CU-1991-69 HE decision and attachments.pdf00"'o 011 HIN I
0�0
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FILE: CU -69-91
OF STEVENS PROFESSIONAL CENTER FOR
APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
DECISION: The conditional use permit is granted subject to
the conditions listed.
10 'k y - 0 " TO 7 01 k V W 0 -4 9- ZI
Lewis Nelson Architects, 2800 Northup Way, Suite 100, Bellevue,
Washington 98004, (hereinafter referred to as Applicant),
requested approval of a conditional use permit for an extension of
a professional office building in an RM 2.4 zone. The property is
located at 21616 - 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, Washington (hereinafter
referred to as subject property).
A hearing on the request was held before the Hearing Examiner of
the City of Edmonds, Washington, on October 29, 1991.
At the hearing the following presented testimony and evidence:
JEFFREY S. WILSON
Planning Dept.
City of Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98020
MARK NELSON
2800 Northup, Way
Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98004
COLIN BADEN
2800 Northup Ilay
Suite 100
Bellevue, WA 98004
At the hearing the following exhibits were submitted and were
admitted as part of the official record of this proceeding;
Exhibit I - Staff Report
1"'2 - Vicinity Map
91 3 - Application
91 4 - Project Description
* 1ncotpora�ecl August 11, 189,0 o
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: CU -69-91 11/21/91
Page 2
Exhibits (continued)
Exhibit
5
- Existing Site Conditions
of
6
- Existing planted areas
of
7
- Landscaped area
it
8
- ADB Minutes of 10/2/91
9
- Environmental Assessment, 9/11/91
"
10
- Environmental Checklist, 9/3/91
11
- Preliminary Drainage Control
Calculation (9/9/91)
12
- Mitigated DNS, 10/20/91
"
13
- Comments from Public Works Division
"
14
- Comments from Parks & Recreation Division
"
15
- Comments from Fire Department
After due consideration of the evidence presented by the Appli-
cant, and evidence elicited during the public hearing, the
following Findings of Fact and Conclusions constitute the basis of
the decision of the Hearing Examiner.
FINDINGS
1. The application is for a conditional use permit for an exten-
sion of a professional office building for property located at
21616 - 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, Washington. The proposal is to
allow an office expansion on site.
2. The subject property is zoned RM 2.4. The Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) 16.30.010(2) (C) requires a conditional use
permit for hospitals or related activities in an RM 2.4 zone. The
Applicant seeks the permit pursuant to this ordinance.
3. The Applicant originally applied for a conditional use permit
for excavation of earth material on site. However, at the public
hearing it was determined that less than 500 cubic yards of earth
material was required to be removed. ECDC 18.30.040 requires a
conditional use permit for an excess of 500 cubic yards of earth
material excavated on a site. As a result, no conditional use
permit was required for the excavation. However, a conditional use
permit is required for the use of the property on site.
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: CU -69-91 11/21/91
Page 3
4. It is the intent of the Applicant to develop a 10,125 square
foot addition on site. The building would be used in conjunction
with other medical office buildings on site. Of the total con-
struction, 6,694 square feet will be a covered walkway, while 3,931
square feet will be the new office space.
5. The Applicant will provide 57 additional parking spaces on
site. Thirty --three (33) of the parking spaces will be enclosed.
6. The Architectural Design Board (ADS) recommended that the
Applicant seek a variance to reduce the number of parking spaces on
site. The ADB's recommendation was based on the fact that
additional landscaping could be provided where the parking is
proposed to be located.
7. ECDC 20.05.010 sets forth the criteria for review of a
conditional use permit within the City of Edmonds. That criteria
include:
A. The proposed use must be consistent with the Compre-
hensive Plan of the City of Edmonds.
B. The proposed use and its location must be consistent with
the purposes of the zoning ordinances and the purposes of the
zone district in which the use is to be located, and the
proposed use meet all applicable requirements of the zoning
ordinance.
C. The proposed use, as conditionally approved, must not be
significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and
welfare, and to nearby private properties or improvements
unless the use is a public necessity.
D. The Hearing Examiner must determine if the proposed use
is transferable.
(ECDC)
8. The subject property has a zoning designation of RM 2.4. The
proposed use satisfies the purposes of RM 2.4 properties as set
forth in ECDC 16.30.000. The use will be complementary and
compatible with multiple residential uses in the area.
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: CU -69-91 11/21/91
Page 4
9. The Comprehensive Policy Plan Map of the City of Edmonds
designates the subject property as high density residential. The
proposed use of the property will be consistent with the purposes
of this Comprehensive Plan designation, and will provide a
complementary use.
10. The proposal is consistent with uses in the surrounding area.
It will not be detrimental to the subject property nor to any
properties to the north, south, east or west.
11. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), the
City of Edmonds was designated as lead agency. The mitigated
Determination of Non -Significance (MDNS) was issued for the
proposal on October 29, 1991. Although conditions were imposed in
the MDNS, no appeal was made.
12. At the public hearing no adverse testimony was received.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The Applicant requested approval of a conditional use permit
for the location of a medical office structure located at 21616 -
76th Avenue W, Edmonds, Washington. The structure will include the
expansion of an existing medical office facility.
2. A conditional use permit is required pursuant to the
provisions of ECDC 16.30.010(0)(1).
3. The Hearing Examiner of the City of Edmonds has jurisdictional
authority to hold a hearing and to issue a decision based on the
authority granted in ECDC 20.100.010.
4. ECDC 20.05.010, which sets forth the criteria for review of
conditional use permits within the City of Edmonds, has been
reviewed and addressed in the Findings of this document. With
adherence to these conditions, the requested use satisfies those
criteria.
DECISION
Based upon the preceding Findings of Facts and Conclusions, the
testimony and evidence submitted at the public hearing, and upon
HEARING EXAMINER DECISION
RE: CU -69-91 11/21/91
Page 5
the impressions of the Hearing Examiner at a site view, it is
hereby ordered that the requested conditional use permit for the
location of an office structure in an RM 2.4 zone for property
located at 21616 - 76th Avenue W, Edmonds, Washington is granted.
There is no need for a conditional use permit for the excavation of
soils on site. The conditional use permit for the location of the
office building is subject to the following conditions:
1. That the Applicant secure all necessary permits prior to
construction.
2. The Applicant shall adhere to all conditions as set forth
in the Mitigated Determination of Non -Significance
(MDNS) .
3. The development of the site shall be similar to that as
shown on the Site Plan which was admitted as Exhibit 5.
ENTERED this 21st day of November, 1991, pursuant to the authority
granted the Hearing Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community
Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
14 1'401a4lec�xp
J ES M. DRIB OL
Baring Examiner
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Written appeals alleging specific error of fact or other grounds
for appeal may be filed with the Planning Department, City of
Edmonds, Civic Center, Edmonds, Washington 98020, within fourteen
(14) days of the date of the Hearing Examiner's final action. In
this matter any appeal must be received by the Department prior to
5:00 p.m. on December 5, 1991.
CITY OF EDMONDS
A,50 5TH AVENUE NORTHI EDMONDS, WA 98020
WEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO'. JIM DRISCOLL, HEARING EXAMINER
FROM .
17T
Jeffrey S. Wilson, AICD
Current Planning Supervisor
DATE: October 29, 1991
0
HEARING DATE, TIME, AND PLACE: NOVEMBER -7. 1991 AT 9600 AM
Plaza Room - Edmonds Library
650 Main Street
Section Page
Application................................................... I
Recommendations............................................. 2
SiteDescription ............................................ 3
History.................................................... 4
State Environmental Policies Act (SEPA) ..................... 5
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance ........ 5
TechnicalCommittee.......................... .................. 6
ComprehensivePlan .......................................... 6
Appendices .................................................. 6
Partiesof Record ............................................ 6
I. INTRODUCTION
A. APPLICATION
1 Applicant: Lewis Nelson Architects representing
Stevens Professional Center (see Attachment 2).
CU6991/10-28-91
IM
Steve. Professional Ctr.
File No., CU -69-91
Page 2 of 6
2. Site Location: 21616 76th Avenue West, the
southwest corner of 76th Avenue West and 216th
Street Southwest (see Attachment 1).
3. Request: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to
allow site grading in excess of 500 cubic yards of
material in association with the construction of
approximately 24,370 square feet of additional
building space, which includes enclosure of
existing stairs and outdoor corridors to an
existing medical office building, and revisions to
site parking and landscaping (see Attachments 2
through 6).
4. Review Process: Conditional Use Permit, Hearing
Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final
decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC,) Section 20.05 (Conditional Use
Permits).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC) Section 18.40 (Grading and
Retaining Walls).
10 DKORK 1A ZIOY.-Vo 1081�
Based on Statements of Fact, Conclusions, and
Attachments in this report, we recommend approval of
this application subject to the following conditions:
1. This application is subject to the applicable
requirements contained in the Edmonds Community
Development Code. It is the responsibility of the
applicant to ensure compliance with the various
provisions contained in these ordinances.
Attachments 12 through 14 are provided in this
report to familiarize the applicant with some of
the additional development regulations. These
attachments do not include all of the additional
regulations.
2. All excavations and grading shall comply with
Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.)
1988 Edition.
3. The applicant shall obtain a grading permit from
the Building Department and comply with all
conditions of permit approval.
CU6991/10-28-91
Steve. Professional Ctr.
File No. CU -69-91
Page 3 of 6
4. The applicant shall submit an erosion control plan
for review and approval by the City Engineer prior
to the issuance of the grading permit.
5. The applicant shall submit a truck route plan to
the City Engineer for approval prior to removal of
any excavated material, or import of any material.
6. The applicant shall be responsible for keeping all
streets clean and free of debris at all times.
7. All grading/fill work shall be done during normal
working hours of the City of Edmonds (8:00 a.m. to
5:00 p.m., Mondays through Fridays).
8. The applicant shall be responsible for providing
verification of the total amount of material prior
to finalizing the grading permit. A soils
engineer shall monitor the grading/filling.
Verification shall be by letter from a licensed
soils engineer stating that he/she inspected the
site and that the grading/filling conforms to
Chapter 70 of the U.B.C., 1988 Edition.
9. If deemed necessary by the City Engineer, the
applicant shall provide traffic control during the
removal of site excavation material, and/or the
placement of fill material.
10. The applicant should have the site plan approved
by the City Engineer prior to any site work.
11. The permit should be transferable.
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site, Development and Zoning:
a. Facts:
(1) Size: The subject property is
approximately 147,580 square feet (3.4
acres) in area. The site is generally
configured as a square, with property
dimensions of approximately 450 -feet by
302 -feet, with a small portion of
property to the south (see Attachment
4).
CU6991/10-28-91
Steve. Professional Ctr.
File No. CU -69-91
Page 4 of 6
(2) Land Use: The subject property is
currently developed with a medical
office complex and associated parking
and landscaping (see Attachment 4).
(3) Zoning: The existing zoning is Multiple
Residential - Medium Density (RM -2.4).
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: Generally the
topography of the site is flat. Site
vegetation includes native evergreen and
deciduous trees and other site
landscaping (see Attachments 4 and 5).
b. Conclusions: The proposed excavation and
fill should not be detrimental to the site
nor does it appear to be incompatible with
the current use of the property or it's
zoning designation.
2. Neighboring Development and Zoning:
a. Facts:
(1) North: The old Edmonds High School
parking lot. The site is zoned Public
Use.
(2) South: Developed with single -,family
residences in an Multiple Residential -
Medium Density (RM -2.4).
(3) East: Developed with Stevens Memorial
Hospital, and Multiple Residential -
Medium Density (RM -2.4).
(4) West: Developed with single-family
residences in an Multiple Residential
Medium Density (RM -2.4).
b. Conclusion: The proposed use for which the
applicant has applied for a grading permit
for, is compatible with the surrounding
development and zoning.
1. Fact: The applicant has received approval from
the City's Architectural Design Board (A.D.B.) for
the proposed development under File No. ADB -80-91
(see Attachment 7).
CU6991/10-2,8-91
Steve. Professional Ctr.
File No. CU -69-91
Page 5 of 6
1. a. Fact: A Mitigated Determination of
Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued on October
291 1991. The Environmental Checklist,
Determination and additional Environmental
Information are included as Attachments 8
through 11. Mitigating measures required of
the applicant include:
(1) All excavations and grading shall comply
with Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building
Code (U.B.C.), 1988 Edition.
(2) The applicant shall obtain a building
permit from the Building Department and
comply with all conditions of permit
approval.
(3) The applicant shall submit a drainage
plan to the City Engineering Division
and follow the required guidelines.
(4) The applicant shall make every
reasonable effort to keep exposed soil
covered during construction.
(5) The landscaping shall be installed as
approved by the City prior to occupancy
of the building.
(6) Noisy construction operations shall be
limited to normal 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
non -holiday workday hours.
(7) Construction dust shall be suppressed
with a stream of water when necessary
and earth shall be removed from wheels
of construction vehicles to avoid
tracking earth onto surrounding streets.
b. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have
satisfied the requirements of SEPA.
1 • ,�111 � � � � I � � � � � � �� � 11 17774T.MW
1. a. Fact: Section 20.05.010 of the ECDC states
the criteria by which all conditional use
permit applications are to be reviewed.
b. conclusion: As conditioned, the requested
conditional use permit would be consistent
with the criteria of ECDC Section 20.05.010.
CU6991/10-28-91
Stevei- Professional Ctr.
File No. CU -69-91
Page 6 of 6
1 a. Fact: Comments and requirements placed on
the project by other departments are found in
Attachments 12 through 14.
b. Conclusion: The applicant must follow the
requirements of other Departments as set
Barth in Attachments 12 through 14.
WffiEEEKq9J0!J"04 IT 0,4 � f _4 I
1. a. Fact: The subject property and adjacent
properties are designated as High Density
Residential.
b. Conclusion: As conditioned, the proposed
conditional use permit does not appear to
conflict with the purpose of the
Comprehensive Plan.
Attachments 1 through 14 are attached.
1. Vicinity Map
2. Application
3. Project Description
4. Existing Site conditions
5. Existing Planted Areas
6. Landscape Plan
7. A.D.B. Minutes of 10/2/91, File No. ADB -80-91
8. Environmental Assessment (9/11/91)
9. Environmental Checklist (9/3/91)
10. Preliminary Drainage Control Calculations (9/9/91)
11. Environmental Determination - Mitigated Determination
of Nonsignificance (10/29/91)
12. Comments from Public Works Division (9/13/91)
13. Comments from Parks & Recreation Division (9/16/91)
14. Comments from Fire Department (9/16/91)
Applicant
Planning Division
Public Works Division
Engineering Division
Parks, & Recreation Division
Fire Department
CU6991/10-28-91
AgF�A SAF F(f)lZ-
STT7\A�NS
131--i-.I— ,
214th. PL. S.W.
a
02 r
7N PA K �
4 3 2
S. W.
( 4/5
2 13 !4 /5
GL N
4 3 2
S. W.
T14
SPS 3~87
5 s
p1 1 bo
3
216t4 ST S.W.
4co
e 1-003
M 1-00465 1_�
3 2 1 1
219th. ST. S.W.
D
4 a 6 l•097
7 B 9
277
218th. ST. S.W. I I
ATTACHMENT 1
17T C7 AIO rll &n ()I
0�04
1f
aN
a
D!10�
B
7
6
502
p2l,
04
Ol
ti
02W
01
2
02
03
04
-
T!
0�
12
/3-
�Y
Ol
I 02
/5
/6
04
I
I
1 r7r?02
01
ATTACHMENT 1
17T C7 AIO rll &n ()I
city of edmonds
land use application
::;
... .
V ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
❑ COMP PLAN CHANGE
C' CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ELLE # Q -6c( �1 ZONE Z' 4
�j FORMAL SUBDIVISION DATE REC'D BY t-::7JS
❑ HOME OCCUPATION FEE 2�� REC IPT # i �-7 3'
❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMEND HEARING DATE-
11
ATE❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOP. I&HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC
❑ REZONE
❑ SETBACK ADJUSTMENT
❑ SHORELINE PERMIT ACTION TAKEN:
❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ APPEALED
❑ STREET VACATION
❑ VARIANCE APPEAL #
❑ RESUBMITTAL FILE #
Lewis Nelson Architects 827-5602
Applicant —. Phone
Address 2800 Northup Way Bellevue, WA 98004 Suite 100
Property Address or Location 21616 76th Ave. Edmonds Wa.
Property Owner Edmonds Assoc. Phone 624-0974
Address 6501 Columbia Center 701 Fifth Ave. Seattle, Wa 98104
Agent Lewis,Nelson,Architects Phone 827-5602
Address See Above
Tax Acc # See Attached Sec. Twp. Rng.
Legal Description See Attached
Details of Project or Proposed Use See Attached
The undersigned applicant and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing of the application
agrees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including
reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or in part upon false, misleading,
inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
The undersigned applicant grants his/her/its permission for public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter
the subject property for the purpose of inspection "posting attenda this application.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/OWNERIAGENT t4� ATTACHMENT 2
rT1 Z7 nin r€€ Fn n3
JULY 30 1991
PROPOSED
OPOSED FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
LEwisNELSON
A R C H I T E C T S
2800 Northup Way * Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98004
ATTACHMENT 3
- I � - — — I — n I
The basic elements of the facility improvement program are to construct an enclosed
corridor system, add up to 4,091 sq.ft. of additional space, and significantly remodel the
exterior of the building. Under the proposal, existing stair shed roofs would be removed
and replaced with a vertical force. The new building shell enclosure would receive an
exterior acrylic finish system that is used on many new medical buildings.
The new finish would create smooth monolithic forms infilled against the existing wood
siding, and provide an interesting contrast that would enhance the buildings character. The
existing wood siding would be brightened through the use of a lighter paint scheme. A
new metal railing system would replace the existing wood banding which would lighten the
heavy appearance of the structure.
Under this proposal, parking would be extended into the newly -acquired Property to the
south of the existing facility. There would be less aggressive parking changes in other
areas. This would serve to minimize disruptions in the parking while building construction
is underway.
What are now exterior doors to office suites would be replaced with a new: uniform ,
modern assembly as part of the corridor enclosure program.
A new landscape scheme would be introduced which would utilize smaller deciduous trees
to improve building visibility and brighten the site interior. Existing conifer trees will be
either selectively removed or pruned.
A new signage system would be developed. The system would include "monument signs"
at the roadway, new sign boards, and new uniform tenant signage.
S l D J i l If D 21 V
NOS,1ANS1tiX:4'j
PROPERTY DESCRIPTIONS:
LEGAL DISCRIPTION: Lots 1,23 and the East 60 feet of lot 4, Block 1, Hadley's
Acre, According to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 8,
of Plats, Page 30, in Snohomish County, Washington.
SECTION: NE 30
TOWNSHIP: 27N
RANGE: 4E
TAX ACCOUNT #: lot 1 4610-001-001-0100
4610-001-001-0209
4610-001-001-0308
lot 2/3 4610-001-002-0000
lot 4 4610-001-004-0107
4610-001-004-0206
LEGAL DISCRIPTION: Lot 6, McGrath Homes, According to the Plat thereof
recorded in Volume 19, of Plats, Page 18, In Sonohomish
County, Washington.
TAX ACCOUNT #: lot 6 5295-000 00rr 7
D.
IT,
000S�Po�oo
°®gyp®� oat°� D I....�?
k1
°g
RN I
,
l
DD�D�DD DD�D��DDD�
OVEW[E o D7CC DQDQD AWA ...._. ass..
ATTACHMENT 4
FILE N0. CU -69-91
I i i"
T-- I I R
n
EXISTING ISL NTE■ -RE 5
E�V 1111
AS
►MIE WINS ATL
A
�j
ATTACHMENT 5
FILE N0. CU -69-91
IIRMW NG PL • N
e z
a
ATTACHMENT 6
FILE NO. CU -69-91
M&
MW
desponding to Board Member Bylsma's request to resolve the issue of landscaping along the
alley, Mr. Somers noted that the Code requires more landscaping; that this proposal does not
.urrently meet the Code requirements.
Mary Ritcher, 543 Dayton, relayed to the Board that her main concern with this project is
.he potential noise created by the mechanical equipment, since family homes are located across
:he street and to the south of this site.
ACTION
,CARD MEMBER BYLSMA MOVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ADB -79-91 WITH THE ADDED COMMENTS THAT THE
-ANDSCAPING BE BROUGHT UP TO MINIMUM CODES; THAT A ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT SOLUTION FOR SCREENING OF
HAT EQUIPMENT SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE BOARD FOR THE NEXT MEETING; THAT THE BOARD
2ECOMMENDS A WAIVER FOR THE FIVE-FOOT SIDEWALK BE GRANTED; AND THAT THE COLORS AS SUBMITTED
ARE APPROVED. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG SECONDED AND THE MOTION WAS CARRIED.
ADB -80-91 STEVENS PROFESSIONAL CENTER ADDITION
Lewis Nelson Architects
21616 76th Ave. W
Preliminary Approval
-he site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of 76th Ave. W., and 216th
.treet. The site has approximately 441 ft. of frontage on 216th St. S.W., and 301 ft. along
"6th Ave. W. The site includes an existing 39,475 sq. ft. medical office building and parking
or 196 spaces. The applicant proposes enclosing existing walkways and constructing a new
addition that would add 10,125 s. ft. of space to the building. The applicant proposes to
•estripe and reconfigure the entire parking lot, and 52 parking spaces would be added to
ncrease the parking to 248 stalls.
A. Site
-he site is an RM 2.4 zoned property that has 145,000 sq. ft. of lot area. Professional
iffices are a conditional use in RM zones, and the applicant needs conditional use approval
=or the proposed office expansion.
1. Access - Access to the site exists via 216th St. and 76th Ave. W.
2. Off -Street Parking - The entire parking would be restriped and reconfigured and
t e site relandscaped. Parking for 52 vehicles is required for the proposed office
expansion, and 52 additional spaces will be provided.
1. Building
1. Height Height allowed is 25 ft., and the proposed additions would be 27 ft. 9
inches. The proposal needs to be revised to comply with the height limitations of
the zone.
2. Exterior Details:
a. Walls - drivet. Colors will be submitted at a future meeting.
b. Roof - Standing seam metal roofing. Colors will be submitted at a future
meeting.
_. Lighting, Trash, Miscellaneous
1. Exterior lighting: No exterior lighting is shown on the building.
2. Trash: A trash enclosure is shown on the south side of the parking lot, and a
a�zardous waste shed is shown in the south west corner of the site.
3. Miscellaneous - Rooftop equipment would need to be screened. Utility meters must
e painted to match the building.
). Landscaping, Fencing, Rockeries
1. Landscaping - The proposed reconfiguration of the parking lot would result in
modifications to the landscaping. The items listed below are areas where the
landscaping plan does not comply with the Code landscape standards:
ADB Minutes
October 2, 1991
Page 18
ATTACHMENT 7
T'TI i" Rin nil rn n�
Section 20.12.020 c indicates that "Existing
the attractiveness of the site shouldbereta vege
and shrubbery�� vegetation that contributes to
Pian and saved (a calipPer or more) must be shown onEthe xi tproposedng 1Landscapficant eees
reasonabl nd incor orated into the landscape plan, if they are
Y attractive and of good quality.
The existing parking lot at Stevens Medical Ce
how new developments can integrate existing vegetation into the landscape
Center is an excellent example of
design, The new proposal asks that 77 existin
removed to gain four or five parkin s g large specimen trees beP
- the parking area for the medical Center including
in the northeast parking lot.
a vehicle use area Of over 90,000 s including the new area to be added has
7% of the vehicle use area must be q ft.
in According to Ordinance 20.12.035-c,
approximately 6,300 + sq, ft. (minimum) Of shall caping. That would be
dedicates only 4,750 sq. ft, to Planting bed.
Planting areas. the proposed design
The Board needs
appropriate. to review the standards and may waive the standards if
2• Fencing - No fence is shown.
3, Rockeries-
_ None shown.
E. ns
g - No sign change is proposed.
F• Other Requirements
1. The following is required with a building permit:
--a utility development plan.
--bonding to City code.
2. Underground wiring is required.
3. A conditional use permit is required from the Edmonds Hearin
Of more than 500 cubic yards is proposed.
Hearing Examiner if grading
4 The Engineering Department has indicated that a traffic study High traffic load driveways are required, and the 216th St.
exit only. All two dy will be required.
all parking stalls -Way driveways need require wheel stops.aPm minioachmum
needs to and an
Y need to eq twenty-four feet minimum width, and
detention is required.
Storm drainage
nzse-- usszoN
Mark Nelson, architect for this project and representative of the firm of Lewis Architects, 2800 Northrupia
was the goal of the owners toyrevitalize this bui ding Project.
Mr. Nelson stated
and Nelson
better compete with other office buildings in their area. Nelson stated that it
f the
had existing
nants the hadspaleft the
the building to
o o P t0 current standards to
space g gra et to more andarnsb� idingsSeeither veral obecause they
Mr. Nelson stated that upon his clients' request to improve the visual
his firm Hated several things that could be done,
is very thick and He said that thelandscaping,
of the building,
that is one area the woul Obscures the buildingfrom 76th as well as from 216th.
Y P g, as it exists,
Y would like to improve.
Mr. Nelson noted that the large fir trees on He said
Problem; that the owners recently had to re the site had become a nuisance and a
hazards presented by tree materials fallin place the roof and are concerned about thensafetye
owners would like to remove these trees.
5 and the darkness the trees create. He said the
Mr. Nelson said that the building, as it currently exists, has certain areas
height limitation
Proposing to restruand hthe ose Partioof cular
makeit
have been redesigned. that exceed the
more contemporary He said they are
Y in design and to add lighting
around the stairwell.
Mr. Nelson stated that the number of trees that will actually and that three of those trees are dead. He said 53
new trees will ebevadded, making thh ed from the stis 62,
g e total
ADB Minutes
October 2, 1991
Page 19 _
area of landscaping to be removed 9,300 square feet, with 6, 263 square feet to be added back
in. Mr. Nelson stated that the total new area would then equal 31,967 square feet.
Mr. Nelson further stated that 52 parking stalls will be added to this site. He said with
this new addition, they will have a total of 114 spaces. Mr. Nelson noted that a house to the
south of this site will be demolished to allow for a parking lot, creating 30 new stalls.
Mr. Nelson pointed out that they are only gaining 3,431 square feet of net rentable space. He
said that the only reason they are having to add the number of parking stalls proposed is
.because of the definition of the Code regarding the enclosure of the open corridors.
Mr. Nelson challenged the need for a traffic report. He said that only four more doctors will
be added to this site, and the impact would not be substantial enough to warrant such a
report. Mr. Nelson also noted that there was a discrepancy in the amount of required
landscaping in the parking area between his calculations and those of staff. He stated that
according to his calculations the area should be 5,779 square feet, and they have provided
6,963 square feet.
In the ensuing discussion between Board Members regarding this proposal, Board Member
Butterfield commented that the site as it currently exists is oppressive, and that the large
fir trees up against the building are bad. He further commented that the parking, as
proposed, appears to be less confusing than the current parking arrangement. Board Member
Beck agreed that the building was dated and hidden by 19 years of tree growth. He added that
the owners were making the right step in redesigning this structure.
Board Member Birch voiced his opinion that people are motivated to see a good physician, not
the building. He added that he did not have a problem with the basic design of the building,
but that he did have a problem with the removal of the amount of trees proposed to upgrade
this facility, especially in light of its location in a primarily single-family environment.
Board Member Birch stated that cutting down established Douglas firs at a height of 120 feet
in a community which values it trees needed further consideration, and that if he lived in
this neighborhood, he would be appalled that these trees were being cut down just to afford a
wider range of visibility for this building. Board Member Birch stated that this is not
Lynnwood, and that he would like to preserve the quality style living currently enjoyed by the
citizens of Edmonds.
Mr. Nelson responded that although he agreed that people go to see the physicians and not the
building, he said that good physicians are leaving because they want to work in a place that
is modern and can provide them with the good services that makes them feel goad about
practicing in a particular building. He further responded that most of the zoning around the
site is multi -family; that some of the perimeter trees are being retained, and that some of
the trees must come down to meet Code requirements for parking.
Patty Reedy, 21706 76th Avenue West, said she has been a resident at this address for almost
31 years, and that her current concern was whether the property where the house is to be
demolished, abutting the back of her property, is zoned for a parking lot. She also raised
questions about traffic impacts on the shared four -family driveway which, after the demolition
of the house, could be utilized by people parking in this proposed parking lot. She requested
that access to this driveway be blocked.
John Reedy, 21706 76th Avenue West, raised his objection concerning the removal of the big fir
trees, and suggested they remove instead the smaller ornamental trees surrounding this
building to increase the site visibility. He added that after tagging the trees to be removed,
the project members had inadvertently tagged one of the trees on his property. Mr. Reedy then
reiterated his wife's concern about the shared driveway.
Steve Bullock, 9403 234th Street Southwest, said he had no problem with the design of the
building, but also objected to the removal of so many of the old trees. He agreed with Mr.
Reedy's suggestion to remove the smaller ornamental trees.
Malcolm Edwards, attorney for the owners of this site, 6501 Columbia Center, said that he
wanted to come forward to debunk the tree problem. He stated that he had worked as a lawyer
for the building owners for the past 15 years, and that they have tried to be good citizens in
the community regarding their plans for this building.
Mr. Edwards asked the Board Members to look at their submittal, specifically L2, and noted
that the only trees to be removed were those butting up against the building, and the few
trees out in the parking area necessary to meet the Code requirements of the City when the
ADB Minutes
October 2, 1991
Page 20
0
corridors are enclosed. Mr. Edwards stated the landscape plan as implemented would create
little difference in the appearance from the street at all.
Mr. Edwards, in addressing the issue of shared driveway access raised by Mr. and Mrs. Reedy in
earlier testimony, pointed out to the Board that the plans show this access to be deadended;
that there will be no access to this property through that driveway. Mr. Edwards pointed out
that the net effect, then, would be a reduction in the number of vehicles accessing this
driveway, and, therefore, a benefit to these neighbors.
Mr.. Edwards stated that the owners, all of whom are citizens of Edmonds, were only trying to
improve the quality of their building to retain good physicians for the community and their
building.
Collin Baden, 1520 Northeast 75th Street, Seattle, went before the Board to answer landscape
questions. Mr. Baden said he couldn't answer Mr. Beck's question as to how many of the
trees to be removed were ornamental since he had not quantified them. He said of the 54 trees
to be installed, the species varied, and therefore ranged in height. Board Member Beck said
that he did not have any trouble with granting preliminary approval for this project, but
suggested that the Board make a site visit to get a better understanding of the impact the
tree removal would make in order to reach an informed decision.
Responding to a question from Board Member Birch, Mr. Somers noted that the owners could apply
for a variance to reduce the amount of parking required because of the enclosed corridors.
Board Member Birch said that would be his recommendation: to apply for a variance so they
could keep some of the trees in the parking area that would not affect the new construction of
the building. Board Member Beck concurred.
ACTION
BOARD MEMBER BIRCH'MOVED PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF ADB -80-91, AND THAT THE APPLICANT
INVESTIGATE, FOR THE NEXT HEARING DATE SCHEDULED, THE POSSIBILITY OF A VARIANCE FOR THE
TREES IN THE OUTER AREAS; AND TO FLAG THE TREES WITH ENGINEERING TAPE SQ
CORRIDORS; THAT THE BOARD ENCOURAGES THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE VERSES THE REMOVAL OF THE
THE BOARD CAN MAKE A
SITE VISIT OF THE TREES TO BE REMOVED. BOARD MEMBER YOUNG SECONDED AND THE MOTION WAS CARRIED.
ADB -83-91 NEW POST OFFICE AT PERRINVILLE
Hewltt Isley Architects, Michael Anderson
Olympic View Drive at 76th Ave. W.
Preliminary Approval
The applicant has indicated that this project is exempt from City of Edmonds review since it
is a Federal project, but has voluntarily submitted the application for ADB review of the site
lay -out and building colors. The landscape plan will be submitted at a later date.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new post office building on a triangular site at the
intersection of Olympic View Drive at 76th Ave. W. The site captains a deep ravine that has
been partially filled and the stream at the base of the ravine has been deeculp
ted at the
north side of the ravine. The applicant is proposing to fill the existing ravine on the site
and move the existing stream into a new stream bed that would run along the east side of the
site. The new post office building would be constructed at the center of the site, and a
public parking lot would be located on the south side of the building and a post office
employee parking lot and truck loading area would be located on the north side of the
building. The existing stream enters the site through a culvert and runs through the base of
the ravine before entering a culvert at the north side of the site. The applicants propose
daylighting the stream on the south side of the site and running the stream through an open
channel along the east side of the site, and then through a culvert that would connect to the
existing culvert at the north end of the site.
The Postal Service is claiming lead agency status for environmental review, and is claiming
that the proposal is exempt from State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review, but the project
is not exempt from National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review. To this date the City
has not received the NEPA determination.
The Fire department has reviewed this proposal and has concluded that two fire hydrants are
required, one near the main access points on both Olympic View Drive and on 76th Ave. W.
DISCUSSION
ADB Minutes
October 2, 1991
Page 21
Qla QE t►I•►l la/ ► PROFESSIONAL l f
ENVIRONMENTALA5aESSIVIEN DATE SUBMITTED:e-Qc jam_ IL 1921
The Information on this form will be used to determine the effect of your action upon the environment of the City of Edmonds.
Please answer each question as thoroughly as possible.
�WA41107
Area 745,284 square feet Soils Type Silty sand and gravel, Limitations NA, Description of_ topography (%
slope) Average slope =grox, 2,66% to r S
Grading: Estimated cubic yards <75
Filling: Estimated cubic yards 4(b (<500 cubic yards)
Estimated area to be paved (Including buildings) 113,597 square feet
Estimated area In open space (pervious surfaces) 31,693 square feet
Stream - Estimated flow (cubic feet per second) N.A.
Will stream be altered? N.A. If yes, to what degree/ N.A.
Other water bodies?
Impact on storm drainage Minimal Method for handling runoff L1Pw modificatlon to e)ostlna on-site storm water
detenirbn system
Adjacent to shorelines zone?No Witten 200 feet of MHHW? No
E INN 0 ►l�4filC01LAI
Type and approximate number of trees Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, Western Hemlock, Atlas Blue Cedar
Pacffig 12gawood,I e n Chegy, Japanese Maple, f Mal2le. I?ed Alder.-Furple Loaf Plum, Qopper
Beech, Birch for a total of 162 trees
Minimum diameter of trees to remain 31n. of trees to be removed 47%(includes 5 dead)
Groundcover . Net loss 2600 Sa. Ft. +/ , !vv Salal & Junip' ei% to be removed 8.5%+/ -
Proposed landscaping, if any Evergreen trees, shrubs & around cover, & Deciduous Accent & street trees
4. EXISTING LAND USE WITHIN 300 FEET
Single Multl-
Vagont Family Family Commercid Other
North X X Play- Field_
South X X_--
- it
at
West X _
E Wj 1:40111 Will! I W 411
Estimated increase In auto trips daily Appro)dmately X b1z
Availability of public transportation Adlucent t -Q the North s' m si
Neighborhood Iml2roved service and earan City-wide Minimal Regional None
7. EFFECTS ON AIR,QUALITY . None
8. CHANGES IN NOISE: GENERATION
copy of City of Edmonds Document ENVIRON/TXTMB061 04/17/89
ATTACHMENT 8
r -r, r Rin r11 rn n-1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST STEVENS PROFESSIONAL CENTER -
SEPTEMBER 3, 1990
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project, if applicable:
Stevens Professional Center
2. Name of applicant: LEWISINELSON ARCHITECTS
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person:
LEWISINELSON ARCHITECTS
Mark Nelson
2800 Northup Way
Phone: (206) 827-5602
Fax #. (206) 822 5490
4. Date checklist prepared: 0913191
5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable):
House Demolition to begin Fall 1991
General Construction Package Construction to begin Mid 1992
Completion Winter 1992
7. Do you have any pians for future additions, expansion, or further activity
related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain:
No additional expansion plans at present.
S. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared,
or will be prepared, -directly related to this proposal.
Asbestos surveys far the residence to be removed and the current building are being prepared.
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals o�
other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If
yes, explain.
Yes, Demolition Permit is applied far.
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your
proposal, if known.
Architectural Design Board
Building Permit
Clearing and Grading Permit
PAGE - 1
ATTACHMENT 9
rTI F" hin nrr rn nN
11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed
uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later
in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal.
You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may
modify t ais form to include additional specific information on project
description.)
24,3 70 square feet including enclosure of existing exterior stairs/corridors and addition -to the Existing
medical office building plus additions and revisions to the site parking lot and landscaping.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to
understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street
address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal
would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site
(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic maF
if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the
agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with
any permit applications related to this checklist.
The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of 76th Ave. E and 216th St. Southwest.
ENVIRONi-NTAL ELEMENTS
a. General description of the site (circle one):
Slight slope, flat, rolling., hilly, steep slopes,
mountainous, other. (average is about 2.66a slope)
b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate
percent slope)?
5%
C. What general types of soils are found on the site
(for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)?
If you know the classification of agricultural soils,
specify them and note any prime farmland.
Silty Sand gravel and glacial till.
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable
soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe.
FAR
PAGE - 2
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
e
f.
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
Describe the purpose, type and approximate quantities
of any filling or grading proposed. Indicate source
of fill.
Less than 400 cubic yards of fill are to be imported for miscellaneous grading
revisions at the parking lot. Source unknown at this time.
Could erosion occur as a result of Clearing,
construction, or use? If so, generally describe.
Minimum erosion possible during construction (confined area)
g. About what percent of the site will be covered with
impervious surfaces after project construction
(for example, asphalt or buildings)?
Approximately 78% of site is to be covered
with impervious surfaces.
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion or
other impacts to the earth, if any:
Contractor is required to protect exposed cuts and provide filter fences
(Normal construction provisions).
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from
the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors,industrial
wood smoke) during construction and when the project
is completed? If any, generally describe and give
approximate quantities if known.
Short term.- Dust, etc. (normally associated with
construction phase).
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor
that may affect your proposal? If so, generally
describe.
No
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions
or other impacts to air, if any:
Contractor is required to exercise reasonable
care in dust control.
PAGE - 3
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
3. Water
a. Surface
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including
year-round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes,
ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and
provide names. if appropriate, state what stream
or river it flows into.
No
2) Will the project require any work over, in or
adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters?
If yes, please describe and attach available plans.
No
3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that
would be placed in or removed from surface water or
wetlands and indicate the area of the site that
would be affected. Indicate the source of.fill
material.
None
4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals
or diversions? Give general description, purpose
and approximate quantities if known.
ME]
5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain?
If so, note location on the site plan.
No
6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste
materials to surface waters? If so, describe the
type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge.
No
PAGE - 4
b. Ground
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be
discharged to ground water? Give general
description, purpose and approximate quantities
if known.
No
2) Describe waste material that will be discharged
into the ground from septic tanks or other sources,
if any (for example: Domestic sewage: industrial,
containing the following chemicals...; agricultural;
etc). Describe the general size of the system, the
number of such systems, the number of houses to be
served (if applicable), or the number of animals
or humans the system (s) are expected to serve.
None
C. Water Runoff (including storm water):
1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water)
and method of collection and disposal, if any (include
quantities, if known). Where will this water flow?
Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe.
Some increased storm water on site run-off due to increased
impervious area. New run-off will be collected by
roof drains and catch basins and discharged to on-site stormwater
system then to the City storm sewer system..
2) Could waste_ materials enter ground or surface waters?
If so, generally describe.
No.
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground
and runoff water impacts, if any:
Contain storm water and convey to existing
storm system.
PAGE - 5
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site:
—X—deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other :1C �eXgy
X_ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other:
—X—shrubs
_X grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush,
skunk cabbage, other
water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other
other types of vegetation, blackberry vines, ivy &
native ground covers
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or
altered?
Weeds, grasses, shrubs, misc. deciduous trees..
C. List threatened species known to be on or
near the site.
d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other
measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site,
if any:
New groundcovers, shrubs, and mix of evergreen and deciduous trees.
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed
on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site:
birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other:
mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other:n/a
fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish,
other • n/a
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on
or near the site.
None.
PAGE - 6
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
C. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain.
No
d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any:
None.
a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood
stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's
energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for
heating, manufacturing, etc.
Gas or electric for heating, Electric far lighting, cooling
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy
by adjacent properties? if so, generally describe.
No
C. What kinds of energy conservation features are included
in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed
measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any:
Project meets or exceeds provisions of Washington
State Energy Code
a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including
exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion,
spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result
of this proposal? If so, describe.
No
1) Describe special emergency services that might be
required.
None.
PAGE - 7
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental
health hazards, if any:
None.
0. Inn ,. -
1) What types of noise exist in the area which may
affect your project (for example: traffic,
equipment, operation,..other)?
Minimal traffic noise
2) What types and levels of noise would be created by
or associated with the project on a short-term or
a long-term basis (for example: traffic,
construction, operation, other)? Indicate what
hours noise would come from the site.
General construction noise levels between 7:00 a -m.
to 6:00 p.m. weekdays during period of construction
3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,
if any:
Normal requirements regarding construction noise.
8. Land and __Shoreline UgP
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties.
Outpatient Medical Office Building
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe.
No
C. Describe any structures on the site.
Low-rise wood framed and wood sided office building complex. .
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what?
One single family residence and garage (under application for demolition permit)
Minor modifications to existing Medical office building including partial re -roofing
and addition.
PAGE - 8
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?
RM 2.4 (RM 2.4 adjacent also)
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the
site?
None
g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program
designation of the site?
None.
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an
"environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify.
No-
i.
o_
i. Approximately how many people would .reside or work in the
completed project?
New Leaseable space would accommodate approximately 10 employees.
Total Leaseable space would accommodate approximately 280 employees.
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project
displace?
Approximately 4
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,
if any:
None.
1. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible
with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any:
The site use and building location are to be in compliance with the City
Architectural Design Board and Land Use requirements.
9. Housing
a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any?
Indicate whether high, middle or low --income housing.
None
PAGE - 9
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE
ONLY
b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated?
Indicate whether high, middle or low-income housing
One- middle income
c.. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts,
if any:
NIA
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure (s),
not including antennas; what is the principal exterior
building material (s) proposed?
Height: 28 FT. approx.
Materials: Exterior Insulation Finish System (Drivit),
wood siding and trim, standing seam metal and built-up roofing
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or
obstructed?
None
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts,
-if any:
The building is designed to use contemporary materials to provide a facelift to the
"dated" design style, while remaining compatible with portion of the existing to remain.
The building will be harmonious with the scale of the immediate area.
�MMRMFMM -
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce?
What time of day would it mainly occur?
Limited new interior lighting will show through windows and new site lighting
both to occur during early evening hours.
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety
hazard or interfere with views?
No
PAGE - 10
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
C. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may
affect your proposal?
None
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare
impacts, if any:
None
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are
in the immediate vicinity?
None.
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing
recreational uses? If so, describe.
C,r
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,
including recreation opportunities to be provided by the
project or applicant, if any:
None.
t_ .,. MaMPILMAMM M M-MMEMEM•+
a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for,
national, state -or local preservation registers known to be
on or next to the site? If so, generally described.
No
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,
archaeological, scientific or cultural importance known to
be on or next to the site.
RY
C. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any:
M
PAGE - 11
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and
describe proposed access to the existing street system.
Show on site plans, if any.
The site adjoins 216th Street Southwest and 76th Avenue West.
Site is near Highway 99.
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what
is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop?
Yes, the site is served by Snohomish County Public Transportation -
Community Transit. The nearest stop is adjacent to the existing complex
on 76th Avenue West.
C. How many parking spaces would the completed project have?
How many would the project eliminate?
248 total on site parking spaces; the existing parking is to remain
with minor modifications to curbs and layout.
d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or
improvements to existing roads or streets, not including
driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether
public or private).
M
e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity
of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally
describe:
No
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by
the completed project? If known,indicate when peak
volumes would occur.
The number of trips would be only slightly higher than current.
The peak volumes are likely to occur during regular office hours_
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,
if any:
None
PAGE - 12
EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
15. Public Services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public
services (for example: fire protection, police
protection,health care, schools, other)? If so,
generally describe.
Fire protection
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts
on public services, if any.
None
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site:
Electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service tele hone,
sanitar sewer septic system, other, storm sewer.
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,
the utility providing the service, and the general
construction activities on the site or in the immediate
vicinity which might be needed.
Power: Puget Power
Natural Gas: Washington Natural Gas Company
Sewer/Water: Local Districts
Telephone and Cable TV
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I
understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision.
Signature
For the Owners
Date Submitted
PAGE - 13
PRELIMINARY
DRAINAGE CONTROL CALCULATIONS
for
STEVENS MEDICAL CENTER
21616 - 76th Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington
September 9, 1991
ATTACHMENT 10
FILE NO. CU -69-91
DRAINAGE CONTROL CALCULATIONS
September 9, 1991
Project: Stevens Medical Center
Job No. 176-11
Address: 21616- 76th Avenue West
Edmonds, Washington
Client: Lewis Nelson Architects
2800 Northup Way, Suite 100
Bellevue, Washington 98004
Owner: Edmonds Associates
6501 Columbia Center
701 5th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Leal: Lots 1, 2, 3 and the east 60 feet of Lot 4, Block 1, HADLEY'S ACRE, according to
the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 8 of Plats, page 30, in Snohomish County,
Washington,
AND,
Lot 6, MC GRATH HOMES, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Volume 19 of
Plats, page 18, in Snohomish County, Washington.
Lot Area: 145,490 square feet, or 3.34 acres
Existing Conditions:
Lot 6 is currently occupied by a house and outbuilding with an asphalt driveway access off 76th
Avenue West. There are several old evergreen trees east of the house and the remaining area of Lot
6 is covered with grass. The main portion of the site is currently occupied by 4 large buildings.
The remaining area is covered with asphalt paved parking with some landscaping. The site is
bordered on the east by 76th Avenue West and on the north by Southwest 216th Street. Driveway
entrances are located at the northwest corner of the site off S.W. 216th Street, and at the southeast
corner of the site off 76th Avenue West.
The project site drains to the east to an existing 12 -inch storm drain in 76th Avenue West. There
does not appear to be significant runoff contributing to the site from off-site areas.
Page 1 of 7
Developed Conditions:
The four existing buildings on the main portion of the site will remain and will undergo minor
renovation. The surrounding asphalt parking areas will be revised slightly to provide additional
parking spaces. The existing buildings and trees on Lot 6 will be removed and additional asphalt
parking will be provided in this area.
Detention will be provided for the new parking area on Lot 6 and for the additional impervious area
that will be created in the existing parking lot. Runoff from the additional parking area will be
collected and detained underground in pipe to be located underneath the asphalt driveway at the
southeast comer of Lot 6. The detained water will be released by gravity into the existing 12 -inch
storm system in 76th Avenue West. Runoff from the additional impervious area in the existing
parking lot will bypass the detention system, but the detention storage volume will be increased to
compensate for this.
Provisions to Exclude Pollutants:
Pollutants likely to occur in the site drainage are yard wastes, fertilizers and small amounts of oil
from the paved parking areas. The catch basins upstream of the detention pipe will be provided
with sumps, and the flow restrictor in the flow control structure will act as a trap to collect oil or
other floatable pollutants.
Drainage Control During Construction:
In order to minimize potential adverse impacts during construction, the contractor shall cover
embankments and disturbed surfaces with mulches, plastic sheeting or jute matting to control
erosion during inclement weather. In addition, the contractor shall erect a temporary filter fabric
fence along the eastern and southern edges of the construction site and maintain it until construction
is complete.
Maintenance:
The building maintenance staff shall, on a regular basis, inspect and clean the catch basins and
detention structures located on the site.
Page 2 of 7
STEVENS MEDICAL C-4TER PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE C ATROL CALCULATIONS
SUMMARY OF DRAINAGE AREAS:
Existing On - site Area
Existing Roof & Paved Areas
Landscaping
Total Existing On - Site Area
Developed On -Site Area:
Building Roof & Pavement
Landscaping
Total Developed On-site Area
DETERMINE TIME OF CONCENTRATION ,Tc :
36787
Description
Length
Slope
Velocity
Tc
97827.3
(feet)
(fooVfoot)
(feet/second)
(minutes)
Pavement
59
0.0169
2.75
0.36
Pavement
35
0.0286
3.4
0.17
Pavement
124
0.0323
3.5
0.59
Pavement
95
0.0201
2.8
0.57
8" Pipe
170
0.0156
4.87
0.58
8" Pipe
140
0.022
5.78
0.40
intial collecting time
5.00
Total Time of Concentration (minutes) = 7.67
From Snohomish County, Rainfall Intensity vs. Duration curve,
i (10 year, 7.7 min.) = 2.2 inche0our
STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
Design the detention system for a 25 year storm and a 10 year release rate.
Existing Conditions:
Area C Area x C
Pervious
36787
0.2
7357.4
Impervious
108697
0.9
97827.3
On-site Total
145484
0.7
105184.7
Square Feet
108,697
36,787
145,484
Square Feet
124,9 t 1
20,573
145,484
Layton Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 3 of 7 9/9/91
STEVENS MEDICAL CLQ ITER PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE CL. i TROL CALCULATIONS
Q(existing) = CIA =
5.312 cfs
= Q(allowable)
Developed Conditions:
Pervious
8220
0.2
Area C
Area x C
Pervious, on - site
20,573 0.2
4,115
Impervious, on - site
124,911 0.9
112,420
On-site Total
145,484 0.80
116,535
DETENTION VOLUME:
Detention will be provided for the new parking area at the southeast corner of the site,
and for the additional impervious area that will be created in the existing parking lot.
Existing Conditions:
Pervious
Area
C
Area x C
Pervious
8220
0.2
1644
Impervious (new pkg area)
3979
0.9
3581.1
On-site Total
12199
0.4
5225.1
Q(existing) = CIA =
0.264
cfs
= Q(allowable)
Developed Conditions:
storage:
Area
C
Area x C
Pervious
3126
Impervious(new pkg area)
9,071
0.9
8,164
Add'1 Imp.(ex pkg area)
5,451
0.9
4,906
Total
14,522
0.90
13,070
RELEASE RATE REDUCTION:
Q(allowable) must be adjusted
for bypassing drainage in order to increase required
storage:
Bypassing Area
Square Feet
C
Area x C
Add'IImpervious
5451
0.9
4905.9
Total Undetained
5451
0.90
4905.9
Layton Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 4 of 7 9/9/91
STEVENS MEDICAL C,,,4TER PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE C�- _ TROL CALCULATIONS
Q(bypass) = CIA = 0.248 cfs
Q(adjusted) = Q(existing) - Q(bypass) = 0.016 cfs
Q(o) _ (Q(adjusted)) / (Acreage x C)
Area C Area x C
Impervious, restricted 3620 0.9 3258
Pervious, restricted 3126 0.2 625.2
Total Restricted 6746 0.58 3883.2
Q(o) - 0.181 cfs
From Snohomish County Manual, page 48, for 25 -year storm with orifice with head,
T = -25 + ( 2706/Q(o))- 1/2
T = 97.33
Vs = [(4329 T)/( T + 25)] - 40 Q(o) T
Vs = 2740.25 cubic feet/ acre
Vt = Vs x acres x C (developed)
Vt = 244.28 cubic feet
If storage pipe with a manhole at each end is used (flow control structure at the
downstream end) for storage:
For 18" Pipe: diameter = 1.50 feet
Storage in 48" Manholes = 37.70 sq. ft.
Volume required in pipe = 244.3 - 37.7 = 206.6 cu. ft.
Required pipe length = 206.6= area 116.91 - 117 LF
For 24" Pipe: diameter = 2.00 feet
Storage in 48" a Manholes 50.27 sq. ft.
Volume required in pipe = 244.3 - 50 = 194.3 cu. ft.
Required pipe length = 195 - area 61.85 - 62 LF
For 30" Pipe: diameter = 2.50 feet
Storage in 154" o MH = 39.76 sq. ft.
Volume required in pipe = 244.3 - 39.8 = 204.54 cu. ft.
Layton Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 5 of 7 9/9/41
STEVENS MEDICAL CL.. TER PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE CL _ . fROL CALCULATIONS
Required pipe length =
204.5 = area
41.67
- 42 LF
For 30" Pipe:
diameter =
2.50
feet
Storage in 54" o MHs =
79.52
sq. ft.
8789.1
Volume required in pipe =
244.3 - 79.52
164.78
cu. ft.
Required pipe length =
164.8 = area
33.57
- 34 LF
For 36" Pipe:
diameter =
3.00
feet
Storage in 172" o MH =
84.82
sq. ft.
Volume required in pipe =
244.3- 85 =
159.48
cu. ft.
Required pipe length =
159.5 + area
22.56
23 LF
FILTER STRIP CALCULATIONS:
Impervious area to be treated:
9071
square feet
Length of tributary unit area of
impervious surface per one foot length of
filter strip: 70 feet
Required width of filter strip is calculated by multiplying 0.23 feet times the length of
tributary unit area of impervious surface per one foot length of filter strip.
(Per King County Surface Water Design Manual, January 1990)
Therefore, the filter strip width is approx. 16 feet
Runoff from the filter strip shall be intercepted at the bottom of the strip by a swale sized
to convey the peak rate of runoff for a 10 -year design storm away from the bottom of the
strip.
Calculate the maximum design flow fate to the filter strip:
Contributing Areas
Area
C
Area x C
Pervious 3126
0.2
625.2
Impervious 9071
0.9
8163.9
Total 12197
0.7
8789.1
Assuming a 5 minute wetting and a one minute flow time, the time of concentration = 6
minutes. For a ] 0 -year storm, the rainfall intensity = 2.5 inches/hour (per Snohomish
County Rainfall Intensity vs. Duration Curves)
Layton Sell, Inc., P.S. Page 6 of 7 9/9/91
STEVENS MEDICAL C,,--. TER PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE CC , fROL CALCULATIONS
Q(10 -year) = CIA = 0.363 cfs
SIZE DRAINAGE SWALE:
Qnax (10 -year) = 0.363 cfs
"V"- SHAPED CHANNEL
n (grass -lined bottom) = 0.03
Trial y zl z2 Slope Qn/(1.49S-1/2)
(feet)
10 -year Storm:
1
0.5
2
2
0.02
0.05
2
0.25
2
2
0.02
0.05
3
0.35
2
2
0.02
0.05
Trial A R-(213) AR (2r3) Velocity
(sq. ft.) (fps)
1
0.50
0.368219256
0.184
0.73
ok
2
0.13
0.231910007
0.029
2.91
no
3
0.25
0.290259798
0.071
1.48
ok
The swale at the bottom of the filter strip shall have 2:1 side slopes and a minimum slope
of 2%. Since the design flow is less than 10 cfs, the swale shall be designed with a
minimum freeboard of 0.5'.
Therefore, for: depth
freeboard
side slopes
the width of the swale = 4 feet
0.5' (at the downstream end)
0.5'
2 hor.: 1 vert
The total width of space required for the filter strip is then 16'+ 4' = 20'.
This would require the elimination of at least 5 parking spaces. If the filter strip were
reduced to 15' wide, at least one parking space could be saved, therefore, we have
designed the filter strip to be 15' wide.
Layton Sell, Inc., P.S.
Page 7 of 7
9/9/91
FILE#ADB 80-91
MITIGATED
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal The applicant proposes enclosing existing
walkways and constructing a new addition that would add 10,125 s. ft.
of space to the building. The applicant proposes to restripe and
reconfigure the entire parking Tot, and 52 parking spaces would be
added to increase the parking to 248 stalls.
Proponent Lewis Nelson Architects .
Location of proposal, including street address, if any -
21616 76th Ave.
Lead Agency City of Edmonds, Planning Department
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have
a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An
environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required under RCW
43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead
agency. This information is available to the public on request.
There is no comment period for this DNS.
xx This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not
act on this proposal for 15 days from the date below. Comments
must be submitted by 11-13-91
Responsible Official Jeff Wilson
Position/Title Planning supervisor Phone 771-3202
Address 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, Wa.
98020
Date 10-29-91 Si gnatur cell ~--
(��
XX You may appeal this determination of nonsignificance
to the Planning Director
at 250 5th Ave. North, Edmonds, WA 98020
no later than 11-27-91
by filing a written appeal citing reasons.
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact
771-3202 to read or ask about the procedures for
SEPA appeals.
There is no agency appeal.
ATTACHMENT 11
FILE N0. CU -69-91
Site Description
The site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of 76th
Ave. W., and 216th Street. The site has approximately 441 ft. of
frontage on 216th St. S.W., and 301 ft. along 76th Ave. W. The site
includes an existing 39,475 sq. ft. medical office building and parking
for 196 spaces. The site is an RM 2.4 zoned property that has 145,000
sq. ft. of lot area.
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning
The property is located at the southwest corner of 76th and 216th St.
Adjacent to the west and south is an RM zoned residential area. To
the north across 216th St. is Edmonds High School. To the east across
76th Ave. W. is Stevens Hospital.
Proposed Development
The applicant proposes enclosing existing walkways and constructing a
new addition that would add 10,125 s. ft. of space to the building.
The applicant proposes to restripe and reconfigure the entire parking
lot, and 52 parking spaces would be added to increase the parking to
248 stalls.
SEPA ANALYSIS
The proposed building expansion and parking lot revisions would result
in both short term construction impacts and long term impacts. The
following is an assessment of the impacts expected.
Short Term Construction Impacts
The proposed project would result in removal of existing vegetation
including large trees on the site, and would result in short term
grading, demolition and construction noise, dust and construction
vehicle exhaust. Exposed soils may be subject to erosion during
construction, and temporary measures to control erosion may be
necessary.
The erosion potential expected during construction will be controlled
by the Chapter 19.00 of the Building Code. The site is near other
noise sensitive uses including nearby residential and office uses.
However, if construction is limited to normal 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
weekday working hours, construction noise will be mitigated.
Mud and earth could be tracked onto surrounding streets during
excavation for foundations. To mitigate this impact, the construction
contractor shall be required to spray a stream of water when necessary
to control dust, and shall clean construction vehicle tires and earth
tracked onto surrounding streets. With these conditions no further
conditions are necessary to control construction impacts.
Long Term Impacts
The proposed development will increase overcovering of soils, and will
increase runoff. On site detention will be required to mitigate the
increased runoff. Existing vegetation will be removed, and new
landscaping will be installed to partially mitigate the vegetation.
The proposal will increase energy usage, and compliance with the
Building Code for energy conservation will mitigate the impacts of
increased energy consumption. The proposed parking lot will result -in
vehicle noise impacts, however, the parking lot is located on the north
side of the structure and will be screened from the adjacent
residential properties. Therefore the noise from the parking lot is
not expected to warrant additional mitigation.
Traffic
The subject site fronts on 76th Ave. W. It is concluded that the
Level Of Service (LOS) at nearby intersections will not be
significantly impacted by the proposal, and no additional mitigation is
warranted.
Parki ng
Parking for 52 vehicles will be provided on site, and 52 parking spaces
are needed to satisfy the parking need of the proposal during worst
case daytime parking hours. It is concluded that no additional parking
mitigation is needed.
Conclusion
The proposal will result in impacts to the environment, however with
the conditions listed below, no significant impacts to the environment
are expected.
CONDITIONS OF MITIGATION
During Construction
1. All excavation and grading shall comply with Chapter 70 of the
Uniform Building Code, 1989 edition. The applicant shall obtain a
conditional use if grading exceeds 500 cubic yards.
2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit from the Building
Department and comply with all conditions of permit approval.
3. The applicant shall submit a drainage plan to the City Engineering
Division and follow the required guidelines.
4. The applicant shall make every reasonable effort to keep exposed
soil covered during construction.
5. The landscaping shall be installed as approved by the City prior
to occupancy of the building.
6. Noisy construction operations shall be limited to normal 7:30 a.m.
to 6:00 p.m. non -holiday weekday hours.
7. Construction dust shall be suppressed with a stream of water when
necessary, and earth shall be removed from wheels of construction
vehicles to avoid tracking earth onto surrounding streets.
ROUTED TO:
APPLI ON ROUTING FORM ANU CHECKLTQ"
FILE## CU -69-91
omens
FROM: Wilson
No
INPUT: Yes
ENGINEERING
9/11/91
RETURNED
FIRE
9/11/91
RETURNED
RECEIVED
PUBLIC WORKS
9/11/91
RETURNED
5 EP Vvi
R & REC 9/11/91
COMMENTS:
�yv
j
RETURNED_ PLANNING _DM---
ATTACHMENT
M--
RECEIVE®
SEP €ca
// 41 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
Owner Edmonds Assoc.,/Lewis Nelson Property Address 21616 76th Av
10%2%91
Doa 9/11/91 Date of Hearing 10/3/91 Return By
Type Stevens Profeesional Center Addition & grading
X APPLICATION SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11)
X FEE �x SITE PLAN (11" x 17" (4))
X APO LIST LEGALS(Existing & Proposed)
TITLE REPORT x ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable)
X VICINITY MAP PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU)
X ELEVATIONS (if applicable) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.)
PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) x ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable)
Comments:
***Oil: *******, ill * *
RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT POST & MAIL
Date
ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING
FIRE
PUBLIC WORKS
PARKS & REC
APPEAL #}
APPEALED BY:
HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING_
HEARING EXAMINE
CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL UPHELD DENIED
RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT
ATTACHMENT 12
FILE NO. CU -69-91
APPLI� IN ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIST FILE# CEJ -69-91
omens
FROM: Wilson
No
INPUT: Yes
ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING 9/11/91 ��`��TURNED
FIRE 9/11/91 S�ETUR o
_ c, lyr.
PUBLIC WORKS 9/11/91 �ETU�ED
SSP 1991 PARKS & REC 9/11/91 R E NED_ (2, , hC�Ci
COMMENTS:
Owner Edmonds Assoc.,/Lewis Nelson Property Address 21616 76th Ave. W.
10%2/91
Doa 9/11/91 Date of Hearing 10/3/91 Return By
Type Stevens Profeesional Center Addition & grading
X APPLICATION SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11)
X FEE `-x SITE PLAN (11" x 1711 (4))
X APO LIST LEGALS(Existing & Proposed)
TITLE REPORT x ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable)
X VICINITY MAP PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU)
X ELEVATIONS (if applicable) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.)
PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) X - ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable)
Comments:
RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT POST & MAIL
Date
ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING
FIRE
PUBLIC WORKS
PARKS & REC
APPEAL #
APPEALED BY:
HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING
HEARING EXAMINER
CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL UPHELD DENIED
RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
ATTACHMENT 13
MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT
LTi � nin rii_tia_a1
ROUTED TO:
APPLi "TON ROUTING FORM AND CHECKLIS'
ENGINEERING
FIRE
9/11/91
9/11/91
PUBLIC WORKS 9/11/91
PARKS & REC
9/11/91
RETURNED
RETURNED
RETURNED
RETURNED
FILE## CU -69-91
omers
FROM: Wilson
No
INPUT: Yes
COMMENTS:
Ax- �� .4 s� c'�wjv1�b
PUIVyj
Owner Edmonds Assoc.,/Lewis Nelson Property Address 21616 76th Aye.--.W-
/2/91
ve.-W.%2%91
Doa 9/11/91 Date of Rearing 10/3/91 Return By
Type Stevens Profeesiona•1 Center Addition & grading
X APPLICATION SITE PLAN FOR SHORT SUBDIVISION (8 1/2" x 11)
X FEE x SITE PLAN (11" x 17" (4))
X APO LIST LEGALS(Existing & Proposed)
TITLE REPORT x ENV. ASSESSMENT (if applicable)
X VICINITY MAP PROOF OF 3 YEAR OCCUPANCY (ADU)
X ELEVATIONS (if applicable) DECLARATIONS (Variance & C.U.P.)
PETITION (Ofc. St. Map) X ENV. CHECKLIST (if applicable)
Comments:
Ile I'vill; 11C 1111 011'ric 51;1 Ile Ile e'llolvil-
RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT POST & MAIL
Date
ROUTED TO: ENGINEERING
FIRE
PUBLIC WORKS
PARKS & REC
APPEAL ##'
APPEALED BY:
HEARING DATE: STAFF HEARING
HEARING EXAMINER
CITY COUNCIL
APPEAL UPHELD
DENIED
RECEIVED FINDINGS OF FACT
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MAILED FINDINGS OF FACT ATTACHMENT 14
FILE N0. CU -69-91