Loading...
51 WEST DAYTON ST (2).pdftli U) 0 z Y1 4013 -7 MEMQ��,*. Date: December 9, 1997 To: 'Jeannine Graf Building Offid hd Fr(i%: Jeffrey S. Wilson M Plamu*ng Supervisor,; Subject: REVIEV OF PROPOSED, EDMONDS, BAY, OFFICE BWLDING REMODEL PLANS Per your request, I have reviewed the plans which have' been submitted for the remodel of Ahe Edmonds Bay Office Building and, have compared the.these plans with my,Sh6reline:Permit exemption letter issued for the project on:June 6, 1907 (see,:� Upon. ravlc* of the exemption letter and the current plans, I have concluded that the -plans are c . onsistent with' my June. 6th exemption letter, with the exception of the proposed portico. porti My concern with the proposed co is the same to which you outline, in youi'e-mail of December 8th (see Attached. Ifthe portico is to be constructed over the adjacent property fine, then, we cannot. issue permit until the applicant has established their.legal rights to build.over the property fine. However, John has informed me that Brad Butterfield stated that he has: revised the project pl[ans to show that the portico will be entirely on the subject property and not.edimectedlo the -existing columns on the adjoining property. If this is correct, the project would be consistent with the plans I reviewed in issuing my shoreline exemption letter of June6th. If howeverAhe project has n0t.been. revised to locate the portico only on the subject property, then it would be my conclusion, that we can not issue permit until the issue is resolved. I believe the forgoing should respond to your e-mail inquiry. If you have any questions,.please:caU Me. Attachments pc: File No. SM-1-79 Shoreline Permit Exemption File John Bissell Lam Knaak 7 7 City 'of Edmotids., czeP Pivi EDDAYRRI.DOC 0 z Z LU Lu 2 M, D 0 z LU 0 z am E CITY OF EDMONDS DMI&ARA, PAHEY 211011THAVVIURMMTH * MM0108' WA #8020 * 0081771-0220 rAx 12041771.02li MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT C) Public W*rks * pf"ne * Pwks Snd ROV8811lon 9 Engfnesft VIA FAX (776-5746) AND US. MAIL June 6, 1997 Mr- Brad Butterfield ButtOrfield Desian Group 400 Dayton Street Edmonds. WA 98020 Sublect: EDMONDS BAY OFFICE -BUILDING REMODEL AND REQUIREMENTS SHORELINE PERNT DearBrad: Thank You for your letter OtMay 13th, inquiring about clients proposed remodel the shoreline Permit requirements for your of the Edmonds Bay We* Intilding. After review of be Inforniation contained in ym letter or [he 131h, including the Attached plans &W ejevatioj% I hm reached the following conclusions regarding Permit requirements Pursuant to The State Shordine Management Act Requ�s' to "Place dig Wftiar harkantal tedarriding. Pursuant to WAC 173-27-030(2)(b), the proposed Action is exempt from,having to obtWn Shoreline Substantial Development permil, however, it must still Comply with requirements of the Act and local Shoreline Master program the 2. Reqleg a replace Idsling dtek planter boxes, Pursuant to WAC 173-27-030(2)(b), the proposed action is exempt from having to obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development permit. however, It must still comply with 16 requirements of the Act and local Shorelini Master program 3- AdquOt 10 rgPlace han&W1j and deckc that have beconig p###jL Pursuant to WAC 173-27-030(2)(b), Shoreline Substantial the Proposed Action is exempt from hving to obtain 4 DevOlOP"Itnt Permit, however, It must still comply with the requirements ofthe Act And local Shoreline Mager ProgranL 111COPPOraled Auglist 11, Iggo I .... .. ... 4.VA 4 vow 'which 1"M ban ~ddby the Unusudew" in 1hewdsftdW* wqgpmd., z ?�*Uknt to WAC 173-27-100. 16 Is not considow to be a oubstand MWAOR to an APProved permit. Upon review Via Development permit issued by the Chy orthe original appnn%d Shoreline suwuwd M Undw PRO No- SM-1-79. it has ban determined tNt 0 T the PmPosed minor moandong 0j will not violate any wipresaw condition placed on dw U 01 OfWnal approved pormiL LU LU Please be awne that wWlg the pmpogOd aclio -j ns AVO exempt fivrn the requirement to receive a U) LL Shoreline Substantial Development P Uj 0 armil, the POPosed remodel activity mugt URI receiva Pennig 2 �: 11PProvai Ftom the City Of Edmonds. The extent of WS permit approval may indud :3 Minimm a buildin i &I < g Permit "Or AfcWftftnd IDMIgn.Board approval, To deterni" if U. z building Permit is required, PlCM contact Lara KN.k at 771-0220. To dgtamhw it Me T a fequims rQV*ww and approval by I ArcWtelural Design Burd, plum ON" john ProPod X w 771.0220. r- � WWOII at z 01 1, If you have Any ibrillOr questions rega(ding this mat LU LU; 771-0223. ter, Plaut do not hesitate tovontact me at 5 -21 1 Sincerely, COMMUrAY Savkes Department - Planning Division is my S. smalon. AMP CIMICUtPlanningSupwAsor EnclOwres: - Letter ofwy 13,1997 Pa., Foe No. SM-1-79 Cornspondence'Notehok ShOrClInG Permit ExOmption File Paul Mar, community Services Director John Bissell, Associate Pknim ;uftnWe Graf, Building offieW r)eP'Mmt F=10V. Shwelands Division d Jeff I am really concerned that the scope of Work shown on. plans for#97-301 are not In compliance with your Shoreline iommolon letter dated 6/6/97 for this project. Sieve Butterfield has called 'at least three times. regarding the.status,and we will not Issue the permit until, -we get your memo that the plans I are In compliance with your.shorellnee�amptlonlefter. Note, they are removing the existing blue awningaind building a h6avy*nber portico which Includes new concrete columns, there Is e)derlor work on thezecond floor decks, they are adding dock apertures, they will be,poudng new deck lbofings, and I COM remember everything,else but the, working.bld is $384,634. Lf, Rj I -MT M, W P- gg, RPRIY p M 5�1 ,-i Vl� 71, . JA! , 7;,�' p 013 MORANDUM, 7. ME 0 Date: AU ust 5, 1997 L) a , 9 408 LU To: Wv -J Planning Division 4 UJ Frow, Gordy Hyde, Engineering Coordinator IL Subject: Progosed Remodel at 51 W. D@Xt—on St. (ADB-97-101) z The application has been reviewed by the Engineering Division. The Division is unable to respond, as the applicationdoes not reflect what changes are being proposed. Ui uj� Is this just an interior remodel? IS any square footage being added? The application is incomplete as presented. The applicant should be required to complete the ADB 0 application before further review can take place. The Engineering Division reserves the a t: right to make additional comments and requirements on forthcoming submittals for this project. The applicant will need to CoMply with all the terms of any future permits. The U_ application is not complete as submitted. z Ui z Crf* OF EDN16NDS, ENGINEEWNG DIMION 71OLEM q *7 CITY 'OF EDMONDS: BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR 121 STH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 -,FAX (425) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Publ!cWor * Plannina/Buildina *Parks and Recreation a Ennineerina Wastewater Treatment Plant MEMORANDUM DATE: August 29, 1997 TO: Architectural Design Board Applicants FROM: John Bissell, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Architectural Design Board Agenda and Staff Report Your application been scheduled for the September 3, 1997 Architectural Design Board (ADB) Meeting. Enclosed are an agenda and staff report for the ADB meeting.: Please find your item on the agenda. A representative must be present for each item, including the Consent agenda. The Board often moves items off the Consent agenda and onto the regular agenda. If a representative is not present, the Board will not act on the item. Please note the statement at the too of the agenda. You must obtain sign permits, building Pe its and any other required mewmit—from the Buildina Division In addition to obtaining approval froM the ADB. The review �jt the ADB is not a substitute for review of building permits, and an apRroval by the ADB does not grant construction approval. Please carefully read the staff report pertaining to your item. If you find any errors, missing information or if you have any questions, please call me at 771-0220 before the meeting. It is important that items going to the Board be as complete and clear as possible in order to avoid, confusion during the meeting. If the Board does not understand your project, they may not approve it. 0 lncorpo�ated August 11, 1890.0 Sister Cities International — Hekihan, Japan F , : . . . ...... a 01 u- 0 Z 0 Z muq ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEETING SYNOPSIS September 3, 1997 The September 3, 1997 meeting of the Architectural Design Board was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Young in the Plaza Room of the Edmonds Library Building, 650 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington. 1. RO L CALL Present James Young, Chair Steve Sullivan Jeff Oaklief Craig Pierce James Chalupnic Absent Linda Goodrick Carreen Rubenkonig Sta John Bissell, Associate Planner Meg Gruwell Karin Noyes, Recorder 2. CORRESPONDENCE/COMMENTS FROM STAFF Mr. Bissell asked that the staff comments be postponed until the end of the meeting. The Board concurred. 3. ARCHITECTILRAL DESIGN BOARD COMMENTS None, 4. CONSENT AGENDA There were no items on the consent agenda. 5. AGENDA '�::ADB�97-10V' REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL TO CHANGE THE SIDING AND EXTERIOR APPEARANCE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING Brad Butterfield 5 1 West Dayton (Final Approval) Architectural Design Board September 3, 1997 Page I 'Iffil) 011111,24 ADB-97-111 REQUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF A NEW FREESTANDING SIGN FOR AN EXISTING BUSINESS. McDonald-McCiarry 630 Main Street 6. DISCUSSION -OF ITEMS APPROVED BY STAFF WITHOUT ADB APPROVAL Mr. Bissell advised that staff recently Approved a proposal for new illuminated cabinet signs to replace existing signs at an existing auto repair building located at 21104 - 70th Avenue West. These signs will replace the signs located on the front of the building 7be free standing sign located on 212th will be removed. 7. ADJO ............ M", V�, - 15 Y i.4 j� z August 8, 1997 01 O'Lu John Bissell, Cn W -1 1- City of Edmonds Cn �LL 250 5th Avenue N. -0 LU Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Addendum I - Addendum to Edmonds Bay Office Building project that is currently in LL Architectural Design Board review (ADB). U) Dear John: Zt z There has been a small change to the project. Brad and I met earlier this week, at the site, with UA LU Steve Fisher of Edmonds Public Works, and Don Nicholson of Sound Disposal, Inc. Our office was interested in getting their opinion of having the trash and recycling functions moved back 0- into its original location within the building ( see partial plan ). They both expressed that it would be their preference; it's secure and it would help control the rodent problem. LU As such, the existing trash structure will be demolished and a new enclosure built to house the 0 OS z existing transformer in that area. Also, one of the current parking spaces outside the prop ed LU U): trash room will have a sign designating " No Parking In This Space 4:00 AM - 9:00 AM Monday, Thursday, and Saturday as instructed by Don Nicholson z Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, 'ina Byron K 0, Butterfie Design Group 400 D on Edmonds, A 98020 Enclosure cc: Jim Samuels ............ owner Steve Fisher ............ Edmonds Public Works N 4�-44 'Y, WE Don Nicholson ........ Sound Disposal, Inc. RK, Z 0, -F. F % , E- ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD STAFF REPORT August 29, 1997 ADB-97-101 REOUEST FOR FINAL APPROVAL TO CHANGE THE SIDING, AND EXTERIOR APPEARANCE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING A. ApplicantlProverty Owner Architect/Representative Jim Samuel Brad Butterfield JSH Properties Butterfield Design Group 14355 NE 24th #202 400 Dayton St. Bellevue, WA 98007 Edmonds, WA 98020 B. Site Location: 51 West Dayton C. Introduction: The applicant is proposing to alter the siding, decking, and modulation of an existing office building located on the waterfront at 51 west Dayton. The applicant is proposing to remove all signs and neon from the building. Additionally, a survey revealed that the deck located on the west side of the building protrudes approximately 0.3 feet across the property line on to City Park property. The applicant is proposing to alter the deck so that it is no longer modulated and so that it does not protrude across the property line. D. Background: I. Zoning: The property is zoned Commercial Waterfront which allows the existing and proposed use. 2. Environmental Review: The proposal is exempt from the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Therefore no environmental checklist is required and the applicant and the City have completed the SEPA review process. 3. Shoreline Permits: The project is within the limits of the Shoreline Management Program. The City has determined that this project is exempt from the requirements of a shoreline permit as routine maintenance. 4. Issues: Design of the building, site, and landscaping have all been addressed by the applicant in their proposal, and the Architectural Design Board must determine the appropriateness of the proposal. E. Staff Analysis: 1. Building Design: The applicant is proposing to re -side the existing office building. The applicant is also proposing to remove the modulation from the existing deck on the, west side of the building in order to provide more deck floor area and to corTect the existing property line encroachment. In addition, the applicant is proposing to add a clock and comer accent to the building. ADB-97-� i0i j 4Y Materials: 7beapplicinit h d f, ili''di as proposed corrugated metal. for th body.o the-buildingan, or e eck faces, with dr�vit for the.co acceniand roof parapet accent. mer b) Lighting: iie 'applicant has Proposed several different a of lighting throughout the building. Most: typ notably, theApplicant has proposed lighti rior s* ifig'of th6 eastern deck faces. rig within the exie id c), ,Colors: U Salmonis proposed for the body of the buildi with gray for the deck railings and for the ng dryvit trim. d) Signing: 0) �U. ­0 The applicant has proposedtoremove all signs'form the building.. No new signs are proposed. F., Compliance withcriteria: In order for the ADB to approve.this itern, the'Board tinist make the following findings: That the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted City, Z iE policies. -41 2. That the staff has found that the proposal meets the, requirements of the zoning ordinance,: US, LU or the City has approved a variance or a modification under the zoning ordinance. Use 3. That the proposal as approved or conditionally. approved satisfies the criteria and purposes*. ECDC section 20.10, ADB Criteria, ECDC section 10.12 1 andscaping; and ECDC section 20.60, sign.code. VJ LU U U. Attachments: LU Vicinity Map 2. ApplicanCs declarations; elevations and site plan Z 2 anal r--A