not to contribute those services an additional $6,000 would have to be paid and the consultant would have his people accomplish those services. Mr. LaTourelle said his department would provide from its budget the services in the amount of $2,500 - $6,000, but the $10,000 was needed. Parks & Recreation Manager Jim Jessel said the School District and the Community College had agreed to supply some funds but none had been received as yet. He said the Council was being asked to reserve $10,000 until Phase I can be finished and it can be determined how much the Community College and the School District will provide. His expectation was that a MOTION: large portion of the $10,000 would be provided. COUNCILMAN GOULD MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILWOMAN ALLEN, TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT WITH NORTHWEST RESEARCH ANALYSTS AND TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO SIGN IT, WITH THE STIPULATION THAT $10,000 WILL BE SET ASIDE FROM THE COUNCIL CONTINGENCY FUND FOR THIS AND WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT OTHER FUNDS WILL BE FORTHCOMING FOR THIS CONTRACT. MOTION CARRIED. Councilman Nordquist was not present. There was no further business -to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 12:05 p.m. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 7 - May 15, 1979 J STREET - FILE May 9, 1979 MEMO TO: Harve H. Harrison Mayor FROM: John A. LaTourelle, Director Community Development Department SUBJECT: REVIEW REVISED ELEVATIONS FOR MIAGNE J HAGEN C�5NUOMINIUM Attached are the revisions, requested by Council, of the Drs. Bettis and Hanson project at Fifth Avenue South and Holly Street. Included is a letter from Will Aldridge, Architect' for the revisions, the minutes from the August 1, 1978 Council meeting, revised elevations and site plan. L NEL/le attachments NOTE: Current site plan has not been received in time.for Council packets. 4904 lk� Lf�ff�f, Mkk'.", PAt f�-- kK', fo (1 -504 IKVIVI WAL Wlf- iJkjj'f A v A(� Ra fa. Vffm�' X. �"4, A f'oo VvI. �Aul, , A�t., k4-r-wA 1. 1 A 11 -�� J: 0 19?9 a C/ty Z)ow v, L 1011 596, REC HEARING ON P%.C. RESOLUT OMMENDING DENIAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO Illu UN E !N_LIEU PAR PQ G CODE KING REQUIREMENT IN DOWNTOWN BUSINESS AREA (�O-5-78) Community Development Director J ohn*LaTourelle reviewed the proposed changes to the Code. The Planning Commission had recommended denia I of the proposed amendment, but the Community Development Department submitted a separate recom- mendation.for approval, with one minor change The Code amendment would eliminate the grandfather parking status for buildings In the downtown business area and would require installation of the necessary parking spaces when a building is converted to a substantially different use. It would also extend the in -lieu in the downtown business area parking -option to the individual who substantially changes the use of a building, . There are a -few buildings in'the C11 zone which would benefit from an in -lieu option, so the CW zone would be included in the� proposed amendment. The -purpose of the in-li6u fund is to retain the existing character of the City by preserving the existing buildings rath6r,than replacing them with on -site parking lots.. It seeks to eliminate a potential parking shortage without paving over the downtown. Mr. LaTourel-le recommended strongly that the amendment be approved. He noted that there is no opportunity to provide parking in many of the areas -of the*waterfront.. He felt this should'be on the books when the moratorium is raised.. The. -Planning Commission had recommended denial on the basis that they were concerned -for the administrative feasibility of the parking fund ordinance. The hearing was opened to the public. Virginia Evans, a real estate broker located in the Harbor Building, said she ..Supported the plan to buy land for parking lot development and the cost should. be determined and then the buildings needing'it should pay the price She said no matter what price is set today it would be.impossible to set a Price in years to come on different pieces of property. She said she would be one of the first to put in some money for parking. No one else wished to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. After,sonie discussion to clarify some points in the MOTION: Proposed amendment, COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILiMAN NORDQUIST, TO '�INSTRUCT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE INCORPORATING A REVERSAL OF P-C. RESOLUTION 596. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN CLEMENT THEN MOVED, SECONDED' BY COUNCILMAN .CARNS, TO SET'A RATE'DISCUSSION FOP, AUGUST 22, BRINGING FORWARD THE.'Y PARKING COMMISSION'S LAST RECOMMENDATION FOR. RATE STRUCTURE. MOTION CARRIED.' J. -jr:IHEARING ON APPEAL FROM ADB DECISION RE�.HAGNE HAGEN CONDOMINIUM Associate Planner Mary Lou Block said this proposal was for the southeast corner of 5th Ave. and Holly. �Ihen the applicant first,submitted his proposal there was substantial development proposed across a stream on.the site. Because of impact on the stream,the Planning Division recommended against'approval and asked the applicant to pull the.building back from the stream so as not to -interrupt the, stream flow. He was forced.to pull back the building, leaving a 7' setback. The overall greenbelt area was increased, however. The Board of Adjustment approved a vari,ance to allow moving the corner closer to the eastern property line, and the applicant shortened the entryway and made other changes and then returned to the ADB. At that time there were numerous people in the audience concerned about parking, bulk and height of the building, and traffi.c and parking on Holly D . r,. The ADB had approved the development in spite of being concerned about the recom- mendations of tile Density Review Committee concerning density in Edmonds. They had taken those into consideration but because this -application had been received previously and the Council had not taken any action on the Density Review Committee"s recommendations, the ADB felt they had to approve the application under existin g regulations. They approved the application, and the neighbors appealed that decision. Mrs. Block showed two slides of the site which reflected the dense vegetation. She said the Council could uphold the ADB decision, overturn it, or make modifications to the proposal.* She commented on the modifications which already had been made. Zoning in the area is BC to the north, RS-6 to the east, BC and then RS-6 to the south, and across the street to the west is BC. The RS-6 to the east has mostly single story homes and to those homes the proposal would block any view, but Mrs. Block did not,believe they had Sound views. Community Development Director John LaTourelle added that the site plan had been worked over for a long period and the EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 - August 1, 1978 parking had been redrawn several times. He said the building had been moved around on the site and the applicant had gone to the Board of Adjustment*to get the variance to move it closer to the property -line. Further, that there was not much maneuvering room left for a building of that.bulk and height and, given that building and those parking requirements -a better site design would not be found. He suggested that the only other option the Council had essentially was to reduce the size of the building, which the ADB did not think they had the authority to do. City Attorney John Wallace then reviewed for the Council the criteria for appeal, and Councilman Carns noted that*the appeal called for a de novo hearing and that -any further appeal was to Superior Court within 10 days. Mrs. Block noted that if the Council were to recommend a reduction in the number of units the only effective reduction would be of one floor which has four units. She po,inted out that if the reduction were only of two units there could still be the same bulk. It was asked whether the entire lot could be covered if the lot were developed.as.BC, and the answer was that it could be in theory, but i.n reality the ADB would'not permit complete coverage of the lot. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Don Westlin, architect for the development, reviewed the previous attempts to develop this site. He said the applicants in.1977 had proposed a family clinic facility which had been approved, and in that proposal all of the cars were coming off Holly Dr. It was designed so a third floor could be added which would have had a total of 24 cars. The clinic was to be open until 9:00 V.m. every day, six days a week.* He noted that the owners are residents of Edmonds and have their professional offices in Edmonds. Ile identified the owners as Drs. Robert Bettis and Mark Hanson, at which time Councilman Herb removed himself from the proceeding as he goes to those doctors and has talked to them.professionally. Counci ]man Carns noted that Counci 1 - man Nordquist and he are membprs,of the City of Edmonds Disability Board -and one of the applicants is the Disability Board doctor. The City Attorney did not.feel.it was necessary that they be excused from the proceeding because of that association. Mr. Westlin reiterated the actions which had been taken since the concept wa's developed for the condominium. lie said they were in full compliance with all requirements. William Mathias of 54 Holly Dr. asked for a reversal of the ADB decision. He said there were 72 signatures on the appeal.petition, partially from 14 units on Holly Dr., and partially from other supporting people i.n the area. He said the proposed construction was incompatible with the immediate surrounding area and it should be denied on that basis alone. He read from the ADB ordinance and found the proposal lacking in accordance with some of the requirements. -He said the general tone of the,regulation requires compatibility and harmony with the surrounding area, which would not be fulfilled in his opinion if the decision of.the ADB were approved. He said it should be clear.that a 34' structure was not compatible with I and V� story buildings. Ile felt a shrinki.ng of the project was necessary. Steve Dwyer of 529 Holly Dr. said the citizens of Edmonds are asking for limitations on dwellings and the City is limiting them to 10 or less units. He said this structure would not accomplish the intent of the Policy Plan or the Comprehensive Plan and that it woulC not be harmonious with the sur'rounding structures. lie felt a logical analysis of the situation showed a reversal of the ADB decision would be consistent with the goals of the City. Ray Meek of 565 Hemlock said they had been fighting apartments in their area since 1964 and had petitioned the Council in 1967 to be deleted from the Comprehensive Plan in order to.try to control the density and keep their area single family. Councilman Clement asked 11r.'Westlin to respond to the criticisms of lack of harmony, bulk and size, and not being consistent with tile s urrounding area. 11r. Westlin said the 35' height is.an average and the building actually will be more like 30' above the highest plateau. Ile said if they were cut to 10 units the top floor probably would be two penthouse units and the mass would-be the same. Mayor Harrison -suggested that the neighborhood might buy the property and resell it with a covenant restricting what can be built on it, and Mr. Mathias responded that as far as lie knew the property was not for sale. Dr. Robert Bettis of 18312 91st Pl. W., one of the owners of the property, said that property had been for sale for a long time before Dr. Hanson and he had bought it and that there had been a large for sale" sign on it. He said they had never been approached by anyone in the neighborhood who had any desires of buying it. Louise Dwyer of 529 Holly Dr. said they had expected a small, one-story medical building was gbing to be constructed .and.they had not known the plan had been changed. Dr. Bettis responded that the EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 - August .1, 1978 medical building had.approval to go three stories'and theparking also had a stronger impact. Steve Dwyer said something eventually will be built and it seemed that this Council should say that what is built will be consistent with the Policy Plan. Dr. Hark Hanson of,8207 182nd S.W., the other owner, said the cars going to -the property Would not necessarily impact Holly Dr. . as they would go immediately fro'm Holly to the property, and the other cars enter from 5th Ave., and'would not impact Holly -at all. He felt it also should be.considered that the property on 5th Ave. is business property. He.noted that most of the ho ses on Holly do not have a view and there is'a mix of homes in the neighborhoodu, some being very new, some old, and some in between. -He said the'ir building had been designed to maintain the beauty of the ravine and to enhance it with the building. He said that over the years the people had the opportunity to buy the property and that it had been.zoned BC for a number of years. He felt if these really were con- cerns they should have been aired and the people should have had the property rezoned. He added that a lot of time and funds had been invested.in*this development. William Mathias then offered a group of photographs'which illustrated the traffic situation on Holly Dr. Oscar Scarlin, a realtor who said he had been workina with Drs..Bettis and Hanson,said he also had worked with the previous owner of the property and that owner had planned to bu.ild an apartment building, and he lived right next to it.. The public porti,o'n of the, hearing was closed. Councilman Naughten commented that anything that is built there is going . to increase the traffic and impact the neighborhood. He.felt the development should'have less density —not more,than eight units and removing one floor so there would be less mass. Not understanding that the Council could modify the proposal,,COUNC,ILMAN,,' .MOTION: CARNS MOVED, SECO14DED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO REMAND ADB-37�-78 TO THE AMENITIES (Withdrawn) DESIGN BOARD AND ASK THEM TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER -LOOKING AT AN ALLOWANCE OF ONLY ' EIGHT U14ITS IN A TWO-STORY BUILDING, AND HE CITED HIS FINDINGS FROM THE CITY CODE' 12.20.050, PARAGRAPHS (1).(C)l (2)(A), (2)(B), AND PART OF (4)., After ' ' discussion in which.it was noted that the.Council could make such a modification, MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS WITHDREW HIS MOTION. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED THAT ADB-37-78— BE MODIFIED,ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS IN THE PREVIOUS NOTION, SO THE BUILDING ' 11 DOES NOT EXCEED 25' IN HEIGHT AND DOES NOT -CONTAIN MORE THAN EIGHT UNITS, AND THAT.�� EIGHT PARKING SPACES WILL BE ELIMINATED FROM THE HOLLY DR. SIDE OF THE BUILDING. 'Councilman Gould agreed that 25' in height would be -compatible with the surrounding area if the parking is removed from Holly Dr. It was noted that the site . still could be developed as a business instead of a condominium, but the three-story medical clin'i(f coul'd not be developed as it was not started within a year after MOTION: approval " THE*MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN' NAUGHTEN, THAT IF THE DEVELOPERS ACCEPT THE MODIFICATION THAT THEY BRING THE MODIFIED 1�,:, 1 6-. Alj,-V..P��PLAN TO THE COUNCIL FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. - MOTION 4"CARRIED. SIX MONTHS' PROGRESS. REPORT ON HAP SHOWING ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS Planning Technician Dan Smith.began a slide presentation relative to the environ- mentally sensitive areas in the City. Because of the'lateness of the hour and because the Council.wanted to give this matter proper consideration, it was agreed MOTION: that a postponement would be in order. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO CONTINUE THE REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS MAP UNTIL AUGUST 8,.1978. MOTION CARRIED. There was no further business to come before the Council,' and the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 - August'l, 1978 Pic fw Wt 0 &"tow IML. I LPIIIR- , 7�= f. IA, ff- -17 r - i JI- f j! Ak-k Vill -4 dwo ULIL T-T --------------- .0:1,- 0 S`77,Hf FILE medical building had approval to go three stories and the parking also had a stronger impact. Steve Dwyer said something eventually will be built and it seemed that this Council should say that what is built will be consistent with the Policy Plan. Dr. Hark.Hanson of 8207 182nd S.W., the other owner, said the cars going to the property would not necessarily impact Holly Dr. as they would go immediately from Holly to the property, and the other cars enter from 5th Ave. and would not impact Holly at all. He felt it also should be considered that the property on 5th Ave. is business property. He noted that most of the houses on Holly do not have a view and there is a mix of homes in the neighborhood,'some being very new, some old, and.some in between. He.said their building had been designed to maintain the beauty of the ravine and -to enhance it with the building. He said that over the years the people had the opportunity to buy the property and that it had been zoned BC for a number of years. He felt if these really were con- cerns they should have been aired and the people should have had the property rezoned. He added that a lot of time and funds had been invested in this development. William Mathias then offered a group of photographs which illustraled the traffic situation on.Holly Dr. Oscar Scarlin, a realtor who said he had beenworkina with Drs. Bettis and Hanson,said he also had worked with the -previous owner of the property and that owner had planned to build an apartment building, and he lived ri.ght next to it. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Councilman Naughten commented that anything that is built there is going to increase the traffic and impact the neighborhood. He felt the development should have less density --not more"than.eight units and removing one floor so there would be less mass. Not understanding that the Council could mo . dify the proposal, COUNCILMAN MOTION: CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILHAN NAUGHTEN, TO REMAND ADB _ 37-78 TO THE AMENITIES (Withdrawn) DESIGN BOARD AND ASK THEM TO SERIOUSLY�CONSIDER LOOKING AT AN ALLOWANCE OF ONLY EIGHT U14ITS IN A TWO -.STORY BUILDING, AND HE CITED HIS FINDINGS FROM THE CITY CODE, SECTION 12.20.050, PARAGRAPHS (1)(C), (2)(A), (2)(B), AND PART OF (4). After discussion in*which it was noted that the Council could make such a modification, MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS WITHDREW HIS MOTION. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED'THAT ADB-37-78 BE MODIFIED,ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS IN THE PREVIOUS MOTION, SO THE BUILDING �EED UN- �C DOES T EXCEED,,' D S t T C JU MORE THWEJGHT -AND THAT E�IGH R tG P C S 1.1W.- _RF_FLIJJJfl TFD_ERQ_M_I D _— —THE BUILDING. oun�cilman Gould ftreed that 25' in height would be compatible With the surrounding area if the parking is removed from Holly Dr. It was noted that the site still -story could be developed as a business instead, of a condominium, but the three medical clinic could not be developed as it was not started within a year after t D. SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN MOTION: approval. THE MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN iOVE F M I NAUGHTEN, THAT IF THE DEVELOPE�RS ACCEPT THE MODIFICATION THAT THEY LUNG TH 0 FIED Jl'�,,PLAN TO THL COUNCIL FOR- REVIEW, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT - . MOTION 'AL SIX MONTHS' PROGRESS REPORT O� MAP SHOWiNG ENVI . RON14ENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS Planning Technician Dan Smith began a slide presentation relative to the environ- hour and mentally sehsiti-ve areas in the City. Because of the lateness of the because the Council wan ed to I give thisInliatter proper consideration, it was agreed MOTION: that a postponement- wou�id be in order. COUNCILMAN CARNS HOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO CONTINUE THE REPORT ON THE' ENVIRONMENTALLY SE14SITIVE AREAS MAP UNTIL tPJ,.A.k_, AUGUST 8, 1978. MOTION CARRIED. There was no further business to*come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 August 1, 1978 S7 Y--lEET FILE WHITELEY, JACOBSEN & ASSOCI Engineers & Architects 2118 THIRD AVENUE SEATTLE. WASHINGTON 98121 July'3-1-'__1-9'T&" Mr. Harry Whitcutt Building Official I Building Departme) E 'dmc dmonds Civic Center -ELfth North Edmonds, Washington Subject: Structural Plan Check 12 Unit Condominium for Magna Hagen Inc. Dear Mr. Whitcutt: Pece,VO4 1978 ft"C"i'llililz CdhaOnds %W' DeP4 We have reviewed the re -submitted drawings and calculations for the subject building. The engineer has submitted revised criteria as per our comments from the letter of July 12, 1978. All items have been satisfactorily revised except for item 6 concerning the relationship between the foundation and basement plan wall details and their footings. We have not received drawings indi- cating clarification of this comment. We, therefore, leave final judgement of this comment to the Edmonds Building Department. If you have any further question, please call. Very truly yours, WHITELEY,, JACOBSEN & Jack H. Whiteley, P.E. President JHW/ j f STR-,EET FILE. CITY' OF EDMONDS CIVIC CFNTIER * GDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 * (206) 775-2525 COMMUNITY DP-VGLOPHF-NT DGPARTMr=NT DATE: July 13, 1978 TO: Donald R. Westlin P.O. Box 1332 Lynnwood, Wa. 98036 SUBJECT: 12 UNIT FOR BETTIS -HANSON-HAGEN TRANSMITTING: Copy of Structural Plan Check AS YOU REQUESTED: FOR APPROVAL: FOR YOUR FILE: REVIEW AND COMMENT: COMMENT AND RETURN: FOR CORRECTIONS AND RE- SUBMITTAL: REMARKS - attachment 1 HARVF_ H. HARRISON MAYOR BUILDING DIVISION 4 S '=EET TR FILe TY OF EDMONDS 0 BUIL ING DEPARTMENT partment & Comm rcial Plan Rev'iew Checklist J )IL T )mm P )R \6JECT ROJECT UQIT RE EIVED' PATE C V7 PRELIMINAk'�f FINAL PLAN ADDRESS E-7-1 OWNER & ARCHITECT �PHONE 9 6171 USE 0' DE FIRE ZONE . OCbi�FANCY (5Q NO. STORIES TYPt OF CdNSTRUCTION OCCUPANT LOAD V� eIZ- 1. AREAS & VALUATION SQ. FT. @ It Ist FLOOR 6600 SQ. FT. @ 2nd FLOOR SQ. FT. "T 3rd FLOOR. 0 -SQ. FT @ OTHER SQ. PERMIT PEE 2. PLUMBING NO. FIXTURES DISTANCE TO METER BUILDING'SUPPLY S ZE MATERIAL A6-5- Z 2, L\\ _SQ. FT.=.$_ f L.10-- SQ.r-T.= FT.= $ SQ. e) 6 FT*= C*1 0 G1 T $ 0 Q SQ. FT. $ T L O;TAL: LA CHECK FEE FIXTURE UNITS METER SIZE PER14IT FEE It " '0!-' �77 asd -z�zs Duiiuing uepartment �,partment & Commercial Plary R!eview Checklist 3. MECHANICAL HEATING SYSTEM 'Ix� I - - OTHER APPLICANCES PERMIT FEE $ REMARKS 4. BASIC ALLOWABLE AREA (Table 5-c) _T 9 (All floors) (505b) 4C ro hil 00 SEPARATION ON SIDES NEAREST DISTANCE (506) 1w % ALLOWABLE INCREASE (506) 12Z))C 71) 0, TOTAL ALLOWABLE AREA (all floors) IT (1-0 --Sq. . Ft. AREA SEPARATIONS (505d) -,V� - -wz woeeo OCCUPANCY SEPARATIONS (503)(1102). REQD M& �RUATIW 5. EXIT FACILITIES (Chapter 33) A L/ NO. REQUIRED EXITS (3302a) WIDTH (3302b) ARRANGEMENT & DISTANCE (3302c,d) to/ EXIT DOORS (3303) L/ CORRIDORS (3304) /STAIRWAYS & RAMPS (3305,3306) EXIT ENCLOSURES (330 8) EXIT SIGNS (3312) OTHER 6,./LIGHT (EXIT COURTS) ILLUMINATION VENTILATION & SANITATION (Ch.ap.6,7,9,10,11,12,13,14) SIZE I SANITATION YARDS-& COURTS CEILING HEIGHT OTHER 7. FIRE ZONE RESTRICTIONS (Chapter 16) ROOF COVERING (1603) (4307) OTHER 1) Apartment & Commercial Plan,Review Checklist ,8. /REQUIREMENTS BASED ON TYPE OF CONSTRUCTIO14 (Chan.17) u/ EL;VATORS (1706) WEATHER PROTECTION (1707) PARAPETS (1709) PROJEC TIONS (1710) TOILET FACILITIES (1711) GUARDRAILS (1716) BLDG. CLASSIFICATIONS(1701) OTHER 9 /SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS PROVISION FOR ACCESS BY HANDICAPPED SOUIND TRANSMISSION CONTROL (ChaD. 35 Apne-ndix) THE11MAL INSULATION (H.B. 98) STAIR CONSTRUCTION. ROOFS kl-/, 0 . GENE-U-L DESIGN REQUIREMENTS (Chap. 23) LOADS (2302) DEFLECTION (2-307) 14ALLS & STRUCTURAL FRAMING SPECIAL LOADS (Table 23-c) ENGINEERING CALC'S ENGINEERING DESIGN �1ASONRY (Chap. 24) REINFORCE14ENT ANCHORAGE MORTAR LINTELS GROUTING 1,,/2. WOODA(Chap. 25) STRESSES IDENTIFICATION BEMI DESIGN COLMNS UPLIFT LATERAL SUPPORT. CONNECTIONS 4/77 asd -3- J�ipartment & Commercial -Plan Review Checklist 0. DIAPHRAGMS VZCRAW.L S.PACE.(2517) p TES, SILLS V/V 4nn ,YOUNDATION VENTILATION EXTERIOR WALL COVERINGS .GIRDERS WALL FRAMING BRACING V ROOF FRAMING NAILING -CONCRETE C-C-d POSTS JOISTS .Mix STRENGTH REINFORCEMENT ADMIXTURES TESTS SPECIAL INSPECTION COVER ESIGN.CALC'S 1.4. STEEL & IRON (Chap. SPECS CONNECTIONS SPECIAL INSPECTION COLUMN BASES WELDER QUALIFIGATIONS 15. E XCAVATIONS, FOUNDATIONS AND RETAINING WALLS (Chap.29) ,,SOILS REPORTS TESTS SOIL PRESSURE 1�;�4— FOOTINGS WALLS PLATES AND SILLS OTHERS -4- EdmJnd_s Building Department Ap�a�tment & Commercial Plan 6view Checklist Is 16. ROOFS ROOF COVERING HEATHING A ATTIC ACCESS NAILING VENTILATION &01 REA SEPARATIONS DRAINS SCUPPERS SOFFITS 17., FIRE EXTINGUISHING SYSTEMS (Chap.38) SPRINKLERS STANDPIPES MISCELLANEOUS a) INTERIOR WALL*.& CEILI NG FINISH (Chap. 42). FI RE -RESISTIVE STANDARDS (Chap. 43) _ b. 1 PROTECTION OF STRUCTURAL MEEMBERS b. 2 CEILINGS b. 3 WALLS & PARTITIONS b. 4 FLOOR -CEILINGS b 5 OPENINGS b. 6 DAMPERS MARQUES, AWNINGS (Chap.45) d) GYPSUM 14ALLBOARD e) PLASTICS (Chap.47) L,/GLASS & GJ_kZING (Chap.53,State Code) ' g) SOUND TRANSMISSION CONTROL . —),L� a .h) FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS b'/C ' ala9- CA e -5 10 '7 7 . .,1 -5- ENVIRONMENTAL'ASSESSMENT FILE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: FILE #_,4oli-37-79 PROPONENT: EXISTING USE: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM PROPOSAL: SOILS/TOPOGRAPHY AIR Q ALI _j CT AAA- , W&-a, CIRCtLATI AAA.e �!�t;&S- - 2",�,, . i4c, VEGETATION.,,,. A"I& 2�t WAI-1 A/Alpy, fo'.4 *uteot- gv q ECONOt4ka rouz ich4u. CAft- & ZV- Zol ot CITY SERVICES ENVIRO11MENTAL FINDINGS: V7There will be certain environmental impacts but . they do not constitute a signif- icant adverse impact on the environment and no environmental impact statement will be required. There will be significant adverse impacts on the environment and an.environmental impact statement will be required. There will be certain impacts on the environment however it is necessary to obtain more information before a declaration of significance or non -significance is made. L /7 19R1 CUT I _P fA N N E'R v-;?15_ATE CITY ENGINEER DATE E/A '76 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSO PROPONENT: N\A)l EXISTING USE: ENVIRQN�IENTAL IMPACTS-FRO1 PROPOSAL: SOILS/TOPOGRAPHY WWTER/Dk��INA AIR QUALITY hEET FILE W CIRCULATION VEG�TATION. ECONOIMIC CITY SERVICES E N V I RO.'T'IENTA L FINDINGS: There will be certain environmental impacts but they do not constitute a signif-. icant adverse impact on the eovironmen't and.no environinental impact statement w ill be required. There -will be significant adverse impacts on the environment arid an environriiental impact statement will be- required. There will be certain. impacts on the environment however it is necessary to obtaiir more information before a decl'aration of significance or non -significance is made. �u&J4," � - -1-0 - V1 '8 CITY PLANNER DATE CITY ENGINEER DATE DA .. I ENVIRONMENTN.- REVIEW FILE I/ RE APPLICANT ADDRESS A. GEOLOGY: 1. Underlying problems, faults? 2. Unique features, rock out croppings, proma.tories? ,je11j,1t41e B. HYDROLOGY: 1. Underground springs? 2. Aquifier rec! arge area?. 3. Probiellfls/Sea�onal High water table? 4. .Significant drainage problems.? AM C. ORIENTATION:. I. Does the site take best advantage of sun & shade? D. SOILS: 1. Any drainfiel*d prob I ems? 2. Any ponding p;rob.] eigis ? 3. Erosion problems? — Slippage problems? 5. Large cuts & fills? E. TOPOGRAPHY: 1. S c o p e ? 2. Problems with access? ENVIRONNENTAL REVIEW PAGE 2 FILE F. VEGETATION: I. Quality of vegetati on? ALI. 1/- �L 2. Expected life of vegetation? '/3. Any significant removal? 4. Increase in� runoff. coefficient? �f — /,P C, -/VeVL 7'- G. WILDLIFE: I Is the site enumerated with wildlife? 2.. I -Jill removal lof vegetation disturb. nesting or feedi.ng grounds? "73 AnY unique species for this area? .ADDITIONAL COMHUITS.: W W 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 .41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 119 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 S Tr""iE E T F I L E March 16, 1978 DATE: Rpyispd Mnrch '11, 1�7R A $25 fee will be collected by the City of Edmonds for analysis of the Environmental Checklist and the preparation of a Threshold Determination. No fee will be charged for proposals which would be categorically exempt if they were not located in an environ- mentally sensitive area. LNVIRONFIENTAL CHECKLIST FOR-M 1. BACKGROU14D 1. Name of Propone nt- - Magna Hagen 2. Address and I'llone. Nui,,ii5er -of Proponent: - /_ n , ---'I A T) r T_ -- , ! __ A - - I - I 98 778-0171 3. Date IHT il, . SU "e( - Marcb 1Y, 197FI 4. Apency Requirinj, Checklist rrinnds 5. Hatne. of Proposal, if applicable: _12_Uni1j_CQiKLQuLiniimi fnr Pn Tnc pjjrjPr 6. Nature and Proposal (incAud- ing but not: liMiLed to its'size, )"ener'll. desi".11 cle- ments, ;in(] other factors that will rjve an aCCUrlLe understanding of its scope and nature)-. Condominium �;,et in ravine overlooking drain ge creek p os a iysi7c_,iT*set:tiI1,, of 7. T.—o _ci i Fi7o_rT_ZTF_P I - ( �scribc t I, C. T1 I the. proposal, as well as the e\ucn.t of, the land area affected by nny environmenual i-m.p.-icLs, including, any' other inFormation needed to f.."iVe accurar- Understand ing of the environmental setting of the proposal) : Res �ential dev lopment to east with a B.C. zoning to north and south as well as across 5th Avenue South 8. .17—SE fi—m-IL e d L)a ue for C01117i) f7elt-lon. o I En--C—P�O-�—,os e d—i�-6 t all October 1 8 9. L is t lo 1 ;1 1 cs , L ice Ilse s , or Govc I: I 1,110.11L � 7j)�;_F_ovaT_s Required for thc Proposal (federal, SLlt:e and Ic)cal-- inCILICh-Tig rO;'011cs) : Sewer, Water,.Quilding, Storm Drainag!�_, Grading Permit with-Lity of -E-dino -31- 10. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, 2 or� fl-IrOicr activity related to or connected with this 3 . proposal? 11 yes, explain: 4 No 7 5 6 7 il. Do which may i—ttect iis y ot the property covered by your proposal? 11 yes, explain: 8 No 9 -o-C-Fie—rapplicacion 12. ;�_Ctach any �orin tRat as Deen coin- pleted regarding the proposal; if none has beenicom- 12 pleted, but is expected to be filed at some future 13 date, describe the nature of such application form: 14 None 15 16 17 18 11. E VV I RO N"' �FNTAL IMPACTS 19 (LXplallAt ions of all "yes" and '�maybe" answers are 20 required) 21 Yes !N* 22 23 (1) Larth. Will the proposal result.in: 24 .25 (a). Unstable earth conditions or in 26 Ch! anges in geologic substructures? X 27 28 (b . Disruptions, displacemelits,'com- 29 30 .) paccion or overcovering of tile soil? X 31 (C) in topography or ground 32 surfAce"re'lief features? X 33 34 (d), nic destruction, covering or 35 modification of' any unique geologic 36 or physical features? X 37 38 39 (e) Any increase in wind or water ero�ioll of soils, either oil or off 40 tile site? X 41 4 2 M Challrws ill deposition or vro- 43 sion of beach sands, or changes 144 45 it]' siltation, deposition or ero , s ion wh ich m, iy modify tile channel of a 46 1:iv(-,r or stream or the bed of tile 47 ocean or any bay, inlet or lake9. X 48 49 EX) ;Illation: ir(-, /L7 50 51 _WP CII yd*-_--AaQ4aL-h__ w/o rayitjp, 52 �2) Air. WL11 uh6 pro posal resul t; 53 -in: I 54 (a) ALr emissions or deteri.oracion 55 of ambient air quality? X 56 57 (h) The creation of objeccio.tiable 58 odors? 59 X 60 61 (c) Alteration of air movement, 62 MOI.StUre or temperature, or ally 63 chatipj- ill CLI'late, either locally or regionally? X 64 65 Kxplanation- 66 -32- W, 2 j 3 4 5 61 7 8 9 10 12 i 13 14 15 16 17 18 11 TO 21 22 23 24. 25 A 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Yes M#Ib e No (3) Wa t r . Wi* the proposal result in: (a) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water move- ments, in either marine or fresh waters? (b) Change! in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? (c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X (d) Change in the amount of sur- Jace wat er in any water body? A- (p) Discharge into surface waters, oF in anylalceracion of surface waeer (JUa3,.iLy, incl"ding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or t.urbidity? X (f) Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? (g) ChqQe in the quantity of ground wqtcrs; either through direct additions or withdrawals, or throuqh interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X (h) Detgribration, in ground water quality, either throuoh dirccu in- jection, o r through the seepage of ' leachaLv, phosphates, detergenys, waterbarne virus or bacteria, or other subs'Lances into the ground waters? X. (i) Reduction in the amount of water otherwise availabl&f V public water supplies? X Explanation: Roof and blacktop areas will increase water runoff I - Oil re, IriLlara-mill be installed Frorking areabw (4) F I or_a_.__ Wi 171- 111-e.-p ro-p-o-s-al- -r-c- -s-u -I -L 'i-n-: (a) Change in the diversity.of species, or numbecs of nny sRecies of florn (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, micr6flora and aqUaL c plunLSIt X (b) Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of flora? X UMNSMIC 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 III 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 381 39 110 41. 4 2 43 44 4.5 46 4 7 48 49 )0 51 52 53 54 55 Yes �� No (c) Introduction of new species of flora into an area, or in a barrier to the normal .-replenish- inerit of existing species? M Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Explanation: We -will remove the existing x x trees and (5) Fauna Will the proposal result i 11': (p) Chanpes in the diversit of y species, or numbers of any species of Fauna (birds, land animals includitig reptiles, fish and shell- Eish, belithic organisms, insects'or m 4 crofauna)? x (b) Reduction of the numbers of qlly unique, rare or endangered species of fauna? x (c) Introduction of now species Of [,Aulla into.an area, or result in a barrier to the migrati6n or mov�mutlt olf fauna? x (d) Dereri.oration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X. Exp latia L jorl: (6) 1-10 i SC - Will the pr.opos.al increase CNISFing, noise levels? x Exi) Lanat i.011: Increase in traffi.c fj 1 the pro- 1-) 0 s,_1 1) 1: L) -11-CW light or g 1 a re ? x na U. i Oil: (8) Land 11:;o-. wqll tjlf� pcoposal. iTj7f'-1.-j1—LL1l th'(2 alteraLiorl of tilt! or planned land use of an area? x E'XI) la 11a L i'oll This site is zoned and r had -a coimyerciai stl'uct.ure built in JiQu of -the ana tment proppsal. -34" 2 3 4 51 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 q 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Yes �!O (9) NaL - Oat Rcsources. Will the pro- p 0 S .1 1—r �Tua -E-un (a) Increase in the rate of use of a ny natural regources? X (b) Depiction of any nonrenewable natural resource? X Explanation: lZisk of- Does th ----I -a lev proposal invo ve a risk 0 Of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, Oil, Pesticides, chomicals or radiation)jin the cvcNt of an acci- dent Or upleL conditions? Explanati . -on: (11) Py"lacion. WKI the prop osal -TILer HT(T-locaci,n, distribution, density, nr growth rate of the human population Of an area? X Explanation: -Increasedoccupants (12) Housinz, Will Lye Rropo' Sal affect existing housing availability Or create a demand for addiLionai housing? Explanation: — ---------- (13) 1 TransportnUn/circulation.. Will ENO Proposal roATI—in. (a) Generation of additionaj. vehicular mOvcmcnL7 X (b) 17[fects on existing par] I �ing facilities, or demand for new parking? X (c) Impact upon existing Cram." PortaHou Systems? X (d) Alterations to present patterns of circulation or move.' men Of People and /or goods? (e) Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X -35- 1 2 3 4 5 6 .7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 '9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 21 28 29 30 31 32 33 ,34 35 .36 37 38 39 .40 41 42 43 44 45 4 6 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 51, 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 Yes ��b e No Increase in traffic hazards .(f) to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? x Lxplanation: The existinj, road system tn h,)nclIp. Additinnll frnffir fInw- should be ad quate (.14) Puhl ix Will the pro- -ServLces. posal--liave an effect upon, or result in a need for new govern- niental services in any of the follo-.Ang areas: (a) Fire procection? x .(b) Police protection? x (c) Schools?- X (d) Park-, or other recreational 'factlities? (0) Mainc-enance of*public Eacili- ties, including roads? x (f) Other governmental services? x Some agreement must be ma7de with the -�R.y.because EY.p.l ination:of the drainage the City intn thp cr-epk frnm 5th '2 dumping directly Avenup� South (15) 1 Lie_L�, y Will tile proposal result i n: 0) Use of substantial amounts of rue I Or energy? x (1))� Deinand*upon existing SOLIrCOS o.f energy, or require tile develop- ment of new sources of energy? x Explanation: (16). ULiIiLies. Will the proposal resul.L in a need foi- r4vstems' or alLerations to tile following utilities: (a) Power or natural ga!i? x (b) Goiwimnications systcnis?! x (c) Wa t: 0 L-? x (d) Sewer or septic tanks? x (e)-. Storm Water drainage? -x (f) Solid waste and disposal? x E.xplanation: -36- v2 31 41 5 61 91 Ili 121 1-3.1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 273 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 341 35 36 37 38 39 40 �41 4 2 43 44 45 46 47 48 .49 D 50 t 51 s 52 a 53 a 54 55 561 1) 57 P 58 st 59 t W) a r 1 E i creation of illy hc� i I rd ur pocentizil lle,11th ha7ard (excluding mental helilth)? Explanat ion: (18) Aesthetic,, W ill tile proposal r_�esurEi_n_the obstruction of any .Scellic vista or view open to the Public, or will the Proposal re- sult in 010 creation of in aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Explanation: ------------ (19) Recreittion. Will tile proposal imp;.IcL upon tile L I q6a,li t y 0 (JUMILity of existing recre _ . ,J�io��l I oppGrCullities? Explalla t i-on: (20) A rchoo I i,,; t:C) r i.c', 1. tq,ll tile propo,,;ill Fe-�.—UlL i�,__�_naTtcration of a signifilcallL archcologic,,Il or his- torical ji slite, structure, object or building? Explanation: III - SIGNATURE - lie - X . - - X i - - X - - X I, tile uncler!;jj;led, sc,,ite that to tile best tile 11-)O%le information' is CYLle and cc)ril.)Ict(.,, of Iny kriowlcdj;e that the lead agellcy It is understood "MY Withdraw any declaration; r ficance Lhat i L al i ii 110 iSSLIC. in OIL rlozl_-�i8iii-. should there be an reliance upon this cliecl,liSt. on My. parr-. Y Ill-srepresc,"itaLion , or lack of discl qsL.ire mIgna. Ha Proponent:. 0 al Wesftll V11THDRAi-!,%L OF A F P\J,IA T 1. n- rc itett 3* E T E I (P, _j T1111,J.' ,illy tijile jfLC S110LD �17-78 i oil of' r tile elltry of i declara njo(I i f i. e, tile I-)"Oponent 0 that, ill C-110 jud�,mezit or- . , tAle pr()pOs.1 , tAle lead agelicy, I i. f i ca 11 rosultill C, t Ced, tile decj.ztl-;,L therefrom are elimin- I'd a declaration of 11011—:ir if, -111cP f�llall be withdraiV111 ioll of si j, 11 i f i cz ead agency sliall also rex"is'e'l t, i""Ce C'llLC!17Cd itisteZI(I. The he ref- ublic infori-,iat-io -It its SEJ),� n cL?iil:er �jccordillgj .1 oll(.,Ilt of Y. IV tile pro- iall not proposal. is a private applic'mc, tile 1) be coil,-idercd lllodifjc�(, ullt,l aj.1 1, 170 1-) 0 S a icellse app] ica-, ions for tile Pl-oposal are revised to reflect tile Modification. -37- for, kiagria Hagen, Inc. STREET FILBROJ AME Builder March 16, 1978 DATE SUMITTED Revised Harch 31, 1978 ENVIRONHE[ITAL ASSESSMENT In order to meet the requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, the responsible official must make a declaration of environmental impact as early as pos sible in the process of evaluatinga proi6ct. The information in this form will be used to determine whether it will be necess- ary to require. an environmental impact statement. If an impact statement is not required, a �tatement of i'lecative Declaration will be placed in the file. If an impact statei�,nent is.required, a draft statem'ent must be filed with this office, public notice given and a revie,�-i period of 30-days-allowed. The final I statement 6n-d comriptits must be filed with the Department of Ecology, Office of the Governor and Vie Ecological C' ommission. The Edmonds Planning Staff will assist you in any kqay vie can in� accumulating this information and ,,ie would appreciate your cooperation. 1. Land: Area in, acres! 5 Acres Soils type rocky loarn Limitations I I I - - Description of topography (% slope) Approximate IV 112 nf Site hAss plateau 'with balance sloping into drainaZe creek from 47% -,Innp to 28% slone Grading:. estimated cubic yds. 2247 Cu. ycLs. NOTE: If grading or filling w7T exceed 500 cubic yards Filling: estimated cubic yds. None a grading and filling plan must be submitted with the 2. Water: application. Stream -. estimated flow (cubic, feet per second) 0/5 - cfs Will stream. be altered? Impact on storm drainage (increase in run-off) Sta-fac . e rui i-off will be collected, stot,ed; and r�eleased at'rat e equal to or, less than the existing run-off rate. Siltation of existing stream will be minimized dbring construction by implementation Of detention poa�s with straw bales at outlet swales. Estimated area to be paved 4;)?n C1.1 2113 Estimated area in open space 7895 sq. ft. 39% Shorelines: within 200 ft. of i'lean Higner High Water No Adjacent to shorelines zone No da Environ'mental Assessment, page 2 3. Vegetation: Type of trees Holly/Maple/Laurel % to beremoved 100% Minimum diameter of trees to remain 12" fir on south property line Ground cover blackberry hu . shes % to be removed Proposed landscaping, if any refer landscape pi2n .4. Existinq Land Use within 300 ft. radius of proposed development: Single Mu I t i Vacant Fami I y Fami I y Comm. Other North S o u t 11 x .East x Wes t x 5. Circulation: Estimated increase in auto trips'daily� 21f x 7 A DU 16R �Nrg- t.r,i ps Wor day Es.timated demand for public transportation Possibly Degree of change on adjacent streets Incre2sed t.122 f f J c 6. Area.of impact: neighborhood ci ty-wi de regional 7. Effect on air quality: None 8. Changes in noise generation: Increaged traffic floj� will add to thp noisp level. ST"EET FILE 0 xr b-a PUBLIC WORKS ENYUMNMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT NAME:' 12 UNIT CONDOMINIUM FILE Fifth Avenue South at Magna Hagen ... Holly Drive ASSESSMENT DATED: April 18,1978 AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL HAS.BEEN COMPLETED AND THE FOLLOWING DETERP41NATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE: The following is -A preliminary review bv the Public'Works Department. Dra . inaae: The site is located within the "Shelabarger Drainage B sin" as defined in the Comprehensive Drainage Plan. The applicant indicated that the existink stream.located on the site, flows -at 0/5 C.F.S. The Comprehensive Drainage Plan reveals that the actual flow is 7 times greater 34.5 C.F.S. The natural -drainage channel must remain. Any I work near or within the channel must be completed in conformance.with the City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan and City Standards. Drainage caused by the proposed deve ,)ment will be contained on site with a detention facility in accordance with City Ordinance No. 1924. -Oil restrictors required. Vehicle/Circulat'ion: The proposed:plans include ten parking stalls which have direct access to Holly Drive. This represents about-70-average. vehicle trips per day which will have a major impacton Holly Drive. Asphalt paving on Holly Drive, from property line.to existing, is required to serve the increase -volume of traffic. Alsoa five foot concrete sidewalkis required on Fifth Avenue South. ....April ... 1 - 9 .. , 1 - 9 - 7 - 8 ........ PREPARED BY: --3ATE: William J� Mims REVISED: ]..9,/77LV P 12. SHELL MAIN 81 T_a QF D2 D4 kV 10 4.5 Li :Ds Ln IL H < SH LABARGE-. 012- @\7 -1 —0 H 0 ly F L L - 0 WA 0 W WALNUT ST.. 60' 120 60 60 30' 12 0' 91) C) T- R E S74 P A N T 536 46 UNDER QO CONSTR v 5 C' IRE B G M U C H E N T. Zw W, C C --'r 50 !cl 50�" A U D A L < a. F5 31 3 EF 4 .3. 1 Scj[�2 F5 31 V C. CLAUS�- N mo 61' 61* 61, -'c 10- 1 120' R 43-:T i 3 5 55 110, 110, R W . OLMSTED R 1 8 R OW N C.A PRUTIGER 24 e,, R EUG EE10 H C. SHEPPf-F(Z- 0 E M HAYES L C HIRSCHI Ln 55 D R CRAVE,; 5 0 19 c' 1 '0' 1 -7 6c Cc 10' 120' 7 0' 60 1 --� HOM LEL AND 'Z 'A -7 -z I T-- F-o-- Po SCALF It 0 -70 T -7 0 1 C., 1,10 N CfZ5 Asp, I M A - A 4 T12A- Fmc- \1 OUJ mg STREET FILE CITY OF F-DWINDS CIVIC CENTER EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 775-2525 DEPARTMENT OF: PUBLIC WORKS December 5. 1978 Lovell - Sauerland & Assoc. . Inc. 23106 100th Ave. W. Edmon*ds, WA 98020 SUBJECT: STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM FOR MAGNE HAGEN Gentlemen: HARVE H. HARRISON MAYOR INC,. Prior to approval of the subject drainage plan, several items need to be addressed regarding Shellabarger Creek and its Channel:. 1. Provide a copy of variance for creek set -back. 2. Show configurations of finished grades for creek bed (with cross -sections). 3. Show water surface elevations for a minimum return period of 25 years (longer if warranted by engineer's judgement). 4. Show outflow details from 12" CMP. 5. Provide plans for short term and long term erosion control: a. Temporary erosion control plan. b. Bank fill stabilization and surface protec- tion, long - term. C. Scour protection at proposed obstructions. d. Stabilization of earth around existing trash rack. 6. Contact State Departments of Fish and Game to determine needs, if any, for protection of fish life. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Bob Franklin, 775-2525, extension 220. BF: FH: kj r ,/9 i e-Z 9. Franklin , / Dt Very truly yours, )%RED HERZBERG, P.E. city Engineer . . . . /�I_ Sec. Dt. P.W.,Director Dt. GERAID 111. LOVELL I.L.S. 'ST-EET FILE JURGEN P. SAUER"NO P.L.S. b Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. Surveyors e Development Consultants * Planners October 9, 1978 File No. 78-303 Storm Drainaae Calculations for OCT 1978 MAGNA HAGEN.-- 12-Unit Condominium 1. Site - Runoff.Coefficients V Existing 0.46 Ac. @ 0.20 OV Developed Roof - 0.17 Ac. @ 0.90 Parking - 0.10 Ac. @ 0..90 Sidewalk - 0.05 Ac. @ 0.90 Total - 0.32 Ac. @ 0.90 Landscaped Area - 0.14 @ 0.20 Avg. Cd = 0.20(0.14) + 0.90(0.32) = 0.69 0.46 2. Retention Volume for Site Farthest point from-N.E. corner of property to collection point is 210 ft. Avg. slope. Undeveloped flow velocity = 1.5 fps.,O)L Time of Conc. = L210/(1.5 x 60)]+ 10 = 12.3 min.0�' Rainfall Intensity i = 1.45 in./hr. using Chart #10, 10-yr. frequency Qu = Cu i A = 0.20(1.45)(0.46) = 0.13 cfs. Runoff bypassing retention reservoir A = 0.06 0.20 Qb = C i A 0.20(l.45)(0.06) = 0.02 cfs. Q Allow. = Qu - Qb = 0.13 - 0.02 = 0.11 cfs. O� 00 = Q Allow. = 0.11 0.35 cfs./Ac. A x Cd 0.46(0.69) For orifice with head 01. T = -25 + f 7-62 = -25 + [17-62 = 46.3 min. If -�To- OfO.35 z Vs = 2820*T - 40 QoT = 2820 (46.3 40(0-35 ) (46'.3 1183.0 cf./Ac. T + 25 (-4-673-f-. -2-57 Total Storage Volume Req Id. = VsACd = 1183.0 (0.35 ) (0.69) = 285.7 cf. 23168 - 100TH W. EDMONDS, WASH. 98020 PHONE 775-1594 Storm Drainage Calc. - Magna Hagen, 12-Unit Condominium -2- Oct. 9,, 1978 2. Retention Volume for Site (cont'd.) Check for Roof and Paved Area Runoff Qo = 0 Allow.. 0.11 0.38 cfs./Ac. A x Cd 0.32(0.90). For orifice with head T = -25 + 11-76-2 = -25 + [17-62 42.9 min. ruo- i � -.3-8 Vs = 2820T 40 QoT = 2820(42.9) - 40(0.38)f42.9) 1129.6 cf./Ac. T = 25- + 25) Storage Volume Required for Roof and Paved,Areas Runoff 1129.6(0.32)(0.90) = 325.3 cf. which is greater than required for Total Site. Sizing of Pipe V/L = sf./ft. 325.3 =,3.5359 sf./ft. 92 Try 2411 dia. 88 - 2411 @ 3.1416,,�sf./ft.,,, 276.5 cf. 2 - 48" CHMH (2.0 + 2.44) @ 12.5664 55.8 Total Storage Provided 332.3 cf. 3. Orifice Calculation 0 Allow. = 0.11 cfs. H = 2.44 ft. 2G = 64.4 ft./sec. 2 Cd- = 0.62 V12 A Q Allow./ 1--d(2GH)II 0.11/ 0.62 /�TT—(2.44)) =.0.01415 pf. 2.04 in. D /4A 1 . 61 in. i -IfF Use 1-5/811 dia. Actual Outflow Q = 0.0144 x 0.62 64.4 x 2.44 0.11 cfs. OK r 109VA AM' 1STERV AL E% 47 Dn �4 EL� a.- Ul ........... B4O00 N m CK WA r 00 U 'IT . . . . . . . . . . ED cl PARK C3 FORSYTH LANE ji. 0 TABLE 1 RUNOFF FACTORS FOR STORM SEWERS FLAT ROLLING 0-5% 5% UNDEVELOPED LAND Wood & Fo ' rest .. . . . . . . . 0.10 .0.15: Sparse Trees 4 Ground Cover . . .. . . . -20 Light Grass to Bare Ground 0.20" DEVELOPED AREA Pavement & Roofs . . . . . . ..'.o 90. I Gravel Roads & Parking Lots 0-'.75,.' '0-090.'. Oo8O City Business . . . . . . . . . o 0'. 8 5 0. 90 Apartment Dwelling Areas . 0.80 0.8S Industrial Areas (Heavy) . . . . . . 0.70 0.80,'' Industrial Areas (Light) . . . o o 0.�60 0. 70 Earth Shoulder 0.50' 0.50 Playground . . . . 0o.25 0.3*0 Lawns, Meadows & Pasture; 0.20 0.25 Parks & Cemetery .. . . . . . ... . . . 0.15 Oo2O SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (Dwelling Unit/Gross Acre) 1.0-1.5 DU/GA . . . . . . . . . . . . Oo3O 1.5-3.0 DU/GA o '0. 35 3.0-3.5 DU/GA o . . . . 0.40 3.5-4.0 DU/GA o 0.45 -�-0.50 4.0-6.0 DU/GA . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0-9.0 DU/GA - - . o - - - o - - - - 0 o60 9.0-15.0 DU/GA . . . . . . : o . . . - 0.70 14 2/1/77 no W, WA MMMIO-AMMOR =FAMOMEMEN �,"=.NAMMMMM W,=V%-FAMMMMM li =mq--Im IN—EQUAI-10b m RE'T Nat I ORMIJET CNT Ml ON 737A --IG-YEAR-, AGN STORM Lyt AREA RENTON- SEATTLE c 14 A A7 10 TACOMA C- H AR-T 12- NORTH BEND TYPE OF OUTLET PEAK STORAGE MAXIMUM STQ%G� TIME (MINUTES) VOLUME (FT3 AC YEAR DES16N- ')RM PEAK STORAGE . MAXIMUM STS%G5 TIME (MINUTES) F VOLUME (FT AC V s 1762 2820 T= -:2 5+ -iF2138 T=-25+T Wo - 4.0 QOT v Qo ORIFICE WITH HEADI 00 -T-+-Ts CONSTANT FLOW T 25+� 1175 1 -=- Qo ffB-:l I _ :5- T=-25+ 0', ORIFICE WITH HEADI Q0 CONSTANT FL6w T=-25+fiT--o 1 00 2255 ORIFICE WITH HEAD T=-25+ CONSTANT FLOW 15 �03. Qo IT=-25 0 ch a 1 18 4 0 �76 ORIFICE WITH HEAD T=-25 0 '041 SNOQUALMIE-----i qo PASS' r CONSTANT FLOW T=-25+� 2718 pli Qo C 14 ART 33. p - 25 +fE26 !0 :3— ORIFICE WITH HEAD T= 0 + I Qo SKYKOMISH CtqAR7 Z vs = 2820 T _ 60 Q T T+25 0 vs - 3000 1 40 QOT T -+21 -5 - vs = T - 40 QoT T+2S7 vs. -1117jl��4-25 - + 3420-T' -60 Q ---q—o .+ . Y+25 02 T= 25 -4T T=-25+ 1 21947 Go - VS - 1463 -3000 T 60 Q T` T=-,25+ n _ T+25. 0 1 . QO Vs = . 40 Q T 0 - -2 -1[2 7 �O6 T= 5+ T+25 vs 3607 T 60 QOT -rl W8O 4 T.=-25+ T+25 vs 6522 T 40 5013 Q0, T+25 vs -IF3342 6522 T 60 QOT T=-25+y --�—o - T+m vs 1�0 �75 4164 T 40 QoT. T -25+ Qo T+25 I VS = fE20 5 :100 1735 4164 T T=-25+ 0. CONSTANT FLOW JT=-25+�. —(yo— I -T-+T5- 60 QoT I Q0 V s 351.0 T 40 QOT T+25' vs 3510 T- f + 2-5 60 QoT VS 4 3 2 40 Qo-T T+25 vs 4329 T 60 QoT T+25 �vs 8020 T 40 QOT T+25 V s =. ,8020 T 60. . QOT T+25 - - vs = . ' . 4920 T .40 QOT T+25 v s = - 4920 T - 60 QoT T+25 mmmml��Mmmm 00111�� =111ir P', Milli No I I I gold log - 1 W4 W, W-SSOI i to. m a- Ego Walk 0 `V 6 m m ��MMMS WRE PIZ fRICIR IWER1000inw, i0mr., I = 0 WROMPO PROW -01 1! ro- Vol Now . P10-00 Ma OW-E Ra OR adwam; FOP 0- W-4 a 6 1 R. N 0- a m 9; N R I GERALD W. LOVELL P.L.S. JURGEN P. SAUERLAND P.L.S. Lovell-Sauerland &Associates, Inc. Surveyors e Development Consultants * Planners December 26, 1978 File No. 78-303 Mr. Fred Herzberg, P.E. City Engineer City of Edmonds 250 - 5th N. Edmonds, Washington 98020 Re: Storm Drainage System for Magne Hagen, Inc. Dear Fred: Enclosed is a revised drainage plan reflecting addi- tional information requested by letter dated, December 5, 1978. It is my understanding that Items .1 and 6 have been addressed by others on the design team. Items 2 through 5 have been incorporated in the enclosed plan. If there are any questions or if you need any further information, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, Louis F. Caviezel , P.E . LFC/mp Enc. 23108 - 100TH W. EDMONDS, WASH. 98020 PHONE 775-IS94 6 HARVE H. HARRISON CITY OF EOM011MOS MAYOR CIVIC CGNTeR - �DMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 - (206) 775-2525 DEPARTMF:NT OF PUBLIC WORKS December 5, 1978 Lovell - Sauerland & Assoc., Inc. 23106 100th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98020 SUBJECT: STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM FOR MAGNE HAGEN., INC. Gentlemen: Prior to approval of the subject drainage plan, several items need to beaddressed regarding Shellabarger Creek and its Channel: Provide a.copy of variance for creek set -back. 12. Show configurations Of finished grades for creek bed (with cross -sections). V3. Show water surface elevations for a minimum return period of 25 years (longer if warranted by engineer's judgement). A. Show outflow details from 12" CMP. 5. Provide plans for short term and long term erosion control: a. Temporary erosion control plan. '�b. Bank fill stabilization and surface protec- tion, long - term. L,�c. Scour protection at proposed obstructions. 1k ctda:-� d . Stabilization of earth around existing trash rack. i6ct� 11 6. Contact State Departments of Fish and Game ' to determine needs, if any, for protection of fish life. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Bob Franklin, 775-25.25., extension 220. a Very truly yours, .FRED HERZBERG, P.E. City Engineer BF:FH:kjr A 778 -0/71 December 20, 1978 File No. 78-303 MAGNA HAGEN 12-UNIT CONDOMINIUM 25"YEAR - FLOOD PLAIN CREEK 5TH AVENUE Creek Level 25-year storm Runoff Area 300 Ac. Runoff Factor 0.30 Avg. Slope 4% Avg. V 1.25 fps. Distance to farthest point = 4000 ft. Tc 4000 + 10 63 min. 1.25(60) i 25 = 0.6 in./hr. 0 25 = CiA = 0.30(0.6)(300) = 54 cfs. Avg. channel section is 21 wide with a 2:1 side slope- Chart 15. Gradient through site = 0.03 Average depth of flow = 1.4 ft. /P.0 + t TaL 103: -72 j,-7 00 -Jr- !t-4 o? t (r -44- v"o- I- T- t - - - - --1 - tL T-1 T- + A, G_-a_ 4A M" 1v"ct -t- - t- -1 _r t 6 _4 q- 4A T-4 T ' S EEI' FILE HEARING ON P.C. RESOLUTION 596, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING CODE RE IN -LIEU PARKING REQUIREMENT IN DOWNTOWN BUSINESS AREA tZO-5-78) Community.Development Director John LaTourelle reviewed the proposed changes' to the Code. The Planning Commission had recommended denial of the proposed amendment, but the Community Development Department submitted a separate recom- mendation for approval, with one minor change. The Code amendment would eliminate the grandfather parking status for buildings in the downtown business area and would require installation of the necessary parking spaces when a building is converted to a substantially different use. It would also extend the in -lieu parking option to the individual who.substantially changes the use of a building in the downtown business area. There are a fe buildings in the C11 zone which would benefit from an in -lieu option, so the Cw11 zone*would be included in the proposed amendment. The purpose of the in -lieu fund is to retain the existing character of the City by preserving the existing buildings rather than replacing them with on -site parking lots. It seeks to eliminate a potential parking shortage without paving over the downtown. Mr. LaTourelle recommended strongly that the amendment be approved. He noted tha.t there is no opportunity to provide parking in many of the areas of the'waterfront. He felt this should be on the books when the moratorium is raised. The Planning Commission had recommended denial on the basis that.they were concerned for the administrative feasibility of the parking fund ordinance. The hearing was opened to the public. Virginia Evans, a real estate broker located in the Harbor Building, said she supported the plan to,buy land for parking lot development and the cost should be determined and then the buildings needing it should pay the price. She said no matter what price is set today it would be impossible to set a price in years to come on different pieces of property. She said she would be one of the first to put in some money for parking. No one else wished,to speak, and the public portion of the hearing was closed. After some discussion to clarify some points in the MOTION: proposed amendment, COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NORDQUIST, TO INSTRUCT.THE CITY ATTORNEY TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE INCORPORATING A REVERSAL OF �P-C. RESOLUTION 596. MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN CLEMENT THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CARNS, TO SET A RATE DISCUSSION FORAUGUST 22, BRINGING FORWARD THE �,.;.PARKING COMMISSION'S LAST RECOMMENDATION FOR 'RATE STRUCTURE. NOTION CARRIED. J_ HEARING ON APPEAL FROM ADB DECISION RE HAGNIE' HAGEN.�_CONDOMINI�M_— Associate Planner Mary Lou Block said this proposal was for the southeast corner of 5th Ave. and Holly. When tile applicant first submitted his proposal there was substantial development proposed across a stream on the site. Because of impact on the stream,the Planning Division recommended against approval and asked the applicant to pull the building back from the stream so as not to interrupt the stream flow. He was forced to pull back the building, leaving a 7' setback. The overall greenbelt area was increased, however. The Board of Adjustrient approved a variance to allow moving the corner closer to the eastern property line, and the applicant shortened the entryway and made other changes and then returned to the ADB. At that time there were numerous people in the audience concerned about parking, bulk and height of the building, and traffic and parking on Holly Dr. The ADB had approved the development in spite of being concerned about the recom- mendations of the Density Review Committee concerning density in Edmonds. They had taken those into consideration�but because this'application had been received previously and the Council had not taken any action on the Density Review Committee's recommendations, the ADB felt they had to approve the application under existing regulations. They approved the application, and the neighbors appealed that decision. Mrs. Block showed two slides of the site which reflected the dense vegetation. She said the Council could uphold the ADB decision, overturn it, or make modifications to the proposal. She commented on the modifications which,already had been made. Zoning in the area is BC to the north, RS-6 to the east, BC and then RS-6 to the south, and across the street to the west is BC. The RS-6 to the east has mostly single story homes and to those homes the proposal would block any view, but Mrs. Block did not believe they.had Sound views. Community Development Director John LaTourelle added that the site plan had been worked over for a 1 . ong period and the EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 4 - August 1, 1978 parking had been redrawn several times. He said the building had been moved around on the site and the applicant had gone to the Board of Adjustment to get the variance to move it closer to the property line. Further, that there was not much maneuvering room left for a building of that bulk and height and, given that building and those parking requirements, a better site design would not be found. He suggested that the only other option the Council had essentially was to reduce the size of the building, which the ADB did not think they had the authority to do. City Attorney John Wallace then reviewed for the Council the criteria for appeal, and Councilman. Carns noted that the appeal called for a de novo hearing and that any further appeal was to Superior Court within 10 days. Mrs. Block noted that if the Council were to recommend a reduction in the number, of units the only effective reduction, would be of one floor which has four units. She pointed out that if the reduction were only of two units there could still be the same bulk. It was asked whether the entire lot could be covered if the lot were developed as BC, and the answer was that it could be in theory, but in reality the ADB would not permit complete coverage of the lot. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Don Westlin, architect for the development, reviewed the previous attempts to develop this site. He said the applicants in, 1977 had proposed a family clinic facility which had been approved, and in that proposal all of the cars were coming off Holly Dr. It was designed so a third floor could be added which would have had a total of 24 cars. . The clinic was to be open until 9:00 p.m. every day, six days a week. He noted that the owners are residents of Edmonds and have their professional offices in Edmonds. He identified the owners 'as Drs. Robert Bettis and Mark Hanson, at which time Councilman Herb removed himself from the proceeding as he goes to those doctors and has talked to them.professionally. Councilman Carns noted that Council- man Nordquist and he are members of the City of Edmonds Disability Board and one of the applicants is the Disability Board doctor. The City Attorney did not feel it was necessary that they be excused from the proceeding because of that association. Mr. Westlin reiterated the actions which had been taken since the concept was developed for the condominiun. He said they were in full compliance with all requirements. William Mathias of 54 Holly Dr. asked for a reversal of the ADB decision. He said there were 72 sionatures on the appeal petition, partially from 14 units on Holly Dr., and partial�y from other supporting people in the area. He said the proposed construction was incompatible with the immediate surrounding area and it should be denied on that basis alone. He read from the ADB ordinance and found the proposal lacking in accordance with some of the requirements. He said the general tone of the regulation requires compatibility and harmony with the surrounding area, which would not be fulfilled in his opinion if the decision of the ADB were approved. He said it should be clear that a 34' structure was not compatible with 1 and 11-2 story buildings. fie felt a shrinking of the project was necessary. Steve Dwyer of 529 Holly Dr. said the citizens of Edmonds are asking for limitations on dwellings and the City is limiting -them to 10 or less units. He said this structure would not accomplish the intent of the Policy Plan or the Comprehensive Plan and that it would not be harmonious with the surrounding structures. He felt a logical analysis of the situation shovied a reversal of the ADB decision would be consistent with the goals of the City. Ray Meek of 565 Hemlock said they had been fighting apartments in their area since 1964 and had petitioned the Counci-I in 1967 to be deleted from the Comprehensive Plan in order to try to control the density and keep their area single family. Councilman Clement asked Mr. Westlin to respond to the criticisms of lack of harmony, bulk and size, and not being consistent with the surrounding area. Mr. Westlin said the 35' height is an average and the building actually willl be more like 30' above the highest plateau. lie said -if they were cut to 10 units the top floor probably would be two penthouse units and the mass would be the same. Mayor Harrison suggested that the neighborhood might buy the property and resell. it with a covenant restricting what can be built on it, and Mr. Mathias responded that as far as he knew the property was not for sale. Dr. Robert Bettis of 18312 91st Pl. W., one of the owners of the property, said that property had been for sale for a long time before Dr. Hanson and he had bought it and that there had been a large "for sale" sign on it. He said they had never been approached by anyone in the neighborhood who had any desires of buying it. Louise Dwyer of 529 Holly Dr. said they had expected a small, one-story medical building was going to be constructed and they had not known the plan had been changed. Dr. Bettis responded that the EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 5 - August 1, 1978 medical building had approval to go three stories and the parking also had a stronger impact. Steve Dwyer said something eventually will be built and it seemed that this Council should say that what is built will be consistent with the Policy Plan. Dr. Mark Hanson of 8207 182nd S.W., the other owner, said the cars going to the property would not necessarily impact Holly Dr. as they would go immediately from Holly to the property, and the other cars enter from 5th Ave. and would not impact Holly at all. He felt it also should be considered that the property on 5th Ave. is business property. He noted that most of the houses on Holly do hot have a view and there is a mix of homes in the neighborhood, some being very new, some old, and some in between. He said their building had been designed to maintain the beauty of the.ravine and to enhance it with the building. He said that over the years the people had the opportunity to buy the property and that it had been zoned BC for a number of years. He felt if these really were con- cerns they should have been aired and the people should have had the property rezoned He added that a lot of time and funds had been invested in this development. William Mathias then offered a group of photographs which illustrated the traffic situation on Holly Dr. Oscar Scarlin, a realtor who said he had been working with Drs. Bettis and Hanson,said he also hadworked with the previous owner of.the property and that owner had planned to build an apartment building,. and he lived right next to it. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Councilman Naughten commented that anything that is built there is going to increase the traffic and impact the neighborhood. He felt the development should have less density --not more than eight units and removing one floor so there would b ' e les's mass. Not understanding that the Council could modify the proposal, COUNCILMAN MOTION: CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO REMAND ADB-37-78 TO THE AMENITIES (Withdrawn) DESIGN BOARD AND ASK THEM TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER LOOKING AT AN ALLOWANCE OF ONLY EIGHT UNITS IN A TWO-STORY BUILDING, AND HE CITED HIS FINDINGS FROM THE CITY CODE, SECTION 12.20.050, PARAGRAPHS (1)(C), (2)(A), (2)(B), AND PART OF (4). After discussion in which it was noted that the Council could make such a modification, MOTION: COUNCILMAN CARNS WITHDREW HIS MOTION. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED THAT ADB-37-78 BE MODIFIED,ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS IN THE PREVIOUS MOTION, SO THE BUILDING DOES NOT EXCEED 25' IN HEIGHT AND DOES NOT CONTAIN MORE THAN EIGHT UNITS, AND THAT EIGHT PARKING SPACES WILL BE ELIMINATED FROM THE HOLLY DR. SIDE OF THE BUILDING. Councilman Gould agreed that 25' in height would be compatible with the surrounding area if the parking is removed from Holly Dr. It was noted that the site.still could be developed as a business instead of a condominium, but the three-story medical clinic� could not be developed as it was not started within a year after MOTION: approval. THE MOTION CARRIED. COUNCILMAN CARNS THEN MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, THAT IF THE DEVELOPERS ACCEPT THE MODIFICATION THAT THEY BRING THE MODIFIED j, 1,,.v,.F��,PLAN TO THE COUNCIL FOR REVIEW PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. MOTION I CARRIED. SIX MONTHS' PROGRESS REPORT ON MAP SHOWING ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS Planning Technician Dan Smith began a slide presentation relative to the environ- mentally sensitive areas in the City. Because of the lateness of the hour and because the Council wanted to give this matter proper consideration, it was agreed MOTION: that a postponement would be in order. COUNCILMAN CARNS MOVED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN NAUGHTEN, TO CONTINUE THE REPORT ON THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS MAP UNTIL. -_ik� AUGUST 8, 1978. MOTION CARRIED. d' There was no further business to come before the Council, and the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. EDMONDS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Page 6 - August 1, 1978 r 'EET FILE' S-' July 27, 1978 ME240 TO: Harve H. Harrison Mayor FROM: John A. LaTourelle, Director Community Development Department SUBJECT: HEARINGL-ON,APPEA-L--FROM--ADB DECISION RENAGNE HAGEN CONDOMINIUK(ADB-37-78).. This property includes a portion of Shellabarger Creek one of the last sections not culverted.. Location on the stream Doses special requirements for the developer. - These were addressed at the first ADB hearing on April 20. At that time the appli- cant was asked to revise his plans to avoid any building in the area of the stream. The plans were revised, the applicant was granted a variance to shift the building closer to the eastern lot line, and the applicant returned to the ADB. The second ADB hearing on the item was June 7. The Board approved the plans at that meeting, while acknowledging the . C? difficulty of making such a decision in light of the recommdn- dations from the Density Review Committee and pending Council action. Numerous concerns have been expressed concerning the site, including: 1. Encroachment on the stream and ravine; 2. Parking and increased traffic on Holly Drive; 3. Building height and bulk; 4. View ob struction; 5. Vegetation,including a 80-100 year old cedar tree near the west property line. Minutes from the ADB meetings and the Board of Adjustment (File V-40-78) are attached. MLB/le attachments PRESENT Chauncy Wight Warren LaFon Ken*Mattson Perry Spanfelner .�.AMENITIES DESIGN BOARD . April 20, 1978 The special meeting of the Amenities Design Board was called to order by Chairman Chauncy Wight at 7:35 p.m. in the Council r'k am$, .0- -F f.. U r 14� A r, _; r �_ Q W I_- %0" 0 V % = #_ ='L STAFF PRESENT John LaTourelle, Director Community Development Departmenti Mary Lou Bl.ock,.Associate City Planner Edith Prigger, Planning Division Maryanne Townsend, Planning Divi- sion Chairman Wight read the administrative procedures for the meeting -of the Amenities Design Board. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the April 5 meeting were distributed and it was decided that they would be discussed at the next regular meeting.* REPORT FROM STAFF There was no report from the staff at this meeting. .AGENDA rILDB-37-78 bO'N'ALD WESTLIN - Site, building and landscape review of,12 unit condominium at 5th Avenue South and Holly �'.Drlve. . (BC) The Board reviewed 2 copies of the plans for.this site and Mrs. Block stated this item.had been introduced at the -last meeting in April.. "Irs..Block's presentation included the existing zoning as being BC which does al- low multi -family residential usage as in the RMH zone. She stated the exception was the setback requirements are somewhat different. She said there is a require - ment for a 20' buffer strip to the rear of the property opposite the 5th Avenue front yard as it abuts a resi- dential zone. She said the Code has a very specific charge to those properties which abut an 1.3%� classified property for screening purposes. She went on to say the plans do meet the Zoning Code requirements and some adjusted changes in regard to elevations had been submitted. Mrs. Block stated this is a unique site, a very special natural area, and has a stream.running through it with a ravine. She said a great deal of time had been spent assessing the vegetation, slope, flow of the 0 stream, and the impact a development of this magnitude w(*d havd on this S, site. h lso said Engineering,�.., infotmation indicated the site -is on,the Shellen- -the Comprehensive- barger drainage basin as defined -by Drainage Plan. The Comprehensive Drainage Plan revealed the actual maximum flow'of the stream on,: the site is 34.5 cubic yards.per second at a 10 year flood flow indicat' y good,rate. She stated* ing a ver -and work the natural drainage channel must remain, near or within the channel must.be. completed,in conformance with -the drainage plan.and City standards. She read Enaineering requirements stating drainage caused from the proposeddevelopment will be'contained on site by a detention facility.in accordance with City Ordinance 1924. Also required are oil restrictors. Mrs. Block said Engineering had concerns about the parking. The proposed plans included 10 parking stalls coming off of Holly Drive. Engineering suggested a revised parking layout which shows all 10 spaces access ing directly to Holly Drive. She addressed Holly Drive as being a little more than 20', and not fully develop- ed. Additional asphalt paving as required by Engineer- ing would be from the property line to Holly Drive...� Five foot concrete sidewalks would-be required on Fifth Avenue.� Mrs. Block further discussed the Staff's primary -concern with the impact of this type of development on the ravine and the stream. She indicated the applicant's environmental assessment estimated a total of 2,247 cubic yards to be removed from the site,. significantly affecting the topography. Mrs. Block addressed the impact -of the proposed develop- ment quoting the Policy Plan's environmental section. She read statements from'the Policy Plan which indicated t . he negative effect of development on the ravine and stated that the intent of the Policy Plan would not be met. Discussion between the Board, the Staff, and the app- licant, Mr. Westlin, followed regarding the. proposal. Mr. Westlin stated plans of using a very slight ramp and indicated that the ravine would not be destroyed, also stating that,it is completely engulfed in black- berry bushes. He discussed methods to retard siltingy and using straw to regress the water in the construction area. Perry Spanfelner questioned what the support of the building would be and the applicant answered concrete columns. Director John LaTourelle posed the question of what the applicant would do to make the Policy Plan work stating that the Policy Plan's recommendations of defined sites as being avoidable building areas. Mr. LaFon asked if the City would be willing to waive.the regulations or setbacks. Mr% LaTourelle stated that as far as the De- partment coul� go would be to make a strong presentation to the Board of Adjustment for a variance. AMENITIES DESIGN BOARD Page 2 - April 20, 1978 ALB-_4�3-78 WROTIONW�S DIRECTIO' 14ADE THAT THE'BOARD'APPROVE THE_*' CONCEPT, BUILDING DESIGN9 AND IANDSCAPI�G OF THE PLAN WITH THE RECO�-DfENDATION A THAT THE PLANNING DIVISION WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO WORK OUT THE PROBLEM OF �TO MUTUAL SATISFACTION THE RAVINE tUID-RETURN TO THE BOARD' FOR FURTHER ACTIO1 . 4. MOTION CARRIED.` GORD10N HENRIKSON 6, HOWARD WILSON de,!31A?11 � 11,111 Site building d'e' rl 1 y scape rel,1111— -4 el ew _o —f ho 2 unit + manager <R11L) using . development at 417 3rd Avenue South. Mrs. Block stated this site is adja* elderly hous- cent to the behind the ing project presently existing .. Tradewell store. -She discussed the. elevations Of the building stating they will be very similar to the existing building on'the corner of 3rd and Howell. She Pointed out the excellence Of the treatment Of the stre . am on this site because the applicant had sta�ed wel back .from the stream,�not showin 1 ruption to 9 any changes or-dis- it...She stated one deck protrudes into the changing tonlography somewhat but does not approach the stream itself. She stated the applicant had an approved Conditional Use permit for increased density under the HUD elderly housing program and for a reduced number of parking spaces. Mrs. Block further discussed the Plans, stating this had been the site of an old house. She stated the building is screened by a large hedge and there are-6 lights on 12' poles. Mrs. Block said the environmental checklist and negative declaration had been prepared. Ken Mattson asked whether any atteMDt'.had been made to connect the parking access to th� alley with Mrs. Block answering no.- She also said the existing vegetation is to remain surrounding the stream. Discussion followed. Mr. Vigil, the architect advised the Board that a few cedar trees would be cut but all the fir, madrona, and the laurel hedge will re- main along with the cedar hedge.-11r. Vigil also s id they would be trying to preser a natural state. Mrs. ve most everything in it's exceptionally nice s Block added that this is ite. an WARREN LAFON MOVED TO APPROVE ADB- 43-78 BECAUSE THEY TRIED TO SAVEITREES, IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT FELT A NICE JOB WAS DONE ON THE PLANS. , AND SECONDED THEANIOTION. MOTI-ON CARRIED. PERRY SPANFELNER AMENITIES DESIGN BOARD Page 3 April 20, 1978 carport. In the past that had not helped because the'roof would rot', again. When this structure was built it was in compliance with the setback requirement, but a code amendment made it nonconforming. The, applicant planned to keep the carport whether the variance was granted or not, but by improving it -he could use it to its fullest extent and prevent future rotting. The carport is buffered from the view of ' . neighboring properties. Mrs. Luster felt this was a minimum variance and said the.improvement of the carport would generally improve the , appearance of the home and none of the dimensions would extend beyond the foundation of the carport or the perimeter of the property. She felt .. this would be in harmony with the Zoning Code as the structure would.. not extend any farther into the setback than it already does. She showed slides of the property and recommended approval.. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Alice May Herm.anns said they have dry rot in the area of the balcony, and the carport and the new roof will prevent future rotting and the property will look much better. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Hovde said this was a good solution. MR. ROY MOVED TO APPROVE V-35-78. MRS. STOLE SECONDED THE MOTION, SAYING IT MEETS THE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND 14OULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. MOTION CARRIED. V-37-78 NELSON & BENEDETTO, INC. - Variance of approximately 14' from the front yard setback and approximately 17' from the required rear yard setback at 714 Puget Lane (RS-12) Mrs. Luster showed slides of the property, noting that the lot is narrow and long as, are other lots on that side of the street. This would not be a rezone. The special condition (narrowness of the lot) was not different from others in the vicinity as other lots on that side of the street a1so viere long and narrow' * The applicant was requesting a variance that would allow him to build as close to the' front and rear property lines as his adjoining neighbors had. The shape of the lot was not the result of actions of the applicant. The unnecessary hardship that would result by strict enforcement of theZoning Code would be, that only a 25' wide house could be constructed on the lot. Other homes in -the area sited closer to the property lines were able to be wider in structure. Granting of the variance would not be detrimental ' to other property owners in the area as it would allow construction of a visually pleasing house that would have the same setbacks as those houses on either side on the same side of the street. Mrs. Luster felt this was a minimum variance to allow construction of a house that would better suit the - neighborhood and fill the applicant's needs. She recommended approval. The public portion,of the hearing was opened. Mike Benedetto said they will draw the plans to comply with the figures provided and the driveway would be at least 30' long and go in on the east portion of the property so there would not be any hindrance from that standpoint. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Mr. Roy commented that those lots are all divided contrary to other zoning rules and this was a reasonable solution. Mr. Leraas agreed. MRS. DERLETH MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. LERAAS, TO APPROVE V-37-78 BECAUSE IT IS THE MINIMUM VARIANCE TO ALLOIN REASONABLE USE OF THE LAND IN VIEW OF THE WAY THE PROPERTY WAS DIVIDED, AND BECAUSE THERE I-JILL BE A 30' DRIVEWAY TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE WHICH WILL ALLEVIATE'THE PARKING PROBLEM THERE. MOTION CARRIED. r-N-4048 DONALD WESTLIN - Variance of a maximum of 13' from required 20' rear yard setback to RS zone to east at 5th Ave. S. and Holly Dr. (BC) Mrs. Luster showed slides of the property. This would not be a rezone. Special circumstances of this application were that the ADB, because of BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 9 May 17, 1978 the requirement in the City's Policy Plan to preserve environmentally sensitive areas, asked that the applicant move the structure away from stream. -.It would not be possible to build -the proposed structure without this variance and meet the ADS requirements. Because of the stream and the topography of this lot the proposed location of the structure appeared to be the best to meet the ADS requirements.. The variance should not interfere with existing neighbors because a large buffer area will -be N provided along the rear property line. Mrs. Luster felt this was the minimum variance to make possible reasonable use of the land as it would provide the least amount of environmental impact to the stream. She noted that the entire building will be located away from the stream. She recommended approval as more open space area will be provided with this proposal than there would be with the required 20' setback. The structure will be a 12-unit condominium. The.public portion of the hearing was opened. Don Westlin described the proposed structure. He said the building was resited away from the creek on the property because the Planning Staff felt the creek would be impacted. Resiting necessitated a variance. On his original proposal he had 3,900 sq. ft. of rear,yard and the resiting with less that 20' rear yard setback resulted in over 4,000 sq. ft. of rear yard. Mr. Westlin said the intent of the rear yard is to create open space and he felt he had done that. He said the number of cars parked in the rear yard had also been reduced. Bob Driscoll of 514 Holly Dr., Joseph Dwyer of 529 Holly Dr., Dale Craven of 540 Holly Dr., Bernice Noggle of 548 Holly Dr, and Jim Saari of 542 Holly Dr. all spoke against the granting of the variance because they objected to the con- gestion that would be created on Holly Dr. because of this development.. Mike Morse of 525 Holly Dr. objected because he was opposed to the actual construction of the building as he wanted the neighborhood to remain single-family residential. fir., Westlin responded that the gist of the variance was not for parking but for the setback and that even with the 20' rear yard setback originally proposed there stillwas the same number of cars park.ing off of Holly. He said he could not get egress off 5th because of the creek and he is not permitted to fill the creek. He stressed that he would be retaining the aesthetic quality of the site, which is the creek. Dale Craven felt the building could be turned to be straight north and South on the property and then it would not be necessary to back onto Holly Dr. Tile public portion of the hearing was then closed. Mr. Hovde noted that everybody feels creeks are sensitive and should be protected and that the neighbors should realize that the City has some very strict restrictions on design and how buildings fit a lot. He said if the building were turned and put square on the lot as suggested by Mr. Craven then the whole neighborhood would have to look at it. He noted that most of the traffic will be off 5th Ave. and the Holly traffic probably would be guests. He said you cannot stop progress, and there is going to be a building there, and judgment of those controlling this would have to be relied upon. He added that City officials think about the neighborhood first and the developer last. lie was in favor of the -proposal. firs. Derleth commented that the questions that had arisen were not pertinent to this hearing. Mary Lou Block stated that the proposal will go back to the ADS and that the parking shown is the configuration suggested by the Engineering Department. She said one of the requirements will be that Holly Dr. is widened to a 25' pavement. Mrs. Block added that the ADS essentially gave Mr. Westlin a go-ahead on the concept of this project, subject to protection of tile stream. fir. Westlin said the Engineering Depart- ment had approved of the plans and he had adhered to their suggestions. Mr. Roy said the only thing that bothered him was that Holly Dr. is already saturated and more cars will be put on it. � MRS. STOLE MOVED, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 10 - May 17, 1978 k-A SECONDED BY MR. HOVDE, TO APPROVE V-40-78 BECAUSE SITING THE STRUCTURE TO STAY AWAY FROM THE STREAM IS MAKING THE BEST USE OF THE LAND AND IT "tWILL BE AN ATTRACTIVE SITE. MOTION CARRIED, WITH MR. ROY VOTING NO.,' Chairman Bailey reminded the Board that there will be� a special meeting on May 31. There was no further business to come before the Board, and the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Page 11 May 17, 1978 The only Class 3 project on the -Consent Agenda was ADS-68-78,' about which there was some discussion: ADB-68-78 DON FINNIGAN Design review of driveway at*325 Walnut St. (RMH) Don Bickle pointed out to the Board that the landscaping will be considerably changed and pointed out the areas for the Board. Mr. Finnigan said he did not believe he was changing "considerably" the,landscaping, and he explained that one area which had been proposed for landscaping was the original driveway to the site and they now planned to use it in the development as an "exit only" drive which he demonstrated would greatly improve the circulation on the site. The Board was in general agreement that the change was probably for the better.. MR. SPANFELNER MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. KINDERFATHER, THAT ADB-68-78 BE APPROVED. MOTION CARRIED. CONTINUED AGENDA ADB-36-78 DAVE HERMANS (Mr. & Mrs. Heyler Davis, owners) Building, site, and landscape review for 6-unit apartment at 221 3rd Ave. S. (RMH) Mrs. Block stated that the applicant had addressed the items included in last month's motion and that he had satisfied the Engineering Depart- ment question. MR. SPANFELNER MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. SELVIDGE, TO APPROVE ADB-36-78 AS SUBMITTED. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Selvidge thanked the appli- cants for their time and cooperation in resolving the problems the Board had felt existed. ADB-37-78 MAGNE HAGEN - Building, site, and landscapereview for 12-unit condo- -minium at 5th and Holly (BC) Mrs. ' Block summarized the previous review of the Board. She said tl4e applicant was forced to move the building back in order to save the stream on the site, and in doing so he had to apply for a variance. which was granted by the Board of Adjustment. She said the parking and landscaping requirements had been met and the applicant had doneseveral things to reduce the possibility of damage to the stream. Theentryway was shortened and was put on posts rather -than a concrete slab so not .so much fill would be required. The south corner of the building will be suspended and the rest of it will be caniflevered over the terrain. Mrs. Block commented that moving the building back on the site created a more interesting entrance. She also noted that.more planting area is, provided to the east of the building. Several people in the audience wished to speak on this item. Steve Dwyer of 529 Holly Dr. objected to the proposal, He felt this project would cause increased traffic, would impact parking, and would be contrary to recent recommendations made by the Density Review Committee. He felt it -was important to strive for continuity within City government and he noted that subsequent to the Density Review Committee'-s having made its recommendations the Planning Commission had adopted their Shangri-La report, and he felt.the ADB should be considering this application in light of those actions. He also felt this item should be tabled until the City Council decides on whether to impose a building permit moratorium on multiple -dwelling construction. Bob Driscoll of 515 Holly Dr. added that 11 of the parking spaces will have to exit,on Holly Dr. and that there is a hedge at that location which is sight obstructing. Don �Jestlin, architect for the project, responded that the line of sight from Holly Dr. to 5th Ave. S. was the only question posed by the City Engineer and that the parking spot involved was moved back to accommodate that. He said they will have maneuverability and free access to 5th Ave. without impairing the other people on the block. He said they plan to remove the hedge and install a controlled screen. He noted that the concept of this proposal had been AMENITIES DESIGN BOARD Page 2 - June 7, 1978 approved previously and that the landscape material was the same, although the configuration was different. He said the AOB was consider- ing the amenities of the building and the landscaping, and that the total square footage of the project was not pertinent to this -hearing (Joseph Dwyer of 529 Holly Dr. inquired several times as to the square footage and was told it was 20,115 sq. ft.) William Mathias of 540 Holly Dr. said his view would be impaired by the project. Louise Dwyer of 529 Holly Dr. said there is already obstruction getting off of Holly Or Mr. Selvidge noted that the project met all of the criteria and he didn't feel he could vote to deny it. He felt the neighbors.had a good case but the problem was something out of the purview of the ADB. MR. KINDER - FATHER MOVED, SECONDED BY MR-SPAINFEL'NER, TO APPROVE-ADB-3748, BECAUSE THE PROJECT COMPLIES WITH ALL EXISTING ORDINANCES AND HASBEEN REVIEWED SEVERAL TIMES AND THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLIED WITH THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS IMPOSED UPON HIM BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUENESS'OF THE SITE. Mr. Wight again read for the audience the appeal procedure. Mr. Christofferson asked what was the legal status of the current application. Mrs. Block responded that if approved and not appealed a building permit -could be obtained. She said if were approved and appealed and the Council overturned the decision of the ADB or sent it back, the Board would be essentially starting over hearing the application. She said the Board of Adjustment had approved the variance for the rear yard setback. Mr. Christofferson felt this was a very difficult case. He said the Board was obligated to operate on current ordinances, but the spirit of the work of.the Density Review Committee would argue for a lesser density on this property. He said he knew the problems in that area and he had a problem voting yes on this as an ADB member, knowing the conflicts with what he felt was for the best interest of the City in the long run. He said he would feel badly taking an action that he felt was inconsistent with what the City is attempting to do in planning. Mr. Kinderfather said he also was in sympathy with the neighbors, but there are rules and regulations and the Board could not turn something down that is consistent with the rules. Also, he felt it was consistent to have multiple dwellings in the downtown area of Edmonds. He felt that at this time the Board had to go by the existing ordinances. THE MOTION THEN CARRIED, WITH MR. CHRISTOFFERSON VOTING NO. Steve Dwyer said he would like it to go into the record that they would appeal the Board's decision. A short recess was announced. AGENDA ADB-54-78 DAVID KINDERFATHER - (Sierra West Construction - Owner) Building, site, and landscape review for 15-unit townhouse project at 21021 76th Ave. W. (RML) Mr. Kinderfather was excused from this hearing and he left the Council Chambers. Mr. Bickle said the existing house on this site will be removed but existing tall trees will be saved. The site slopes from the back of the lot to the street an average of 5'. All requirements of the Zoning Code had been met or exceeded. There will be over 9,000 sq. ft. of landscape area. The landscape plan was not ready so there was no landscape review. Each unit will have a two -car garage. Exterior trash enclosures were not shown. A sample of the exterior lighting.was'sub- mifted, as well as samples of the siding and trim. Placement of the lighting was not yet determined. Mr. Christofferson felt the style of the lighting looked fine. MR. CHRISTOFFERSON MOVED, SECONDED BY MR. SELVIDGE, THAT THE BUILDING AND SITE FOR ADB-54-78 BE APPROVED, INCLUDING APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN OF THE LIGHTING UNITS. MOTION CARRIED. Mr. Kinderfather returned to the rostrum. AMENITIES DESIGN BOARD Page 3 - June 7, 1978 ST'r�lEET FILE PUBLIC WORKS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROJECT NAME: 12 UNIT CONDOMINIUM FILE FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH AT MAUNA HAGEN, HOLLY DRIVE ASSESSMENT DATED: AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THE FOLLOWING DETERMINATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE: The following is a revised.preliminary review of the Public Works Depart- ment. DRAINAGE: The site is located within the "Shelabarger Drainage Basin"_ as defined in -the Comprehensive Drainage Plan. The natural drainage channel_ will remain. Any work near or within the channel must be completed in con- formance with the City's Comprehensive Drainage Plan and City Standards. Drainage caused by the proposed development will be contained on site with a_ detention facility in accordance'.with city brainance'No'. 1924, oil restrictions required. VEHICLE/CIRCULATIOM: 'The revised parking' plan as submitted includes nine parking stalls which have direct access to Holly Drive. Twenty-four parking stalls are required, 24 stalls are provide*d*-- 10'covered in the building and 14 on site. bf:the�14, five stalls*ha''ve direct access to 5th Avenue South as well as 10 covered stalls. T . his . represents 63% of all .on -site vehicle trips*generated by't'he'p'rojject whi'Ch"will have direct access to the arterial street 5th*Aven'u'e South.' 'The remaining 37% . of the traffic from the proposed development will utiiiz*e*direct access t*o Holly Drive. Two curb cuts and driveways are planned which are in ac . cordance with City Code. The proposed comprehensive circu lation .. p 1 1 . an will h . ave .. less of an impact on the neighborhood than the original 'Concept. ..................... . PREPARED BY:- DATE: 7, 7 REVISED: 10/77LV PUBLIC WRKS DEPARrTvM CHEC$ST Date S —uFIEET FILE BUID ING PERMIT REVIEW , fr) a 2 R A AL - r—, -I- JU AelArace Q) Z H E-4 OnMOU)PA I N U U lyl � � AL AL AL AL AL A& A& AL AL A& AL AL AL AL AL AL Street Right -of -Way Existing REQD Access Easements Existing REQI? Utility Easement-Exist-ing F_ REQD Lot per -Subdivision Plat Assessor Map t - Site Plan Checked for Accuracy Ce /26/779 Underground Wiring Reqd. Check Accuracy of Legal Description Environmentally Sensitive Area Environmental Checklist Reqd. Y a�45 (:�bm DLZ� Flood Hazard' -Zone Shoreline. Management Area Slope, Soil, Vegetation. Stream, Creek, Drainage.Basin Existing Zoning.Per Code Amenities Design Board Approval Reqd. Board of Adjusment Approval Req d. Review By; 'tf w5_�DB # Approva Date: Existing Water Main Size ;r" A 1, on Ave .!5, Water Main Reqd. Service Line Reqd. S. Hydrant Size Existing S Hydrant Reqd. Per Fire Code Size Detector Check Meter Reqd. Cross�Connection Inspection Fire Department Comments Water Meter Charge Reqd. Review by: Date: ep, Septic Tank Permit Reqd. Permit No. Sanitary Sewer Availability Proi - Drawing No. File No. Side Sewer Availability Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee Reqd. Review By: Date: e;� 30 - Z!!2 04 0 Open Ditch Existlng—a,,�� Reqd. Culvert Reqd. 0 v Size &- (�, Aer��--. I& Catch Basin.Re'd.f,�/- ./,. q on Site Plan. Shoulder &ainage mainuiin 'Collection (x-i si,7ale open runoff t�Iu-�hole reqd. .E"dicate on Site Plan Soil Conditions and Ground Water Field Checked Review by F),, t e /,z tZ7 Street Paving.Reqd. Curb and Gutter Reqd. A- IV, /4 Sidewalk Reqd. &ea 4L 0-7 �Ew Z& e- - AL- r Curb Cut for Driveway Reqd. 1-e s o� Right -of -Way Construction Permit Reqd. Bond Reqd. for Public Improven-&--nts Street Narm Sign Reqd. Other Sip-iing Reqd. Pre Permit Site Inspection mde on 0 BY: S S,,T, R U STR= V4 ENGINEERING 0 P� P4 Special Rcqi-Lirements listed in nen-o to Con-nunity Developrrt�-,nt DeparbTent, Building Division BY Date All iten-s filled in on Building, Permit Application BY Drawing,s Stanmed and Notations Made BY Approved by Public '%,Iorl,,s Departinent Revised: lv 10-1977 Date Date S�- FILE TO A PROSPECTIVE APPLICANT FOR A BUILDING PERMIT PROJECT: The plans you have submitted for the Amenities.Design Board or the preliminary plan submitted, prior to the application for a Building Permit, has been -reviewed for general conformance to the City Codes in regards to site improvements. You are required to submit complete development plans for utility and street improvements,required by the City Code. In addition, you are required t,o post performance guar antees with the City. The above items riust be done prior to issuance of a Building Permit. The following items are brought to your attention at this time for your action prior to submittal of the Building Permit Application: MA I M4;e PLIO L) �)Y ELE-Sd M EE1121 RR�1)1 Q:CD W I Iff ON STIE P-MeEtIQKA FesC-1 UTY. n�t WAITMAL Mlln6E, PAANNI mQiANiNeLurzf?�e pp-r?-- ®R X 91WARI Owls= �G K 014 1 t"N.-mi, M MOM 176M EGIMM209 WNW092119k, r1*Waafk1W-xWL4- If you have any questions, contact Bill Nims of the Engineering Div. at 775-2525, ext. 220. Review.ed By:(1AQ(e'6xP'M(ftn 10/771v U U r.ET FILE P� I C '�,IQRKS EdUr0ilMEINTAL RENJUI PROJECT NAME:— 12 UNIT CONDOMINIUM —FILE Magna Hagen ASSESStIENT DATED: April 18,1978 Fifth Avenue South at Holly Drive AN ENVIRONfIENTAL REVIE�q OF THE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN CO(,1PLETED AND THE FOLLO�'IING DETERtUNATIONS HAVE BEEN t1ADE: The following is a preliminary review b y the Public Works Department. Drainaze: The site is located within the "Shelabarp-er Drainaae Basin" as defined in'the Comprehensive Drainage Plan. The applicant indicated that the existing stream located on the site, flows at 0/5 C.F.S.— The Comprehensive Drainage Plan reveals that the actual flow is 7 times greater - 34.5 C.F.S. The natural drainage channel must remain. —Any work near or within the channel must be complet-ed in conformance with the Citv's Comprehensive Drainage Plan and City Standards. Drainage caused by the proposed development will be contained on site with a detention facility in accordance with City Ordinance No. 1924. Oil restrictors reouired. Vehicle/Circulation: The proposed plans include.t6n parking stalls which have direct access -to Holly Drive. This represents about 70 average vehicle trips per dav which will have a major impact on Holly Drive. Asphalt paving on Holly Drive, from.property line to existing, is reGuired to serve the increase volume of traffic. Also a five foot concrete sidewalk is reauired on Fifth Avenue South. PREPARED BYJ I A T E April 19 1978 _11illialm Nims REVISED: 10/77D S I k, nm' rl low---- SH E V6 MAIN --%'-Tr %I- io rl �n OF VD, _Lj jj JB L4 C15-.9 I "Now pm SHLLLABARGER'i. HOWELL- 0 W A Y A* 6 0. WALNUT ST. 12 0' 60- 60- 60' 12 0" sws qo� RESTAURANT 520 46 UNDER CONSTR. 5-r2 %M H Z 0 P-,i R rEE] (i 's ice a. u G I I z 9.-! 1 MUCHENTluj Z; c C. S- 24- z '! AUDAL 3 5BW 31 i >; ZD2 31"! El F5 0. 5 50 0 30- 01 60, 1 150' . E 4 0'-- V. C C LAUS� N �j 2�' �-INNMI LYILDRi-� %n F— 135' 55 110, 110' 110, 110, R.W. OLMSTED R 1. BROwN C.A. FRUTIGER 510 24 EEO. R EUG E] sH.C. SHEPPARD 0: E. PA. MAYES -- L.C. HIRSCHI Lo 55 D. R. EIF :CRAVE.", 5 ul) F1 ---i 1, 0 1 -1 0' J_ 1- 1-0. 70' 2 5 d, '-T —60. 0 Ln I0 In cD GD E;;3 N: L5 0' ED -56 i i i o:�D A5. 6%, 0 -To, 2 12 0' 70' 0' - 0 ..HOMELAN U) I SCALE i"z jco A-3-f 25- R1W - 0' k;t -J A'.E77/?/A�/�V6 WWLZ- rR----5 ,S TOP SICAl C) =c.B- 0 51A';)&Wlq4K op.":,. M6.1. �5AAI. SFW-'-R A4,qA1HO1-,E 7-H -5 6, A-IOLL 1"7-,6R5,ECT1OA1 CITY Oc- —,c-DA17OA1d9S DA',QWIV SIIEE r 01= S-72 PUBLIC 1,1ORKS EUVIRTIMEl'ITAL REVIE'vi PROJECT NAME'.Q. FILE 9;5'Rt AT o/n ASSESSMENT DATED:^F"fZJ(- AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL HAS BEEN. COMPLETED AND THE FOLLOWING DETEkMI NAT IONS HAVE BEEN MADE: p- 'FlOf" I tvvM'lA'-p-Y Pov�i tr \aocj,,s CrAP)pfll-Mr-11\1?�--- Clfm P '/114V. A-P t-W IICAEMDOU t' t r A, -'r I af�* I A-+)y v)nr�'y' na wm�tfj rvl()ff A -up (--ti-Y �')ntiopt-Q-n. t'�'. � ) AL-i F�Y lllt� 'EME'S'EM r.)9Nff:lrE-)Nl50j' W I W. Cn"j-4!o " �rorj \�'wt-o 4, Din-cl�n,nN F-AC-11-11Y ILI V-)('11i crty orat-a-)ANco tKA-iqz4-. rm- rz rmcTc-)Q:5 T-t-gN FzQr?lv-k';l W41C WANE,' 9-12A P�' P"U'll C�PW i'lli? 4 NN t Ll I AXJ�� A M A: t �""P- I ol r ")Fell Q P" I R'll lvjLT Pt-lv ( v Y�; ") �) �V) [ UY V�421 � J 7E, P Q (?) \jlc R S�l Al f 15 Rltfj�.-')t r�, 01" Vi \1 E--, ........... ?� ....... ATE:.,, PREPARED BY:h..Z-L'L L-ri"J. �l BUILDING DEPARTMENT PERMIT APPLICATION NAME (OR NAME OF BUSINESS) JL� — .— I I- , cp� . � - k;6 L .......... ?.I- 0: W MAIL Z q03: ADDRESS NAME 0 ADDREW U cto 4 M CITY Z 0 U q-rA-rFr firrm Z U III W a J * Ed" - "4 Applicant Fill Inside Heavy Lines k. 064t I VN g!g�v- P,0,60,�oyz i7ft TELEPHONE NUMBER ,,rV-0 A- I.vb* I -I-Is - 0 (11 NUMBER of Property (Show ELEPHONE NUM Below or W1 NEW R SIDENTIAL 11-1 GAS LINE 114-11 N:N-RESIDENTIAL SIGN ADD 0 DEMOLISH RETAI WALL 0 ALTER EXCAVATE V0 OR FILL N 01 M REPAIR PRE -MOVE 1:1 I,., INSP. P 'L NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF DWELLING CI-t- UNITS OF WORK T3f BE DONE NA�T�URE Ltei_ Atq A;X Z I - PLOT PLAN JINDICATE BUILDIN ABUTTING STREE U 11 U 4" I q- W lou 0 % - n 4 wvv,. PERMIT NUMBER aw. 1'11� ADDRESS .!50g— S"& 'So LEGAL LOT LOT AREA SUBDIVISION NO. El YES D NO _2�40 -M STREET R/W EXISTING STREET R/V FT. DEFICIENCY THIS PROPERTY COMP. PLAN ST. R/w<=Z=5 FT. FT. REMARKS i�� VA,.-:V" LeKECKED BY REQ'D. YES UNDERGROUND WIRING REQ'D. TYPE CONNECTION SANITARY SEWER APPVID BY CITY ENG. REMARKS ��-rLW M SZE ip I IWI BUILE FOP R K! 'TVm5 ; L) PC SIGN AREA ALLOWED 77-0 P MAZ; VVA ANCE OR CU - L10 - �T YARDS WORK R/W PERMIT F 0 NO 1AXES )LES El NO ES VERIFIED BY ONO � YES PERMIT NO 11.00 Y S M�- 1-1 NO W Z W ILI ENV. REVIEW AD8 NO. COMPLETE EXEMPT 3 'C"cWt 1'Lr>1_ 0" T:M?— A(Vj WrC7S !9 — I _: T2 LANNING,,� DATE ILOT COVERAGPA FRONT SIDE REARI ZNG FIRE ZONE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION Me I CODE /?7 _5 HE GIT ca'; ssh SPECIAL INSPECTOR REQUIRED AREA OCCUPANCY GROUP OCCUPANT LOAD _/ D YES 0 F- X FT) FT) Y�N_ PLAN CHEC"D BY THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY C WqVr1eLW OF EDMONDS. LOCAL SALES TAX I SHOULD BE CODED 31.04. REMARKS ?tq Nk,r, .1r; ve, 4V a, KtAt$bA <-- 0\/EKY-�JT PLAN CHECK NO. BUILDING PLUMBING HEAT & GAS LINE FENCE SIGN RETAINING WALL SWIMMING POOL IQ Ueu F th e n I hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the in- TOTAL AMOUNT DUE a u t ho .�ormation given is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly author - w s regu- zed agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and state laws regu- ATTENTION .ating construction; and in doing the work authorized thereby, no person 0 person shjngton ovill be employed in violation of the Labor Code of the State of Washington THIS PERMIT �elating to Workmen's Compensation Insurance. AUTHORIZES NOTE: Permit Limit One Year(Except DEMOLITIONS and FILL ONLY THE PERM�TS without conditional use permit, which shall be completed in 90 WORK NOTED iays;/MOVED-IN BUILDINGS, shall be completed in six months.) 51 TURE ( W OR NT) JDATE SIGNED I NSPECTION D PARTMENT LE 4 —1b CITY OF EDMONDS NOTE: Applicant Subiect to Plan Check Fee 775-2525 VALUATION JCW FEE APPLICATION APPROVAL This application is not a permit until signed by the Buflding Official or his Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged in space pro- vided'. DIRECTOR'S SIGNATURE I.. Z W W Z W I IL 0 j W Z D 0 U This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. ORIGINAL - File YELLOW - Inspector GOLD - Assessor PINK - Owner j 4�1-r e�� e-V/7 /y 1k 1 4 0- OIL � I g4- -cv, o w+ Ck LA I K j 4 U JeAilo 11 I jol I ik 1�z 4*11's 1, Ily lr4lk�_41 'T jo, ME E w A. Ir 'e�q Seb o0rIA-zz #/-,d c%ve-0, t1r% jrA-1 CIV VIAJ 4 E4 + Z 4L cove, )c5 vl� ke /,/JZ z )0/ a EE, C�2 0234 0 C'e �K 40 6,j 0 4 Ali v-1 rol CLO, +-t 4 cc, 0 VL', 0 ot I ,94 j,, 69— ct s _s a A--.P-j -e v IfIP- AOAP 'popp 4��r A 14 1r11'&41A1 /ffLY Z1,r _6 14Z 4QIAI 1pzl ,ro q c "'my. orprIl j4cc//,d/y 9- 9 ly,r5 ALL THAT -PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTH- WIEST QUARTER IN SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST W.M. MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COM- MIENCING AT A POINT 99 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE RUNNING EAST 30 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTIUUIN6 ALONG SAME LINE EAST 135 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 174,FEET; THENCE 'WEST 135 FEET; THENCE NORTH 174 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT THE NORTH 25 FEET THEREOF. I 6Z-/A/1�p/j/ /I/ 40/- 1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE CITY ENGINEER PRIOR TO PERFORMING'CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN THE SITE AND CITY RIGHT�-OF-WAY. 2. ALL WORK WITHIN THE SITE AND CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE, INSPECTION' OF THE ENGINEER, 3.,- THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS FOR STORM DRAIN CONSTRUCTION, 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN APPROVAL OF ALL FILL CONSTR UCTION.MATERIAL FROM THE CITY ENGINEER 'PRIOR TO IfS'USE OWTHI� SIT'E. 5. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED TO CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS. 6. ALL STORM DRAINAGE PIPE SHALL BE HELICAL 16-GUAGE ALUMINUM CORRUGATED PIPE. 7. VERIFY LOCATION AND DEPTH OF, EXISTING UTILITIES BE- FORE DISTU,RBING. 8. DOWNSPOUTS AND FOUNDATION DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO CATCH BASINS AS SHOWN bNPLAN. CITY OF EDMON.DS -a E NGIN ERING DMT4 Examined by Date Remark; cl 4AA, 'Y r 5 F/3.,/ /A V IVA 6 7/ c 77 _7 0 e'l I STREET FILE, TE (1f)1' 41- 11r1f elly lerillew