The URL can be used to link to this page

2017-10-26 Hearing Examiner Agenda�1 o� NJI Agenda - Edmonds Hearing Examiner "" ,xyo COUNCIL CHAMBERS 250 5TH AVE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 OCTOBER 26, 2017, 3:00 PM CALL TO ORDER PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building- Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) 2. Westgate Woods Townhomes Height Variance (PLN20160060) and Design Review (PLN20160061) ADJOURNMENT Edmonds Hearing Examiner Agenda October 26, 2017 Page 1 2.1 Hearing Examiner Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/26/2017 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building- Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History See narrative below. Staff Recommendation Approve with conditions. Narrative The Port of Edmonds has submitted an application for a new 6,650 square foot marine retail building intended for boat sales and maintenance. The project site is located on a portion of parcel number 2703200415800 with an address of 471 Admiral Way and is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). The site is also located within the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline designation. Two applications have been submitted at this time. One of the applications is for a shoreline substantial development permit (PLN20170029) and the second application is for the design review of project (PLN20170030). Since the scope of work triggered review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) is required. Projects subject to design review are considered Type III-B decision pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003. Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are Type III -A decisions when a public hearing is required in accordance with ECDC 24.80.100. Since SEPA triggers a public hearing before the ADB, the subject shoreline application requires a public hearing pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100.A.4 and thus is a Type III -A permit decision. The two applications are being combined pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. When applications are combined, the ADB's review of the design review aspects of the proposal will result in a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner who will make the decision on both design review and the shoreline permit following a public hearing. The ADB's review will be via a public meeting with no public comment taken (state law prohibits two open record public hearings). The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing to take public comment on the proposal as a whole. Attachments: PLN20170029 and PLN20170030 Report with Attachments Packet Pg. 2 2.1.a r12e. 1SL)" CITY OF EDMOND S 121 5`h Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Project: Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building File Number: PLN20170029 (Shoreline Substantial Development Permit) and PLN20170030 (Design Review) r Date of Report: r,Qu- ber 20, 2017 From: rnen Lien, Se Planner Public Hearing: October 26, 2017 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION: The Port of Edmonds has submitted an application for a new 6,650 square foot marine retail building intended for boat sales and maintenance (Attachments 1— 6). The project site is located on a portion of parcel number 2703200415800 with an address of 471 Admiral Way (Attachment 9) and is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). The site is also located within the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline designation (Attachment 10). Two applications have been submitted at this time. One of the applications is for a shoreline substantial development permit (PLN20170029) and the second application is for the design review of project (PLN20170030). Since the scope of work triggered review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) is required. Projects subject to design review are considered Type III-B decision pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003. Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are Type III -A decisions when a public hearing is required in accordance with ECDC 24.80.100. Since SEPA triggers a public hearing before the ADB, the subject shoreline application requires a public hearing pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100.A.4 and thus is a Type III -A permit decision. The two applications are being combined pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. When applications are combined, the ADB's review of the design review aspects of the proposal will result in a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner who will make the decision on both design review and the shoreline permit following a public hearing. The ADB's review will be via a public meeting with no public comment taken (state law prohibits two open record public hearings). The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing to take public comment on the proposal as a whole. Packet Pg. 3 2.1.a II. ATTACHMENTS There is some overlap between the attachments associated with this staff report and the Architectural Design Board staff report. To avoid duplication of materials, the Attachments to this staff report maintain the same numbers as the attachments associated with the ADB staff report. Attachments 1 — 16 are the same attachments that were associated with the ADB staff report. Starting with Attachment 17 (the ADB Staff Report) are new attachments specific to this staff report. Ill. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner: Port of Edmonds 2. Applicant: Robert McChesney, Port of Edmonds Executive Director 3. Location: 471 Admiral Way, Edmonds WA 98020 (Attachment 9) 4. Tax Parcel Number: 27032300415800 (the project site is a portion of this parcel). 5. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). 6. Request: The Port of Edmonds has submitted an applications for a shoreline substantial development permit and design review for a new 6,650 square foot marine retail building intended for boat sales and maintenance. 7. Review Process: Design review of the project is a Type III-B decision while the shoreline permit is a Type III -A decision. The two applications are being combined pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. When applications are combined, the ADB's review of the design review aspects of the proposal will result in a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner who will make the decision on both design review and the shoreline permit following a public hearing. The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing to take public comment on the proposal as a whole. 8. Maior Issues: a. Compliance with Chapter 16.5 ECDC Commercial Waterfront b. Compliance with ECDC 17.50 Off Street Parking Regulations c. Compliance with ECDC 20.11 General Design Review d. Compliance with ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements e. Compliance with Title 24 ECDC Shoreline Master Program 9. Lot Size: The project site encompasses approximately 20,500 square feet of a 185,182 square foot parcel. 10. Existing Use: The site is currently a gravel/paved parking area. Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 2 of 20 Packet Pg. 4 2.1.a IV. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is required for this project because the proposed building exceeds 4,000 square feet of new commercial area and because the project will include over 20 parking stalls. The Port of Edmonds acted as lead agency for SEPA review of the project reviewing the SEPA checklist (Attachment 7) and issued a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) on July 10, 2017 (Attachment 11). Thus, the applicant has complied with SEPA requirements. V. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: A "Notice of Application" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on August 9, 2017. This notice was also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site using an adjacent property owners list provided by the applicant on August 9, 2107 and published in the Everett Herald on August 10, 2017 (Attachment 11). The comment period for the Notice of Application ran for 30 days and ended on September 10, 2017. A "Notice of Public Hearing" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on October 11, 2017. Notice of the public hearing was also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. Notice of public hearing documentation is provided in Attachment 20. The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03. VI. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: This application was reviewed and evaluated by Snohomish County Fire District No. 1, Building Division, and the Engineering Division. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 submitted comments noting provisions of the International Fire Code that will be applicable to the project (Attachment 12). Compliance with these provisions will be reviewed with the building permit application for the project. The Building Division noted the project site is located within Flood Zone AE per the preliminary FEMA flood maps and the structure must be designed and constructed to resist the effect of flood hazards and flood loads (A further description of the flood plain is provided in Section II.E.3 below). Buildings comments are provided in Attachment 13. The Engineering Division preliminarily approves the design of the proposed development noting the information provided is consistent with the Engineering standards of Title 18 ECDC. Compliance with Engineering Division standards will be verified during the building permit process. Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 3 of 20 Packet Pg. 5 2.1.a VII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: 1. Topograph : The subject site is relatively level (refer to page 2 of Attachment 3 for existing topography). 2. Soils: According to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, the soils on the site consist of "Urban land" soils. 3. Critical Areas: A critical areas determination was made under File No. CRA20170095 for the parcel containing the proposed development site (Attachment 15). The critical area determination found the site to contain or be adjacent to wetlands (the Edmonds Marsh), frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas (seismic hazard), and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (Willow Creek). Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek: During the Shoreline Master Program update the Edmonds Marsh was determined to be a Category II estuarine wetland. Pursuant to ECDC 24.40.020.E, the buffer for a Category II estuarine wetland is 110 or 150 feet depending on whether certain mitigation measures are implemented. Willow Creek is an anadromous fish bearing stream with a buffer of 100 feet pursuant to ECDC 23.90.040.D. The Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek are separated from the subject property via the Burlington Northern railroad right-of-way. ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 allows development within an interrupted stream or wetland buffer where it is demonstrated a project is functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. The applicants submitted a Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Assessment prepared by Steve Quarterman of Landau Associates (Attachment 6) demonstrating the proposed project is functionally isolated from the Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek by the railroad right-of-way. Frequently Flooded Areas: As noted in the Building Divisions comments above, the subject property is located within Flood Zone AE according to draft FEMA flood plain maps. While the FEMA maps are draft, ECDC 23.70.010.13 allows the City of Edmonds discretion in using the most up to date information in determining whether the site is within the flood plain and subject to flood plain development restrictions. Given the draft FEMA maps will likely become effective in 2018, the City of Edmonds has determined that all development applications within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones in the draft FEMA flood insurance rate map will be subject to the requirements of the International Building Code amendments in ECDC 19.00.025.P (Attachment 16). This also has implications for height calculations which are discussed below in Section X1.1.13 of this staff report. Seismic Hazard: The subject site is located within a mapped liquefaction hazard area. A geotechnical report will be required during the building permit review to ensure the structure is designed and constructed to standards related to liquefaction seismic hazards. 4. Wildlife: Wildlife associated with the property is typical of an urban environment. The site may be visited by song birds and small mammals; however, the site is primarily gravel/paved, so it is not currently providing any significant habitat value. Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 4 of 20 Packet Pg. 6 2.1.a 5. Vegetation: The site contains very limited existing vegetation since the majority of the site is gravel/paved and is utilized as a parking lot. There are existing street trees located between the site and Admiral Way. 6. Shoreline: The subject site is located within the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline designation of the Shoreline Master Program (Attachment 10). Due to the project's location within 200 feet of the shoreline, the proposal is subject to the requirements of the City's Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC). Vill. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: This property is located in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone. The surrounding sites to the north, west, and southwest of the subject site are also zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). These surrounding sites are developed with various uses including parking areas, marina, restaurants, Yacht Club, Port of Edmonds offices, a work yard, and vacant land. The BNSF railroad is located directly southeast of the subject property. To the east of the subject site (on the opposite side of the BNSF railroad) is the Harbor Square complex, which is zoned General Commercial (CG) under a contract rezone (R-1979-4) and is developed with various commercial uses including breweries, gym, hotel, and offices. To the southeast of the project site (on the opposite side of the BNSF railroad) is the Edmonds Marsh, which is within the Open Space (OS) zone. A zoning map is provided for reference as Attachment 9. IX. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Master Plan Development" and the site is also within the "Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center" overlay. Goals and policies from the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center related to this project include: Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal A. Promote downtown Edmonds as an attractive setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. A.1 Ensure that the downtown/waterfront area continues — and builds on — its function as a key identity element for the Edmonds community. A.2 Enhance Edmonds' visual identity by continuing its pedestrian -scale of downtown development, enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and building on the strong visual quality of the "5th and Main" core. A.3 Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. A.4 Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 5 of 20 Packet Pg. 7 2.1.a esplanade along the shoreline. The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master Program requirements placed on private development. A.5 Support the development and retention of significant public investments in the downtown/waterfront area, including government and cultural facilities that help draw residents and visitors to downtown. A.6 Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal D. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity. D.1 Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal E. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for links between the retail core and these supporting areas. E.1 Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. The Comprehensive Plan also provides the following specific goal for the Master Plan Development designation: Master Plan Development. The waterfront area south of Olympic Beach, including the Port of Edmonds and the Point Edwards and multi modal developments. This area is governed by master plans for the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards, and the Edmonds Crossing project as described in an FEIS issued on November 10, 2004. These areas are also developed consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, as it applies. The subject site is designated as "Mixed Use Area" in the Port of Edmonds Master Plan dated March 10, 2014. Regarding the "A land lease between the Port of Edmonds and Jacobsen's Marine has been signed and approved by the Port of Edmonds Commission. Plans for developing a 10,000 square foot building for boat sales and repair are proceeding through permit processes. Approximately 36,000 square feet of this mixed use area will be dedicated to this marine retail space. Possible uses for the remainder might include parking, Port office and/or maintenance complex, and a building for community facility use." The subject proposal appears to be consistent with the above goals, as it will enhance the Port of Edmonds property consistent with the Port's Master Plan and provide a boat sales and repair business within very close proximity to the Edmonds Marina. The current project is subject to General Design Review as outlined in Chapter 20.11 ECDC. One of the findings required by ECDC 20.11.020 is that the proposal is consistent with the design guidelines provided in the Urban Design Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. There is a detailed Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 6 of 20 Packet Pg. 8 2.1.a analysis about how the proposal complies with the goals and objectives for site design, building form, and building facade contained in the Comprehensive Plan's Urban Design Chapter within the Architectural Design Board staff report included as Attachment 17. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. X. PUBLIC CONCERNS: As of the writing of this staff report, no written public comments have been received. XI. APPLICABLE CODES: 1. Chapter 16.55 ECDC Commercial Waterfront A. ECDC 16.55.010 Uses The site is located in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone and subject to the requirements of ECDC 16.55. Pursuant to ECDC 16.55.010.A, marine -oriented services and marine -oriented retail uses are permitted primary uses. Additionally, ECDC 16.55.030.A.2 requires that all uses be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building except for "sales, storage, repair and limited building of boats." As such, the proposed boat sales and repair business and the outdoor boat sales/storage area are permitted uses within the CW zone. B. ECDC 16.55.020 Site Development Standards Setbacks: The minimum required setbacks for CW-zoned properties that are not immediately adjacent to R-zoned property are 15 feet landward of bulkheads for buildings and 60 feet landward of bulkheads for parking. The section of the Admiral Way right-of- way adjacent to the subject site is 60 feet wide, so the site well exceeds 60 feet landward from the bulkhead and is thus compliant with the minimum setback requirements. Additionally, the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way is approximately 100 feet wide, so parking is also more than 60 from the ordinary high water mark of the Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek outlet. Height: The maximum allowed height in the CW zone is 30 feet. The elevation views on Sheet 9 of Attachment 3 indicate the structure will be 30 feet tall to the top of the parapet. As noted above in Section II.E.3 of this staff report, the subject development site is located within the flood plain according to the draft FEMA flood plain maps. The City of Edmonds has decided to use the draft FEMA maps to determine which properties are to be subject to the regulations with regards to flood plain development including the requirements of ECDC 19.00.025.P and the height exception provided in ECDC 21.40.030.D.1. Normally in the City of Edmonds, zoning height determined by measuring from vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure to the highest point of the structure. However, for properties within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coast A Flood Zones (such is this site), then height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above the base flood elevation as identified from the application FEMA flood Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 7 of 20 Packet Pg. 9 2.1.a hazard map. According to the draft FEMA flood zone map included in Attachment 16, the base flood elevation for this site is 12 feet, so zoning height will be measured from 14 feet for this development. Compliance with zoning height will be verified at time of building permit review. Maximum Covera e: There is no maximum coverage for properties within the CW zone. Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the applicable zoning standards of Chapter 16.55 ECDC. As always, the project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable development standards during the building permit review process. 2. Chapter ECDC 17.50 Cuff Street Parking Regulations Pursuant to ECDC 17.50.010.C.1, all new buildings within the downtown business area shall provide parking at a flat rate of one parking stall for every 500 square feet of gross floor area of building. With a proposed building size of 6,650 square feet, thirteen parking spaces are required. Twenty-four parking spaces are proposed, so the proposal exceeds the minimum number of required on -site parking stalls. The proposal is consistent with the off-street parking requirements of Chapter 17.50 ECDC. 3. Chapter 20.11 ECDC General Design Review ECDC 20.11.010 requires the Architectural Design Board to review general design review applications that trigger SEPA. This project required review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) due to the size of the proposed buildings (greater than 4,000 square feet). The ADB staff report (Attachment 17) contains a detailed analysis on how the proposal is consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.11.030.A Building Design and ECDC 20.11.030.13 Site Treatment. The ADB reviewed the proposal at the October 18, 2017 meeting and recommended approval of the project with the following conditions (Attachment 18): 1. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER UTILITY HARDWARE ON THE ROOF, GROUNDS, OR BUILDINGS SHALL BE SCREENED TO MITIGATE VIEW IMPACTS FROM STREET LEVEL. SCREENING COULD INCLUDE THE USE OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, LANDSCAPING AND/OR FENCING. 2. STREET TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3 INCHES IN CALIPER. SPECIES, LOCATION AND SPACING OF THE STREET TREES WILL BE DETERMINED DURING CIVIL PLAN REVIEW WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. 3. IF A TRASH/RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA IS ADDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE, IT SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN A GATED TRASH ENCLOSURE TO SCREEN VIEW OF THE WASTE AND RECYCLING CONTAINERS. 4. Chapter 20.13 ECDC Landscaping Requirements ECDC 20.13 contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB may alter in accordance with the design review chapter. The subject site is located within the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone (Attachment 1). Properties immediately adjacent to the Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 8 of 20 Packet Pg. 10 2.1.a project site are commercially -zoned, and there are no immediately adjacent residentially - zoned properties. ECDC 20.13.000 gives the ADB authority to interpret and modify the requirements of the landscaping code (ECDC Chapter 20.13), provided the modification is consistent with the purposes found in ECDC 20.10.000. Since no significantly different uses are located adjacent to the subject site, the site is part of a larger parcel, and since no side or rear setbacks are required in the CW zone, staff feels that the ADB and Hearing Examiner could waive the requirement for Type III landscaping along the eastern, western, and southern site boundaries. If the ADB and Hearing Examiner agrees that Type III landscaping is not necessary along these site boundaries, then two types of landscaping would apply to this project: Type IV landscaping adjacent to the street frontage and Type V landscaping within the parking area. The applicant's landscaping plan is included on page 4 of Attachment 3. The landscaping plan was part of the review conducted by the ADB which recommended approval of the project (Attachment 18). XII. TITLE 24 ECDC EDMONDS SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM The subject site is located within the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline designation of the Shoreline Master Program (Attachment 10). Due to the project's location within 200 feet of the shoreline, the proposal is subject to the requirements of the City's Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC) and required to obtain a shoreline substantial development permit. This section evaluates the proposals compliance the City's Shoreline Master Program including relevant policies and development regulations. 1. ECDC 24.80.040 Substantial Development Permit Criteria. A. A substantial development permit shall be required for all proposed use and development of shorelines unless the proposal is specifically exempt pursuant to ECDC 24.80.010. B. In order for a substantial development permit to be approved, the decision maker must find that the proposal is consistent with the following criteria: All regulations of the city of Edmonds shoreline master program appropriate to the shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be met, except those bulk and dimensional standards that have been modified by an approval of a shoreline variance under ECDC 24.80.060. 2. All policies of the city of Edmonds shoreline master program appropriate to the shoreline designation and the type of use or development proposed shall be considered and substantial compliance demonstrated. Staff Findings: The subject development is not specifically exempted by ECDC 24.80.010, thus a shoreline substantial development permit is required. The analysis below demonstrates how the proposal is consistent with the relevant regulations and policies of the Edmonds' Shoreline Master Program 2. Chapter 24.20 ECDC Goals and Policies for the Edmonds Shoreline Master Program Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 9 of 20 Packet Pg. 11 2.1.a A. ECDC 24.20.010 Economic Development Element ECDC 24.20.010.E Economic Development Goal. It is a goal of the city to encourage port facilities, tourist facilities, mixed use, commercial and light industrial development in specific and limited shoreline areas which enhance the public's access to the shoreline. Water -dependent, -oriented and water -enjoyment development are preferred in shoreline areas. The nature of this economic development should attract, and be open to, the general public and should not unduly interfere with the character of the shoreline area or with nearby shoreline and upland uses ECDC 24.20.010.0 Economic Development Policies 1. Mixed use commercial and light industrial uses in the shoreline area should be permitted only where compatible with existing or planned shoreline and upland development, or where legal parcels of land can be aggregated to minimize the impacts from the mixed use commercial or light industrial use. 2. Mixed use commercial and light industrial uses should be permitted only where infrastructure, particularly the roadway system, is presently adequate or is made adequate to accommodate the demands generated by commercial or light industrial development. 3. New shoreline light industrial and commercial development should be limited to that which is classified as water -dependent, water -related, or water -enjoyment uses and non -water -oriented uses which are not accessory to a water -oriented use should be discouraged and/or prohibited. 6. Development should be discouraged in any critical area and only allowed where impacts to these areas can be mitigated. 12. Commercial activities in shoreline areas should be operated with minimum adverse impact on the quality of the environment of the shoreline and adjacent areas. Staff Findings: The subject development is a water -related business compatible with the Port of Edmonds operations. Its location on the east side of Admiral Way minimizes impacts to the shoreline and does not interfere with public access to the shoreline area. The development site is located in an interrupted buffer that is currently a graveled parking area and will not result in any impacts to critical areas or the shoreline environment. B. ECDC 24.20.040 Circulation Element ECDC 24.20.040.8 Circulation Goal. It is the goal of the city to provide for the safe and efficient movement of people, goods, and emergency services within the shoreline area while recognizing and enhancing the unique, fragile and scenic character of the shoreline area with minimum disruption to the shoreline environment and minimum conflict between different users. ECDC 24.20.040. C Circulation Policies Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 10 of 20 Packet Pg. 12 2.1.a 1. Railroad Avenue, Dayton Street, Main Street, Admiral Way, and Sunset Avenue, which provide access to and through the city's accessible downtown shoreline area, should be designed and regulated to safely accommodate the vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic using these corridors, as well as to facilitate egress and ingress from adjacent properties and to enhance the scenic character and recreational use of this corridor, while recognizing that shoreline uses should have primary access to Railroad Avenue and Admiral Way. 2. Whenever practicable, safe pedestrian and bicycle movement on and off roadways in the shoreline area should be encouraged as a means of personal transportation and recreation. Staff Findings: The development is located on the east side of Admiral Way and the proposed marine retail and service uses will further promote shoreline uses. Frontage improvements including a new pedestrian walkway on the west side of the development will help improve pedestrian circulation. C. ECDC 24.20.050 Shoreline Use Element ECDC 24.20.050.8 Shoreline Use Goals 1. Allow for a diversity of uses within the shoreline area consistent with the dramatically different character of the various shorelines within the city, and to preserve and enhance the natural and aesthetic quality of important shoreline areas while allowing for reasonable development which meet the goals and policies of the Shoreline Management Act. 3. Reserve shoreline and water areas particularly suited for specific and appropriate uses, especially water -oriented and water -dependent uses, for such uses whether they are existing or potential. ECDC 24.20.050. C Shoreline Use Policies 1. "Environmentally critical areas" are to be protected and regulated consistent with the city's environmental review and critical areas regulations contained in Chapters 20.15A and 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC, less the exceptions listed in ECDC 24.40.020(C). 2. New uses and developments in shoreline areas that have established desirable development patterns should be designed to be compatible with those areas, provided the existing uses are consistent with the Shoreline Management Act and the city's comprehensive plan and shoreline master program. 3. In shoreline areas without established development patterns and which are not unique or fragile, the city should allow for a wide range of development options consistent with the Edmonds Community Development Code within established limits to protect the public interest. Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 11 of 20 Packet Pg. 13 2.1.a 9. Shoreline use should be compatible with its site, in harmony with adjacent uses, and consistent with long-range comprehensive planning for waterfront use. Staff Findings: The proposed marine retail and service use is a water -oriented type use which is particularly suited to the Port of Edmonds' shoreline environment and compatible with other development within the Port of Edmonds. No critical areas or sensitive shoreline areas will be impacted by the proposed development, D. ECDC 24.20.100 Urban Design Element ECDC24.20.100.B. Urban Design Goal. It is a goal of the city to encourage development within the shoreline area that is visually coherent, provides visual and physical linkage to the shoreline, enhances the waterfront, and is consistent with the streetscape plan. ECDC 24.20.100.0 Urban Design Policies 1. The shoreline area within and south of the north boundary of the Brackett's Landing North Park, to the south city limits (generally the urban mixed use shoreline environment) is one of the most scenic areas of the city. It also, to a large extent, establishes the visual identity of Edmonds. As such, both public and private development in these areas should be controlled and regulated to provide an urban environment which preserves or enhances the opportunity for the public to enjoy the scenic quality of the shoreline. 2. Projects should be encouraged to provide "street furniture," public art, related interpretative signage, landscaping and other amenities within or adjacent to the right-of-way of Railroad Avenue and Admiral Way to complement a pedestrian promenade along the shoreline consistent with the streetscape plan. 4. New and remodeled developments should provide public view corridors adjacent to either the north or south property line to enhance public visual access to the Puget Sound and to provide for a visual link between the downtown and its waterfront roots. The location of the view corridor should be coordinated with the development of adjacent properties in order to maximize public visual access to the Puget Sound. Properties with significant frontage on the shoreline should consider providing view corridors in multiple locations so as to maximize public visual access to the shoreline. In the application of design standards, the preservation of public views shall be given priority over landscaping and fencing requirements. 5. Projects should minimize the amount of vehicular parking in the urban mixed use I and 11 shoreline environments through use of joint use parking agreements (where permitted), and by locating employee parking off -site and outside the urban mixed use I and 11 shoreline environments. 6. Projects should be designed to locate vehicular parking away from the shoreline, bulkhead, or areas of pedestrian circulation. Staff Findings: The proposed development location on the east side of Admiral Way will minimize visual impacts to the shoreline area. The proposed development complies with the view corridor requirements of ECDC 24.40.040.11 (see Section X11.4.0 of this Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 12 of 20 Packet Pg. 14 2.1.a staff report). Parking for the proposed development is located on the east side of the building away from the street, pedestrian walkway and as far away from the Puget Sound shoreline as possible in this location. The idea of adding some street furniture was discussed on the Architectural Design Board meeting on October 18, 2017 (Attachment 18). The Port of Edmonds mentioned they would take that under consideration. The Hearing Examiner may want to consider adding a condition requiring a bench on the west side of the proposed development along the pedestrian walkway. 3. Chapter 24.30 ECDC Shoreline Environments A. ECDC 24.30.070 Urban Mixed Use ECDC24.30.070.A Purpose. The purpose of the urban mixed use environmentis to provide for high -intensity, water -oriented commercial, transportation, and industrial uses while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded. ECDC 23.30.070.8.3 Designation Criteria. Urban Mixed Use ll. This designation is assigned to areas that are suitable and planned for high -intensity, water -dependent uses related to commerce, transportation, and recreation. ECDC 23.30.070. D Management Policies 1. In regulating uses in the urban mixed use environments, first priority should be given to water -dependent uses. Second priority should be given to water -related and water - enjoyment uses. Non -water -oriented uses may be allowed as part of mixed use developments. Non -water -oriented uses may also be allowed in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit opportunities for water -oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access to the shoreline. 2. Full utilization of existing urban areas should be achieved before further expansion of intensive development is allowed. 3. Reasonable long-range projections of regional economic need should guide the amount of shoreline designated urban mixed use, however, consideration should be given to the potential for displacement of non -water -oriented uses with water - oriented uses when analyzing full utilization of urban waterfronts and before considering expansion of such areas. 4. Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be provided. 5. Aesthetic objectives should be implemented by means such as sign control regulations, appropriate development siting, screening and architectural standards, and maintenance of natural vegetative buffers. 6. Any new development or redevelopment should utilize low impact development techniques where feasible and appropriate. 7. Any new development shall include environmental cleanup, restoration of shoreline or other development techniques where feasible and appropriate to assure no net loss Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 13 of 20 Packet Pg. 15 2.1.a of shoreline ecological functions, and shall comply with any relevant state and federal law. Staff Findings: The proposed development is a water -oriented commercial use consistent with the purpose of the Urban Mixed Use shoreline environment. The development will result in no net loss of shoreline ecologically functions and values. The project is consistent with the design guidelines of the Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 20.11 ECDC (Attachments 17 and 18). Visual and public access to the shoreline will not be impacted by the proposed development. 4. Chapter 24.40 ECDC General Policies and Regulations A. ECDC 24.40.020 Critical Areas The Shoreline Master Program adopts the City of Edmonds' critical area ordinance, as codified in Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 ECDC (dated May 3, 2016, Ord. 4026, except for the specific subsections identified in ECDC 24.40.020.C. None of the exceptions in ECDC 24.40.020.0 apply to the subject project. See the discussion on critical areas above in Section VII.3 of this staff report regarding critical area regulations compliance. Staff Findings: With regard to potential stream and wetland buffers, the proposed development is located within an interrupted buffer and thus an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220.C.4. A geotechnical report will be required to address potential liquefaction at time of building permit application and the development will comply with frequently flooded area development regulations. B. ECDC 24.40.030 Flood Hazard Reduction Development within the shoreline environment are required to meet the standards and provisions for protection of frequently flooded areas as provided to areas of special flood hazard in the current edition of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in Title 19 ECDC. It has been determined that the subject property is located within a frequently flooded area and subject to the requirements of the International Building Code amendments in ECDC 19.00.025.P (Attachment 16). ECDC 24.40.030.E also notes that development and redevelopment shall be located and designed to prevent the need for structural flood hazard reduction measures. The proposed development does not require structural flood hazard reduction measures. Staff Findings: The proposed development is consistent with the flood hazard reduction regulations of ECDC 24.40.030. C. ECDC 24.40.040 Public Access and Views The proposed development will not impact public access to the shoreline area and the regulations related to public access in ECDC 24.40.040.B.1 through B.9 are not applicable to the project. However, the view protect regulations of ECDC 24.40.040.B.10 and B.11 are applicable to the development. ECDC 24.40.040.B.11.a.i provides: Landward of the ordinary high water mark, a view corridor must be maintained across 30 percent of the average parcel width. The view corridor must be in one continuous Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 14 of 20 Packet Pg. 16 2.1.a piece. Within the view corridor, structures, parking areas, and landscaping will be allowed, provided, that they do not obscure the view from adjacent public right-of- way to and beyond the Puget Sound. This view corridor must be adjacent to either the north or south property line, whichever will result in the widest view corridor given development on adjacent properties. If the subject property has shoreline frontage in excess of 1,000 feet, the city may require a maximum of one-third of the required view corridor to be placed in a location between the north and south property lines, in a location which will provide for the greatest unobstructed view of the Puget Sound. Staff findings: The parcel where the proposed development will occur is approximately 1,600 feet long (from south to north). There are currently only two structures on the parcel. Jacobsen's Marine is approximately 130 feet wide and a smaller structure adjacent to the development site is approximately 10 feet wide. The proposed marine retail building is approximately 100 feet wide. After the proposed building is constructed, 85 percent of the parcel will still provide view corridors including the southern 300 feet of the parcel and the northern 530 feet of the parcel. D. ECDC 24.40.040 Water quality, storm water, and nonpoint pollution A preliminary storm water report is provided in Attachment 4. Compliance with the City's storm water regulations in Chapter 18.30 ECDC will also meet the provisions of ECDC 24.40.040 and be verified with the building permit review. Engineering found the preliminary storm water report compliant with the requirements of Chapter 18.30 ECDC. E. ECDC 24.40.080 Shoreline development permitted by area designation ECDC 24.40.080 identifies the allowed uses in the various shoreline area designations. Water -oriented commercial and light industrial uses are permitted via a shoreline substantial development permit within the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline environment. The proposed marine retail building qualifies a water -oriented commercial development. F. ECDC 24.40.090 Shoreline bulk and dimensional standards The bulk and dimensional requirements for commercial development within the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline environmental in ECDC 24.40.090 are detailed in the table below: Shore Building Buffer Side Maximum Maximum Parking Setback Setback Setback" Height Coverage 15 feet N/A N/A 0'/1512-3 30 feet None 60 feet 7 2 See ECDC 24.40.040(B)(11) for view corridor requirements. 3 No side setback is required from adjacent commercial property. A minimum 15-foot setback is required from lot line adjacent to shoreline residential environments. The area must be fully landscaped and include a minimum six-foot high fence or hedge. 7 In the urban mixed use I and II environment, the 60-foot setback for parking may be reduced by a maximum of 20 feet. See ECDC 24.60.080(D)(2)(c) and (D)(3)(c). 15 Side setback determined by the underlying zoning. No required side setback in the BD2, CG, or MP2 zones. Five-foot side setback in the OR zone. Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 15 of 20 Packet Pg. 17 2.1.a Staff Findings: The proposed building is located more than 15 feet from both Puget Sound and the Willow Creek outlet on the east side of the railroad right-of-way. The parking area is more than 60 feet from Puget Sound and Willow Creek. No side setbacks are required as the site is not adjacent to any shoreline residential environments and the proposal is consistent with the view corridor requirements of ECDC 24.40.040.13.11. The proposed building is 30 feet in height (as measured from two -feet above based flood elevation). 5. Chapter 24.50 ECDC General Modification Policies and Regulations A. ECDC 24.50.010 General Modification Policies ECDC 24.50.010.A.1 Locate and design all new development in a manner that prevents or minimizes the need for shoreline modifications. Staff Findines: The proposed development on the east side of Admiral Way is located in an area where no shoreline modifications will be required. 6. Chapter 24.60 ECDC Specific Use Policies and Regulations A. ECDC 24.60.030 Commercial Development and Light Industrial ECDC24.60.030.A. Applicability. Commercial development means those uses and facilities that are involved in wholesale or retail trade or business activities. Examples include but are not limited to restaurants, hotels, shops, offices, and recreation facilities. Industry applies to those businesses or uses involved in the production, processing, manufacturing, or fabrication of goods. Warehousing and storage of materials or products is considered part of the industrial process. This is a broad category that mostly applies to the downtown commercial waterfront (CW) where development must also comply with Chapter 16.55 ECDC. Uses and activities associated with commercial development that are identified as separate use activities in this master program, such as boating facilities, piers and docks, utilities, etc., are subject to the regulations established for those uses in addition to the standards for commercial development. The design, layout and operation of certain commercial uses directly affects their classification with regard to whether or not they qualify as water -related or water - enjoyment uses. ECDC 24.60.030.8. Commercial Development and Light Industrial Policies. 1. In securing shoreline locations for commercial and light industrial use, preference should be given first to water -dependent commercial uses, then to water -related, water -enjoyment commercial uses. 2. Restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions and processes should be encouraged as part of commercial and light industrial development. 3. Commercial and light industrial development should ensure visual compatibility with adjacent noncommercial properties. 4. Commercial and light industrial uses located in the shoreline should provide public access in accordance with constitutional or other legal limitations unless such Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 16 of 20 Packet Pg. 18 2.1.a improvements are demonstrated to be infeasible or present hazards to life and property. 5. Commercial and light industrial development should be encouraged to locate where environmental cleanup and restoration of the shoreline area can be incorporated. Staff Findings: The proposed development is a water -related use consistent with the requirements of the Commercial Waterfront zone requirements in Chapter 16.55 ECDC (see Section X1.1 above). The development is compatible with other development within the Port of Edmonds property and will not impact visual of physical access to the shoreline area. ECDC24.60.030.C. Commercial Development and Light Industrial Regulations. 1. Commercial and light industrial uses are allowed subject to the policies and regulations of ECDC 24.40.020 and the specific criteria below: a. Water -dependent commercial and light industrial uses shall be given preference over water -related and water -enjoyment commercial uses. Prior to approval of water -dependent uses, the administrator shall review a proposal for design, layout and operation of the use and shall make specific findings that the use qualifies as a water -dependent use. b. Water -related commercial and light industrial uses may not be approved if the use displaces existing water -dependent uses. Prior to approval of water -related commercial uses, the administrator shall review a proposal for design, layout and operation of the use and shall make specific findings that the use qualifies as a water -related use. c. Water -enjoyment commercial uses may not be approved if they displace existing water -dependent or water -related uses. Prior to approval of water -enjoyment uses, the administrator shall review a proposal for design, layout and operation of the use and shall make specific findings that the use qualifies as a water - enjoyment use. d. Non -water -oriented commercial and light industrial uses may be permitted where located on a site physically separated from the shoreline by another property in separate ownership or a public right-of-way such that access for water -oriented use is precluded. All other non -water -oriented uses are prohibited in the shoreline unless the use provides significant public benefit with respect to the objectives of this master program and the Shoreline Management Act and is: i. Part of a mixed use project that includes a water -oriented use; or ii. Proposed on a site where navigability is severely limited. Staff Findings: The proposed marine retail and service use of the building is a water - related use that will not displace any water -dependent uses. The proposed use will be compatible with and provide support to the water -dependent marina use present on the west side of Admiral Way. Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 17 of 20 Packet Pg. 19 2.1.a 2. Overwater construction of commercial and light industrial uses is prohibited except as follows: a. Only those portions of water -dependent commercial and light industrial uses that require overwater facilities shall be permitted to locate waterward of the ordinary high water mark. b. Non -water -dependent commercial and light industrial uses shall not be allowed over water except in limited instances where they are appurtenant to and necessary in support of water -dependent uses. Staff Findings: No overwater construction is proposed with the subject development. ECDC 24.60.030.D. Commercial Development and Light Industrial — Shoreline Area Regulations. 3. Urban Mixed Use ll. a. Water -oriented commercial and light industrial use and development are permitted subject to the policies and regulations of this master program. Non - water -oriented commercial use and development may be permitted subject to the criteria for such uses in subsection (C)(1)(d) of this section. b. A minimum of 15 foot setback is required from lot lines adjacent to shoreline residential environments. This area must be fully landscaped and include a minimum six-foot high fence or hedge. Staff Findings: The proposed development is a water -oriented use. The site is not adjacent to any shoreline residential environments. B. ECDC 24.60.080 Transportation and Parking This section describes the requirements for transportation and parking facilities within shoreline jurisdiction. The relevant provisions from this section are related to parking. ECDC 24.60.080.0 Transportation and Parking Regulations 6. Parking facilities are not a water -dependent use and shall only be permitted within the shoreline to support an authorized use where it can be demonstrated that there are no feasible alternative locations away from the shoreline. 7. All uses must provide sufficient off-street parking spaces in order to accommodate the reasonably anticipated number of vehicles that will be coming to the subject property. Specific parking standards for uses are identified in the Chapter 17.50 ECDC, as now or hereafter amended. 8. Parking layouts must be designed efficiently to use the minimum amount of space necessary to provide the required parking and safe and reasonable access. Parking should not be located between the building(s) on the subject property and the shoreline. Exterior parking areas, other than for detached dwelling units, must be attractively landscaped with vegetation that will not obstruct view of the shoreline from adjacent public areas or adjacent public rights -of -way. Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 18 of 20 Packet Pg. 20 2.1.a Staff Findings: The parking associated with the development is consistent with Chapter 17.50 ECDC and supports an authorized water -oriented shoreline use. The parking is on the east side of the proposed building away from the street and pedestrian walkway and located as far from Puget Sound as is possible on the subject site. ECDC 24.60.080. D Transportation and Parking — Shoreline Area Regulations 3.c. Parking Facilities. In the urban mixed use 11 environment, the 60 foot setback for parking established in ECDC 24.40.090may be reduced by a maximum of 20 feet if a public walkway or publicly accessible open space is provided waterward of the bulkhead. The parking setback may be reduced by one foot for every one foot of public walkway or publicly accessible open space that is provided waterward of the OHWM, to a maximum of 20 feet. The minimum setback for parking facilities shall be no less than 40 feet from the bulkhead. Staff Findings: The parking area is located more than 60 feet from Puget Sound and the Willow Creek outlet on the east side of the railroad right-of-way. XIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis within and the attachments included with this report, staff feels the proposal is consistent with the policies and regulations of the City of Edmonds Shoreline Master Program as codified in Title 24 ECDC and design of the building and site are consistent with general design review criteria and ECDC 20.11 and the Urban Design Chapter in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and recommends that the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the shoreline substantial development permit (PLN20170029) and design review (PLN20170030) of the proposed Port of Edmonds' marine retail building with the following conditions: 1. All mechanical equipment and other utility hardware on the roof, grounds, or buildings shall be screened to mitigate view impacts from street level. Screening could include the use of architectural elements, landscaping and/or fencing. 2. Street trees shall be a minimum of 3 inches in caliper. Species, location and spacing of the street trees will be determined during civil plan review with the building permit application. 3. If a trash/recycling collection area is added to the development site, it should be provided in a gated trash enclosure to screen view of the waste and recycling containers. XIV. PARTIES OF RECORD: City of Edmonds 121— 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 Robert McChesney Port of Edmonds 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, WA 98020 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 19 of 20 Packet Pg. 21 2.1.a Shawn Rafferty Jackson Main Architecture 311 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 XV. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Land Use Application 2. Application Cover Letter 3. Development Plans 4. Preliminary Stormwater Report 5. Traffic Impact Analysis Staff Report 6. Landau Associates Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Assessment 7. SEPA Checklist 8. Port of Edmonds Determination of Nonsignificance 9. Zoning and Vicinity Map 10. Shoreline Designations Map 11. Notice of Application Documentation 12. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Comments 13. Building Division Comments 14. Engineering Division Comments 15. Critical Area Determination CRA20170095 16. Frequently Flooded Area — City Discretion and Designation Memorandum 17. Architectural Design Board Staff Report 18. October 18, 2017 Draft ADB Minutes 19. Notice of Public Hearing Documentation Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Shoreline Substantial Development Permit (PLN20170029) and Design Review (PLN20170030) Page 20 of 20 Packet Pg. 22 2.1.a City of Edmunds Land Use Application V ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ❑ HOME OCCUPATION ❑ FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE SHORELINE PERMIT ❑ VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION ❑ OTHER: FILE # f'i1�dv t !aC A ZONE G` DATE �_�� i REC'D BY FEE 4-7 3 RECEIPT # HEARING DATE ❑ HE XTAFF PB )-<ADB ❑ CC JUN 2 S DEVELOPMENT *PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAIIrNjE�D WITHIN THE APPLICATIONIS A PUBLIC RECORDAJUrr i lJ PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION k U� Gd 1► l U nAS 4 i A prvlP fm l L W PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) T j V �� Um PROPERTY OWNER w 9— DUmbYi IP' 1(�HONE# ADDRESS 33cv t�m►�aa W E mpn(W �S A "� b at) TAX ACCOUNT # FAX # SEC. TWP. RNG. DESCRI PTFONrOF PROJECT QS,F R PNOPp US,� (�TT CH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) APPLICANT VD?�Qk ADDRESS 33 (0 rn` PHONE # Q--'5 , -4T5. 1 �5 " E-MAIL FAX # _ sha�n Q�� CONTACT PERSON/AGENT PFIf�}NjIy:{{1! ADDRESS ?)" E-MAIL sh aUJ h• rQ C A sml�m �m FAX # a 06. 324. k�bb z► i The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on 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 part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the informat ! onAld exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this applieati a air of the o kis Claw. 7 SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AG l.V DATE • G 1- l 7 Property Owner's Authorization I ,p—� 'E, -e yA , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington thst the followingc is a true d correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purpo of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE Questions? Call (4 0220. Revised on 8122112 Lan Use Applicatio Page I of I Aftac`hment f IPacket Pg. 23 2.1.a JACKSON I MAIN ARCH ITECTUR E April 25, 2017 City of Edmonds Planning Department 121 5th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 re: Port of Edmonds Marine Retail 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, WA 98020 JMA No. 16110 Dear Madame or Sir: JUN 2 8 2017 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER Jackson Main Architecture is to permit a new 6,650 SF retail building, space for boat sales and maintenance. The proposal would redevelop a portion of land parcel 2703200415800 at 465 Admiral Way currently utilized as a parking lot. The proposed project is a construction of a premanufactured metal building and is within the 200' shoreline buffer. The project is also within the wetland buffer around Edmonds Marsh. ECDC 23.40.220 (C.4) identifies development proposals within interrupted stream or wetland buffers as allowed activities, in which: Adjacent areas that may be physically separated from a stream or wetland due to existing, legally established structures or paved areas may be exempted from the prescribed buffer widths if proven scientifically to be functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. The director will require the applicant to provide a site assessment and functional analysis documentation report by a qualified critical area consultant that demonstrates the interrupted buffer area is functionally isolated. The director shall consider the hydrologic, geologic, and/or biological habitat connection potential and the extent and permanence of the physical separation. We have provided a Critical Areas Assessment, written by a biologist that shows the subject property is separated from the wetland by the intervening railroad tracks. We have reviewed the guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan and Community Development Code (EDC 20.11.030). We believe our building design complies with the criteria in the following ways: • We are providing both retail and service to the port in a convenient location for both existing boat owners and perspective owners. Colors have been selected which match the existing color scheme found on various existing structures within the Port of Edmonds. The scale and height of the proposed building are such that is will not block views from the city to the Puget Sound. JACKSON I MAIN ARCHITECTURE, P.S. 311 FIRST AVENUE S. SEATTLE, WA 98104 Attachment 2 WWW.JACKSONMAIN.COM p 206.324.4800 1 f 206.322.2875 Packet Pg. 24 2.1.a JACKSON I MAIN 1F ARCH I T E C T U R E • The location of the proposed building is such that it does not block any existing building's views to the Puget Sound. ■ The proposed building is being constructed in an empty lot and will not replace any existing historical buildings. • Mechanical equipment is minimum and will be located inside the building envelope. ■ Landscaping will be added to the site per the attached plan and rendering- enhancing the lot (which is currently not landscaped). • A decorative fence and posts will be installed on the street side of the lot- per the attached renderings. Please let us know if there are any questions or additional material you need to complete your review Sincerely, /9 - Shawn Rafferty Designer r� JACKSON i MAIN Architecture, P.S. 311 First Avenue South Seattle, Washington 98104 206.324.4800 P www.iacksonm ain. corn JACKSON I MAIN ARCHITECTURE, P.S. 311 FIRST AVENUE S, SEATTLE, WA 98104 WWW.JACKSONMAIN.COM p 206 324.4800 1 f 206.322.2875 Attachment 2 Packet Pg. 25 jr�pl. iPOi •%�� '` a , i l�ji��IIIIIII III x Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Design Review Presentation J M J A C KS O N I MAIN 336 Admiral waAlt'adhment 3August 17, 2017 ARCHITECTURE NOHIHWI SI -AERIAL VIEW SOUTHWEST - AERIAL VIEW � {r s � 15. kti ti 1 � AMA -A'sr Id4' !�. .�..: d %r li •fir Jim- 1 - EDMOND'S YACHT CLUB 2- PORT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 3- SITE- NORTH PERSPECTIVE WEST VIEW -ADMIRAL WAY J SATELLITE VIEW a W O 7mm" +� L O a c a� E 4- SITE- SOUTH PERSPECTIVE a r L O Q 0 M O O T_ O N Z J d C R O N 5- JACOBSEN'S MARINE p ti 0 N Z J d C d E SITE CONTEXT a Packet Pg. 27 2.1.a �SO ce Base Y7 T STRAIN �� TRANS ce /+sse P As s of xu iE-s az cGHCRETE PxALT �2— O EL BOX S �4Y a colic sw iR-s. nsPxuT RII G' G =zz G* [ -------�UJ\' y ASS SS s SS SS SS SSr SS SS SS SS SS SS �S SS ADMIRiV WAY _ __,*ter W. PER R / �xG s�GH \ �25 uvH -EL RETE x - X -- X xaXR PARK �nILL _o TRExcx \ cRArEL \ \ \ LEGEND C) SHRUB """""""` BUILDING LINE y CONIFER TREE EDGE OF GRAVEL STUMP VEGETATION LINE DECIDUOUS TREE X x FENCE O TELEPHONE/COMM. MANHOLE GUARD RAIL T❑ TELEPHONE PEDESTAL P UNDERGROUND POWER LINE KQ' GAS VALVE P_ RECORD POWER LINE 0 GAS METER OHP OVERHEAD POWER LINE ® JUNCTION BOX G GAS LINE © POWER VAULT G* RECORD GAS LINE © POWER MANHOLE SD STORM DRAIN LINE ` � LIGHT POLE SD RECORD STORM DRAIN LINE ❑o POWER TRANSFORMER SS SANITARY SEWER LINE -0- UTILITY POLE SS* RECORD SANITARY SEWER O— GUY ANCHOR W WATER LINE (D STORM DRAIN MANHOLE W* RECORD WATER LINE ❑ CATCH BASIN TV CABLE TV LINE CO. CLEANOUT c COMMUNICATIONS LINE (FIBER OPTIC) U CULVERT AS NOTED UGT UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE TWI WATER VAULT RIGHT-OF-WAY R FIRE HYDRANT CENTERLINE OF ROAD WATER VALVE PAVEMENT STRIPING ® WATER METER @W WATER MANHOLE OR AS NOTED IRRm IRRIGATION VALVE HBO HOSE BIB O SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE BLRDo BOLLARD _LL SIGN O FOUND MONUMENT IN CASE • PK NAIL W/WASHER 20 10 0 20 40 SCALE IN FEET ~ \ \ I AsnwLT \ As HALT cn P \ N za RG NG GATE x 1 h SyFo / N h waE x GRAVEL GRAVEL x zi o 0 RECYCLE AREA FO O A _x X� X� P�- z------J �RwE GRwxo RGwER�HE BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RAILROAD W* W* SURVEY NOTES DATUMS: 1. THE UTILITIES SHOWN HEREON ARE BASED ON OBSERVATION OF SURFACE FEATURES, AND RECORD UTILITY MAPS. FIELD LOCATIONS MUST BE VERIFIED HORIZONTAL DATUM: NAD 83/11 WA NORTH PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION. 2. THIS SURVEY WAS MADE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW ANY EASEMENTS OR OTHER ITEMS OF RECORD. 3. BASIS OF BEARINGS: WASHINGTON STATE PLANE COORDINATES, NORTH ZONE 4. SURVEY MONUMENTS WERE FIELD MEASURED USING LEICA GS14 AND LEICA 1200 CPS RECEIVERS. MONUMENT POSITIONS THAT WERE NOT DIRECTLY OBSERVED USING CPS WERE TIED TO THOSE POINTS USING A LEICA MS50 MULTI -STATION IN CONFORMANCE WITH ACCEPTED SURVEY PROCEDURES WHICH MEET OR EXCEED STATE STANDARDS SPECIFIED BY WAG 332-130 WITH REGARD TO LINEAR AND ANGULAR CLOSURES. 5. THIS SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND DOES NOT PURPORT TO SHOW ALL EASEMENTS OR OTHER ITEMS OF RECORD. 6. SITE IS 360 FT +\- FROM O.H.W.M. AT THE BULKHEAD IN EDMONDS MARINA AND 110 FT +\- NORTHWEST OF WILLOW CREEK. VERTICAL DATUM: NAVE, 88 BENCHMARK: N-7, RESET 1956, BRASS DISK U.S.C.&G.S. MONUMENT SET ON TOP OF CONCRETE RETAINING WALL OF A FLOWER BED, 3.4' NORTH OF THE NORTH CORNER OF EDMONDS AMTRAK RAILROAD STATION. ELEVATION = 13.52 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN N C E L V f3 a t a� i O Q O M O O O N Z J d C fC O N O O ti O N Z J d C d E a Packet Pg. 28 ADMIRAL WAY IRRIGATION LEGEND SYMBOL MANUFACTURER PSI RADIUS GPM LOCATION 2.1.a LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN IRRIGATION LINE AND SLEEVE SIZING 0' 5' 10, 20' 40' CLASS 200 PVC LATERAL LINE SCHEDULE 40 PVC SLEEVING 3/4" LINE UP TO 10 GPM 1 IR" LINE UP TO 10 GPM 1"LINE BETWEEN II-156PM 2"LTNE BETWEEN II-15 GPM 11/4"LINE BETWEEN I6-25 GPM 21/2"SLEEVE BETWEEN I6-25 GPM SCALE: 1"=10'-O" NORTH 4" SLEEVE BETWEEN 35-60 GPM BASE MAP FROM JACKSON MAIN ARCH.; SEATTLE,WA. POINT OF CONNECTION DETAIL 3/4 WATER METER BY OTHERS (WATER PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE - WATTS) 3/4 STOP VALVE - MUELLER M l /+T� SCHEDULE 80 PVC UNION 3/4" DBL CHECK ASSEMBLIT 1- MAIN LINE MANUAL DRAIN VALVE QUICK COUPLER 1" VALVE KEY VALVE NUMBER i� VALVE GPM (GALLONS PER MINUTE) #2 12.00-5/L ("S" Indicates Shrub Zove, "L" Indicates Lawn Zone) 30 3/4" _VALVE SIZFVAL. PSI (OPERATING PRESSURE) SCHEDULE 40 PVC MAIN LINE RAINBIRD PEB SERIES CONTROL VALVES 3/4" LINE UP TO IO GPM 3/4" VALVE UP TO 17 GPM 1"LINE BETWEEN II-15 GPM 1"VALVE BETWEEN I8-25 GPM 11/4"LINE BETWEEN I6-25 GPM * ALL MAINLINE SLEEVING TO BE MINIMUM 4" UCDC DETAIL: OUICK-GOUPLIN6 VALVE NO SCALE m.- PUCE ALL LAWN HEADS IN LAWN AREA, MIN, 1' FROM EDGE OF PAVING OR BEDLINE PUCE ALL SHRUB HEADS IN SHRUB BEDS. MIN. 3" FROM BECUNE, AND MIN. 10' FROM ALL STRUCTURES. *DO NOT CONNECT INTO 510E PORT OF HEAD DETAIL: POP-UP SPRAY SPRINKLER NO SCALE 0 NOTE: USE 6" POP-UP HEIGHT HEADS ADJACENT TO HEAD IN PARKING STALLS. USE 12" HEIGHT POP-UP HEADS IN ALL OTHER LOCATIONS. CONNECT INTO BOTTOM INLET OF 12" POP-UP HEADS. RAIN BIRD 1912 W/]OF MPR PLASTIC NOZZLE 30 10, 1.57 SHRUB RAIN B]RD 1812 W/]OH MPR PLASTIC NOZZLE 30 10' 0.78 SHRUB RAIN BIRD 1812 W/IOQ MPR PLASTIC NOZZLE 30 10' 0.39 SHRUB RAIN B]RD 1812 W/9SST MPR PLASTIC NOZZLE 30 9'x18' 1.73 SHRUB RAIN B]RD 1912 W/I 5SST MPR PLASTIC NOZZLE 30 4'x30' 1.21 SHRUB RAIN BIRD 1812 W/15EST MPR PLASTIC NOZZLE 30 4'x15' 0.61 SHRUB eRAINBIRD PEB SERIES AUTOMATIC CONTROL VALVE, SIZE PER PLAN AND PROVIDE AMETEK CONTROL BOX & MIN.2 CURT. WASHED PEA GRAVEL. O WATER PRESSURE REDUCING VALVE - WATTS SERIES U5, U5B, AS NEEDED; SIZE PER P.O.C. DETAIL eMUELLER BRASS ISOLATION VALVE, SIZE PER POINT OF CONNECTION DETAIL, INSTALL IN ROUND 6" AMETEK, PER DETAIL. ►� FEBCO DOUBLE CHECK VALVE, SIZE PER POINT OF CONNECTION DETAIL, INSTALL IN LARGE AMETEK CONTROL BOX, PER DETAIL. RAINBIRD QUICK COUPLER VALVE 44RC, ASSUME 1"UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLAN. QC PROVIDE HOSE SWIVEL. INSTALL PER DETAIL AC RAINBIRD ESP-LX MODULAR SERIES-8 STATION AUTOMATIC CONTROLLER. EXTERIOR MOUNT, COORDINATE LOCATION PER OWNER APPROVAL. PROVIDE CONDUIT TO POWER SOURCE AND CONNECT TO POWER SOURCE. L GLEN HILTON MC MINI CLICK II RAIN SENSOR WITH BY-PASS SWITCH. INSTALL PER OWNER. 1"MAIN SCHEDULE 40 PVC MAIN LINE, SIZE PER PLAN. MIN. DEPTH 18" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. 1,CLASS 200 PVC LATERAL LINE, SIZE PER PLAN, MIN. DEPTH 12" BELOW FINISHED GRADE. _ SCHEDULE 40 PVC SLEEVING, SIZE PER PLAN, MIN. DEPTH 18" BELOW FINISHED GRADE FOR MAINLINE. -..... -SCHEDULE 40 PVC SLEEVING, SIZE PER PLAN, MIN. DEPTH 12" BELOW FINISHED GRADE FOR LATERAL LINES. ROCK SPLASH PER LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN, SEE SHEET L2.0. IRRIGATION NOTES L Imgation design and layout assumes minimum 401bs. static water pressure 25 GPM at point of connection. Verify PSI and GPM, if discrepancy exists report to Landscape Architect and owner before proceeding. 2. The Landscape Contractor shall inspect the site aad verify existing -Iand dimensions prior to bidding and construction. 3. Landscape Architect to have 48 hour notice to review pressure test for project Provide owner with BeckPow Certif Ufi,a for review and approval. 4. Ivigatiov plan is diagrammatic. Adjust pipe, valves and ivigation heads according to field conditions and plant locations. Report any discrepancies to Landscape Architect. 5. Coordinate inigation points of coaacc[ion and location of amomatic wntrolla with General Contractor. 3/4" Water Meter by General Commas. Coordinate all work with other trades involved. 6. All valves will be placed iv valve boxes m a manner which facilitates access for memtevavce. Locate valves m sh b and ground cover beds unless approved by Landscape Architect No valve boxes in lawn areas. 7. All components of inigation system shall be installed and adjusted IDprovide adequate coverage and no ova spiny onto buildings, windows, or I areas. Contractor is responsible for providing a complete working vfigatio¢ system. 8. Contractor is responsible foe any damages to building and infiwint um dining landscape C..stnreti... 9. Bury control cartes below mainline and tape t 6.1me every 10' D.C. l0. Flush mainline before installing valves. Flush zone lives before iasE ivg nozzles. Test „tire system before back filling trenches. 11. Elecmc Valves and Backflow prevention assembly to be placed in below grade valve boxes and installed iv shrub beds. Verify that valve boxes not placed where plan[ materials are ro be installed. Provide sleeving under all paved surtaces. 12, Provide full coverage to all lawn and shmb beds. Install additional irrigation heads as necessary m achieve f8 coverage and water mall plantings. 13. 120 AC Electrical power source at controller location shall be provided by General Contractor. The Landscape Contractor Shall make the final omeaiov from the electrical source [o the covtrolla. All wiring per L & I Codes. 14. All irrigation beads to be installed perpendicular Io finish grade unless otherwise specified. Place all lawn heads in lawn areas, 3" from edge of paving or bedline. Place all shmb heads in shmb beds, min. 4" from bedline and min. 10" from all stmetm'es. CONNECT INTO BOTTOM INLET OF 12" POP-UP HEADS. 15. Winterizing the system: The irrigation can L., shall install a manual drain valve assembly. Dmi¢i¢g the mainline shall be accomplished by introducing compressed air into the system through the quick coupler valve at the point of connation. l6. Demonstrate wohivg system to building maivtevavice manage up.v wmplaiov and acceptance. l7. Locate all vtihties before digging. Call 1-(800) 424-5555. I8. Install itrigation system in accordance with all applicable codes and ordinanI- I 9Mount Rain Sensor near top of building. Place in approved location with Landscape Architect. 20. From controller install 3M-14 gauge single strand direct bury wire (DRY) with we spare yellow wire and one Comm.. wire to each valve box wif connection' and Schedule 80 unions. All wireSplices b be for wire connections: DBY-Direct Bury Splice by 3M. 21. Commctor to provide PDT File As -built drawings to Landscape Architect prior to close-out ofjob. 22. Electrical control wires to be spliced in control boxes only. 22. Asphalt and/or concrete w be removed 2" from behind extruded curb or sidewalk in planter. 23. Install rock outcrops and/or dry creek beds prior to installation of imgati.n. 24. Provide one (1) year warranty NOT parts, materials aad workmanship upon final acceptance date from owner for work completed per Inigation PER. 25. Verify ov-site undergm,,d vault location pe, Civil E¢ginea prior to construction. All mainlines to be buried min. 18" depth below grade; lateral lines to be buried min. 12" depth below grade. 26, Sprinkler heads adjacent to head in parking, to be set on parking lot snipe. DUE SPARE-YELUDw -1 7 \ Ins. DRACE -11L1 1 11E110N AMETE1 IMI RCI 11 LE 1111121 ADE/roP OP a-)uIN. 113"111 CONTROL K PRUUSU we III Eo N® LE (CLOSE) IS�w °LW CAUL s EA AD NPiO'EUImD)sIDE) 4 a�o^� cLw. K (1 OF6)(( PIPE OF COMNE,iION -C III AND SCN i0 ELL . ' 3i:o-IxMHN=EDDE=IN Racers DETAIL: REMOTE CONTROL VALVE NO SCALE UVU cx LE`END scnmo¢ xeo MALE -.A I' OFE I) 80 "ION sc(I re) PIPE OF MatwLl .RUN -E DETAIL: BACKFLOW PREVENTER NO SCALE Lauchlin R. Bethune Associates, Inc. ■ Landscape Architecture & Planning, ASLA P.O. Box 1442 phone: (425) 432-9877 Maple Valley, Washington 98038 fax: (425) 432-9878 lauch@bethuneassociates.com www.bethuneass..iates.com LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION PLAN Packet Pg. 29 2.1.a NOTE: CENTER STREET TREES BETWEEN BUILDING AWNING TO PROVIDE FOR SPACE FOR TREE CANOPY. 18" WIDTH OVERHANG, TYPICAL. BUILDING ZONED:CW I8" WIDTH TW LIGHT POLE CAL. TREE ON ADJ. PROPERTY LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN 0' S' 10' 20' 40' SCALE: 1 "=10'-0" NORTH BASE MAP FROM JACKSON MAIN ARCH.; SEATTLE,WA. TREE STAKES: TREES 2" CAL. OR GREATER— 3 STAKES PER TREE TREES 13/4" CAL OR SMALLER— 2 STAKES PER TREE EXCAVATE AREA 2 TIMES DIAMETER OF I —BALL. MINIMUM 12" TOPSOIL AROUND ROOTBALL DETAIL: TREE PLANTING NO SCALE ADMIRAL WAY TYPE IV: STREET FRONTAGE 3 CRM LANDSCAPE BUFFER OVERHANG, TYPICAL. -- B- PLANT: REMOVE RIIRLAP& NIBS FROM TOP OF ROOT BALL N V 80IL MIX VI I) CONTAWEA PLANT: SCARIFY SIDES OF ROOTBALL C MPACTE SOIL MIX SUBGRADE 12" MIN. DETAIL: SHRUB PLANTING NO SCALE 4M1 a OTE NOTE: - I 1 ofie-- oFRTHEPROPERTY AB1str�ettm-mmIo�ppaad THE PLANT MATERIAL LEGEND Exact lacsfiav, spacing, and species will be detemdned daring the * Indicates Drought Tolerant Plant Matenal building permit phase of the project. Abrev. fQ... Common Name Botanical Name Size 2 CFP EGA BUM 3 Bowhalll Maple A— b.. "It—h.11" 1 1/2" c.L,B&B-M=hI d at 6' bmmh 25 GIFG >le CFP 2 Capital Fla —mg Pear Pyres callcryana "Capital" 1 3/4" cal.B&B-Matched at G branch EGA 2 Emerald Green Arborvitae Thy..-idemalhi "Emerald Green" 6' hgLB&B qSHC 1 Slender Hm.ki Cypress Chamaecyp.m ob— "Gracilis" 6' hgLB&B 30' * CRM 3 Colamnare Red Maple A— b.. "Colammare" 1 1/2" O d.D&B-Matched at 6' branch 2 shmbs: sbaww �e EOUN 5 Boning Bob y ush Eu..mus alam'COmpaem' 18" hgf/cool. a�G EVR 4 Evergreen Huckleberry V-moom avatmn 1211x12"/cant. * OIL72 Loyd, Laurel Room, lamocemws "Ono Luyken" 18"-21" widthB&B, Malcbed boll/ ym groan d covers �e DLYA 12 Day Lilly 1-1— calks "Chicago Apache" l gal. .m. at 24" ac at fam mlu spacing DLYB 19 Day Lilly Hemerocallis "Ha11's PiNc" 1 gal./coot. M 24" oc at triangular spacing GFJG 25 Golden Forest Japanese Gass H.m—hloa macro "All Gold" 1 gal./coot. at 24" oe at mangular spacing THIS 86 Rebus Rebus p,M.I,bus "Emerald Caryet" 1 gal./cant. at 30" at at triangular spacing 6LL11 ® EACH 66 Pachysandra Pacb,..dro tertnm.0 1 gal./coot. M 30" ac at fmgular spacing OUTDOOR SITE SPECIFIC NOTES DISPLAY QI WASHED DRAIN ROCK. Remove subgmde to 6" below pmpased finish gmd,. Place 6" depth washeddmm rock, 2" di —,over exposed subgmde. Drain rock from Pahner Coking COa1, Black Diamond, WA or approved source. 02 ALL PLANTERS PREVIOUSLY COVERED BY ASPHALT. For all plain m previously covered by asphalt, remove existing asphalt and additional 12" depth of subgmde. min Dispose ofdeb i, off -site. Scarify and place imum 12" depth topsoil per specs. Add additional topsoil to wv bed for berm, mi..1'-0", hold topsoil 3" below adjacent grade. Place 2" depth mulch per specs m planters upon installation of all plant materials. Topsoil from C-liss Materials per General Construction Notes, no subsntations. LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION NOTES 1. Owner to secure all necessary permits per City of Edmonds mqui mems. 2. All work pa mmoyl shall conform with the City of Edmonds, landscape and irrigation requirements, codes and specifications. 3. Locate, protect aad avoid dismption ofall above and below grade utilities and site features prior to consimc[iov. Coamo,la is LIGHT responsible for any resulting damages dnnog.mnshuetion. Ca11 before you dig at 1 (800) 424-5555. POLE 4. Land cape Contractor to I-Imodn site until Final Acccpt.., . Work W include weeding all beds and min mg debris from site. 5. Hold all plant material minimum Y-0" away from building Wallow for plant growth and maintenance around plant material. 6. Clean subgmde by removing all undesirable vegetation including grasses, weed, blackbefes, scotch broom aad poplar seedlings including roots. Leave subgmde in landcape areas minimum 9" below paving in shrub bed. Remove all debris from site. 2 7. Provide minimum 6" depth 70-30 mix ftom Curtis Resources; Enumclaw, WA, 253-891-6680, m all shmb beds. Scanty subgmde by ro milliog and add topsoil on surface. Add additional topsoil as—&d to contour shrub beds including required berms. 8. Provide minimum 2" &pN fine blend hem -fir mulch to all planting bed. Mulch fiom Sawdust Supply, New, Washington. Fill all planting beds and lawn areas [o within 1" of top of all verbs and walks. Slope all planting bed m drain. 9. Provide ove(1)yem warranty for ell plant materiels and workmanship. l0. Verify all qua s shown n the plant list and plans. Udiscrepanmes east between Ne graphic represenmtron and the numeric mmis, thegraphicreprese to—shagmle. 1 t 1. All plant materials to be specimen quality with full, symmetrical tmak aad foliage, unless otherwise rated. Fertilize all plantings 8 RBS with "Oemacote 17-7-12" plant gma 1. by Scott. ]atoll 2 cups per tree larger than 3", 1 cup per— less than 3", 1/2 cup per 5 gal., 1/4 Per 2 and 1 gal., 1/8 cup per 6" and 4" pots. Place at base ofplam after mulch bus been installed 4 OLL 12, Insure proper drainage otall planting holes pnor w installing plant materials. If planting holes do not drain or if heavy clay Boils are I BHM I evident concoct landscape architect. 13. Fill all planting beds to within Val top of all curbs and walks. Berm all planting bed and lawn areas to drain. ^ n. uo 14. Aspheltm be removed 3"from behind extruded ombin planting bed after paving is eomplRed and before plao[mamrial is installed. 2"X2" DENUDE STAKE DRIVEN TO RED -(24"MIN.) SECURETO TREE WITHNON-CORRODABLE WIRE O V PLANT CENTER ENCASED IN REINFORCED DULL H1. OF CONTACT TOTREE. POINT / ROW POSITION ROOT CROWN O E. SPACING AS NOTED ON 12" ABOVE FINISH GRD. 2" MULCH LAYER AFTER PLAN (TRIANGULAR) O SETTLEMENT (MULCH TYPE PER SPEC.) SET PLANTS @ ORIGINAL FINISH GRADE DEPTH @ FINISH GRADE, PRIOR TO SPREAD MULCH. Il�jl;�•r'': ^� 2" MULC (TYPE Pi SPECS.) REMOVE TOP THIRD OF FMI6H GRADE BURLAP FROM BALL BACKFILL SOIL MIX NOTE: MCI. PLANTING SOILMIX (MIX PER SPECS.) TEMPORA BA6M 4" —2-Il2 TR.1ES (AS SPUC.) BACKFILL EXISTING SUBGRADE FOR FIRSTDIAMETEROF INS ROOT BALL EXISTING SUBGRADE Lauchlin R. Bethune Associates, Inc. DETAIL: GROUND COVER PLANTING DETAIL: CONIFER PLANTING ■ Landscape Awhiteclwe & Planning, ASLA NO SCALE NO SCALE P.O. Be, 1442 phone: (425) 432-9877 Maple Valley, Washington 98038 fax: (425) 432-9878 lauch@bethuneassociates.com www.bcNrunea—crates c—, LANDSCAPE PLANTING PLAN Packet Pg. 30 \ CB {�154s Sb RIM=11.34 \ 6"PVC ENE IE-9.94 \ \ P BANS III��III \ \ �P BANS ❑NTRPN$ 13_ r ( \ GAS V CB jj1 .32 ASPHALT — — — — — —1z— — IELE. eax RIMDI NW CONCRETE 6" DI NW IE=9.32 � —12— � Z SQ SD SD SD—� G' G — — — — — — — — � G• c� c� CONNECT ASPHALT Gs G c� G• — \ CATCH BASIN �rz\ IE2'A ASPHALT SSSS SS SS SS MASATPCHALTSSS SS SS 55 i� SS -- SS —SS s H EXISTING CURB,GURER�AND ° CITY MATCH I`(OADMI RAL .13 ST, CURB, OUfIERSS SS SS SS SS SS LW. W' ELEV=1 W. wW. W .1�CE_ SS TgOP W(50 — / TOP CURB 2, 6' SWI ING GATES 6" VC S MATCH EXISTING RIM=11.51 ASPHALT / 6" PVC W E=E-31 1 ANTHONY GUEST S'i PA KIN STRIP N 1E 2"CONCSWIEE 86 � PARKING SIGN PEDESTRIAN / A 25 ATPH ,. WA EL CONCRETE \ TOWING - 3 I-IOUf} PARKING Sc lg.--.T.R k �5;.^._.X .--.-r•X .-.-r.x �U 12.1° .. .(� isb R 0 R CONG 275 O ELEV=2.75 _ONC 1 O � CONC 0� GRAVEL ELEV•1395 Rpm \ N G�� / N/� \R GRAVED UTILITY UTILITY PERFORATED '..Rt TRENCH l TRENCH ..[ ADA RAMPVATXDy,� \ ` GUARDRNL / \ CONNECTION J CATCH BASIN _ GE=12S _ _ _ —13— — 6 •tip. � � IC�2 BUILDING ASPHALT LEGEND \ \ 20' ROLLING GATE FF=14.0 CONC \ �FI N•19.5 SD STORMORAINPIPE P/AELEW13.76 % ELEX OONC 3.25 CONC � CATCH BASIN �? STORMFILTER w \ R F ORAI PIPE •' - RD 00 N � 21 12.5 CONTOUR CONC / GDOOR - Q SURFACE SLOPE DIRECTION a 5' CH HUNK ENCE BA WIRE R R6 °RD rrD RD RD 1 i✓ CATCH BASIN �+ \ WOOFDRµ / GE=135 AC!! .75 L / ELEV•1385 CONNECTION IE=9.4 AC Q �� QX ®DOOR GRAVEL AC 13A / ? 1SA Y EL e�SO NO 0 1 ELEV=I2S SO EEV=125 xAC AC x F_ li _6' CHAINLINK r N O s •:•V':•:•:• SIDS C� IRS /�!�C� Z 2 z 9 J RECYCLE AREA so m 1� � d P d. X %— - -X X%X - - — ABOVE GROUND POWERLINE / ^ \ ElEV=12.5 — —12— \ N STORMFILTER CATCH BARN MI BLOCK WALL ABOVE GROUND P ERLINE Q — STfMiMFILTER ti IE�.7 CATCH BASIN Y2 GE=1225 O BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA EE RAILROAD IE=9.7 Z J w w SCALE IN FEET (L 10 0 10 20 Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan a Packet Pg. 31 CB #1558 — RIM=12.32 6" DI NW IE=9.32 CONCRETE / ASPHALT SS —"—Ss Iw W* I T� L '1 W* W* 7EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT ANTHONY GUEST / \€ PARKING SIGN iTRIAN / CONCRETE p 16' O1 ` O W+ V WATER METER UTILITY TRENCH 20' ROLUNG �S� RIM-11.34 \ 6"PVC ENE IE=9.94 � I S \ HTRANS®P\TRAIJS ^P TRANS �G45 P / TELE. BO% ASPHALT — — — — — —14 —_-- so y3 \ LATERAL SEWER Q SD CONNECTION TO _ _ EXISTING MAIN PER �. —12� Fc• G* Gc* c*EXISTING�MNNSSSS SS SS SS SS Si SSM&E SADDLE W OORPORATION_— — — — — — — — — N rLATERAL / / / / — _ — > G�NER ADMIRAL WAY W. W, W, W, W, W* / W. � —12— / 2, 8' SWINGING GATES I � V N 5' CHAINUNK FENCE W/ BARBWIRE o 0 0 0 0 �N �x OR RECYCLE AREA FO BURL GRAVEL SD SO —� c* c* ASPHALT SS SS SS— W* W* CB #1544 RIM=11.51 6" PVC SW IE=9.31 12"GONG NNE IE=9.21 12"GONG SW IE=8.86 LEGEND W WATER LINE IS WATER METER SS SEWER LINE • SEWER CLEANOUT PRELIMINARY UTILITIES PLAN Packet Pg. 32 -77.77.77-.777-7,77.7'7 -77 777-77,77.77777 -.7777 -.77.7777 -."77-7,77.7: 77 777771�7 . . . . . . . . . . SITE LIGHTING PLAN Packet Pg. 33 /�+, �: d��v .i„)l.Cu a �.� it"'�`" i� '� •r�C'�`; s �ir� '• i... I'V�Lop - f is C 4 lwft i Ge,�,.. _.r l✓" k',�, Ilk ----� '��el�l'Nl leer :��■■�� '�� + � v� tg, � r� �� yy pyy.ygR� I C 11 i - � � tJ ■ � cUI N� e:: _� — Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Design Review Presentation J M J A C KS O N I MAIN 336 Admiral WaAlt'adhment 3 August 77, 2017 ARCH ITECTU R E �• 2.1.a SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION FINISH MATERIALS 1. CORRUGATED METAL PANEL 2. HORIZONTAL SMOOTH FACE METAL PANEL 3. ROOF METAL COPING 4. STOREFRONT GLASS 5. C CHANNEL CANOPY T.O. PARAPET 30' - 0" P-0"11 6. BRICK BASE 7. WOOD PILING ROD IRON DECORATIVE FENCE WEST ELEVATION tn w E a T� F 31 L z O Q O M O O T- O N Z c J d NORTH ELEVATION ELEVATIONS a Packet Pg. 35 oc _ f poll' p m t s J SOUTHEAST AERIAL VIEW SOUTHWEST AERIAL VIEW cn C a� t c,> R a 0 a aD 0 M O O O N Z J d C R O N O O ti O N Z d d 3D CONCEPT a Packet Pg. 36 17�le NORTHEAST AERIAL VIEW NORTHWEST AERIAL VIEW cn w C a� t R a r 0 a aD 0 M O O F_ O N Z J d C R O N O O ti O N Z J d C d 3D CONCEPT a Packet Pg. 37 2.1.a i - 6 00 FENCE LOCATION VI V He Standard Heights 3', 3%, 4' 5', 6' T, 8' 0 36" Min. Footing Depth 8' O.C. Nom. - T 1.) rosL s1Ze uepenus un Wncc nelgnL anu Wmu luaus. See MONTAGE INDUSTRIAL- specifications for post sizing chart and setting dimensions. 2.) Third & Forth rail optional. 3.) Available in Flush Bottom. 1/4" MONTAGE II� Rail iee Cross- Section Below) Post size varies with Height (See MONTAGE INDUSTRIAL- Post -Sizing chart) O V Q 16ga Picket Bracket Options MONTAGE II- RAIL I%4' 00 E-COAT COATING SYSTEM Base Material Uniform Zinc Coating (Hot Dip) Zinc Phosphate Coating Epoxy Primer Acrylic Topcoat RAKING DIRECTIONAL ARROW Welded panel can be raked 30" over 8' with arrow pointing grade. PROFUSION-WELDI No exposed weld Good Neighbor f appearance on bola slues HEAVY INDUSTRIAL STRENGTH WELDED STEEL PANEL PRE ASSEMBLED 'iUe: MONTAGE INDUSTRIAL CLASSIC 2/3/4-RAIL DR: CI SH . lof 1 SCALE: DO NOT SCALE CK: ME Date 6/28/10 1 REV: b Al U1V 1 AUL 11 At11L (n Specially formed high strength architectural shape. t 11VUUJ1KlAL JW1VCL 11VUUMKIAL UIVIVDKJAL IIVUUJIK1ALrLA1 BRACKET BOULEVARD BRACKET MOUNT BRACKET O � s BX304 BX302/303 BX301 r a r L O 0- d' 0 M 0 0 r` 0 N Values shown are nominal and not to be u. „Zj r installation purposes. See product specific, f L for installation requirements. 21 C "1 1555 N. Mingo N Tulsa, OK 74116 AMERISTAR0 1-888-333-3422 r` www.ameristarfence.com N Z J d C (D E DECORATIVE FENCE 0 AMERISTAR a Packet Pg. 38 TENSION WIRE r—END & CORNER r— CHAIN LINK FENCE LOCATION END & CORNER /— CHAIN LINK POST L TENSION WIRE TRUSS ROD i it OPTIONAL, SPECIFY WHEN REQUIRED. i 10'-0" [3048MM] MAX SPACING --' L___J L__J FENCE SECTION ELEVATION WITHOUT TOP RAIL & WITHOUT BARBED WIRE H-2 B-2 GRADE FENCE SECTION ELEVATION WITH TOP RAIL & WITHOUT BARBED WIRE FENCE HEIGHT END & CORNER POSTS LINE POSTS NOMINAL HEIGHT B-1 BAR LENGTH H-1 HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE B-2 BAR LENGTH H-2 HEIGHT ABOVE GRADE 5'-0" [1524MM] 8'-0" [2438MM] 5'-0 5/8" [1540MM] 7'-8" [2337MM] 4'-8 7/8" [1445MM] 6'-0" [1829MM] 9'-0" [2743MM] 6'-0 5/8" [1845MM] 8'-8" [2642MM] 5'-8 7/8" [1749MM] 7'-0" [2134MM] 10'-0" [3048MM] 7'-0 5/8" [2150MM] 9'-8" [2946MM] 6'-8 7/8" [2054MM] 8'-0" [2438MM] 1 1'—O" [3353MM] 8'-0 5/8" [2454MM] 10'-8" [3251 MM] 7'-8 7/8" [2359MM] 9'-0" [2743MM] 12'-0" [3658MM] 9'-0 5/8" [2759MM] 11'-8" [3556MM] 8'-8 7/8" [2664MM] 10'-0" [3048MM] 13'-0" [3962MM] 10'-0 5/8" [3064MM] 12'-8" [3861 MM] 9'-8 7/8" [2969MM] 11'—O" [3353MM] 1 14'-0" [4267MM] 11'-0 5/8" [3369MM] 13'-8" [4166MM] 10'-8 7/8" [3273MM] 12'-0" [3658MM] 1 15'-0" [4572MM] 1 12'-0 5/8" [3674MM] 14'-8" [4470MM] 11'-8 7/8" [3578MM] i NOTES: 1. THIS DWG CORRESPONDS WITH DWGS 1 —11 10 & 1-1 130. 2. SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN CAN BE CHANGED BY MASTER HALCO ONLY. MASTER ANCHOR FENCE PRODUCTS TYPICAL HIGH FENCE WITHOUT BARBED WIRED BY. JRR DWG: 1 —1000 by Master H a I co DATE: 09-27-95 HALCO' Orange, CA REV: C LAYER: 1 COPYRIGHT©2oo1-loos MASTER HALCO, INC. Phone No.: 800-229-5615 DIMENSIONS & SPECIFICATIONS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. www.FenceOnline.com REV DATE: 08-04-06 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'—O" ANCHOR FENCE PRODUCTS BY MASTER HALCO Tn w c E a t r 0 CL aD 0 M O 0 0 N z J d c rn N O O ti 0 N z a a: c d E m a Packet Pg. 39 2.1.a �kr--L-%kt L- I V4 � � Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan for Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Owner: Port of Edmonds 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, WA 98020 August 2017 Reid Middleton Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 40 2.1.a Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan Port of Edmonds Marine Retail 2017 The engineering material and data contained in this report were prepared under the supervision and direction of the undersigned, whose seal as a registered professional engineer is affixed below. D J �c I'4 1 AW AMW k i 4137s ` .S►[INAI. �~ B/Bid Jeffrey D. Jenks, P.E. Project Engineer BZ= 728 134th Street SW, Suite 200 Everett, WA 98204 425-741-3800 File No. 222017.004 Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 41 2.1.a Content Page No. PROJECTOVERVIEW.............................................................................................................................................1 METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................................................1 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #1 STORMWATER SITE PLANS........................................................................1 MINIMUMREQUIREMENT #2 SWPPP................................................................................................................2 ELEMENT # 1: MARK CLEARING LIMITS.....................................................................................................................2 ELEMENT #2: ESTABLISH CONSTRUCTION ACCESS...................................................................................................2 ELEMENT #3: CONTROL FLow RATES.......................................................................................................................2 ELEMENT #4: INSTALL SEDIMENT CONTROLS...........................................................................................................3 ELEMENT#5: STABILIZESoiLs...-............................................................................................................................3 ELEMENT#6: PROTECT SLOPES.................................................................................................................................3 ELEMENT #7: PROTECT DRAIN INLETs ............................. ELEMENT #8: STABILIZE CHANNELS AND OUTLETS ... ... ..... .... ... .................................................................3 3 ELEMENT#9: CONTROL POLLUTANTS.......................................................................................................................3 ELEMENT #10: CONTROL DE-WATERING..................................................................................................................3 ELEMENT#11: MAINTAIN BMPS...............................................................................................................................3 ELEMENT #12: MANAGE THE PROJECT......................................................................................................................3 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #3 POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL...............................................................4 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #4 PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE............................................4 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #5: ON -SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT..............................................4 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #6: RUNOFF TREATMENT.................................................................................6 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #7: FLOW CONTROL...........................................................................................6 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #8: WETLANDS PROTECTION..........................................................................6 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #9 BASIN PLANNING...........................................................................................6 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #10: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE.........................................................7 Appendices Appendix A — Drawings Appendix B — Calculations Appendix C — StonnFilter® Operations and Maintenance Manual Appendix D — Maintenance Schedule & Agreement Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan i Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Attachment 4 L 1ITIM, • 1 Packet Pg. 42 2.1.a PROJECT OVERVIEW This stormwater site plan report summarizes the storm drainage analysis and design for the proposed Port of Edmonds Marine Retail project. The project will construct a 6,650-square-foot retail building along Admiral Way. The existing site is a paved parking lot owned by the Port of Edmonds (Port). The project will include Low Impact Development features and water quality treatment. The project is in the planning stages and is under review for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit. METHODOLOGY Drainage design for the project is based on Edmonds Development Code Chapter 18.30 and the Washington State Department of Ecology's (DOE) 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (SWMMWW). Western Washington Hydrology Model (WWHM 2012) is used for runoff calculations and stormwater management modelling. This project is a redevelopment project replacing more than 5,000 square feet of impervious area and is subject to Minimum Requirements 1-10 in the SWMMWW. The developed site will drain to the City of Edmonds' (City) storm sewer system in Admiral Way and discharge directly to salt water. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #1 STORMWATER SITE PLANS Existing Conditions Summary The project site, 465 Admiral Way, is a 0.5-acre, Port -owned, existing parking lot on the east side of Admiral Way. The site is generally flat. A majority of the site drains by sheet flow to the parking lot recycling area to the south, and the west portion of the site drains by sheet flow to Admiral Way. The existing site is entirely hard surface, consisting of asphalt and gravel - over -asphalt areas. There is no existing storm drain infrastructure at the site. EXISTING SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Pavement/Gravel over Pavement: 0.5 acres EXSITING RUNOFF: Existing flow frequency rates from WWHM 2012: 2yr 0.16 cfs IOyr 0.26 cfs 50yr 0.37 cfs 100yr 0.42 cfs A map of existing conditions is included in Appendix A. Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan 1 , Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 43 2.1.a Proposed Conditions Summary The project proposes to construct a 6,650-square-foot retail building with associated 20,880-square-foot parking lot and 2,700-square-foot outdoor retail display area. The site will be generally flat, sloping gently from west to east. Stormwater runoff will be collected in a traditional catch basin and pipe system. Water quality treatment for the vehicle parking lot will be provided by media filtration catch basins. The storm drain system will outfall to the City of Edmonds' storm drain system on Admiral Way. PROPOSED SITE CHARACTERISTICS: Pavement: 0.185 acres Roof. 0.27 acers Pasture (8" Topsoil Landscape): 0.045 acres Total: 0.5 acres PROPOSED RUNOFF: Proposed flow frequency rates from WWHM 2012: 2yr 0.15 cfs 10yr 0.20 cfs 50yr 0.34 cfs 100yr 0.38 cfs A proposed drainage plan is included in Appendix A. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #2 SWPPP A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared for the project at a future date. The SWPPP will provide guidance for the construction contractor to meet the requirements of the DOE's Construction Stormwater General Permit. A summary of Best Management Practices (BMPs) likely to be used at this site is listed below. Element #1: Mark Clearing Limits Silt fence will be installed along the low side of the project limits. Project limits will be marked by temporary chain link fence or plastic orange protective fence. Element #2: Establish Construction Access A construction entrance will be provided from either Admiral Way or the adjacent Port -owned property and constructed according to BMP C 105 of the Stormwater Manual. Element #3: Control Flow Rates Temporary sediment traps will be used as needed to control flow rates. Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan 2 • . , , , . , Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 44 2.1.a Element #4: Install Sediment Controls Sediment will be controlled using BMPs from the Stormwater Manual, including construction entrances and wheel washes, temporary seeding and mulching, dust control, storm drain structure inlet and outlet protection, silt fence, and sediment traps. Element #5: Stabilize Soils Exposed soils not being worked will be hydroseeded with an appropriate seed mix outlined in BMP C 120. Alternately, mulch, blankets, or plastic sheeting will be used to stabilize soils as needed. Element #6: Protect Slopes There are no steep slopes at the project site. Element #7: Protect Drain Inlets Existing and proposed catch basins at or near the project site will be equipped with inlet protection. Element #8: Stabilize Channels and Outlets Outlets to ditches or vegetated areas will be protected with quarry spalls or erosion blankets. Element #9: Control Pollutants Demolition debris will be transported off site to an approved disposal site. Materials used on the project site will be properly stored and contained, and concrete will be handled per the guidelines in the Stormwater Manual. Element #10: Control De -Watering Dewatering will not likely be required at this site. Any dewatering will be handled the same as stormwater runoff. Element #11: Maintain BMPs Temporary and permanent erosion and sediment control best management practices (BMPs) will be maintained and repaired as needed to ensure continued performance of their intended function. Maintenance and repair shall be conducted in accordance with BMP specifications. Element #12: Manage the Project Clearing and grading activities shall be permitted only if conducted pursuant to an approved site E development plan that establishes permitted areas of grading, cutting, and filling. The contractor will be required to manage the project per the requirements of the Construction Stormwater r General Permit. Q Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan 3 • . , . , Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 45 2.1.a MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #3 POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL Pollution Source Control BMPs will be implemented during construction to prevent pollution. Proposed BMPs will be per the requirements of the Stormwater Manual and will include but not be limited to the following: BMP C103, High Visibility Fence BMP C105, Construction Entrance BMP C106, Wheel Wash BMP C107, Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization BMP C120, Temporary and Permanent Seeding BMP C121, Mulching BMP C123, Plastic Covering BMP C125, Topsoiling/Composting BMP C130, Surface Roughening BMP C140, Dust Control BMP C150, Materials on Hand BMP C151, Concrete Handling BMP C152, Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention BMP C153, Material Delivery, Storage, and Containment BMP C154, Concrete Washout Area BMP C160, Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead (CESCL) BMP C200, Interceptor Dike and Swale BMP C201, Grass -Lined Channels BMP C207, Checkdams BMP C209, Outlet Protection BMP C220, Storm Inlet Protection BMP C233, Silt Fence BMP C241, Temporary Sediment Pond MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #4 PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE The project site is currently fully developed and contains no natural drainage elements. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #5: ON -SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT This project is a redevelopment project that replaces more than 5,000 square feet of hard surfaces and will drain directly to salt water through the City's storm sewer system. Q Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan 4 , , . , Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 46 2.1.a Per City Code 18.30.060, Paragraph D.5.b.iv, the project does not have to meet the Low Impact Development Performance Standard but does have to evaluate the following LID BMPs: BMP T5.13 Post Construction Soil Quality and Depth BUT T5.I OA Downspout Full Infiltration Systems BMP T5.1 OB Downspout Dispersion Systems BMP T5.IOC Perforated Stub -out Connections BMP T5.11 Concentrated Flow Dispersion BUT T5.12 Sheet Flow Dispersion Evaluation of LID Features LID features are evaluated based on Infeasibility Criteria found in Appendix A of the City's Stormwater Management Code. BMP T5.13 Post Construction Soil Quality and Depth No slopes on the site exceed 33 percent, so Post Construction Soil Quality and Depth is feasible and will be used for landscape beds. BMP T5.10A Downspout Full Infiltration Systems Full downspout infiltration is infeasible, as the overflow could not be placed at least 1-foot below the pavement. The site is flat with a shallow outfall invert elevation in Admiral Way that prevents the storm drain system from being deep enough. BMP T5.10B Downspout Full Dispersion Systems Full downspout dispersion is infeasible, as there is not a vegetation flow path available. BMP T5.10 C Perforated Stub -Out Connections Perforated stub -out connections are feasible and will be implemented. BMP T5.11 Concentrated Flow Dispersion Concentrated flow dispersion is not feasible, as there is not a vegetated flow path available. BMP T5.12 Sheet Flow Dispersion Sheet flow dispersion is not feasible, as there is not a vegetated flow path available. Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan 5 • . , , . , Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 47 2.1.a Summary of LID Features The project will implement BMP T5.13 Post Construction Soil Quality and Depth for landscape beds. Building roof drains will be connected to the storm drain system with BMP T5. IOC Perforated Stub -Out Connections. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #6: RUNOFF TREATMENT This project includes more than 5,000 square feet of pollution -generating hard surface and requires stormwater quality treatment per Minimum Requirement #6. This site does not require oil control, as it does not cross the threshold of 100 vehicles per day per 1,000 square feet of building. Basic treatment is required, as this site discharges to salt water through the City's MS4. Proposed treatment will be provided by two StormFilter® Catch Basins in the parking lot. Filter #1 Water Quality Flow = 0.0117cfs = 6gpm Single Catch Basin StormFilter, with 7.5 gpm capacity ZPG Media Filter Cartridge. Filter #2 Water Quality Flow = 0.0111cfs = 5gpm Single Catch Basin StormFilter, with 7.5gpm capacity ZPG Media Filter Cartridge. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #7: FLOW CONTROL This project discharges directly to salt water through the City's MS4 and is exempt from flow control. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #8: WETLANDS PROTECTION This project does not drain to wetlands. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #9 BASIN PLANNING No basin planning is required for this project beyond the Stormwater Manual. Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan 6 • , , , Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 48 2.1.a MINIMUM REQUIREMENT #10: OPERATION ANI] MAINTENANCE Operation and maintenance will be determined by the requirements of the Stormwater Manual and by the manufacturers of the selected water quality devices. Detail on specific maintenance and operations practices and procedures will be provided with the construction permit application. ehw\22sv\17\004 poed; admiral way prldng lot topo\desigi,\stormiwater reportWorniwaler site plan report.docx\jdj Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan 7 . , , . , Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 49 2.1.a Appendix A Drawings Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Attachment 4 . 1 1 . 1 Packet Pg. 50 A3Aans JladaNnos ,s odol LS'CL .-V—T3 A om r NO s1' Wn W lCils M A&00 L ION "M *Yr uo. P V' a O 30 3HI 11~ LH1911i m sm a w s 511LL � SMM70 VMDW OW VVYML OL G&M N OGL-AV OYM ABS 03uI03dS sauwwS 31VIS 033OJC3 NO I33M HOIHM 9Nn0300Nd O>OVIILYN NYtNIN SONONm 30 am. Nl� 3N�i Ak6 � a3ld3--V HIIM 30WMOAN NI NWWY-IC" O VOI3, V ONisn sWXk! 3SOH 01 03LL 3aM Sd`J ONisn 03m3s90 Aimmn0 d0 H!lN3N ,Y{ 'mB tl3MOlI Y JO T1YM J41■L'!.1 ION 3tl3M XVHI SNOWSOd IIf3mnO 3B W =1 CM m *LSO VOOP ONIsn 03NNsY m Q IJ 3a3M SI wNON A3mns 'f 313tlmm 30 d01 w as IM3 n— 'S'09M'S'n 3NO2 HII%IN 'MLWON000 3NVId 31VLS NOIONIH A S9NIW3B dO SISVB 'C 6M1 SSV B 'ML 1 b L-N �MtlYNIEM3B W CA" :.Mw IkJNV31 'ONO03tl 30 SN tl3— NO SlN3N3SV3 AW M S Ol Olod8nd ION MOO OW INOd3tl 3,LLL V 30 09N3B 3H1 NOIWM 3 SYM —Nns SIH1 Z NIMpy 1■L 1L/(■ BYM TYL-YO 1L'1ML'1■AH NOWXItlIAdOO ANY Ol NOINd muro m ism SNOUV Q W SdVN ALf1W Otl0O3tl OW 'MNM1 3NAM 30 NOLLVN SSO NO Q 3W N MH NMONS nIMIN 3H1 'L 'sivruva S3iON A3mns OVObnIWJ 33 V1NVS Nb3Hi2JON NOlONnjne 1333 NI 31YOS I= c aI a 3MN[iLtl pIr�IJ 1.LMY 3NlRpMOd MIIImO 1xLMx pM �'r� 7i 8fi ew �� awe �e �¢ R � �• F r � t 1 � i O r O O ti — N Z r J _—'_�_,�_ ------- r—ter -� ��_ • +�_� �_ �SyJ k L Y. :IYgC '?� n'n .. AaswcM LVYi03 eo •L @M1W eL�tl1xM NIM]S 1MYl11f15 w na o N r,,LM .our�nLr T! 4310N r tlp 3YNINM tl3lYM ® v jam% N31311 tl3LYM Bl C ?L�r 7^� . C.2.C.:�d�L�l� 3ATM IflLYM O OYPN dp 3n�,N�1N3J � - � IWaLMH 3Bd V ]OIR6[ C■ttlLR1Il —LM— 03ll1N r O1NNo V c l v" ]N•L p(YLkOtlMI■■■y JIIONI310 a W Z - r rw HBxa HVY� ❑ 3NN N3LYM OtlpJ3N — an rlaa ]1?MAI iYa1q MMWS O IlN1f AYrlelYf OtlO�]Ol —S 3Md ANWI A L 3Vk IO9i JMiMS —'itl— tl31rop35xreLL N3MW m O 311I1 SYJ aNm3a 1lN'M N3MW p 3Nl1 SYJ 1/L tl» LVS■O1C M1B HWJNf11' BI tl3❑N SMJ ® y 3NI1 tl3MOd Otl0]3tl 3nNA SYJ O7 ]M \#M ONM7K�T� � • � 1�1 YVMN[E94 p Na 310HxnI NNpp/'3NOHd3131 3— 3OH33 3Nn 9NX}1118 enNN5 Q a N 0 !+n 3x }yy CD - - � 04 Z0 - a c m E t u Q Attachment 4 Packet-Pg. 51 2.1.a a� m fi'PVC ENE E•994 Cti • T! CR �1559 ` — / � v S ASPWIT — — — — — _ eFe llg —� ]ttEIRST AVENUE 50 ASPHALT c c a S —\ ptlri[IR1r ' r C• — Lu �,� • T .4 . O MEW L + R T / unw 2, eow=• Nc raTEs rpiw1„si r RA]CJIL�1� 8' PVC SW IE•9 ]t = 13'CONC SWEIE•B.66t ai FENSEWA+ ! r9wac snR - E ,yvuc. , :Y; U { CONCRETE , i01�C '.i�':' ' r'.J•i,s, .N ^T•J.:eY. _ 8':.'' o aate+ — S GRAVEL b.r IKEWN / � T9Q4= �u,rrRrq MN '® P O REF (D o.' ow I BUILDING p .� ASPNALTFF=14.0 -P""LT. t l tECFHD m M — �• — ~ — \ \ 20' Rp11NG G[E VJi \ ti(( E O \ I —so— emrmrnrs[ v9 —RO— ROOF WNPrF W 0 N a 5 J f 9EF,tflAE9[61g1 0 ,� a ! ' a 2 ---*mom o Mr-x i� y CD �_ A sp C04 D *A , Z a ' $ ' PRELIMINAF C RECYCLE AREA I GRADING t d DRAINAGE E PLAN — — A6A.! cRouw Pow[amE V enm,e[ s� �' ow,rsta Q BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA EE RAILROAD Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 52 2.1.a Appendix B Calculations Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Attachment 4 1 Packet Pg. 53 2.1.a WWHM FLOW FREQUENCY FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS W Anplysis 1.0 D.1 LL 0.01 Cumubfive Probability t* 0 Flaw Frequency 1.0 Flatir(cis) Predeveloped Mitigated 2 Year 0.1602 0.1460 5 Year a 0.2184 0.1991 10 Year = 0.2613 0.2382 25 Year - 0.3204 0.2921 30 Year 0.3683 0.335B 100 Year 0.4196 0.3826 + 501 aD1 0.5 1 2 5 10 20 30 50 70 80 90 95 90 9999.5 0.01 Stream Prole bn Duration I LID Duration Flow Frequency I Watez 4uaGly I Hydropraph Wattand Input Vdumes LID Report Reeha7Ra Dtxatian Recharge Redeveloped I Recharge Miggared Analyze datasets DmyaetWDM f Delete Selected 7m"O� All Datasets Flow I _Staspj Predp j Evap .,,. �_1 ] Fxxad Freq+-rency1 Mel hor Lfn Pearson Type 111 179 f' 'w'eiLul GrN--4Len Annual Peaks 1949 0.1486 0.1355 1930 0.2007 b.1833 1951 0.1709 0.15" 1952 0.1463 0.1332 2.953 0.2000 0.1820 1954 0.2482 0.2274 1955 0.1864 0.1702 1956 0.0683 0.0805 1,957 0.1500 0.1375 1938 a.3619 0.3294 1959 0.1542 0.1403 1960 0.1336 0.1217 1961 0.4059 0.4423 1962 0.1800 0.1646 1963 0.2168 0.1900 1964 0.13.48 0.1040 1963 0.1148 0.1045 1966 0.1173 0.1068 1%7 0.3936 0.3036 1960 0.1791 0.1630 1969 0.3105 Q.21706 197q 0.1270 0.1155 1971 0.1056 0.1¢91 1972 0.2376 13.2W 1973 0.19D2 0.1732 1974 0.2409 0.2192 1975 0.1820 0.1659 1976 0.1265 0.1151 c 10 Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 54 2.1.a STORMFILTER #1 FLOW RATE MAnalysis ®LAna6ly Water Quality 24 hour Volume (ac•ft) Standard Flow Rate [cfsj Stream Protection Duration LID Duration I_ Wetland I nput Volumes I I.Awp Dui Analyze datasets Compact WDM Delete Selected Standard Flow bate (cis) 0:0�66 Flow Frequency Water Recharge Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 55 2.1.a STORMFILTER #2 FLOW RATE v 61, Run Analysis Water Quality On -Line BMP 24 hour Volume (ac-ft) D pp73 Standard Flow Rate (cfs) a-i}y 11 Off -Line Standard Flow Rate [cfs) Q f7063 Streaia tvteetior Duration I LID Duration j Flow Frequency Water Quaff I Hydrograph Adartlen'a;lho Vdlutnos f LID Report Recharge Duration I Recharge Predeveloped Recharge Mitigated Analyze datasets Compact4VDM Delete Selected Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 56 2.1.a Appendix C Department of Ecology TAPE Approval Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan • . � . Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 57 2.1.a WA SHIN6TON STATE EECA0 LE0 G HY April 2017 GENERAL USE LEVEL DESIGNATION FOR BASIC (TSS) TREATMENT For CONTECH Engineered Solutions Stormwater Management StormFilterg With ZPG Media at 1 gpm/sq ft media surface area Ecoioe 's Decision: Based on the CONTECH Engineered Solutions' (CONTECH) application submissions, Ecology hereby issues a General Use Level Designation (GULD) for the Stormwater Management StormFilter® (StormFilter): 1. As a basic stormwater treatment practice for total suspended solids (TSS) removal, • Using ZPGTM media (zeolite/perlite/granular activated carbon), with the size distribution described below, Sized at a hydraulic loading rate of 1 gpm/ftz of media surface area, per Table 1, and Internal bypassing needs to be consistent with the design guidelines in CONTECH's current product design manual. Table 1. StormFilter Design Flow Rates per Cartridge Effective Cartridge Height inches 12 18 27 Cartridge Flow Rate m/cartrid e) 5 7.5 11A 2. Ecology approves StormFilter systems containing ZPGTM media for treatment at the hydraulic loading rates shown in Table 1, and sized based on the water quality design flow rate for an off-line system. Contech designs their StormFilter systems to maintain treatment of the water quality design flow while routing excess flows around the treatment chamber during periods of peak bypass. The water quality design flow rates are calculated using the following procedures: ■ Western Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using the latest version of the Western Washington Hydrology Model or other Ecology -approved continuous runoff model. CONTECH - StormFiltere GULD Maintenance Update (November 2012) P age 11 Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 58 2.1.a Eastern Washington: For treatment installed upstream of detention or retention, the water quality design flow rate is the peak 15-minute flow rate as calculated using one of the three methods described in Chapter 2.2.5 of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (SWMI%IEW) or local manual. • Entire State: For treatment installed downstream of detention, the water quality design flow rate is the full 2-year release rate of the detention facility. 3. This designation has no expiration date, but Ecology may amend or revoke it. Ecologv's Conditions of Use: The StormFilter with ZPG media shall comply with the following conditions: 1. Design, install, operate, and maintain the StormFilter with ZPG media in accordance with applicable Contech Engineered Solutions manuals, documents, and the Ecology Decision. 2. Install StormFilter systems to bypass flows exceeding the water quality treatment rate. Additionally, high flows will not re -suspend captured sediments. Design StormFilter systems in accordance with the performance goals in Ecology's most recent Stormwater Manual and CONTECH's Product Design Manual Version 4.1(April 2006), or most current version, unless otherwise specified. 3. Owners must follow the design, pretreatment, land use application, and maintenance criteria in CONTECH's Design Manual. 4. Pretreatment of TSS and oil and grease may be necessary, and designers shall provide pre-treatment in accordance with the most current versions of the CONTECH's Product Design Manual (April 2006) or the applicable Ecology Stormwater Manual. Design pre-treatment using the performance criteria and pretreatment practices provided on Ecology's "Evaluation of Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies" website. 5. Maintenance: The required maintenance interval for Stormwater treatment devices is often dependent upon the degree of pollutant loading from a particular drainage basin. Therefore, Ecology does not endorse or recommend a "one size fits all" maintenance cycle for a particular model/size of manufactured filter treatment device. • Typically, CONTECH designs StormFilter systems for a target filter media replacement interval of 12 months. Maintenance includes removing accumulated sediment from the vault, and replacing spent cartridges with recharged cartridges. CONTECH - StormFilter® GULD Maintenance Update (November 2012) P a g e 2 Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 59 2.1.a ■ Indications of the need for maintenance include effluent flow decreasing to below the design flow rate, as indicated by the scumline above the shoulder of the cartridge. • Owners/operators must inspect StormFilter with ZPG media for a minimum of twelve months from the start of post -construction operation to determine site -specific maintenance schedules and requirements. You must conduct inspections monthly during the wet season, and every other month during the dry season. (According to the SWMMWW, the wet season in western Washington is October 1 to April 30. According to SWMMEW, the wet season in eastern Washington is October 1 to June 30). After the first year of operation, owners/operators must conduct inspections based on the findings during the first year of inspections. • Conduct inspections by qualified personnel, follow manufacturer's guidelines, and use methods capable of determining either a decrease in treated effluent flowrate and/or a decrease in pollutant removal ability. • When inspections are performed, the following findings typically serve as maintenance triggers: • Accumulated vault sediment depths exceed an average of 2 inches, or • Accumulated sediment depths on the tops of the cartridges exceed an average of 0.5 inches, or • Standing water remains in the vault between rain events, or • Bypass occurs during storms smaller than the design storm. • Note: If excessive floatables (trash and debris) are present, perform a minor maintenance consisting of gross solids removal, not cartridge replacement. 6. CONTECH shall maintain readily available reports listed under "Application Documents" (above) as public, as well as the documentation submitted with its previous conditional use designation application. CONTECH shall provide links to this information from its corporate website, and make this information available upon request, at no cost and in a timely manner. 7. ZPGTM media used shall conform with the following specifications: ■ Each cartridge contains a total of approximately 2.6 cubic feet of media. The ZPGTM cartridge consists of an outer layer of perlite that is approximately 1.3 cubic feet in volume and an inner layer, consisting of a mixture of 90% zeolite and 10% granular activated carbon, which is approximately 1.3 cubic feet in volume. ■ Perlite Media: Perlite media shall be made of natural siliceous volcanic rock free of any debris or foreign matter. The expanded perlite shall CONTECH - StormFilter® GULD Maintenance Update (November 2012) P a g e 13 Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 60 2.1.a have a bulk density ranging from 6.5 to 8.5 lbs per cubic foot and particle sizes ranging from 0.09" (#8 mesh) to 0.38" (3/8" mesh). ■ Zeolite Media: Zeolite media shall be made of naturally occurring clinoptilolite. The zeolite media shall have a bulk density ranging from 44 to 50 lbs per cubic foot and particle sizes ranging from 0.13" (#6 mesh) to 0.19" (#4 mesh). Additionally, the cation exchange capacity (CEC) of zeolite shall range from approximately 1.0 to 2.2 meq/g. ■ Granular Activated Carbon: Granular activated carbon (GAC) shall be made of lignite coal that has been steam -activated. The GAC media shall have a bulk density ranging from 28 to 31 lbs per cubic foot and particle sizes ranging from a 0.09" (#8 mesh) to 0.19" (#4 mesh). ARRroved Alternate Configurations Peak Diversion StormFilter 1. The Peak Diversion StormFilter allows for off-line bypass within the StormFilter structure. Design capture flows and peak flows enter the inlet bay which contains an internal weir. The internal weir allows design flows to enter the cartridge bay through a transfer hole located at the bottom of the inlet bay while the unit routs higher flows around the cartridge bay. 2. To select the size of the Peak Diversion StormFilter unit, the designer must determine the number of cartridges required and size of the standard StormFilter using the site - specific water quality design flow and the StormFilter Design Flow Rates per Cartridge as described above. 3. New owners may not install the Peak Diversion StormFilter at an elevation or in a location where backwatering may occur. Applicant: Contech Engineered Solutions Applicant's Address: 11835 NE Glenn Widing Dr. Portland, OR 97220 Application Documents: The applicant's master report, titled, "The Stormwater Management StormFilter Basic Treatment Application for General Use Level Designation in Washington", Stormwater Management, Inc., November 1, 2004, includes the following reports ■ (Public) Evaluation of the Stormwater Management StormFilter Treatment System: Data Validation Report and Summary of the Technical Evaluation Engineering Report (TEER) by Stormwater Management Inc., October 29, 2004 Ecology's technology assessment protocol requires the applicant to hire an independent consultant to complete the following work: CONTECH - StormFilter® GULD Maintenance Update (November 2012) P a g e 14 Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 61 2.1.a 1. Complete the data validation report. 2. Prepare a TEER summary, including a testing summary and conclusions compared with the supplier's performance claims. 3. Provide a recommendation of the appropriate technology use level. 4. Work with Ecology to post recommend relevant information on Ecology's website. 5. Provide additional testing recommendations, if needed." 6. This report, authored by Dr. Gary Minton, Ph. D., P.E., Resource Planning Associates, satisfies the Ecology requirement. • (Public) "Performance of the Stormwater Management StormFilter Relative to the Washington State Department of Ecology Performance Goals for Basic Treatment," is a summary of StormFilter performance that strictly adheres to the criteria listed in the Guidance for Evaluating Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies, Technology Assessment Protocol — Ecology (TAPE). • "Heritage Marketplace Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with ZPGTM Media," is a report showing all of the information collected at Site A as stated in the SMI Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). This document contains detailed information regarding each storm event collected at this site, and it provided a detailed overview of the data and project. • "Lake Stevens Field Evaluation: Stormwater Management StormFilter with ZPGTM Media," is a report that corresponds to Site E as stated in the SMI QAPP. This document contains detailed information regarding each storm collected at this site, and includes a detailed overview of the data and project. • (Public) "Evaluation of the Stormwater Management StormFilter for the removal of SIL-CO-SIL 106, a standardized silica product: ZPGTM at 7.5 GPM" is a report that describes laboratory testing at full design flow. • "Factors Other Than Treatment Performance." • "State of Washington Installations." • "Peak Diversion Storrs Filter" is a technical document demonstrating the Peak Diversion StormFilter system complies with the Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Volume V Section 4.5.1. Above -listed documents noted as "public" are available by contacting CONTECH. Applicant's Use Level Request: That Ecology grant a General Use Level Designation for Basic Treatment for the StormFilter using ZPGTM media (zeolite/perlite/granular activated carbon) at a hydraulic loading rate of 1 gpmlW of media surface area in accordance with Ecology's 2011 Technical Guidance Manual for Evaluating Emerging Stormwater Treatment Technologies Technology Assessment Protocol — Ecology (TAPE). CONTECH - StormFilter® GULD Maintenance Update (November 2012) P age 15 Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 62 2.1.a Applicant's Performance Claim: The combined data from the two field sites reported in the TER (Heritage Marketplace and Lake Stevens) indicate that the performance of a StormFilter system configured for inline bypass with ZPGTM media and a hydraulic loading rate of 1 gpm/ft2 of media surface area meets Ecology performance goals for Basic Treatment. Ecology's Recommendations: Based on the weight of the evidence and using its best professional judgment, Ecology finds that: StormFilter, using ZPGTM media and operating at a hydraulic loading rate of no more than 1 gpm/ft of media surface area, is expected to provide effective stormwater treatment achieving Ecology's Basic Treatment (TSS removal) performance goals. Contech demonstrated this is through field and laboratory testing performed in accordance with the approved protocol. StormFilter is deemed satisfactory with respect to factors other than treatment performance (e.g., maintenance; see the protocol's Appendix B for complete list). Findings of Fact: • Influent TSS concentrations and particle size distributions were generally within the range of what Ecology considers "typical" for western Washington (silt -to -silt loam). • Contech sampled thirty-two (32) storm events at two sites for storms from April 2003 to March 2004, of which Contech deemed twenty-two (22) as "qualified" and were therefore included in the data analysis set. • Statistical analysis of these 22 storm events verifies the data set's adequacy. • Analyzing all 22 qualifying events, the average influent and effluent concentrations and aggregate pollutant load reduction are 114 mg/L, 25 mg/L, and 82%, respectively. ■ Analyzing all 22 qualifying events based on the estimated average flow rate during the event (versus the measured peak flow rate), and more heavily weighting those events near the design rate (versus events either far above or well below the design rate) does not significantly affect the reported results. • For the 7 qualifying events with influent TSS concentrations greater than 100 mg/L, the average influent and effluent concentrations and aggregate pollutant load reduction are 241 mg/L, 34 mg/L, and 89%, respectively. If we exclude the 2 of 7 events that exceed the maximum 300 mg/L specified in Ecology's guidelines, the average influent and effluent concentrations and aggregate pollutant load reduction are 158 mg/L, 35 mg/L, and 78%, respectively. • For the 15 qualifying events with influent TSS concentrations less than 100 mg/L, the average influent and effluent concentrations and aggregate pollutant load reduction are 55 mg/L, 20 mg/L, and 61%, respectively. If the 6 of 15 events that fall below the minimum 33 mg/L TSS specified in Ecology's guidelines are excluded, the average CONTECH - StormFilter® GULD Maintenance Update (November 2012) Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 63 2.1.a influent and effluent concentrations and aggregate pollutant load reduction are 78 mg/L, 26 mg/L, and 67%, respectively. For the 8 qualifying events with peak discharge exceeding design flow (ranging from 120 to 257% of the design rate), results ranged from 52% to 96% TSS removal, with an average of 72%. Due to the characteristics of the hydrographs, the field results generally reflect flows below (ranging between 20 and 60 percent of) the tested facilities' design rate. During these sub -design flow rate periods, some of the cartridges operate at or near their individual full design flow rate (generally between 4 and 7.5 GPM for an 18" cartridge effective height) because their float valves have opened. Float valves remain closed on the remaining cartridges, which operate at their base "trickle" rate of 1 to 1.5 GPM. Laboratory testing using U.S. Silica's Sil-Co-Sil 106 fine silica product showed an average 87% TSS removal for testing at 7.5 GPM per cartridge (100% design flow rate). Other relevant testing at I-5 Lake Union, Greenville Yards (New Jersey), and Ski Run Marina (Lake Tahoe) facilities shows consistent TSS removals in the 75 to 85% range. Note that the evaluators operated the I-S Lake Union at 50% 100% and 125% of design flow. SMI's application included a satisfactory "Factors other than treatment performance" discussion. Note: Ecology's 80% TSS removal goal applies to 100 mg11 and greater influent TSS. Below 100 mg/L influent TSS, the goal is 20 mg/L effluent TSS. Technology Description: The Stormwater Management StormFiltero (StormFilter), a flow -through stormwater filtration system, improves the quality of stormwater runoff from the urban environment by removing pollutants. The StormFilter can treat runoff from a wide variety of sites including, but not limited to: retail and commercial development, residential streets, urban roadways, freeways, and industrial sites such as shipyards, foundries, etc. Operation: The StormFilter is typically comprised of a vault that houses rechargeable, media -filled, filter cartridges. Various media may be used, but this designation covers only the zeolite- perlite-granulated activated carbon (ZPGTM) medium. Stormwater from storm drains percolates through these media -filled cartridges, which trap particulates and may remove pollutants such as dissolved metals, nutrients, and hydrocarbons. During the filtering process, the StormFilter system also removes surface scum and floating oil and grease. Once filtered through the media, the treated stormwater is directed to a collection pipe or discharged to an open channel drainage way. This document includes a bypass schematic for flow rates exceeding the water quality design flow rate on page 8. CONTECH - StormFilter® GULD Maintenance Update (November 2012) P a g e 17 Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 64 2.1.a StormFilter Configurations: Contech offers the StormFilter in multiple configurations: precast, high flow, catch basin, curb inlet, linear, volume, corrugated metal pipe, drywell, and CON/Span form. Most configurations use pre -manufactured units to ease the design and installation process. Systems may be either uncovered or covered underground units. The typical precast StormFilter unit is composed of three sections: the energy dissipater, the filtration bay, and the outlet sump. As Stormwater enters the inlet of the StormFilter vault through the inlet pipe, piping directs stormwater through the energy dissipater into the filtration bay where treatment will take place. Once in the filtration bay, the stormwater ponds and percolates horizontally through the media contained in the StormFilter cartridges. After passing through the media, the treated water in each cartridge collects in the cartridge's center tube from where piping directs it into the outlet sump by a High Flow Conduit under -drain manifold. The treated water in the outlet sump discharges through the single outlet pipe to a collection pipe or to an open channel drainage way. In some applications where you anticipate heavy grit loads, pretreatment by settling may be necessary. CONTECH - StormFilter® GULD Maintenance Update (November 2012) P a g e I R Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 65 2.1.a 5TORMGATE ANHOLE, HIGH FLOW (3YPA55 EFFECTIVE CARTRIDGE HEIGHT 1 0 18' 1 27' CARTRIDGE FLOW RATE (gWrRkart) 5 7.5 11 1.3 DGE JW) *me 00MIRCH Bbnffmior adkdmm CONTMO STORMFILTER WITH STORMGATE STORK YYAM SCHEMATIC DETAIL 1 PLAN VIEW ,N ppy ��Fftlnl f3k11�1mm6 ACtcrolakc FILE WME: 0f.4- h91.1 f-01 LC,l PMYMlMM CHUXEdCiIX)[ Figure 1. Stormwater Management StormFilter Configuration with Bypass CONTECH - StormFilterO GULD Maintenance Update (November 2012) Page 19 Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 66 2.1.a AIR LOCK CAP WITH CNCCK VALVE, I FILTER MEDIA . CENTER TUBE SCRUBBING REGULATOR UI{illlit[31 HYI=ii4 UNDER -DRAIN MANIFOLD FIUEREU WATER UNDER -DRAIN h!A?,i , •.: CAST INTO VAULT FLOOR Cartridge Operation: UrrING TAB FLOAT VALVE OUTER MESH HOOD UNFILTERED WATER T : T VAULT FLOOR Figure 2. The StormFilter Cartridge As the water level in the filtration bay begins to rise, stormwater enters the StormFilter cartridge. Stormwater in the cartridge percolates horizontally through the filter media and passes into the cartridge's center tube, where the float in the cartridge is in a closed (downward) position. As the water level in the filtration bay continues to rise, more water passes through the filter media and into the cartridge's center tube. Water displaces the air in the cartridge and it purges from beneath the filter hood through the one-way check valve located in the cap. Once water fills the center tube• there is enough buoyant force on the float to open the float valve and allow the treated water to flow into the under -drain manifold. As the treated water drains, it tries to pull in air behind it. This causes the check valve to close, initiating a siphon that draws polluted water throughout the full surface area and volume of the filter. Thus, water filters through the entire filter cartridge throughout the duration of the storm, regardless of the water surface elevation in the filtration bay. This continues until the water surface elevation drops to the elevation of the scrubbing regulators. At this point, the siphon begins to break and air quickly flows beneath the hood through the scrubbing regulators, causing energetic bubbling between the inner surface of the hood and the outer surface of the filter. This bubbling agitates and cleans the surface of the filter, releasing accumulated sediments on the surface, flushing them from beneath the hood, and allowing them to settle to the vault floor. Adjustable cartridge flow rate: Inherent to the design of the StormFilter is the ability to control the individual cartridge flow rate with an orifice -control disc placed at the base of the cartridge. Depending on the treatment requirements and on the pollutant characteristics of the influent stream as CONTECH - StormFiltere GULD Maintenance Update (November 2012) Page 110 Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 67 2.1.a specified in the CONTECH Product Design Manual, operators may adjust the flow rate through the filter cartridges. By decreasing the flow rate through the filter cartridges, the influent contact time with the media is increased and the water velocity through the system is decreased, thus increasing both the level of treatment and the solids removal efficiencies of the filters, respectively (de Ridder, 2002). Recommended research and development: Ecology encourages CONTECH to pursue continuous improvements to the StormFilter. To that end, CONTECH recommends the following actions: Determine, through laboratory testing, the relationship between accumulated solids and flow rate through the cartridge containing the ZPGTM media. Completed 11/05. Determine the system's capabilities to meet Ecology's enhanced, phosphorus, and oil treatment goals. ■ Develop easy -to -implement methods of determining that a StormFilter facility requires maintenance (cleaning and filter replacement). Contact Information: Applicant Contact: Jeremiah Lehman Contech Engineered Solutions 11835 NE Glenn Widing Drive Portland, OR, 97220 503-258-3136 'lehman conteches.com Applicant Web link lam://www.conteches.com/ CONTECH - StormFilter® GUILD Maintenance Update (November 2012) Page ill Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 68 2.1.a Ecology web link: ht!p://www.ecy.wa.p-oy/progams/wq/stormwater/newtech/index.html Ecology Contact: Revision Histo Douglas C. Howie, P.E. Department of Ecology Water Quality Program (360) 407-6444 dou glas.howie@ccy.wa.gov Date Revision Jan 2005 Original Use Level Designation Dec 2007 Revision Ma 2012 Maintenance requirements updated November 2012 Design Storm and Maintenance requirements updated January 2013 Updated format to match Ecology standard format September 2014 Added Peak Diversion StormFilter Alternate Configuration November 2016 Revised Contech contact information April 2017 Revised sizing language to note sizing based on Off-line calculations CONTECH - StormFilter® GULD Maintenance Update (November 2012) Page 112 Attachment 4 1Packet Pg. 69 2.1.a Appendix D Maintenance Schedule &Agreement (TO BE PROVIDED WITH BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION) Preliminary Stormwater Site Plan ra 1q. Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 70 2.1.a r c r Cn a� c L 0 v! .M� W N� �L C� C 0 E W 4- 0 L 0 IL w c a� E a r L 0 Q 0 w 0 M O O r- T" O N Z J d C R N O O ti O N Z J d C d E M V R r r Q Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 71 2.1.a 2 ov F:1]_4 City of Edmonds DEVELO COENT UNTER SERVICES Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Name of Proposed Project: Owner/Applicant Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Robert McChesney, Port of Edmonds Name 336 Admiral Way Street/Mailing Address Edmonds WA 98020 Cary Telephone: 425-775-4588 State zip Applicant Contact Person: Shawn Rafferty, Jackson Main Architecture, P.S. Name 311 First Avenue South Street/Mailing Address Seattle WA 98104 City State zip Telephone. 206-324-4800 Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis (if applicable): Transportation Solutions, Inc. Jeff Hee / Jake Pi Firm Name Contact Name Telephone: 425-883-4134 THRESHOLD LEVELS OF ANALYSIS E-mail: jeffh@tsinw.com Project - - Less than 25 peak -hour trips generated II. More than 25 peak -hour trips generated 1 and 7 only (Worksheet/Checklist) All sections 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION a. Location - Street address: Please refer to vicinity map attached. (Attach a vicinity reap and site plan.) b. Specify existing land use: Boat Repairs and Sales c. Specify proposed type and size of development: 6,650 sf retail sales building (# of residential units and/or square footage of building) Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page I of S Attachment 5 1Packet Pg. 72 2.1.a d. Date construction will begin and be completed: 2017-2018 e. Define proposed access locations Admiral Way f. Define proposed sight distance at site egress locations: Access will be designed to meet sight distance requirements. 2. TRIP GENERATION Source shall be the Eighth Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual. For independent fee calculations, the current edition of the ITE manual may be used. ADT = Average Daily Traffic PM Peak -hour trips (AM, noon or school peak may also apply as directed by the City Engineer) a. Existing Site Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT Parking Lot b. Proposed Project Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT Boat Repair and Sales 55 3 3 c. Net New Project Trip Generation Table: Land Use Daily (ADT) PM Peak -Hour Trips IN OUT Boat Repair and Sales 55 3 3 d. State assumptions and methodology for internal, link -diverted or passby trips: See attached trip generation and fee calculation. Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Attachment 5 Page 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 73 2.1.a 3. TRIP DISTRIBUTION N/A Prepare and attach a graphic showing project trip distribution percentages and assignments. For developments that generate over 75 peak -hour trips, the City Engineer reserves the right to require trip distribution to be determined through use of the City traffic model.' 4. SITE ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY N/A a. Have sight distance requirements at egress location been met per AASHTO requirements? b. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Analysis: Intersections to be evaluated shall be determined by the City of Edmonds Traffic Engineer Existing Conditions LOS Delays Year of Opening LOS Delays Five Years Beyond Change of LOS Delays Land Use c. Describe channelization warrants: (Attach striping plan.) d. Vehicle Storage/Queuing Analysis (calculate 50% and 95 % queuing lengths): 50 % 95 % Existing Conditions Year of Opening Five Years Beyond Change of Land Use e. If appropriate, state traffic control warrants (e.g. stop sign warrants, signal warrants): f. Summarize local accident history2 (only required for access to principal and minor arterials): Available upon request at City of Edmonds Development Services Department 2 Available upon request at City of Edmonds Police Department Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 3 of 5 Attachment 5 1Packet Pg. 74 2.1.a 5. TRAFFIC VOLUMES N/A Provide the following and other planned development traffic within the city.1 a. Describe existing ADT and peak -hour counts (less than two years old), including turning movements, on street adjacent to and directly impacted by the project. b. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, the year the project is fully open (with and without project traffic). c. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, five years after the project has been fully open (with and without project traffic). d. State annual background traffic growth factor and source: 6. LEVEL OF SERVICE (LOS) ANALYSIS N/A a. Summarize Level of Service Analysis below and attach supporting LOS analysis documentation Provide the following documentation for each arterial street or arterial intersection impacted by ten or more peak -hour trips. Other City -planned developments; must also be factored into the LOS calculations. LOS LOS Existing Conditions Existing Delays Year of Opening With Project Without Project Five Years Beyond Change of Land Use With Project Without Project b. Note any assumptions/variations to standard analysis default values and justifications: 1 A list of planned developments are available at the City upon request for public records Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page 4 of 5 Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 75 2.1.a 7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic impact fee shall be calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached) and as identified in ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECDC 18.82.130. ❑ CHANGE IN USE Fee for prior use shall be based on fee established at the time the prior use was permitted. If the previous use was permitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 3516 (effective date: 09/12/04), the 2004 ECDC 18.82.120 impact fee shall be used. Per Unit ITE Land Use Category Fee Rate New Use $ Prior Use $ X R Units in square feet, # of dwelling, vfn. etc. Fee New Use Fee: $ - Prior Use Fee: $ = $ ' X NEW DEVELOPMENT ITE Land Use Category New Use I N/A (see atta calculation) OTHER Per Unit Fee Rate $ 2,543.01 1 X Units in square feet, # of dwelling, vfp, etc. 6 trips Fee 15,258.06 INDEPENDENT FEE CALCULATION: $200.00 + consultant fee 240.00 TOTAL TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE $ 15,498.06 City of Edmonds, Engineering Division Approval Date ' No impact fees will be due, nor will a credit be given, for an impact fee calculation resulting in a net negative. Q Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet Page S of 5 Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 76 2.1.a TS1on Solutions, Inc. 8250.165th Avenue NE Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052.6628 T 425.883.4134 F 425-867.0898 www.tsinw.com To: Robert McChesney, Executive Director for Port of Edmonds From: Jake Pi and Jeff Hee, TSI Subject: Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Trip Generation March 27, 2017 This technical analysis supports the City of Edmonds Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet for the proposed Port of Edmonds Marine Retail site located off Admiral Way across from Anthony's HomePort restaurant in Edmonds, Washington. The proposal is located on a portion of parcel 2703200415800 and is currently used as a parking lot. The site is about 0.49 acres in size and includes a 6,650-square foot retail sales building, space for boat repair, detailing and sales. This proposal is similar in its business model to the Edmonds Jacobsen's Marine business, also located off Admiral Way, and is about half the size of Jacobsen's Marine. A vicinity map is attached for reference. Technical Summary Port of Edmonds Marine Retail is proposed off Admiral Way and includes a 6,650-square foot retail sales building, space for boat repair, detailing and sales. The development is forecast to generate 55 weekday daily trips and 6 PM peak hour trips. The development's impact fee is estimated at $15,258.06 Trip Generation For this study trip generation was collected at the former Jacobsen's Marine and at Performance Marine businesses on Wednesday and Thursday, February 12-13, 2014. Data collection included monitoring pedestrian activity at the sales main entrance, reducing the pedestrian data to vehicle trips, and noting any additional vehicle trips observed accesses the boat repair and sales areas. Data was collected between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. The former Jacobsen's Marine was located in West Seattle and included a 7,200-square foot retail sales office and a 2,400-square foot detached garage (for service, detailing and repair). The site was served primarily via on -street parking on Harbor Ave SW. Exhibit A identifies the main entrance and gated area off-street area where the boat repair occurred. Weekday business hours were from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. Performance Marine is located at 930 W Marine View Drive, in Everett, Washington. The existing business was identified as being most similar in operations to Jacobsen's Marine. Performance Marine is located in a 37,888- square foot building and the main business area is estimated at about 12,000 square feet. Boat repair, detailing and sales areas are located to the rear of the main building. Exhibit B provides an aerial of the Everett site. Weekday business hours are from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. Table 1 summarizes the data collected at each site. A copy of the data collected in fifteen minute increments is attached. A copy of the February 19, 2014 Jacobsen's Marine Edmonds Traffic Impact Analysis is also attached. Attachment 5 1Packet Pg. 77 2.1.a TS1 A Transpo tir lutions, Inc. Robert McChesney Port of Edmonds Marine Retail; Trip Generation March 27, 2017 Page 2 of 2 Table 1: Trip Generation Study (February 2014) Time Interval Jacobsen's Marine West Seattle Performance Marine IEverett Trips -In Trips -Out Total Trips -In Trips -Out Total 8-9 AM 7 2 9 5 2 7 9-10 AM 4 4 8 7 8 15 10-11 AM 4 2 6 5 5 10 0 N 11-noon 3 4 7 6 7 13 12-1 PM 7 5 12 3 1 4 LL 1-2 PM 8 4 12 4 6 10 a 2-3 PM 6 5 11 5 5 10 M 3-4 PM 0 2 2 3 4 7 d 4-5 PM 7 5 12 1 2 3 a 3 5-6 PM 0 5 5 0 4 4 Other Hours' 2 10 12 7 2 9 Total 48 48 96 41 41 82 8-9 AM 6 1 7 6 4 10 9-10 AM 7 3 10 6 3 9 10-11 AM 2 5 7 3 3 6 N 11-noon 4 3 7 4 3 7 It 12-1 PM 5 4 9 5 5 10 1-2 PM 4 5 9 3 4 7 vLL 2-3 PM 1 3 4 6 3 9 v 3-4 PM 5 5 10 4 6 10 12 4-5 PM 3 5 8 1 2 3 L ~ 5-6 PM 0 2 2 1 3 1 4 Other Hours' 2 3 5 2 5 7 Total 39 39 78 41 41 82 1. Estimate of trips outside of business hours (such as cleaners and staff who arrive and depart before and after closing) The former Jacobsen's Marine generated 12 average weekday PM peak hour trips, and 87 average daily trips. Performance Marine generated 6 average weekday PM peak hour trips, and 87 average daily trips. Table 2 includes the weekday daily and PM peak hour trip generation forecast for the proposed development as derived from the results of the trip generation study. Table 2: Jacobsen's Marine (Edmonds) Trip Generation Site Size (sq. ft.) WeekDally Trips(ADT1 PM Peak Hour Tri s Feb.13 Feb.14 1 Trip Rate Feb.13 Feb.14 Trip Rate Jacobsen's Marine West Seattle 9 600 96 78 9.06 16 8 1.25 Performance Marine Everett 12 000 92 82 7.25 6 5 0.46 Average 8.16 0.86 Marine Retail (Edmonds) 6.650 Trips: 55 1 Trips: 6 1. Expressed as Trips per 1,000 sq. ft. The proposed Port of Edmond's Marine Retail site is forecast to generate 55 weekday daily trips and 6 PM peak hour trips, split 45% in and 55% out. Traffic Impact Fee Based on the current Impact Fee Schedule the fee rate per trip in the City of Edmonds is $2,543.01. The fee estimate for the proposal is $15,258.06 (6 new PM peak hour trips X $2,543.01 per new trip). As the applicant, you will be responsible for the impact fee payment, $240 administrative fee, and the cost of any required consultant time to review this study. Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 78 TS1Transportation Solutions, Inc. Vicinity Map w DOW11"t Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 79 2.1.a TS1 Transportation Solutions, Inc. 8250 -165th Avenue NE Suite 100 Redmond, WA 98052.6628 T 425.883.4134 F 425.867.0898 www.tsinw.com To: Greg Jacobsen, Jacobsen Marine From: Jeff Hee, Transportation Solutions, Inc. Subject: Jacobsen's Marine Edmonds, Washington Traffic Impact Analysis February 19, 2014 This technical analysis supports the City of Edmonds Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet for Jacobsen's Marine, a boat sales and service business, proposed at 345 Admiral Way, Edmonds, Washington. This document specifically supports an independent traffic impact fee study as request by Edmonds staff. Jacobsen's Marine is proposed at the Port of Edmonds. The site which is about an acre in size area includes a 10,000 sq. ft. sales building and space for boat repair and sales. A vicinity map and a site plan are attached. Jacobsen's Marine currently operates out of West Seattle at 2625 Harbor Ave SW, and is proposing to relocate Edmonds. The current business model shows limited customer traffic during the PM peak hour. Edmonds staff, in an email sent on Monday, December 23, 2013, indicated that an independent fee calculation would be required for the proposal since there is no similar land use category to address the proposed business in the City's traffic impact fee chart. The following includes a review of the trip generation and the independent traffic impact fee analysis for the proposed development. The scope for the data collection was reviewed with Edmonds staff. Executive Summary • Jacobsen's Marine is proposed at the Port of Edmonds to include a 10,000 sq. ft. sales building. • City staff requested an independent fee study for the proposed use. • Trip generation was collected over two days each at the existing Jacobsen's Marine, in West Seattle, and at Performance Marine, in Everett. • The development is forecast to generate 82 weekday daily trips and 9 PM peak hour trips. • The development's impact fee is estimated at $9,444.59. Trip Generation For this study trip generation was collected at the existing Jacobsen's Marine and at Performance Marine businesses on Wednesday and Thursday, February 12-13, 2014. Data collection included monitoring pedestrian activity at the sales main entrance, reducing the pedestrian data to vehicle trips, and noting any additional vehicle trips observed accesses the boat repair and sales areas. Data was collected between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 80 2.1.a TS1 Greg Jacobsen Jacobsen's Marine Edmonds, Washington; Traffic Impact Analysis Transportation Solutions, Inc. February 19, 2014Page 2 of 3 The existing Jacobsen's Marine is located in West Seattle and includes a 7,200 sq. ft. sales office and a 2,400 sq. ft. detached garage (for service and repair). There is very limited on -site parking with much of the on -site area is dedicated to boat repair and some sales. The site is served primarily via on -street parking on Harbor Ave SW. Exhibit A identifies the main entrance and gated area off-street area where the boat repair occurs. Weekday business hours are from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. Performance Marine is located at 930 W Marine View Drive, in Everett, Washington. This existing business was identified as being most similar in operations to Jacobsen's Marine. Performance Marine is located in a 37,888 sq. ft. building and the main business area is estimated at about 12,000 sq. ft. Boat repair and sales areas are located to the rear of the main building. Exhibit B provides an aerial of the Everett site. Weekday business hours are from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM. Table 1 summarizes the data collected at each site. A copy of the data collected in fifteen minute increments is attached. Table 1: Trip Generation Study Jacobsen's Marine Performance Marine Time Interval Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total 8-9 AM 7 2 9 5 2 7 9-10 AM 4 4 8 7 8 15 c 10-11 AM 4 2 6 5 5 10 m 11-noon 3 4 7 6 7 13 '-' 12-1 PM 7 5 12 3 1 4 LL 1-2 PM 8 4 12 4 6 10 > 2-3 PM 6 5 11 5 5 10 N 3-4 PM 0 2 2 3 4 7 c 4-5 PM 7 5 12 1 2 3 v w 3 5-6 PM 0 5 5 0 4 4 Other Hours 1 2 10 12 7 2 9 Total 48 48 96 41 41 82 8-9 AM 6 1 7 6 4 10 9-10 AM 7 3 10 6 3 9 10-11 AM 2 5 7 3 3 6 N 11-noon 4 3 7 4 3 7 12-1 PM 5 4 9 5 5 10 1-2 PM 4 5 9 3 4 7 2-3 PM 1 3 4 6 3 9 M m 3-4 PM 5 5 10 4 6 10 V 4-5 PM 3 5 8 1 2 3 5-6 PM 0 2 2 1 3 4 Other Hours 1 2 3 5 2 5 7 Total , 39 39 78 1 41 41 82 1. Estimate of trips outside of business hours (such as cleaners and staff who arrive and depart before and after closing) The existing Jacobsen's Marine site generated 16 PM peak hour trips on Wednesday (split 6 in and 10 out) and 8 PM peak hour trips on Thursday (split 3 in and 5 out). The Wednesday PM peak hour was between 4:15 and 5:15 PM and the Thursday PM peak hour was between 4:00 and 5:00 PM. Attachment 5 1Packet Pg. 81 2.1.a TS1on Solutions, Inc. Greg Jacobsen Jacobsen's Marine Edmonds, Washington; Traffic Impact Analysis February 19, 2014 Page 3 of 3 The Performance Marine site generated 6 PM peak hour trips on Wednesday (split 0 in and 6 out) and 5 PM peak hour trips on Thursday (split 1 in and 4 out). The PM peak hour for this site was between was between 4:15 and 5:15 PM and the Thursday PM peak hour was between 4:45 and 5:45 PM. Table 2 includes the weekday daily and PM peak hour trip generation forecast for the proposed development as derived from the results of the trip generation study. Table 2: Jacobsen's Marine (Edmonds) Trip Generation Site Size (sq, ft.)rips Weekday Daily Trips (ADT) per Feb. 13 Feb.Feb.14 1,000 sq. ft. PM Peak Hour Trips Trips per Feb.13 Feb.14 1,000 sq. ft. Jacobsen's Marine 9,600 96 78 9.06 16 8 1.25 (West Seattle) Performance Marine 12,000 92 82 7.25 6 5 0.46 (Everett) I _ Average 8.16 0.86 Proposed Jacobsen's 10,000 Trips: 82 Trips: 9 Marine (Edmonds) The proposed Jacobsen's Marine site is forecast to generate 82 weekday daily trips and 9 PM peak hour trips, split 45% in and 55% out. Traffic Impact Fee Based on the current Impact Fee Schedule the fee rate per trip in the City of Edmonds is $1,049.41. The fee estimate for the proposal is $9,444.59 (9 new PM peak hour trips X $1,049.41 per new trip). As the applicant, you will be responsible for the impact fee payment, $200 processing fee, and the cost of any required consultant time to review this study. Thank you and sincerely, Transportation Solutions, Inc. rey . K. Hee, P.E. Project Engineer Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 82 2.1.a Pinup SaIon ■; 7,� w U I ' c]1'y1'ti Sea -Way Marine � lacobsen's Jacobsen's Marine Marine crs L Y_. L ' 5L 7S. f Exhibit A: Existing Jacobsen's Marine Attachment D 4 cn S C Ili i �• 1 ICU A Packet Pg. 83 2.1.a r c N 7 N N C L 0 i CO m N0 LPL 0 C� L N 13 C O E W 4- 0 V- 0 IL C m E a z �3 0 d O M O O ti T O N Z J IL C M rn N O O ti T O N Z J IL C w E z a Exhibit B: Performance Marine Attachment Packet Pg. 84 2.1.a Performance Marine Count Date: 2/12/2014 Time I In Out 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 8:15 AM 2 1 8:30 AM 2 8:45 AM 1 1 9:00 AM 3 5 9:15 AM 3 2 9:30 AM 1 9:45 AM 1 10:00 AM 1 1 10:15 AM 2 1 10:30 AM 1 1 10:45 AM 1 2 11:00 AM 2 2 11:15 AM 2 1 11:30 AM 1 2 11:45 AM 1 2 Time 1In Out 12:00 PM 1 12:15 PM 12:30 PM 1 1 12:45 PM 1 1:00 PM 1 2 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1 2 1:45 PM 2 2 2:00 PM 1 1 2:15 PM 1 2 2:30 PM 2 2 2:45 PM 1 3:00 PM 1 3:15 PM 1 1 3:30 PM 2 2 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 1 4:45 PM 2 5:00 PM 1 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 3 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM Count Date: 2/13/2024 Time In I Out 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 1 8:15 AM 4 1 8:30 AM 1 2 8:45 AM 1 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 1 1 9:30 AM 2 1 9:45 AM 3 1 10:00 AM 1 2 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 2 1 11:00 AM 1 1 11:15 AM 2 11:30 AM 1 2 11:45 AM Total 1 23 22 16 1 22 Total 19 13 Da 1 39 44 Da 2 39 36 Time IIn Out 12:00 PM 2 3 12:15 PM 1 1 12:30 PM 1 1 12:45 PM 1 1:00 PM 2 2 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1 1:45 PM 1 1 2:00 PM 2 1 2:15 PM 1 2:30 PM 1 2 2:45 PM 2 3:00 PM 2 3 3:15 PM 1 1 3:30 PM 1 2 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 1 1 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 1 5:00 PM 1 1 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 2 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM 20 1 23 Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 85 2.1.a Jacobsen's Marine Count Mute: 2/12/2014 Time In I Out 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 3 8:15 AM 1 8:30 AM 1 8:45 AM 2 2 9:00 AM 2 1 9:15 AM 1 9:30 AM 1 1 9:45 AM 1 1 10:00 AM 2 10:15 AM 2 1 VAMJ 3 Time I lip Out 12:00 PM 1 1 12:15 PM 3 2 12:30 PM 1 12:45 PM 3 1 1:00 PM 2 2 1:15 PM 1 1 1:30 PM 1 1:45 PM 4 1 2:00 PM 1 2 2:15 PM 3 2:30 PM 2 2:45 PM 2 1 3:00 PM 1 3:15 PM 1 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 1 4:15 PM 1 2 4:30 PM 2 4:45 PM 3 3 5:00 PM 5 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM Count Date: 2/13/2014 Time in I Out 12:00 AM 12:15 AM 12:30 AM 12:45 AM 1:00 AM 1:15 AM 1:30 AM 1:45 AM 2:00 AM 2:15 AM 2:30 AM 2:45 AM 3:00 AM 3:15 AM 3:30 AM 3:45 AM 4:00 AM 4:15 AM 4:30 AM 4:45 AM 5:00 AM 5:15 AM 5:30 AM 5:45 AM 6:00 AM 6:15 AM 6:30 AM 6:45 AM 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM 7:45 AM 8:00 AM 1 8:15 AM 2 8:30 AM 2 8:45 AM 1 1 9:00 AM 2 1 9:15 AM 1 1 9:30 AM 1 9:45 AM 3 1 10:00 AM 1 1 10:15 AM 1 2 10:30 AM 1 10:45 AM 1 11:00 AM 2 11:15 AM 1 11:30 AM 2 1 11:45 AM I 1 Total 18 1 12 28 1 26 Total 19 1 12 Da 1 46 38 Da 2 37 36 Time IIn Out 12:00 PM 1 12:15 PM 1 12:30 PM 4 1 12:45 PM 2 1:00 PM 2 2 1:15 PM 1 1:30 PM 1 1:45 PM 2 1 2:00 PM 1 2:15 PM 1 2 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 1 3:15 PM 3 1 3:30 PM 1 2 3:45 PM 1 1 4:00 PM 1 1 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 2 4 5:00 PM 1 5:15 PM 1 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM 8:15 PM 8:30 PM 8:45 PM 9:00 PM 9:15 PM 9:30 PM 9:45 PM 10:00 PM 10:15 PM 10:30 PM 10:45 PM 11:00 PM 11:15 PM 11:30 PM 11:45 PM 18 1 24 Attachment 5 Packet Pg. 86 2.1.a Technical Memorandum TO: Shawn Rafferty FROM: Steven Quarterman JUN 2 8 2017 DATE: June 21, 2017 01-VELOPMENT : RE: Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Assessment COUNT Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Property Edmonds, Washington Project No. 1527002.010.012 Introduction The Port of Edmonds (Port) wishes to develop the vacant lots located on Snohomish County Parcel No. 27032300415800 at 305, 317, 345, 375, 445, 465, and 471 Admiral Way in Edmonds, Washington (subject property) for retail purposes. The Port's pre -application consultation with the City of Edmonds (City) resulted in Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report #CRA19940162 (City of Edmonds 2013), which documents the subject property's proximity to critical areas, including a seismic hazard area, wetland, and stream. The City requires completion of a critical areas report(s) that satisfies the criteria set forth in the City of Edmonds' Community Development Code (ECDC), which references minimum report requirements and additional requirements specific to the type of critical area(s) affected. Landau Associates, Inc. (LAI), under contract to Jackson Main Architecture, conducted a site reconnaissance to help the Port determine the approximate location of wetlands, waterways, and/or buffers that may be regulated by local, state, and/or federal agencies. Additionally, LAI evaluated critical areas compliance in accordance with ECDC Title 23. Our evaluation was limited to accessible areas within the subject property. Presence of wetland/waterway habitat extending beyond the subject property and within 200 feet (ft; i.e., the study area) was estimated by visual assessment and with the use of public domain resources. This technical memorandum identifies the presence of wetlands/waterways in the study area, documents buffer conditions in the vicinity of the subject property, and evaluates these critical areas in relation to the subject property. Assessment of seismic hazard areas will be documented in a separate report prepared by LAI. Background Information Review Consistent with Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report #CRA19940162, the City of Edmonds' Critical Areas Mapping identifies portions of Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh outside of the subject property, but within the study area (Figure 1). As mapped, the approximately 21-acre marsh is identified by the City as a Category 1 wetland, a shoreline regulated under the Shoreline Management Act, and state priority habitat. In accordance l LANDAU J t ASSOCIATES 130 2nd Avenue South • Edmonds, Washington 98020 • (425) 778-0907 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 87 2.1.a Landau Associates with ECDC Chapter 23.50.040, Category 1 wetlands are prescribed a standard buffer between 75 ft and 225 ft, depending on their wetland rating habitat score and applicable special characteristics (e.g., estuarine wetlands, bogs, etc). Edmonds Marsh is primarily freshwater wetland with a small area of saltmarsh along its western edge (City of Edmonds 2007). As described in the City of Edmonds' Shoreline Master Program Update Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (City of Edmonds 2007), the downstream area of Edmonds Marsh includes a channelized section of Willow Creek. As it approaches the culvert under the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad, which runs along the western edge of Edmonds Marsh, the channel is characterized as a ditch with a bottom composed entirely of silt. The ditch is connected to a culvert and discharges into the subtidal zone off Marina Beach Park. Hydrology of Edmonds Marsh is supported, in part, by Shellabarger Creek, Willow Creek, and fluctuations of tidal elevations. The Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife's interactive map PHS (Priority Habitats and Species) on the Web (WDFW 2017) identifies occurrence/migration of resident cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii) and coho salmon (O. kisutch). As a result, Willow Creek is classified as a Type F stream in accordance with ECDC Chapter 23.90.010. The ECDC further expands classification of Type F streams to include "anadromous fish -bearing streams adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access," "anadromous fish -bearing streams adjacent to reaches without anadromous fish access," and "non- anadromous fish -bearing streams." ECDC Chapter 23.90.040.1) prescribes a standard buffer of 100 ft for Type F anadromous fish -bearing streams adjacent to reaches with anadromous fish access. Floodplain associated with Puget Sound is mapped along portions of the subject property's western boundary (Figure 1). Summary of Existing Conditions LAI biologist Steven Quarterman conducted a site reconnaissance on June 14, 2017. The weather during the site reconnaissance was overcast. The subject property is developed with a commercial building (Jacobson's Marine) and asphalt and gravel parking (Attachment 1). The subject property is bordered by Admiral Way, West Dayton Street, and BNSF railroad. Adjacent to but outside of the project area, a segment of Willow Creek was observed flowing west between culverts associated with the railroad and Admiral Way (Figure 1). This section of creek is bordered by existing impervious surfaces. The view of Edmonds Marsh/Willow Creek from the subject property is obscured by perimeter fencing and the BNSF railroad, but they can be observed from a viewing platform adjacent to Harbor Square (Figure 1). Edmonds Marsh appears to extend to the base of fill associated with the BNSF railroad, and Willow Creek appears to be channelized parallel to the BNSF right-of-way. Vegetation observed in Edmonds Marsh includes, but is not limited to, cattail (Typha latifolia), bulrush Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Assessment Port of Edmonds Retail Property 2 June 21, 2017 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 88 Landau Associates 2.1.a (Schoenoplectus acutus), reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea), yellow flag iris (Iris pseudacorus), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Critical Areas Compliance Evaluation ECDC 23.40.220 (C.4) identifies development proposals within interrupted stream or wetland buffers as allowed activities, in which: Adjacent areas that may be physically separated from a stream or wetland due to existing, legally established structures or paved areas may be exempted from the prescribed buffer widths if proven scientifically to be functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. The director will require the applicant to provide a site assessment and functional analysis documentation report by a qualified critical area consultant that demonstrates the interrupted buffer area is functionally isolated. The director shall consider the hydrologic, geologic, and/or biological habitat connection potential and the extent and permanence of the physical separation. The ECDC also identifies a buffer as "a designated area immediately next to and part of a stream or wetland that is an integral part of the stream or wetland ecosystem." Given the existing BNSF railroad right-of-way and impervious surfaces on the subject property, the functional buffer of Willow Creek and Edmonds Marsh does not extend onto the subject property, and any buffer areas overlapping the subject property are effectively separated from the Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh and not an integral part of the stream and wetland (i.e., have no influence on habitat or water quality). Any proposed development on the subject property will be located within the footprint of the existing development (i.e., within an area covered by asphalt and/or gravel). As a result, the proposed development will be located in an area of interrupted wetland and stream buffer and will not result in impacts to the functional buffer associated with Willow Creek/Edmonds Marsh. This technical memorandum was prepared for the use of Jackson Main Architecture, the Port of Edmonds, and the City of Edmonds. No other party is entitled to rely on the information, conclusions, and recommendations included in this document without the express written consent of LAI. Furthermore, the reuse of information, conclusions, and recommendations provided herein for extensions of the project or for any other project, without review and authorization by LAI, shall be at the user's sole risk. Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Assessment Port of Edmonds Retail Property Attachment 6 June 21, 2017 Packet Pg. 89 2.1.a Landau Associates We appreciate this opportunity to be of service to Jackson Main Architecture and the Port of Edmonds. If you have questions or if we may be of further assistance, please contact the undersigned at (425) 329-0321. LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. Steven Quarterman Senior Associate SJQ/mcs [P.\1527\002\R\WETLAND-WATERWAYS CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT\WE n AND -WATERWAY CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT.00CX] References City of Edmonds. 2017. Edmonds City Code and Community Development Code: A Codification of the General Ordinances of the City of Edmonds, Washington. Current through Ordinance 4069, passed May 16, 2017. City of Edmonds. 2013. Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report; CRA19940162. December 16. City of Edmonds. 2007. Shoreline Master Program Update: Shoreline Inventory and Characterization. November. WDFW. 2017. PHS on the Web. Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, Priority Habitats and Species Program. http://wdfw.wa.gov/mapping/phs/ Attachments: Figure 1. Study Area Map Attachment 1. Selected Site Photographs Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Assessment Port of Edmonds Retail Property 4 June 21, 2017 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 90 2.1.a 0 150 300 Scale In Feet m c �L 0 G 0 E t - W 0 O a c E - Q t _ r L 0 N0 O M O O ti T O N Z J a ._ " N' c ea N O O - ti Note 1. Black and white reproduction ofthis cc T O N Z original may reduce its effectiveness an d lead to incorrect interpretation. Figur Area Map 1 d E t V fC Q Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 91 2.1.a r c r Cn a� c a� L 0 M ATTACHMENT Selected Site photograph; Cu 0 0 E W 4- 0 L 0 a w c a� E a r L C Q w O M O O r- T" O N Z J d C R O N O O ti O N Z J d C d E L V R r r Q Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 92 1. Gravel parking at north end of subject property. 2. Paved parking at south end of subject property. Port of Edmonds Retail LANDAU Property ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Selected Site Photographs 2.1.a Figure A-1 Attachment 6 1Packet Pg. 93 3. Daylight section of Willow Creek adjacent to south end of subject property. 4. Edmonds Marsh adjacent to the subject property from viewing platform. Port of Edmonds Retail LANDAU Property ASSOCIATES Edmonds, Washington Selected Site Photographs 2.1.a Figure A-2 Attachment 6 Packet Pg. 94 2.1.a SEPA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: RISC, .:_`,.:: Governmental agencies use this checklist to help determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant. This information is also helpful to determine if available avoidance, minimization or compensatory mitigation measures will address the probable significant impacts or if an environmental impact statement will be prepared to further analyze the proposal. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Please answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. You may need to consult with an agency specialist or private consultant for some questions. You may use "not applicable" or "does not apply" only when ,you can explain why it does not apply and not when the answer is unknown. You may also attach or incorporate by reference additional studies reports. Complete and accurate answers to these questions often avoid delays with the SEPA process as well as later in the decision - making process. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Instructions for Lead Agencies: Please adjust the format of this template as needed. Additional information may be necessary to evaluate the existing environment, all interrelated aspects of the proposal and an analysis of adverse impacts. The checklist is considered the first but not necessarily the only source of information needed to make an adequate threshold determination. Once a threshold determination is made, the lead agency is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of the checklist and other supporting documents. Use of checklist for nonproject proposals: For nonproject proposals (such as ordinances, regulations, plans and programs), complete the applicable parts of sections A and B plus the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS (part ❑). Please completely answer all questions that apply and note that the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proponent," and "affected geographic area," respectively. The lead agency may exclude (for non -projects) questions in Part B - Environmental Elements that do not contribute meaningfully to the analysis of the proposal. A. Background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Port of Edmonds Marina Development 2. Name of applicant: Shawn Rafferty- Jackson I Main Architecture 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 311 First Avenue S Seattle, WA 98105 (206)324.4800 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 1 of 12 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 95 2.1.a 4. Date checklist prepared: 5.23.17 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Shoreline Substantial Development Permit approval by October 2017. Building permit approval by Spring 2018, Construction beginning spring_2g18- Spring2019. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. A biologist report which determines the subject property is physically separated and functionally isolated from the wetlands to the east by the railroad tracks running between the wetlans and the subject property. 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. No 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City of Edmonds Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and Architectural Design Review Approval. 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 this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Development of a portion of the Port of Edmonds property currently being used as a parking lot. The new development will be for marine related safes and_ include a 6,650 sf Pre - Engineered Metal Building on a 20 880 sf site. 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 map, 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. Port of Edmonds PropertVr Parcel #27032300415800. Located directly across dmirai Way from the Anthony's Restaurant. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General description of the site: (circle one): Flat, rolling, hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 12 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 96 2.1.a b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? less than 1 % 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 agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. Geotechnical report to confirm. d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. No. e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Minimum cut and fill. Balance site. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Doubtful. Flat site. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? approximately 90% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: A temporary erosion and sediment control plan will be developed per City of Edmonds best management practices and it will be followed throughout_ construction. Upon_projectcompletion, a permanent stormwater drainage system along with landscaping improvements will be in place to control erosion. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction., operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Exhaust from vehicles will be produced during construction. Dust and other airborne emissions may occur during grading and other construction activities. 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 shall implement best management practices for any diesel -operated equipment to reduce emissions and shall implement dust suppression measures as needed. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 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. Yes. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 107-11-960) July 2016 Page 3 of 12 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 97 2.1.a Puget Sound is located within 200' west of the subject property. Edmonds Marsh (wetlands) is located to across the railroad tracks to the east of the property. 5hellabarper Creek is located across the railroad tracks to the east of the property. 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. Yes 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. No 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 b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? 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 stormwater): SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 12 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 98 2.1.a 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. On -site stormwater runoff from pollution generating surfaces will be routed an on -site water --- -- quality catch basin and filtered before discharging to an existing Port of Edmonds conveyance system 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. No 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. No d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: On -site storm_water runoff from pollution generating surfaces will be routed an on -site water quality catch basin and filtered before discharging to an existing Port of Edmonds conveyance system 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other shrubs grass pasture crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? None c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: Landscaping will be added to the site per City of Edmonds standards SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 12 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 99 2.1.a e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: Seabird colony mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: Chinook Salmon, Bull T Surf Smelt and Dungeness Crab b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. Yes, migratory birds in adjacent wetlands d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: Wetlands will not be effected by this project e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. 6. Energy and Natural, Resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed projecVs energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electrical and natural gas for heating, cooling, lighting and power 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: Building will be fufly insulated to reduce heating and cooling loads 7. Environmental Health SEPA Environmental chaddlet (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 12 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 1O0 2.1.a 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 any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. Present use is a parkir7g lot. There could be oil from leaking cars. Minimum, if any. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. None 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. None 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. Fire, police and amhulanre_ 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? None 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)? Indi- cate what hours noise would come from the site. Short term noise will be from construction vehicles. Construction will occur only during construction operation hours as defined by the City of Shoreline. Long term, the facility will be accessible during business hours and minimal vehicular noise from patrons may occur. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Short term construction noise will be limited to within City prescribed construction operation hours. ^ 8. Land and Shoreline Use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. Parking and boat dry storage. No effect on existing uses. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 7 of 12 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 101 2.1.a how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? No 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: No c. Describe any structures on the site. (1) existing shed d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? (1) existing shed e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? Commercial Waterfront tCW) f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Master Plan Development g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? Marine related activities h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. No L Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? TBD. No residents. Estimated 5-15 employees of future businesses. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? None k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: None L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: The project will be designed to fit into the surrounding area. The project will directly/ indirectly serve the nearby marina. The project will be submitted for design review m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: NA SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 Of 12 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 102 2.1.a 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, mid- dle, or low-income housing. None b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 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? 30'. Glass, masonry and metal siding b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: Exterior color schemes and building materials to match existing Port of Edmonds buildings and standards 11. Light and Glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? JtLeM The proposed structure aims to maintain the outdoor lighting requirements of the commercial waterfront zone. It will provide illumination of the parking lot and outdoor display areas, and will feature architectural accent lighting. All lighting not to exceed the horizontal pfane. All lighting will include daylight sensors to determine appropriate times of the day to illuminate as the seasons change. b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? Exisitng street lights on Admiral Way d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: All lights are to remain below the horizontal plane and to adhere to the commercial waterfront code of the City of Edmonds. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 12 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 103 2.1.a 12. Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? Boating, fishing, shopping and restaurants b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. No c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: Potential clients may lease moorage slips in marina and caring more recreation to the area 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers ? If so, specifically describe. No b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. none known c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surreys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. N/A d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. N/A 14. Transportation hl elal a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. Admiral Way. Access to site will be from existing adjacent parking lot. No new curia cuts onto Admiral Way. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? Bus routes 110, 114, 115, 115, 131, 404 and 870 run to ferry terminal north of area SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 10 of 12 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 104 2.1.a c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? There are currently 14 striped arki n-q stalls on the propeqy. The new level❑ ment will have 24 Parkin stall fora ain of 10 additional parking stalls. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). Addition of new concrete sidewalk and street trees along Admiral Way e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. Site approximately'/z mile south of Edmonds -Kingston ferry terminal, adjacent to railroad. Neither twill be utilized f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? Estimated 40-55 trips to and from the site (including employees) per day with a peak volumn of 3. 5 tripslhr between 8am-5pm. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. No h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Provide pedestrian access via sidewalk to possible cut down on vehicular trips to site. 15. Public Services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. Yes, police and fire protection b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. Securi fencinq will be provided around submect property to deter theft and vandalism. 16. Utilities a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity, natural gas, water, refuse service, telephone, sanitary sewer, septic system, other SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 Of 12 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 105 2.1.a 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. The project will utilize electric, gas, phone, storm sewer, sanitary sewer and refuse service C. Signature The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is rely'n on them to snake its decision. /'a ; , _ Signature: Name of signee: Shawn C Rafferty � Position and Agency/Organization: Designer, Jackson I Main Architecture Date Submitted: 5/26/2017 SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 12 Attachment 7 1Packet Pg. 106 2.1.a Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan Page Descriorron Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 107 2.1.a DO RT OF E 0 M 0 N D S 336 Admiral Way - Edmonds, WA 98020-7214 - (425) 774-0549 • FAX (425)774-7837 • www.portofedmonds.org DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The Port of Edmonds wishes to develop a portion of Port property currently being used as a parking lot. The new development will be for marine related sales and include a 6,650sf Pre -Engineered Metal Building on a 20,880sf site. Proponent: Port of Edmonds Location of proposal, including street address if any: Located at 305, 317, 345, 375, 445, 465, and 471 Admiral Way on Port of Edmonds property. Tax Parcel Number: #27032300415800 Lead agency: Port of Edmonds The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed In the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and In other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse Impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement 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 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by July 24.2017. Project Planner: Robert McChesney, Executive Director Responsible Official: Robert McChesney, Executive Director Contact Information: Port of Edmonds 1 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-774-0549 1 r� e Date: ` LD,�c71 r _ Signature:_ XX You may appeal this determination to Robert McChesney, Executive Di ctor, at 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal no later than July 31, 2017. You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Robert McChesney to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted July 10, 2017 on the Port of Edmonds website and in the Port of Edmonds Administration office. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit(Qacy.wa.gov). Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available for viewing at the Port of Edmonds Administration office — located on the second floor 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds WA 98020, Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 108 2.1.a Notice Mailed to the following. XX Environmental Review Section Department of Ecology P.O. Box 47703 Olympia, WA 98504.7703 Email; SEPA uni aQec�wa.gov XX Departmt16018 Fish ardo MilnCoreek 8 ule Mill Creek, WA 98012 XX DNR SEPA Center P.O. Box 47015 Olympia, WA 98504.7015 SEPACENTER DNR.WA. OV XX Tulalip Tribal Council 6700 Totem Beech Road Marysville, WA 98270 XX Snohomish County Planning & Development Services 3000 Rockefeller Everett, WA 98201 XX Snohomish County Public Works 3000 Rockefeller MIS 607 Everett, WA 98201 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Headquarters Station No. i Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764 XX Town of Woodway Attn.! Clerk -Treasurer 23920 113th Place West Woodway, WA 98020 XX BNSF Railway General Manager 2454 Occidental Avenue South Suite 1A Seattle, WA 98134-1451 XX Puget Sound Efua rgy Attn: David Matulich PO Box 97034, M/S BOT-1 G Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 delvid.!]lMuIrd lC;nse.com XX M. L. Wicklund Snohomish Co, PUD PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 XX Donna I Bunten Department of Ecology Shorelands & Environ. Assist. Program PO Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600 Attachment 8 1Packet Pg. 109 2.1.a `,7e, ig9l 0 4 ` I�/ttt� .'II��/ttttt�ttt�� i�,�itttttttttttttt� • 1 �� I ��ttttttttttttt�ttt�� /�tttttttttt♦ /t'Ot�t�tttt�t♦ /tttttttttttttt' i ittt�t�tttttttt�t�`. It"W-ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt t t t t t��tttttttttttttt i � 1t�t�tt�♦ � `• tttttttttttttt ♦r�t�t�t♦ t��ltttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt i♦ 0♦ t t t t t♦ ♦/Ittttttt ♦/Itt�t�ttt ♦ t t t t t♦ �� ttttt♦ � �.� ��t�tt♦ • �t%Otititititittt•�•�•�•t• ♦Iittttt� illitt�t�� ♦ � ♦ �� titititi`� • 1 ♦tt. ♦ttt♦ ♦t♦ ♦�tt♦ � �,tttt � tttttttt�� Ili��ttjtttjtl� - _ - _ _ ♦I/tttt� '1littt� ,♦I,ttt� t ��tt♦ ♦ttt♦ ♦t♦ ♦ttt♦ ♦t♦ ♦tttt♦ ♦1,ttt' o ♦�ttl . ♦tt�� fit♦ • ♦ttttt� ��♦ ♦tttt♦ ��t♦ ♦tttt♦ y ,,tt♦I. �itt�� `tttt • tttttttttttt ��t�tt tttttttttttt � ttttttt l_ 11� ��. tttttttttttit�i � ► _ �.i/JI • �I� '� ttttttt�.tt�tttis J � `�' tttttttO�tttttttt��1' �r� �a� �� ttt�ttttttltttt�! Suva, u�,-� �� _uva,uc�� t . ��r�• ��t��t_ 1►fit �tt�` . ` rR MAKAH Zoning and Vicinity Map PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Attachment 9 C d a Scale 1 inch = 500 feet Packet Pg. 110 2.1.a SMP Designations Aquatic I Aquatic 11 Conservancy Natural Shoreline Residential I Shoreline Residential 11 Shoreline Residential III Urban Mixed Use I Urban Mixed Use 11 M Urban Mixed Use III ® Urban Mixed Use IV Urban Railroad ♦♦�' 0 Da , tioo 0�pG ♦I �a ry� � 0De �e < ♦♦/ ,y1 T �oP 1, 6 0 �♦', S o � y° �a ♦ R o .♦'♦ Eg �03� ��P V e Q ,♦♦ P 305 R MP OQ #17.4 Pra�ect Locatio y� 790 33)S �� #1 7p •�• �ti6 POD\ ay S ♦. n v L K �u 4S .�♦♦ � O� F OT � O C 4 .�• H J 61 a 0y .,♦ P�� yy b P ♦ G o� F Rye e E Qp? D C B PG`t'� Oco goo � EDMO S MARINA BEACH PT EDWARDS PARK o0 11720 RD 1 BEACH ACCESS BLDG 5 51 61 9 �O 0 0b4 BLDG 855 C? BNRR 17 Q+1' 45 65 BLDG 4 71e 31 C! 4,00 p AME I vp BLDG W 50 75 �v CT 6<a BLDG 3 .�.. �..�..� .. 21 P c7oe 21603 POI 21605 OOD A , 21616 21612 21805 21700 m N 2 21720 `,7c. 1 g9l Shoreline Designations PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Attachment 10 0 sp �� ary �TO� ^1077-1 O >7&' m QPP > LU in ' - - - i. m w SALISH CROSSING EDM LAN � W DAYTON ST DAYT 120 MALL BANK Q W #2 #a 4 a 3z RB >�O #6 Q 160 F THLETIC CLUB #9 ^g0 #6 Q o rc 154 HRF J JD Q Z 2 U W M v v \AMENI 95 0 J CTR 1 Z 85 g3 T vyy 0 21631 MAKAH RD 21�p1 n o 0 C d a Scale 1 inch = 500 feet Packet Pg. 111 2.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20170029/30 Applicant: Port of Edmonds DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 9th day of August, 2017, the attached Notice of Application was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 9t13 ay of August 2017, at Edmonds, Washington. L Si {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ ) Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 112 2.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20170029/30 Applicant: Port of Edmonds DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 9th day of August, 2017, the attached Notice of Application was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 9 day of April, 2017, at Edmonds, Washington. !43 Signed: {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 113 2.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF APPLICATION C . 146 91, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 6,650 square foot building to be used as a marine retail facility. The property is zone in the Commercial Waterfront zone and the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline environment. Design review projects which trigger SEPA are Type III-B decisions and shoreline permits that otherwise require a public hearing are Type III -A decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.6, the applications are being combined and the hearing examiner will issue the decision regarding both design review and the shoreline substantial development permit. PROJECT LOCATION: 471 Admiral Way, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 27032300415800, NAME OF APPLICANT: Port of Edmonds FILE NUMBER: PLN20170029 (Shoreline Substantial Development) & PLN20170030 (Design Review) DATE OF APPLICATION: June 28, 2017 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: July 26, 2017 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: August 10, 2017 REQUESTED PERMIT: Shoreline Substantial Development and Design Review. Notice of Public Hearing will be provided once a date has been scheduled. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Building permits. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Critical Areas Determination, SEPA Environmental Checklist, SEPA Determination, Critical Area Assessment, and Traffic Impact Analysis COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: September 10, 2017 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 - 51h Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday; between the hours of 8:30 AM and Noon on Wednesday; or . Information can also be viewed online through the City's website at https://Permits.edmonds.wa.us. Search for permit PLN20170029. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 114 2.1.a r Q Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 115 2.1.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Dicy Sheppard being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH771845 PLN20170029 & 0030 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 08/10/2017 and ending on 08/10/2017 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $94,2 0\11111111111///1/1 P.K PN1 ,/ s Ffi eo d' •� Subscribed and sworn before me on this =U �1OTARy 0"'. Lle nowday of Notary Public in an for the State of Washington. city orl!d—ds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 I ERNEN LIEN Attachment 11 1Packet Pg. 116 2.1.a CITY OF EDMON.DS NOTICE OF APPLICATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The a plfcOnt Is proposing to conslruel a 6,650 squara foot Wilding to to used as a marine MIMI facalty. Tho pr arty 1s zono in the Commercial Walerlront zone and the Urban Us. Use li shoreline environment. Destgn review projects which trl0g8r $EPA are Type III.9 decisions and shoreline parinitS Intl olherwfse require a puhlie hearing Ore Type III -A decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.6, the appllcalfo" art being combined and the hearing axamfner will ssuo thedeciafon regarding both design ravlaw and the shorellne substantial development permil. PROJECT LOCATION: 471 Admiral Way £tlmonds. WA. Tax Parcel Nombor27032800415800. NAME OF APPLICANT: Port of Edmonds FILE NUMBEA. PLN20110M (Shorelino Substantial Devofopm d PLN20170030 CesiaanRW ") DATE OP APPLICATION: 28, 2017 DATE OF COMPLETENESS: duly 20, 2017 DATE OF PUBLIC NOTICE: August 10.2DI7 REQUESTED PERMIT: Shoreline Substantial Development and DesIn Review. Notice of PubOc Hearing will be prcvidod once a data as been scheduled. OTHER REQUIRED PERMITS: Runding permfls. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS: Critical Areas ❑etermiliMlon. SEPA Environmental Checklist, SEPA Oalerminatfon. Critical Area Assessment, and Traffic Impact Anal COM NTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: Sepidmber 10, 2017 Anyy Person has the right to comment on Ibis eppticallon during ppuhI c comment period, receive notice and partrclpale in any hearingqss, and request a copy of the decision on the applicalion The CfIV may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record prsdinision hearlog is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit Onlyy parties of record as defined in ECOC 20.07.003 have standing to Initialc an edmimlatrative apptW- Informalipn on this development application can bB viewed or obtalnad et the City of Edmonds Development Services Daparlment, 121 - 51h Ave North, Edmonds, WA 80020 between the hours of 8:00 A,M, and 4:30 P.M. Monday. Tuesday, Thilrsday and Friday; between the rrovrs of 8:30 AM antl Noon on Wodnesday; or. Informalion Carr also be viewed coilne through the. Ci{{yy'o websils at httos:Iloermlts.ed01�?11ds.wa,us.Search lot permis PL.N2D470020. CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner kernon.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 uMOW: August 10, 2017. EDH7718 T- Attachment 11 Packet Pg. 117 2.1.a car ED f �d July 25, 2017 CITY OF EDMONDS DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PREVENTION MEMORANDUM To: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner From: Kevin Zweber, Fire Marshal Re: Plan Check: PLN20170030 Address: 336 Admiral Way, Edmonds Project: Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Scope: New Commercial After review of the preliminary plans for the above project, it was found that the following will be required. 1. Fire access must comply with IFC 503 and Dept. of Fire Prevention fire access standard. See attached. 2. Fire hydrant quantity and placement will be dependent upon the fire flow requirements. Fire flow requirement are determined from square footage and construction type. IFC Appendix B and C. 3. General Storage, IFC 315.4 Outside Storage. Outside storage of combustible materials shall not be located within 10' of a lot line. IFC 315.4.2 Storage in the open shall not exceed 20 feet height. Kevin Zweber Deputy Chief — Fire Marshal City of Edmonds, Department of Fire Prevention Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 118 EDq� 2.1.a r DIES. T�Rl�� Updated: April 2017 NOTE: Detailed plans must be submitted, and approved, prior to painting any new fire lane or modifying any existing fire lane. Fire Lanes must: 1) Be a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet and minimum unobstructed vertical clearance of 13 feet, 6 inches. *Fire lanes shall be a minimum of 26 feet wide in the immediate vicinity of any building over 30 feet in height above grade. Such fire lanes shall be located a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 25 feet from the building. 2) Provide Fire Department access to within 150 feet of any portion of an un-sprinkled building. In buildings that provided with an automatic sprinkler, access may be increased, at the discretion of the Fire Marshal. 3) Provide Fire Department access to all on -site fire hydrants and fire department connections (FDC) for sprinkler and standpipe. A hydrant must be located to within 25' of a fire department connection (or as approved by the Fire Marshal) and must not block fire access roads when connected. 4) Have adequate turning radius to allow maneuvering of fire apparatus: inside radius 25 feet; outside radius 45 feet. 5) Be circulating or have an approved turn -around if over 150 feet long. Have grades of no more than 14%. 6) Be paved with asphalt or approved equivalent and be capable of supporting the imposed loads of fire apparatus. 7) Be marked with words "FIRE LANE — NO PARKING." Words to be painted on the pavement inside the lane. Letters to be a minimum of 12" high, 2" stroke, yellow in color, and alternately spaced every 50 feet. 8) Have perimeter striping/curbing to delineate the boundaries of the Fire Lane. Striping to be a minimum of 4 inches wide and striping/curbing to be yellow in color. 9) When required by the Fire Marshal, signs shall be used in addition to or in lieu of striping. Signs, when approved, shall meet the following requirements: a) Size: 18" high x 12" wide (min.) b) Mounting: Bottom of sign 48" to 60" above grade. c) Style: Industry standard (Vulcan %7-6-9, Rainbow 01-527, EMED TC 18816 or approved equivalent). d) Color: Red lettering on white background e) Spacing: 50' between signs or as required by Fire Marshal. 10)Fire lanes shall be established by these requirements to provide access to buildings during construction, alteration or demolition. Fire Code Supplemental Rules and Regulations are designated interpretations of the adopted International Fire Code, Edmonds Community Development Code and national standards allowed by IFC 102.7.102.8 and 102.9 and ECDC 19.25 which provide specifics and details to aid in conformance with the intent of the governing laws, statutes, ordinances and fire- and life safety -related requirements. Page 1 of 1 Attachment 12 1Packet Pg. 119 2.1.a Date: To: From: Subject: July 24, 2017 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Leif Bjorback, Building Official Port of Edmonds Marine Sales Building 471 Admiral Way PLN2017-0030 The City of Edmonds Building Division has performed a preliminary building code review of the plans that were submitted under the referenced application number, and have the following comments. 1. The site is located within Flood Zone AE as per the preliminary FEMA flood maps and the structure will need to be designed and constructed to resist the effects of flood hazards and flood loads. Applicable building code references include ECDC 19.00.025P and IBC 1612. 2. The south wall of the building appears to be approximately 5 feet from the property line which will require fire rated construction of the south wall and possible limitations on exterior projections and openings. 3. Other building code requirements may be identified during the plan review and inspection process for this project. Thank you. City of Edmonds c-e Building Department Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 120 2.1.a Date: To: From: Subject: 11l 1011I us] 7_1\11ULVA I September 25, 2017 Kernen Lien, Senior Planner JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician PLN20170029/30 — Design Review Port Marine Retail Building 471 Admiral Way Engineering has reviewed the design review application for the proposed marine retail building for the location of 471 Admiral Way. Approval of the design review application shall not be interpreted to mean approval of the improvements as shown on the preliminary plans. The information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. Compliance with Engineering Division standards will be verified during the building permit process. The comments noted by the Engineering Division in the memo dated July 26, 2017 have been adequately addressed for design review purposes. A downstream analysis may be required to allow for stormwater direct discharge (flow control will not be required.). Traffic impact fees will be assessed at the time of bulding permit issuance. Thank you. City of Edmonds Attachment 14 Packet Pg. 121 2.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5ch Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.gov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION `'7c. 189" Critical Area Determination (CRA20170095) Based on a review and inspection of the subject site, staff has determined that one or more critical areas are located on or near the site. Critical areas are ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas that are protected in order to maintain their functions and values. Site Location 471 Admiral Way Tax Account Number 27032300415800 Property Owner Port of Edmonds Applicant Bob McChesney Critical Area(s) Present ❑X Wetlands (ECDC 23.50) ❑X Frequently Flooded Areas (ECDC 23.70) ❑X Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 23.80) ❑ Erosion Hazard Areas ❑ Landslide Hazard Areas ❑X Seismic Hazard Areas ❑X Fish & Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (ECDC 23.90) ❑X Streams Site Description The subject property lies between Admiral Way and the Burlington Northern Railroad Right-of-way. The Edmonds Marsh is on the east side of the railroad right-of-way from the subject property and the Willow Creek outlet from the marsh also runs along the east side of the railroad. The proscribed buffer widths in the critical area regulations from Willow Creek and the Edmonds Marsh may extend across the railroad right-of-way onto the subject property. The property is in a mapped liquefaction hazard area and thus is a potential seismic hazard area pursuant to ECDC 23.80. FEMA is in the process of updating its FIRM maps, and the draft maps identify this property is being within the 100-year flood plain with a base flood elevation of 12-feet. While the FEMA FIRM maps are not officially effective yet (current schedule is Winter 2018), the identified 12-foot base flood elevation has been shown on the draft FIRM maps for the past few years and is more than likely to be the flood elevation once the maps become effective. Pursuant to ECDC 23.70.010.13, the City is considering the draft FIRM maps the most recent information and any development within the area will be subject to the flood plain development regulations. Attachment 15 Packet Pg. 122 2.1.a What does this mean? The critical area regulations are only triggered when an alteration is proposed to a critical area or its buffer. However, once an alteration in or near critical area is proposed, critical area studies and City review and approval may be required. What is an `Alteration'? According to Section 23.40.005 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC): "Alteration" means any human -induced action which changes the existing conditions of a critical area or its buffer. Alterations include, but are not limited to: grading, filling; dredging; draining; channelizing; cutting, pruning, limbing or topping, clearing, relocating or removing vegetation; applying herbicides or pesticides or any hazardous or toxic substance; discharging pollutants; paving, construction, application of gravel; modifying for surface water management purposes; or any other human activity that changes the existing landforms, vegetation, hydrology, wildlife or wildlife habitat value of critical areas. Kernen Lien, Senior Planner June 30, 2017 Name, Title Signature Date Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found at http://www. codepublishing. com/WA/Edmonds Environmentally Critical Areas General Provisions (ECDC 23.40) Wetlands (ECDC 23.50) Frequently Flooded Areas (ECDC23.70) Geologically Hazardous Areas (ECDC 23.80) Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas (ECDC 23.90) Building permits — Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas (ECDC 19.10) City of Edmonds GIS map tool with approximate location of critical areas: http://Mops.edmondswa.gov Page 12 Attachment 15 1Packet Pg. 123 ' "M Seismic nazard Areas ! '�,♦et� O♦♦e♦e`�♦�eA�`G�`' ♦e♦��♦e6♦P'e♦r ROD Owetlan e�♦ee♦�♦♦♦�e1 •s edaw c WIN e♦♦♦•e .qeO . e . ♦♦♦♦ e♦eee♦�.; 4177 > �e♦♦♦t ►� o� ♦ tee♦♦ ♦♦♦♦.>♦�,. ¢° 54w�� .♦e♦♦eAtt��s,►♦ee�b O •`��♦♦A �0♦♦♦ee��esvy�ct�i♦� �,� h; y>f, r ,.q��,Os�Og^,��sss®'�'� �.♦♦♦wA♦♦♦♦S•iy♦®eO�w ♦♦♦Pi �I►'L ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦'�� JJ�.��♦e♦e♦� �� ;�` s�sA�Q�1�7♦��r� �Lr �>♦♦♦♦A♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦e♦1,�1 ♦♦♦ee♦e�,�,t�� ` e♦♦♦e♦♦,�A<;�a�s'i.�►e��t! �� » rtei�l�`�@'v-,�y,> ise♦♦e�w>®♦♦♦e♦��►eiise♦♦ O♦♦♦eeeeee♦�e0 a♦�♦♦e♦i•��4rI W ♦VAAI- Oe• .'� ♦►e,,. ♦♦ems �i♦esi �e♦e♦e0 O♦♦♦O.♦ s♦evo c �t�" �s►�� w>ii� ►�1, i r'e♦♦~�'9ise♦♦e��-`�eeeeee♦♦ ♦♦e♦♦♦e♦^C�>�*♦Ae`�♦eel�e♦� `� A244! ee rOer ♦ee♦�i♦ee�► �►A♦A ♦ee♦< •, `♦♦♦ �? �e ♦ >kWE ,� ^,'+®♦♦♦�°� s� >O♦�si�♦'1e♦,'eis�'.' r+�wJ♦♦O ♦Oe♦♦O♦♦<A�'°!► "!♦!O'1� �.w " ��>44�4 ��s�l� J,�Oee1,�j.ae��i♦t�e�C�1 , e •�i♦ ♦`,A♦♦♦e�►A,®`lO�i�i♦♦♦♦��►�� 'Si �� i�ev �►�� •'!~1�Vv>�'''�♦♦�^w�%�t� :� A '- d 'w 0 ♦ets.�lse«liw�!.. •� `rG Is�ii► J ��t� r F''0�Q w. �i A i f ee♦♦A®t��i�O�1�w��. r�e`��, a�`PwA �♦� s ��JOeel w �� •`> Q�r�',�;' ♦♦♦e♦♦1f�`�♦,i9eA _�$ �..ii.. r30Od �,9 >NR<,+""s1►�PO >♦ #♦t i♦ ♦♦♦♦Jt.�✓oa° .��..MENNEN �pt kAMAOew��J'°e>•`w�w��t. ►>O�♦A♦Arw#�'� a♦♦e♦ee♦ ��i:� iiiiii MEMEMEMEME s�eP >4� •�eA�� yw♦♦e♦lees♦e�♦♦l�A� ��♦ee� A�wO ♦v♦� ♦♦♦ ♦s✓ �i.�............... 1� : e♦ �♦O > �Ae Oe♦♦e1,, a .rj��.lO�♦e>��♦♦ ♦♦♦e♦♦♦ <��i.�............MENNEN �Q1•,;�sA>eO.!= � ��ev♦S►e ♦�♦♦♦,�i N w„ 0�s%�♦J w♦e♦♦♦w...............MENNEN t .e4.►.► Ae ,'>�ee'►J♦♦A♦`'e ♦e♦♦♦elys.<< r,�> A•Qv®�. i,��♦ AGy,>♦♦e♦®e♦�a.................... . �i♦eavdCA�1♦�ir�Ay�,et4 EMOe♦E �®e♦e♦♦e ♦oN-0,1 ®wA♦e�,�,�,ve♦♦O ew♦a♦♦♦♦♦OO�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMO y`ee♦ese�'.►�1!�*♦eO�i`><� ♦♦�tO�e~�,♦♦ss'ts �Oe `,♦e�i`iee♦♦ ♦�♦♦♦♦ el....................r....... ® 3►+a>♦♦♦♦♦♦^"♦♦i♦i►>♦e3�"d►A®`�o�9♦♦�♦A>OA�i,��1:��♦e�,<'>>♦♦♦e►♦e♦♦a♦�e�iiiiiiMimi iiiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiii ce♦e♦ ♦Jee♦ NONE e♦W 7VION^�A�� ♦♦� ree ♦♦e♦i e�................... oil! lill ... ♦♦♦ee♦♦e♦�P♦ ♦♦�.�i f♦e� ♦♦(`JA♦O f� O♦♦� - i�e♦eew♦ee�►♦e♦w♦a♦♦�Y�►eeAA>4♦a♦♦♦eOt♦ee♦♦1��►i♦♦e�<;'►♦<1♦♦ ♦♦♦�♦e♦POeO AN .................. �......... A♦♦♦ s >�t ♦♦♦ew♦A� 1♦<♦♦v ♦Pevt A .......... �w♦♦♦<it>f'O'O♦♦a♦e>♦♦e♦♦Oe♦�A♦`'e♦%.!♦eA♦♦e ♦e♦♦Oe��O♦♦O°► ♦♦♦eA♦♦eOO♦� �i..................... �.......... � ��e♦e♦♦v>♦e�►♦♦O♦♦e�O♦e♦e♦e♦♦♦ee♦. �,c�e♦♦♦e♦ ♦.le♦♦♦e♦♦ee.�♦ ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦1♦♦� ca..................... �.......... � ;�♦e♦e♦eAA♦`��♦'gee♦e♦e♦s,►e♦♦♦A♦�,;eee♦A♦♦ �y♦♦♦A♦♦♦A♦e♦e a♦♦�e♦e♦,�el�� ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ♦♦♦♦e♦e<O♦,�♦ese��r�♦eel ��♦A♦e♦�1e♦♦ee♦ eye♦♦♦e♦♦thy%e a♦♦♦e♦�►�.�®�' ♦ee`` ��♦e♦e♦♦♦ ♦♦A♦e ��i♦e♦ >♦♦eA♦!+' Aeei®<.+`ice = � iiiMENEM ♦�*♦; €►♦♦♦♦♦t �►,♦ee♦e♦e♦a♦ripe ♦ee♦�w0♦e♦�O a♦♦♦e e� 'C•��...�..MENEM ....... �............ ►era �e♦eO♦� y♦♦♦ee9i ♦Oe.".�►' ♦e♦ w.,r �i��oo�.�.�........... �.......EEN ♦�'`:+F , �o♦♦♦♦ta►e<,��eee♦♦♦e♦♦♦e�s��' ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦�,. >�e' e♦♦O♦♦♦�♦,�� ,fs�w.�.��►.�..........�............. ®i.�vc� i►♦e.�A♦A♦A♦i♦ ♦e9e�► ♦♦♦ Oar pis ♦��-��..�...► .............. �7i`^�® !fie♦♦♦♦,dab♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦et ♦ ♦t�>�♦l4re ♦0♦A♦♦♦O ♦�ii �ii♦t �♦!>l............... '�,>^0e♦e♦♦♦�♦♦ee♦♦ee�,J�� ♦`��`�eO♦� ♦ee♦♦e♦ ♦<si� �e��` �`��`�� iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii �w0 �,>��♦♦e♦e♦♦♦e♦♦♦e�+9e♦� ♦ ♦e��e��>�. a♦e♦e♦♦♦ a♦s!o �'eQ♦•� ��.................... -®0ie♦e♦e�e♦e♦e ♦e♦ev. ♦♦♦♦ ♦•, �ele. •ee- ................... ��.!.?.A.e.9!.!w��eA♦A 0 ♦♦♦ei♦i'�� ♦♦ieAeiei�♦i! ��eie�.'ei •Oe�� - .................. ell, • ��i�e�e�O►�♦�e�♦� ♦e ♦♦�♦♦�♦�♦�♦wss �4e®®�e�♦A��'�` s'i 'e ♦��. �,�*`�>` `e .r............... A♦ ♦♦e♦♦♦♦ t �� ♦♦♦♦♦♦! ,°.e♦ee��i,� « ! ^��►:� w1 �iiiiiiiiiiiii x c�' 1e♦A♦♦♦♦ a ♦♦♦A♦e• ♦!♦♦♦ >�e♦> c " , �........... ♦Ae♦♦♦♦env ♦e ♦♦e♦ e,♦e♦ +�. ,i♦e♦♦ . ♦� *� �o ......... ♦v♦♦♦♦♦♦♦e�♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ ♦,.♦♦♦egg ee♦e♦♦♦♦♦e.* ♦ `, �. s "MENNE■ ee♦e♦e♦e♦e♦♦e♦A e,.e♦e�.v♦e♦e♦e♦♦♦♦e`►v ,.e rw4 ♦e♦sAe♦♦♦♦O♦♦♦♦♦♦e♦♦♦e♦♦e v♦♦♦♦� e�ss♦♦♦♦♦♦eO,�s i' �Ae♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦e♦♦♦e♦♦♦e♦♦♦eA� !w s� Jwee♦wee♦♦ee♦♦e♦♦♦e♦�►e♦t' Q♦OsO♦��sA♦♦e r�� y®♦♦Oe♦e♦♦je♦♦je♦♦je♦♦jej♦je♦♦Oe♦�'A'P>i Q♦`� ' ♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ Nei♦♦ ; J♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦=� Q�� ♦e. ► �. e♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ ♦ri♦♦♦ ♦� a♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦e O♦ a`e ,r♦♦e♦ee♦♦ee♦Ow0♦1eO pie♦♦e♦♦®,off � �„�♦♦♦e♦♦♦e♦♦♦e♦a♦♦♦e♦♦♦e♦♦♦e♦♦♦e♦♦♦e♦♦♦e♦e♦`t, ��®. ��1, e♦♦♦eee♦ ♦♦APi e♦e♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦e�.�e• .. 'a!�yAieiei♦ie�e e`giei♦iei♦iei♦iei♦ieieieieieiei♦iei♦iei♦ie�s'e�>eieieiei♦ie6 `.0�. -� �,�s♦e♦♦Oe♦♦O♦♦♦Oe♦e♦♦♦e♦♦♦e♦♦♦e♦♦♦e♦♦Oe♦eO♦♦e♦♦♦e♦♦..c�♦e♦♦♦e♦♦O♦e♦ ,�,.®.� 0 .; 1255000 FT 122' 24' 22" 47' 48' 45" , 300000 FT 1260000 FT 122' 22' 30" 47° 48' 45" 2.1.a 295000 FT 290000 FT 47° 46' 52" � 122' 24' 22" FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT HTTP://MSC.FEMA.GOV Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A,V, A99 With BFE or Depth zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR SPECIAL FLOOD Fir Regulatory Floodway HAZARD AREAS 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile zone x = Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard zone x OTHER AREAS OF Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee FLOOD HAZARD See Notes. Zone X NO SCREEN Areas Determined to be Outside the OTHER 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain zone x AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone D ------------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer mTmTmTmTffTffm Accredited or Provisionally Accredited GENERAL Levee, Dike, or Floodwall STRUCTURES Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall OTHER FEATURES (0:::t182 Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance Water Surface Elevation (BFE) - - - - Coastal Transect --- - Coastal Transect Baseline - Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature ^^^^N 513^^^^N Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary 545000m E 546000mE NOTES TO USERS For information and questions about this map, available products associated with this FIRM including historic versions of this FIRM, how to order products or the National Flood Insurance Program in general, please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Map Service Center website at http://msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can be ordered or obtained directly from the website. Users may determine the current map date for each FIRM panel by visiting the FEMA Map Service Center website or by calling the FEMA Map Information eXchange. Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Map Service Center at the number listed above. For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction. To determine if flood insurance is available in the community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620. Base map information shown on this panel was provided by the USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field Office. This information was derived from digital orthophotography at a scale of 1:12,000 and 1-meter pixel resolution from photography dated 2009. SCALE i Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet; Western Hemisphere; Vertical Datum: NAVD 88 1 inch = 500 feet 1:6,000 0 500 0 125 PANEL LOCATOR 1,000 2,000 Feet Meters 250 500 1305 1315 * PANEL NOT PRINTED 5295000mN 5294000mN 5293000mN U 47° 46' 52" 122' 22' 30" W � s �U. 4F i '01M ME X - ap- ��- �rradr NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON (AND INCORPORATED AREAS) 0�4AR b,1,� PANEL 1292 of 1575 ° x S 'IND S�GJ4 vEMA Panel Contains: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1292 F SNOHOMISH COUNTY 535534 1292 F WOODWAY, TOWN OF 530308 1292 F VERSION NUMBER 2.3.2.1 MAP NUMBER 53061C1292F EFFECTIVE DATE Httacnment -i 5 Packet Pg. 125 2.1.a MEMORANDUM Date: July 25, 2017 To: Shane Hope, Developmen 5 rvices Director From: Kernen Lien, Senior Planne Cc: Planning and Building Divisions Subject: Frequently Flooded Area — City Discretion and Designation During the 2016 Critical Area Ordinance Update, new provisions were added to the Building Code and definition of height that relate to development within frequently flooded areas within the City of Edmonds. Within the building code the following section was added: ECDC 19.00.025.P IBC Section 1612.4.1, Lowest Floor Elevation, is added and reads: For buildings in all structure categories located in the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, the elevation of the lowest floor shall be a minimum of two feet above the base flood elevation, as determined from the applicable FEMA flood hazard map. Prior to this amendment, not all structures within flood hazard areas were required to be constructed with the lowest floor elevation two feet above base flood elevation. Some structures could have been constructed with the lowest floor level at the base flood elevation. Planning for sea level rise and increased coastal flooding, the City Council adopted this provision so new structures within the near water front area would be less impacted by flooding events. To compensate for this new requirement for structures to be constructed with the lowest floor two feet above the base flood elevation, the following exception was added to the definition of height: ECDC 21.40.030. D.1 For all properties located within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones, height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above base flood elevation as identified from the applicable FEMA flood hazard map. Generally, frequently flooded areas are determined by the FEMA flood insurance maps (ECDC 23.70.010.A). However, pursuant to ECDC 23.70.010.B, the City of Edmonds has some discretion in designating frequently flooded areas. ECDC 23.70.010.E provides: Page 1 of 2 Attachment 16 Packet Pg. 126 2.1.a City Discretion and Designation. Flood insurance maps and the city's critical areas inventory are to be used as a guide for the city of Edmonds development services department, project applicants and/or property owners, and the public and should be considered a minimum designation of frequently flooded areas. As flood insurance maps may be continuously updated as areas are reexamined or new areas are identified, newer and more restrictive information for flood hazard area identification shall be the basis for regulation. The city of Edmonds shall retain the right to designate and identify areas known to be prone to flooding outside of the 100-year floodplain and subject them to the provisions and protections of this title and the current editions of the International Residential Code and International Building Code, as adopted in ECDC Title 19. In 2011, FEMA began a study of Snohomish County's coast line in order to update the FEMA flood insurance maps. The draft FEMA flood insurance rate maps were initially made available in 2014. The draft FEMA flood insurance rate maps identify most of the near water front area as being within the 100-year floodplain with a base flood elevation of 12 feet. These updated maps were initially intended to become effective in 2016; however, the coastal flood map update got combined with the riverine flood map update which has slowed down the maps' adoption and effective date. An issue with the riverine flood map update that has slowed down the adoption of the updated maps has to do with uncertified dikes and levels. FEMA is still working out how to designate floodplain areas behind the uncertified dikes and levels. The latest update from FEMA (July 5, 2017) identifies a potential effective date of winter 2018. The City of Edmonds has received one application for development within the 100-year floodplain of draft FEMA flood insurance rate map and at least one other application within this area is imminent. Given the intent of the recently added provisions to the building code and exceptions, and the discretion provided by ECDC 23.70.010.13 to use newer more restrictive information, all development applications within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Flood Zones in the draft FEMA flood insurance rate map (attached) will be subject to the requirements of ECDC 19.00.025.13 and may use the height exception provided by ECDC 21.40.030.D.1 based on the flood elevation identified on the draft FEMA flood insurance rate map. Page 2 of 2 Attachment 16 Packet Pg. 127 1255000 FT 122' 24' 22" 47' 48' 45" , 300000 FT 1260000 FT 122' 22' 30" 47° 48' 45" 2.1.a 295000 FT 290000 FT 47° 46' 52" � 122' 24' 22" FLOOD HAZARD INFORMATION SEE FIS REPORT FOR ZONE DESCRIPTIONS AND INDEX MAP THE INFORMATION DEPICTED ON THIS MAP AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ARE ALSO AVAILABLE IN DIGITAL FORMAT AT HTTP://MSC.FEMA.GOV Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A,V, A99 With BFE or Depth zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR SPECIAL FLOOD Fir Regulatory Floodway HAZARD AREAS 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile zone x = Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard zone x OTHER AREAS OF Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to Levee FLOOD HAZARD See Notes. Zone X NO SCREEN Areas Determined to be Outside the OTHER 0.2% Annual Chance Floodplain zone x AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone D ------------- Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer mTmTmTmTffTffm Accredited or Provisionally Accredited GENERAL Levee, Dike, or Floodwall STRUCTURES Non -accredited Levee, Dike, or Floodwall OTHER FEATURES (0:::t182 Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance Water Surface Elevation (BFE) - - - - Coastal Transect --- - Coastal Transect Baseline - Profile Baseline Hydrographic Feature ^^^^N 513^^^^N Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary 545000m E 546000mE NOTES TO USERS For information and questions about this map, available products associated with this FIRM including historic versions of this FIRM, how to order products or the National Flood Insurance Program in general, please call the FEMA Map Information eXchange at 1-877-FEMA-MAP (1-877-336-2627) or visit the FEMA Map Service Center website at http://msc.fema.gov. Available products may include previously issued Letters of Map Change, a Flood Insurance Study Report, and/or digital versions of this map. Many of these products can be ordered or obtained directly from the website. Users may determine the current map date for each FIRM panel by visiting the FEMA Map Service Center website or by calling the FEMA Map Information eXchange. Communities annexing land on adjacent FIRM panels must obtain a current copy of the adjacent panel as well as the current FIRM Index. These may be ordered directly from the Map Service Center at the number listed above. For community and countywide map dates refer to the Flood Insurance Study report for this jurisdiction. To determine if flood insurance is available in the community, contact your Insurance agent or call the National Flood Insurance Program at 1-800-638-6620. Base map information shown on this panel was provided by the USDA-FSA Aerial Photography Field Office. This information was derived from digital orthophotography at a scale of 1:12,000 and 1-meter pixel resolution from photography dated 2009. SCALE i Map Projection: NAD 1983 StatePlane Washington North FIPS 4601 Feet; Western Hemisphere; Vertical Datum: NAVD 88 1 inch = 500 feet 1:6,000 0 500 0 125 PANEL LOCATOR 1,000 2,000 Feet Meters 250 500 1305 1315 * PANEL NOT PRINTED 5295000mN 5294000mN 5293000mN U 47° 46' 52" 122' 22' 30" W � s �U. 4F i '01M ME X - ap- ��- �rradr NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON (AND INCORPORATED AREAS) 0�4AR b,1,� PANEL 1292 of 1575 ° x S 'IND S�GJ4 vEMA Panel Contains: COMMUNITY NUMBER PANEL SUFFIX EDMONDS, CITY OF 530163 1292 F SNOHOMISH COUNTY 535534 1292 F WOODWAY, TOWN OF 530308 1292 F VERSION NUMBER 2.3.2.1 MAP NUMBER 53061C1292F EFFECTIVE DATE Httacnment -iu Packet Pg. 128 10 %j CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.4ov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Project: Port of Edmonds' Marine Retail Building File Number: PLN20170029 (Shoreline) and PLN20170030 (Design Review) Date of Report: tember 26, 201 Staff Contact: rA�I:Z-� K nen Lien, Sen fanner ADB Meeting: Wednesday — October 4, 2017at 7:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 - 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION The Port of Edmonds has submit an application for a new 6,650 square foot marine retail building intended for boat sales and maintenance (Attachments 1— 6). The project site is located on a portion of parcel number 2703200415800 with an address of 471 Admiral Way (Attachment 9) and is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). The site is also located within the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline designation (Attachment 10). Two applications have been submitted at this time. One of the applications is for a shoreline substantial development permit (PLN20170029) and the second application is for the design review of project (PLN20170030). Since the scope of work triggered review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) is required. Projects subject to design review are considered Type III-B decision pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003. Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are Type III -A decisions when a public hearing is required in accordance with ECDC 24.80.100. Since SEPA triggers a public hearing before the ADB, the subject shoreline application requires a public hearing pursuant to ECDC 24.80.100.A.4 and thus is a Type III -A permit decision. The two applications are being combined pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. When applications are combined, the ADB's review of the design review aspects of the proposal will result in a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner who will make the decision on both design review and the shoreline permit following a public hearing. The ADB's review will be via a public meeting with no public comment taken (state law prohibits two open record public hearings). The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing to take public comment on the proposal as a whole. The public hearing before the Hearing Examiner has been tentatively scheduled for October 26, 2017. 2.1.a Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 129 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building The following represents staff's findings of fact, analysis, conclusions, and recommendation with regard to the design review portion of the project. II. FINDINGS & CONCLUSIONS A. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Applicant: Robert McChesney, Port of Edmonds Executive Director 2. Applicant's Agent: Shawn Rafferty, Jackson Main Architecture 3. Owner: Port of Edmonds 4. Tax Parcel Number: 27032300415800 (the project site is a portion of this parcel)_ 5. Location: 471 Admiral Way, Edmonds WA 98020 (Attachment 9) 6. Size: The project site is approximately 20,500 square feet. 7. Zoning: Commercial Waterfront (CW), subject to ECDC Chapter 16.55. 8. Proposed Use: New 6,650 square foot boat sales and repair shop. 9. Existing Use: The site is currently a gravel/paved parking area. 10. Process: Design review of the project is a Type III-B decision while the shoreline permit is a Type III -A decision. The two applications are being combined pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. When applications are combined, the ADB's review of the design review aspects of the proposal will result in a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner who will make the decision on both design review and the shoreline permit following a public hearing. The ADB's review will be via a public meeting with no public comment taken (state law prohibits two open record public hearings). The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing to take public comment on the proposal as a whole. The public hearing before the Hearing Examiner has been tentatively scheduled for October 26, 2017. B. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is required for this project because the proposed building exceeds 4,000 square feet of new commercial area and because the project will include over 20 parking stalls. The Port of Edmonds acted as lead agency for SEPA review of the project reviewing the SEPA checklist (Attachment 7) and issued a Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) on July 10, 2017 (Attachment 11). Thus, the applicant has complied with SEPA requirements. C. NOTICE A "Notice of Application" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on August 9, 2017. This notice was also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site using an adjacent property owners list provided by the applicant on August 9, 2107 and published in the Everett Herald on August 10, 2017 (Attachment 11). The comment period for the Notice of Application ran for 30 days and ended on September 10, 2017. To date, no written public comments have been received on the subject applications. Page 2 of 16 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 130 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building D. TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE This application was reviewed and evaluated by Snohomish County Fire District No. 1, Building Division, and the Engineering Division. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 submitted comments noting provisions of the International Fire Code that will be applicable to the project (Attachment 12). Compliance with these provisions will be reviewed with the building permit application for the project. The Building Division noted the project site is located within Flood Zone AE per the preliminary FEMA flood maps and the structure must be designed and constructed to resist the effect of flood hazards and flood loads (A further description of the flood plain is provided in Section II.E.3 below). Buildings comments are provided in Attachment 13. The Engineering Division preliminarily approves the design of the proposed development noting the information provided is consistent with the Engineering standards of Title 18 ECDC. Compliance with Engineering Division standards will be verified during the building permit process. E. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT 1. Topography: The subject site is relatively level (refer to page 2 of Attachment 3 for existing topography). 2. Soils: According to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, the soils on the site consist of "Urban land" soils. 3. Critical Areas: A critical areas determination was made under File No. CRA20170095 for the parcel containing the proposed development site (Attachment 15). The critical area determination found the site to contain or be adjacent to wetlands (the Edmonds Marsh), frequently flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas (seismic hazard), and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas (Willow Creek). Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek: During the Shoreline Master Program update the Edmonds Marsh was determined to be a Category II estuarine wetland. Pursuant to ECDC 24.40.020.E, the buffer for a Category II estuarine wetland is 110 or 150 feet depending on whether certain mitigation measures are implemented. Willow Creek is an anadromous fish bearing stream with a buffer of 100 feet pursuant to ECDC 23.90.040.D. The Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek are separated from the subject property via the Burlington Northern railroad right-of-way. ECDC 23.40.220.C.4 allows development within an interrupted stream or wetland buffer where it is demonstrated a project is functionally isolated from the stream or wetland. The applicants submitted a Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Assessment prepared by Steve Quarterman of Landau Associates (Attachment 6) demonstrating the proposed project is functionally isolated from the Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek by the railroad right-of-way. Frequently Flooded Areas: As noted in the Building Divisions comments above, the subject property is located within Flood Zone AE according to draft FEMA flood plain maps. While the FEMA maps are draft, ECDC 23.70.010.13 allows the City of Edmonds discretion in using the most up to date information in determining whether the site is within the flood plain and subject to flood plain development restrictions. Given the draft FEMA maps will likely become effective in 2018, the City of Edmonds has determined that all development applications within the Coastal High Hazard Areas Page 3 of 15 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 131 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building and Coastal A Flood Zones in the draft FEMA flood insurance rate map will be subject to the requirements of the International Building Code amendments in ECDC 19.00.025.13 (Attachment 16). This also has implications for height calculations which are discussed below in Section II.J.1.b of this staff report. Seismic Hazard: The subject site is located within a mapped liquefaction hazard area. A geotechnical report will be required during the building permit review to ensure the structure is designed and constructed to standards related to liquefaction seismic hazards. 4. Wildlife: Wildlife associated with the property is typical of an urban environment. The site may be visited by song birds and small mammals; however, the site is primarily gravel/paved, so it is not currently providing any significant habitat value. 5. Vegetation: The site contains very limited existing vegetation since the majority of the site is gravel/paved and is utilized as a parking lot. There are existing street trees located between the site and Admiral Way. 6. Shoreline: The subject site is located within the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline designation of the Shoreline Master Program (Attachment 10). Due to the project's location within 200 feet of the shoreline, the proposal is subject to the requirements of the City's Shoreline Master Program (Title 24 ECDC). Compliance with the Shoreline Master Program will be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner following the ADB's recommendation on the design aspects of the proposal. The public hearing before the Hearing Examiner has been tentatively scheduled for October 26, 2017. F. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS This property is located in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone. The surrounding sites to the north, west, and southwest of the subject site are also zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). These surrounding sites are developed with various uses including parking areas, marina, restaurants, Yacht Club, Port of Edmonds offices, a work yard, and vacant land. The BNSF railroad is located directly southeast of the subject property. To the east of the subject site (on the opposite side of the BNSF railroad) is the Harbor Square complex, which is zoned General Commercial (CG) under a contract rezone (R-1979-4) and is developed with various commercial uses including breweries, gym, hotel, and offices. To the southeast of the project site (on the opposite side of the BNSF railroad) is the Edmonds Marsh, which is within the Open Space (OS) zone. A zoning map is provided for reference as Attachment 9. G. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Master Plan Development" and the site is also within the "Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center" overlay. Goals and policies from the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center related to this project include: Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal A. Promote downtown Edmonds as an attractive setting for retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community and as a destination for visitors from throughout the region. Page 4 of 16 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 132 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building A.1 Ensure that the downtown/waterfront area continues — and builds on — its function as a key identity element for the Edmonds community. A.2 Enhance Edmonds' visual identity by continuing its pedestrian -scale of downtown development, enhancing its shoreline character, and protecting and building on the strong visual quality of the "5th and Main" core. A.3 Encourage a more active and vital setting for new retail, office, entertainment and associated businesses supported by nearby residents and the larger Edmonds community, downtown commercial activity and visitors from throughout the region. A.4 Enhance shoreline features to include a full spectrum of recreational activities, park settings, natural features (such as the Edmonds Marsh), and marina facilities. Improve public access to the shoreline and link waterfront features by establishing a continuous esplanade along the shoreline. The esplanade will be constructed over time through public improvements and Shoreline Master Program requirements placed on private development. A.5 Support the development and retention of significant public investments in the downtown/waterfront area, including government and cultural facilities that help draw residents and visitors to downtown. A.5 Provide greater residential opportunities and personal services within the downtown, especially to accommodate the needs of a changing population. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal D. Define the downtown commercial and retail core along streets having the strongest pedestrian links and pedestrian -oriented design elements, while protecting downtown's identity. D.1 Encourage opportunities for new development and redevelopment which reinforce Edmonds' attractive, small town pedestrian oriented character. Downtown/Waterfront Area Goal E. Identify supporting arts and mixed use residential and office areas which support and complement downtown retail use areas. Provide for a strong central retail core at downtown's focal center while providing for a mixture of supporting commercial and residential uses in the area surrounding this retail core area. Emphasize and plan for links between the retail core and these supporting areas. E.1 Support a mix of uses downtown which includes a variety of housing, commercial, and cultural activities. The Comprehensive Plan also provides the following specific goal for the Master Plan Development designation: Master Plan Development. The waterfront area south of Olympic Beach, including the Port of Edmonds and the Point Edwards and multi modal developments. This area is governed by master plans for the Port of Edmonds, Point Edwards, and the Edmonds Crossing project as described in an FEIS issued on November 10, 2004. These areas are also developed consistent with the City's Shoreline Master Program, as it applies. (2016 Comprehensive Plan, page 56-57) Page 5 of 16 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 133 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building The proposal's compliance with the Port's Master Plan is addressed in Section 11.1 of this report. Design objectives for the downtown area addressing site design, building form, and building fagade are provided in the Comprehensive Plan (pages 125-127). Urban Design Goal B: Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. Design objectives and standards should be carefully crafted for the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center to encourage its unique design character and important place -making status within the city. B.1 Vehicular Access and Parking. Driveways and curb cuts should be minimized to assure a consistent and safe streetscape for pedestrians. When alleys are present, these should be the preferred method of providing vehicular access to a property and should be used unless there is no reasonable alternative available. Configuration of parking should support a "park and walk" policy that provides adequate parking while minimizing impacts on the pedestrian streetscape. Findings: The proposed development would not result in any new driveway or curb cuts. Existing curb cuts on Admiral Way will be used to access the parking located at the rear to the structure. B.2 Pedestrian Access and Connections. Improve pedestrian access from the street by locating buildings close to the street and sidewalks, and defining the street edge. Cross walks at key intersections should be accentuated by the use of special materials, signage or paving treatments. Transit access and waiting areas should be provided where appropriate. Findings: The proposed building will be constructed up to approximately 5 feet from the property line and the sidewalk. Pedestrian connections to the building are directly accessible from the sidewalk. B.3 Building Entry Location. Commercial building entries should be easily recognizable and oriented to the pedestrian streetscape by being located at sidewalk grade. Findings: The pedestrian entrances to the building are in the northern portion of the building that is highlighted by a taller parapet which makes that portion of the building stand out. It appears there will be two pedestrian entrances. One is directly accessible off the sidewalk along Admiral Way, the second is on the north side of the building accessible from the parking lot. Both entrances are at grade. B.4 Building Setbacks. Create a common street frontage view with enough repetition to tie each site to its neighbor. Encourage the creation of public spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and encourage outdoor interaction. In the Waterfront area west of the railroad, buildings should be set back from the waterfront to preserve and provide a buffer from existing each areas. In the Waterfront area, site layout should be coordinated with existing buildings and proposed improvements to provide views of the water, open spaces, and easy pedestrian access to the beach. Findings: There are few buildings located on the east side of Admiral Way. The one primary structure is Jacobsen's Marine which is located approximately 450 feet to the north of the subject property. The new marine retail building will be located approximately five feet Page 6 of 16 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 134 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building from the property line and sidewalk generally in line with the Jacobsen's Marine building. While the subject site is in the waterfront area, it is not located on the waterfront side of Admiral Way. The Shoreline Master Program has specific requirements for view corridors with the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline environment. ECDC 24.40.040.B.11.a.i requires a view corridor be maintained across 30 percent of the average parcel width. The parcel on which the development site is part of is approximately 1,600 feet long. The proposed building is 100 feet wide and the Jacobsen's Marine building is 125 feet wide. Together these two structures would only block 14 percent of the parcel width leaving well above the required 30 percent view corridor. B.5 Building/Site Identity. In the downtown area, retain a connection with the scale and character of downtown through the use of similar materials, proportions, forms, masses or building elements. Encourage new construction to use designs that reference, but do not replicate historic forms or patterns. Findings: The building is consistent with the scale, proportion and character of other buildings in the Port of Edmonds marina area. The proposed structure is a single story building within the 30-foot height limit of the CW zone. B.5 Weather Protection. Provide a covered walkway for pedestrians traveling along public sidewalks or walkways. Findings: There are awnings along the walkways leading to the two pedestrian entries to the building. B.7 Signage. Lighting of signs should be indirect or minimally backlit to display lettering and symbols or graphic design instead of broadly lighting the face of the sign. Signage using graphics or symbols or that contributes to the historic character of a building should be encouraged. Findings: No signage is proposed at this time. Signage will be reviewed by staff with subsequent building permit applications for signs. B.8 Art and Public Spaces. Public art and amenities such as mini parks, flower baskets, street furniture, etc., should be provided as a normal part of the public streetscape. Whenever possible, these elements should be continued in the portion of the private streetscape that adjoins the public streetscape. In the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor, art should be a common element of building design, with greater design flexibility provided when art is made a central feature of the design. Findings: The subject property is not located within the 4th Avenue Arts Corridor. Landscaping along the front of the building and the street scape will enhance the public space. B.9 Building Height. Create and preserve a human scale for downtown buildings. Building frontages along downtown streetscapes should be pedestrian in scale. Findings: The proposed building is a single story building consistent with the 30-foot height limit of the CW zone. Awnings, significant areas of glazing, landscaping and change in materials provide pedestrian scale elements along the Admiral Way frontage. Page 7 of 16 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 135 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building B.10 Massing. Large building masses should be subdivided or softened using design elements that emphasize the human scale of the streetscape. Building facades should respect and echo historic patterns along downtown pedestrian streets. Findings: The mass of the building is subdivided vertically and horizontally. The building displays a distinct top and bottom. Window variation, awnings, and roof form also help to break up the buildings mass. B.11 Building Fagade. Provide a human scale streetscape, breaking up long facades into defined forms that continue a pattern of individual and distinct tenant spaces in commercial and mixed use areas. Avoid blank, monotonous and imposing building facades using design elements that add detail and emphasize the different levels of the building (e.g. the top or cornice vs. the pedestrian level or building base). Findings: The building provides variation in materials and form along the public frontage providing human scale elements. Ground level details include a brick base, landscaping along the western facade of the building, and variation and window display that help divide the building into smaller segments. The large storefront windows increase the visual connection from the exterior to the interior spaces and out. B.12 Window Variety and Articulation. In the downtown retail and mixed commercial districts, building storefronts should be dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and encourage pedestrians to walk past and look into the commercial space. Decorative trim and surrounds should be encouraged to add interest and variety. Upper floors of buildings should use windows as part of the overall design to encourage rhythm and accents in the fagade. Findings: The street front of the proposed building is dominated by clear, transparent glass windows that allow and encourage pedestrians to look in. Awnings add differentiation to the windows and the window pattern changes along the street front with the taller northern portion of the building have a larger expanse of windows the southern portion of the structure being divided in thirds by three separate expanses of windows. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the above goals and design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. H. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the writing of this staff report, no written public comments have been received. I. PORT OF EDMONDS MASTER PLAN The subject site is designated as "Mixed Use Area" in the Port of Edmonds Master Plan dated March 10, 2014. Regarding the "A land lease between the Port of Edmonds and Jacobsen's Marine has been signed and approved by the Port of Edmonds Commission. Plans for developing a 10,000 square foot building for boat sales and repair are proceeding through permit processes. Approximately 36,000 square feet of this mixed use area will be dedicated to this marine retail space. Possible uses for the remainder might include parking, Port office and/or maintenance complex, and a building for Page 8 of 16 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 136 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building community facility use." The subject proposal appears to be consistent with the above goals, as it will enhance the Port of Edmonds property consistent with the Port's Master Plan and provide a boat sales and repair business within very close proximity to the Edmonds Marina. J APPLICABLE CODES 1. ECDC 16.55 CW: Commercial Waterfront A. ECDC 16.55.010 Uses The site is located in the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone and subject to the requirements of ECDC 16.55. Pursuant to ECDC 16.55.010.A, marine -oriented services and marine -oriented retail uses are permitted primary uses. Additionally, ECDC 16.55.030.A.2 requires that all uses be carried on entirely within a completely enclosed building except for "sales, storage, repair and limited building of boats." As such, the proposed boat sales and repair business and the outdoor boat sales/storage area are permitted uses within the CW zone. B. ECDC 16.55.020 Site Development Standards Setbacks: The minimum required setbacks for CW-zoned properties that are not immediately adjacent to R-zoned property are 15 feet landward of bulkheads for buildings and 60 feet landward of bulkheads for parking. The section of the Admiral Way right-of-way adjacent to the subject site is 60 feet wide, so the site well exceeds 60 feet landward from the bulkhead and is thus compliant with the minimum setback requirements. Additionally, the Burlington Northern Railroad right of way is approximately 100 feet wide, so parking is also more than 60 from the ordinary high water mark of the Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek outlet. Height: The maximum allowed height in the CW zone is 30 feet. The elevation views on Sheet 9 of Attachment 3 indicate the structure will be 30 feet tall to the top of the parapet. As noted above in Section II.E.3 of this staff report, the subject development site is located within the flood plain according to the draft FEMA flood plain maps. The City of Edmonds has decided to use the draft FEMA maps to determine which properties are to be subject to the regulations with regards to flood plain development including the requirements of ECDC 19.00.025.P and the height exception provided in ECDC 21.40.030.D.1. Normally in the City of Edmonds, zoning height determined by measuring from vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure to the highest point of the structure. However, for properties within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coast A Flood Zones (such is this site), then height is measure from the elevation that is two feet above the base flood elevation as identified from the application FEMA flood hazard map. According to the draft FEMA flood zone map included in Attachment 16, the base flood elevation for this site is 12 feet, so zoning height will be measure from 14 feet for this development. Compliance with zoning height will be verified at time of building permit review. Maximum Coverage: There is no maximum coverage for properties within the CW zone. Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the applicable zoning standards of ECDC 16.55. As always, the project will be reviewed for compliance with all applicable development standards during the building permit review process. Page 9 of 16 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 137 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building 2. ECDC 17.30 Fences There is an existing cyclone fence with barbwire on top of the fence surrounding the site. The application proposes to replace the fence with two types of fence. A cyclone fence with slates with be placed along the northern property boundary and wrap around the east along the railroad right of way back to the vehicle entrance to the site along the southern end of the development (Attachment 3, Sheet 13). A decorative iron fence will be installed between the walkway the outdoor display area of the site (Attachment 3, Sheet 12). Both fences are proposed to be six feet in height, and the new cyclone fence will not include a barbwire topping. Both fences are compliant with the requirement so ECDC 17.30. 3. ECDC 17.50 Off Street Parking Regulations Pursuant to ECDC 17.50.010.C.1, all new buildings within the downtown business area shall provide parking at a flat rate of one parking stall for every 500 square feet of gross floor area of building. With a proposed building size of 6,650 square feet, thirteen parking spaces are required. Twenty- four parking spaces are proposed, so the proposal exceeds the minimum number of required on - site parking stalls. 4. ECDC 20.11 General Design Review ECDC 20.11.010 requires the ADB to review general design review applications that trigger review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The subject proposal required SEPA review due to the size of the proposed building (greater than 4,000 square feet of commercial area) and the number of parking stalls (over 20 parking stalls). ECDC 20.11.030 lists the criteria for Building Design and Site Treatment that the ADB must find the proposal to be in compliance with. As noted above, since the project will also be reviewed by the Hearing Examiner, the ADB's review in this instance will be a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner. A. ECDC 20.11.030.A. Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The following are included as elements of building design: 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets; Findings: All exterior building elements are harmonious with one another, the overall building itself, and are compatible with the existing commercial development in the vicinity of the site. 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area; Findings: The proposed colors avoid excessive brightness. Additionally, the colors are consistent with color scheme found throughout the Port's properties. 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level, Page 10 of 16 Attachment 17 1Packet Pg. 338 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Findings: Mechanical equipment has not been indicted on the elevation views. If future roof top equipment is needed, the parapet on the northern portion of the building is approximately five feet in height and could be used to screen roof top equipment. Additionally if rooftop equipment needs to be installed on the southern portion of the building, there is room within the height limit to screen the equipment from street view. Staff included a recommended condition of approval stating that all mechanical equipment and other utility hardware on the roof, grounds, or buildings shall be screened to mitigate view impacts from street level. Screening could include the use of architectural elements, landscaping and/or fencing. 4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives of the comprehensive plan. This criterion is meant to describe the entire building. All elements of the design of a building including the massing, building forms, architectural details and finish materials contribute to whether or not a building is found to be long, massive, unbroken or monotonous. a. In multifamily (RM) or commercial zones, selections from among the following or similar features are appropriate for dealing with this criterion: i. Windows with architectural fenestration; ii. Multiple rooflines or forms; iii. Architecturally detailed entries, iv. Appropriate landscaping; v. The use of multiple materials, Findings: The mass of the building is subdivided vertically and horizontally. The building displays a distinct top and bottom. Window variation, awnings, material changes, colors variation and roof form help to break up the buildings mass. 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development. Findings: Signage is not proposed as part of the subject application. Signage will be reviewed for consistency with ECDC 20.60 at the time of the associated sign permit application review. As conditioned, staff finds the project is consistent with design guidelines contained within ECDC 20.11.030.A. B. ECDC 20.11.030.8. Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: 1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized where natural beauty exists. Large cut and fill and impervious surfaces should be avoided. Findings: The subject site is relatively level and is almost entirely covered by gravel/pavement. As such, there is no natural beauty on the site that needs to be maintained. Approximately 750 cubic years of fill will be needed to raise the building pad above the flood plain. The total quantity of impervious surfaces will be generally unchanged from existing conditions. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. Page 11 of 16 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 139 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building Findings: The project's compliance with the applicable landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13 is discussed in greater detail in Section II15 of this report. The provision of landscaping between the sidewalk and the project site as well as some landscaping within the parking area will enhance the overall site aesthetics. 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. Findings: The project's compliance with the applicable landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13 is discussed in greater detail in Section II15 of this report. Properties within the vicinity of the project site are commercially -zoned, and there are no immediately adjacent residentially -zoned properties. No significantly different uses are located adjacent to the subject site. With the subject proposal, landscaping within the interior parking area will be improved. Additionally, street trees and landscaping adjacent to Admiral Way will aid in buffering the subject site from the street while also providing visual interest to the site. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. Findings: All landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles will be protected by curbs. 5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, shall be screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. Findings: No trash enclosure is shown on the proposed development plan. It is unknown if an area off -site will be used to collect trash for a future tenant. Should a trash collection site be added to the development site, it should be provided in a gated trash enclosure to screen view of the waste and recycling containers. A recommended condition of approval has been added for a trash enclosure if provided on the site in the future. 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. Findings: Slates installed in the cyclone fence will provide effective screen year round and the proposed landscaping will also provide year round interest. 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) may be substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. Findings: There are no areas of wood, brick, stone or gravel in lieu of landscaping proposed as part of this project. 8. Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible with the overall design theme. Findings: The applicant submitted a site lighting plan (Sheet 7 of Attachment 3). The applicants are proposing three pole mounted lights in the parking and three wall mounted lights on the building illuminating the walkway from the sidewalk along Admiral Way and the east side of the building. The proposed walkway connecting this development with the right-of-way, new landscaping and the lighting provided, this development will provide a sense of welcome and activity. During the associated building permit review, the final lighting plan will be Poge12of16 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 140 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building reviewed to ensure that the total power used for exterior lighting complies with the Washington State Energy Code and that the lighting is directed downwards onto the site. As conditioned, staff feels the proposal is consistent with design guidelines contained within ECDC 20.11.030.13. C. ECDC 20.11.030.C. Other Criteria. 1. Community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. Findings: The proposal is not for a community facility. Improvements within the public right-of-way associated within the subject proposal will be reviewed by the Engineering Division at the time of building permit review in order to ensure compliance with all applicable Engineering requirements, including compliance with any necessary upgrades to the adjacent sidewalk and/or street tree(s). 2. Street furniture (including but not limited to benches, light standards, utility poles, newspaper stands, bus shelters, planters, traffic signs and signals, guardrails, rockeries, walls, mail boxes, fire hydrants and garbage cans) should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. Findings: The Port strives for general consistency between its properties, so any future street furniture at the subject site should be compatible with that of the surrounding area. As conditioned, staff feels the proposal is consistent with design guidelines contained within ECDC 20.11.030.C. 5. ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements ECDC 20.13 contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB may alter in accordance with the design review chapter. The subject site is located within the Commercial Waterfront (CW) zone (Attachment 1). Properties immediately adjacent to the project site are commercially -zoned, and there are no immediately adjacent residentially -zoned properties. ECDC 20.13.000 gives the ADB authority to interpret and modify the requirements of the landscaping code (ECDC Chapter 20.13), provided the modification is consistent with the purposes found in ECDC 20.10.000. Since no significantly different uses are located adjacent to the subject site, the site is part of a larger parcel, and since no side or rear setbacks are required in the CW zone, staff feels that the ADB could waive the requirement for Type III landscaping along the eastern, western, and southern site boundaries. If the ADB agrees that Type III landscaping is not necessary along these site boundaries, then two types of landscaping would apply to this project: Type IV landscaping adjacent to the street frontage and Type V landscaping within the parking area. The applicant's landscaping plan is included as Sheet L-1.0 of Attachment 7. A. ECDC 20.13.030.1) describes Type IV landscaping as: Type IV landscaping is intended to provide visual relief where clear sight is desired to see signage or into adjacent space for safety concerns. 1. Trees shall be deciduous and planted 25 feet on center and the trunk shall be free of branches below six feet in height. Page 13 of 16 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 141 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building 2. Plant materials which will cover the ground within three years, and which will not exceed three and one-half feet in height. Type IV landscaping is required along the northern project boundary adjacent to Admiral Way. The landscape plan (Sheet 4 of Attachment 3) indicates landscaping along this portion of the project site. The tree species, spacing and location of the street trees will be reviewed with civil plans for the development under the associated building permit application review. The landscaping adjacent to Admiral Way is also proposed to include a variety of shrubs and ground cover. Staff feels the proposed landscaping along the northern side of the project site is consistent with the intent and requirements of Type IV landscaping and that the proposed landscaping along the northern side of the site will provide a visual separation and soften the appearance of the building and parking area when viewed from the street. B. ECDC 20.13.030.E describes Type V landscaping as: Type V landscaping is intended to provide visual relief and shade in parking areas. 1. Required Amount. a. If the parking area contains no more than 50 parking spaces, at least 17.5 square feet of landscape development must be provided as described in subsection (E)(2) of this section for each parking stall proposed. b. If the parking area contains more than 99 parking spaces, at least 35 square feet of landscape development must be provided as described in subsection (E)(2) of this section for each parking stall proposed. c. If the parking area contains more than 50 but less than 100 parking spaces, the director — or his designee — shall determine the required amount of landscaping by interpolating between 17.5 and 35 square feet for each parking stall proposed. The area must be landscaped as described in subsection (E)(2) of this section. 2. Design. a. Each area of landscaping must contain at least 150 square feet of area and must be at least four feet in any direction exclusive of vehicle overhang. The area must contain at least one tree a minimum of six feet in height and with a minimum size of one and one- half inches in caliper if deciduous. The remaining ground area must be landscaped with plant materials, decorative mulch or unit pavers. b. A landscaped area must be placed at the interior ends of each parking row in a multiple lane parking area. This area must be at least four feet wide and must extend the length of the adjacent parking stall. c. Up to 100 percent of the trees proposed for the parking area may be deciduous. d. eioswales integrated into parking lot designs are strongly encouraged. e. The minimum area per planter is 64 square feet. f. The maximum area per planter is 1,500 square feet for parking lots greater than 12,000 square feet. Planters shall be spread throughout the parking lot. g. Shade trees are required at the rate of a minimum of one per planter and/or one per 150 square feet of planter. Attachment 17 Page 14 of 16 Packet Pg. 142 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building The proposal includes 24 on -site parking spaces, which pursuant to ECDC 20.13.030.E.1.a would require 420 square feet of Type V landscaping (based on a ratio of 17.5 square feet per parking space). The landscape plan on Sheet 4 of Attachment 3 indicates there will be four areas of Type V landscaping which provide approximately 440 square feet of Type V landscaping. Staff finds the proposal to be consistent with the Type V landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13.030.D. As mentioned above, pursuant to ECDC 20.13.000, the ADB is allowed to interpret and modify the requirements of the landscaping code (ECDC Chapter 20.13), provided the modification is consistent with the purposes found in ECDC 20.10.000. Since the site is surrounded by similar uses and since no side or rear setbacks are required within the CW zone, staff feels that the ADB could waive any landscaping requirements around the eastern, western, and southern side boundaries. 6. ECDC 20.60 Signs Signs associated with the proposal will require separate building permits and are regulated by ECDC 20.60. The elevation views indicate one wall -mounted sign on the northern building fagade above the main public entrance. The applicant has not requested any deviation from the sign code requirements, and all signs will be reviewed for consistency with ECDC 20.60 during the associated sign permit application review. III. RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.020, when approving proposed development applications, the ADB is required to find that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 (General Design Review), the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Based on the findings, analysis, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that the ADB recommend APPROVAL of the design for the proposed Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building to the Hearing Examiner, files PLN20170029 and PLN20170030, with the following conditions: 1. All mechanical equipment and other utility hardware on the roof, grounds, or buildings shall be screened to mitigate view impacts from street level. Screening could include the use of architectural elements, landscaping and/or fencing. 2. Street trees shall be a minimum of 3 inches in caliper. Species, location and spacing of the street trees will be determined during civil plan review with the building permit application. 3. If a trash/recycling collection area is added to the development site, it should be provided in a gated trash enclosure to screen view of the waste and recycling containers. IV. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Application Cover Letter 3. Development Plans 4. Preliminary Stormwater Report 5. Traffic Impact Analysis Staff Report 6. Landau Associates Wetland/Waterway Critical Areas Assessment Poge15of16 Attachment 17 1Packet Pg. 143 2.1.a File Nos. PLN20170029/PLN20170030 Port of Edmonds Marine Retail Building 7. SEPA Checklist 8. Port of Edmonds Determination of Nonsignificance 9. Zoning and Vicinity Map 10. Shoreline Designations Map 11. Public Notice Documentation 12. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Comments 13. Building Division Comments 14. Engineering Division Comments 15. Critical Area Determination CRA20170095 16. Frequently Flooded Area — City Discretion and Designation Memorandum V. PARTIES OF RECORD Robert McChesney Port of Edmonds 336 Admiral Way Edmonds, WA 98020 City of Edmonds 121— 5th Ave North Edmonds, WA 98020 Shawn Rafferty Jackson Main Architecture 311 First Avenue South Seattle, WA 98104 Attachment 17 Page 16 of 16 Packet Pg. 144 2.1.a CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATION: PORT OF EDMONDS MARINE RETAIL BUILDING — DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION (PLN20170030) AND SHORELINE SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (PLN20170029) Kernen Lien explained that the Port of Edmonds has submitted an application for a new marine -related building located on property at 471 Admiral Way, which is zoned Commercial Waterfront (CW). Two applications have been submitted, one for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit and another for design review of the project. Because the scope of work triggered review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), design review by the Architectural Design Board (ADB) is required. Projects subject to design review are considered Type III-B decisions pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.01.003. Shoreline Substantial Development Permits are Type III -A decisions, and a public hearing is required in accordance with ECDC 24.80.100. The two applications are being combined pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002. When applications are combined, the ADB's review of the design aspects of a proposal will result in a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner, who will make the decision on both design and the shoreline permit following a public hearing. The ADB's review will be via a public meeting with no public comment taken. Mr. Lien provided a map and an aerial photograph to illustrate the location of the subject parcel. He explained that the minimum required setback for C-zoned properties that are not immediately adjacent to residential properties is 15 feet landward of bulkheads for buildings and 60 feet landward of bulkheads for parking. The section of the Admiral Way right-of-way adjacent to the subject site is 60 feet wide, so the site well exceeds the setback requirement. Additionally, the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) right-of-way is approximately 100 feet wide, so parking is also more than 60 feet from the ordinary high-water mark of the Edmonds Marsh and Willow Creek outlet. Mr. Lien advised that the maximum height allowed in the CW zone is 30 feet, and the proposed structure would be 30 feet tall to the top of the parapet. As noted in the Staff Report, the subject parcel is located within the flood plain according to the draft Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood plain maps. The City has decided to use the draft FEMA maps to determine which properties are to be subject to the regulations with regard to flood plain development. Normally, zoning height is determined by measuring from vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by the structure to the highest point of the structure. However, for properties within the Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coast A Flood Zones, such as this site, height is measured from the elevation that is two feet above the base flood elevation. According to the draft FEMA flood zone map (Attachment 16), the base flood elevation for the subject parcel is 12 feet, so zoning height would be measured from 14 feet for the proposed development. Mr. Lien reviewed that in the CW zone, all new buildings must provide parking at a flat rate of one on -site parking space for every 500 square feet of gross floor area. With the proposed building size of 6,500 square feet, 13 parking spaces would be required. The applicant is proposing 24 parking spaces, so the proposal exceeds the minimum parking standard. The parking standard would still be met if some of the stalls are eliminated to accommodate a garbage enclosure at some point in the future. Mr. Lien advised that Type IV landscaping is required along the western property boundary adjacent to Admiral Way. As per the landscape plan, the landscaping adjacent to Admiral Way will include a variety of shrubs and ground cover, as well as street trees. Staff believes that the proposed landscaping along the western edge of the property meets the requirement and will provide a visual separation and soften the appearance of the building and parking area when viewed from the street. He advised that Type III landscaping would typically be required around the perimeter of the site. However, because the site is surrounded by similar uses and no side or rear setbacks are required in the CW zone, staff feels the ADB could waive any landscaping requirements along the eastern, northern and southern boundaries pursuant to ECDC 20.13.000. Mr. Lien explained that because the proposal includes 24 on -site parking spaces, the applicant is required to provide 420 square feet of Type V landscaping (17.5 square feet per parking space). As per the landscape plan, there will be four Q Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 5 of 11 Attachment 18 Packet Pg. 145 2.1.a areas of Type V landscaping for a total of about 440 square feet of landscaping. Staff fords that the proposal is consistent with the Type V landscaping requirements. Mr. Lien provided elevation drawings of the proposed new building, noting that the mass of the building is subdivided vertically and horizontally. The building displays a distinct top and bottom, and window variations, awnings, material changes, color variations and roof form all help to break up the building's mass. He advised that no rooftop mechanical equipment has been proposed for the new building. Mr. Lien recommended approval of the design for the proposed new building with conditions pertaining to rooftop mechanical equipment, street trees, and a trash/recycling collection area. Bob McChesney, Executive Director, Port of Edmonds, commented that this is the last developable piece of land on the marina side of the Port. The Port is really excited to have the opportunity to develop the parcel very selectively. Ultimately, the intent is to incorporate the same design features as the Jacobsen's Marine Building, which has been a very successful development. They are encouraged by the market factors that will bring new business to Edmonds, creating a benefit to the customers, the port and the general community. The building will provide a book -end affect, with Jacobsen's Marine to the north of the boatyard and the new building to the south. Sean Rafferty, Project Manager, Jackson Main Architecture, explained that, currently, the site is a vacant lot that is semi -paved. There is a parking lot to the south and a boatyard to the north, and Jacobsen's Marine is located on the other side of the boatyard. In addition to a signature marine -related tenant, the building will accommodate multiple smaller tenants. The design features similar elements to those used for the Jacobsen's Marine Building (same materials, same colors, same brick base, and a nautical theme). Materials will be non -reflective metal panels and windows will be added to provide visual interest and opportunities to display products. The front of the site (northwest corner) was dressed up using rod -iron fencing and posts to mimic the pilings you find on buildings along the waterfront. Board Member Herr asked if the sign identifying the "Port of Edmonds" is part of the proposal. Mr. Rafferty answered that there will likely be a sign for the signature tenant. The sign reads "Port of Edmonds" because the Port does not yet know who the signature tenant will be. Board Member Borofka referred to the chain link fence that is proposed on the south and east sides of the property. He voiced concern about the long-term integrity of the appearance of the fence. He asked how it would be maintained and if the Port would consider putting a rod -iron fence on the south side extending from Admiral Way. Mr. Rafferty said fencing on the south side would be limited and would not extend all the way to the corner of the building. While the fence would be visible from the parking lot, it would not be highly visible from the street. Board Member Broadway noted that the existing portable building would also help block the fence from street view. Chair Walker asked how many tenants the Port anticipates for the new building. Mr. McChesney said that is unknown at this time. The common thought is that the tenants would include boat sales, marine retail, marine repair, marine insurance, etc. He advised that there will be a huge closure of marine -related businesses that are currently located in South Lake Union to make room for the new Vulcan project. The Port anticipates there will be quite a number of opportunities to recruit the types of tenants they want. Board Member Broadway asked how the boats would access the showroom space given that the boatyard would be located directly adjacent to the fence on the north side. Mr. Rafferty answered that there would be gates on the north and south sides, and the showroom space could be accessed via the parking area. Mr. McChesney added that the boatyard is directly across the street from the marina and the travelift, which hauls boats out of the water and crosses Admiral Way into the boatyard. There would be access from the boatyard to both Jacobsen's Marine and the new building. Board Member Broadway asked if a right-of-way access is needed given that the boatyard and subject property are both owned by the Port. Mr. McChesney affirmed that no right-of-way access would be needed. Attachment 18 Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 6 of 11 Packet Pg. 146 2.1.a Board Member Tarrant asked who would adjudicate the maintenance and aesthetic performance of the display area so that it does not become unsightly. Mr. McChesney answered that the Port takes pride in its facilities, and it maintains them to the highest standard. The marina is the "front porch" of Edmonds, and it is the Port's duty and obligation to make sure it is kept up to that standards. The standards will be written into all leases for the subject property. The Port's administration building is located right across the street from the subject property, and the Port staff will not allow a blight to occur on the site. Board Member Tarrant said she anticipates that the signature tenant of the new building will want to have its own sign on the front of the building. However, it would be wonderful if there was some type of signage to also identify the building as part of the Port of Edmonds. This would be particularly helpful on the railroad side for people who travel through Edmonds by train. Mr. McChesney agreed that is a good idea to explore further. Board Member Guenther observed that the Jacobsen's Marine Building, as well as the new building, are one-story structures that are 30 feet tall. The buildings seem huge in scale for single -story structures. This height is often associated with "big box" stores. However, he understands the need for the taller buildings to accommodate boats, and he likes the horizontal elements of design that help break up the building and bring it down to a human scale. Board Member Tarrant asked how much reflective factor the glass will have. Mr. Rafferty answered that low -reflective glass could be used if that is what the Board desires. Board Member Tarrant commented that the building will be in a good location to pick up the sunset. Board Member Herr asked if any portion of the new building would accommodate two stories. Mr. Rafferty advised that a portion of the building (up to 3,000 square feet or 50%) can be mezzanine space. Board Member Herr asked about the large doors on the south side of the building. Mr. Rafferty explained that the doors are intended to provide access for large boats to be moved in and out of the building. They also help break up the blank facade on the back. Chair Walker asked for more information about the fence that is proposed for the south side of the property. Mr. Rafferty said the fence will separate the boatyard from the subject property, but there will be a gate that allows access between the two properties, as well. Board Member Borofka asked if the applicant is proposing any rooftop mechanical equipment. If so, it will be important for staff to review and approve the location of the equipment, as well as appropriate screening, as part of the Building Permit review. Mr. Rafferty answered that the building will be a pre-engineered structure, which typically does not have rooftop equipment because it cannot handle the load. All of the mechanical equipment will be internally located, and no units will be mounted on the roof. Board Member Broadway said she has walked by the subject site for many years. While she acknowledged the City could not require it, she suggested it would be nice if a bench were located somewhere on the west side of the building along the sidewalk. She noted that it is a long way between the two City parks, and it would be great for pedestrians to have a place to rest. The remainder of the Board agreed that a bench would be desirable, but not required. Mr. McChesney emphasized that the Port is in the "public access" business and pedestrians are invited and appreciated to visit the marina and other Port properties. He agreed to take Board Member Broadway's suggestion under advisement. Board Member Broadway said she would like the project to include a trash enclosure, particularly because she anticipates future uses on the site will generate hazardous waste that will need to be disposed of. Mr. McChesney advised that the Port has stringent requirements for handling storage of hazardous waste, and not only because it is required by the regulatory agencies. The Port does not allow containers of liquid chemicals to be cast about freely. Chair Walker asked if lighting is proposed along Admiral Way. Mr. Rafferty said there are existing street lights, and some of the signs on the building may also be illuminated. There may be some ground lighting, as well. Attachment 18 Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 7 of 11 Packet Pg. 147 2.1.a BASED ON THE FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED PORT OF EDMONDS MARINE RETAIL BUILDING TO THE HEARING EXAMINER (PLN20170029 AND PLN20170030) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER UTILITY HARDWARE ON THE ROOF, GROUNDS, OR BUILDINGS SHALL BE SCREENED TO MITIGATE VIEW IMPACTS FROM STREET LEVEL. SCREENING COULD INCLUDE THE USE OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, LANDSCAPING AND/OR FENCING. 2. STREET TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3 INCHES IN CALIPER SPECIES, LOCATION AND SPACING OF THE STREET TREES WILL BE DETERMINED DURING CIVIL PLAN REVIEW WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. 3. IF A TRASH/RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA IS ADDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE, IT SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN A GATED TRASH ENCLOSURE TO SCREEN VIEW OF THE WASTE AND RECYCLING CONTAINERS. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATION: WESTGATE WOODS TOWNHOMES DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION (PLN20160061) AND VARIANCE APPLICATION (PLN20160060) Mr. Lien advised that the applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit townhouse development at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way. The ten units are proposed to be divided between two structures, each with five units. The applicant is also seeking a height variance for each structure due to special circumstances at the subject property. He explained that design review projects that trigger State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review and variance applications are both Type III-B decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.B, the applications are being combined. The Architectural Design Board will forward a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner regarding design, and the Hearing Examiner will issue the decision regarding both design and the variance request. Mr. Lien provided an aerial view of the subject parcels, noting that the properties are zoned Multi -Family Residential (RM-1.5). He explained that the subject site is a corner lot, with frontage on three sides: 228" Street Southwest on the north, 95' Place West on the east, and Edmonds Way on the south. Access to the site will be via a single driveway accessed off 228' Street Southwest. The proposed buildings meet all of the setback requirements for the RM-1.5 zone. Mr. Lien advised that the height limit in the RM-1.5 zone is 25 feet, with an additional 5 feet if all portions of the roof above 25 feet have a 4:12 pitch or greater. The applicant is seeking a height variance for both of the proposed buildings due to special circumstances related to shape, size, topography and location. The site is essentially down in a hole and fill will be required in order to provide adequate driveway slope into the property and appropriate slope for connection to utilities in the adjacent rights -of -way. Since height is measured from the average grade of the undisturbed soil, this negatively impacts the potential height of the buildings. The proposed structures are designed to be 30 feet in height from finished grade, and the project is designed to have a 4:12 pitched roof above the 25-foot elevation of the building. Mr. Lien said the parking requirement for 3-bedroom units is two spaces per unit. The proposal actually identifies 22 parking spaces, two in the garages of each individual unit, and two additional surface parking spaces for guests on the internal drive aisle. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the off-street parking requirements in ECDC 17.50. Mr. Lien noted that Type III landscaping is required around the perimeter of the site, and Type II landscaping is required along the western boundary. There is existing vegetation on site that will have to be removed to accommodate development. The applicant is proposing to plant Emerald Green Arborvitae along the western boundary, which will be Q Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting October 18, 2017 Page 8 of l l Attachment 18 Packet Pg. 148 2.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20170029/30 Applicant: Port of Edmonds DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 11 th day of October, 2017, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this I lth day of October 2017, at Edmonds, Washington. I/ n Signed: {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 149 2.1.a FILE NO.: PLN20170029/30 Applicant: Port of Edmonds DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 1 1 th day of October, 2017, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true rid correct is 11 th day of October, 2017, at Edmonds, Washington, Signed: (BFP747893.DOC;1 \00006 900000\ ) Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 150 2.1.a CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING 411] C. l g9s PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 6,650 square foot building to be used as a marine retail facility. The property is zone in the Commercial Waterfront zone and the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline environment. Design review projects which trigger SEPA are Type III-B decisions and shoreline permits that otherwise require a public hearing are Type III - A decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.13, the applications are being combined and the hearing examiner will issue the decision regarding both design review and the shoreline substantial development permit. PROJECT LOCATION: 471 Admiral Way, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 27032300415800 NAME OF APPLICANT: Port of Edmonds FILE NO.: PLN20170029 (Shoreline Substantial Development) & PLN20170030 (Design Review) REQUESTED PERMIT: Shoreline Substantial Development and Design Review COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: October 26, 2017 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 12151h Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday; between the hours of 8:30 AM and Noon on Wednesday; or online through the City's website at htt s: ermits.edmonds.wa.us citizen. Search for permit PLN20170029. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A public hearing will be held before the Hearing Examiner on October 26, 2017 at 3 p.m in the Council Chambers located at 250 — 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 151 2.1.a N 7 N N _ L O M _ m NN� 6L _ C� L N C O W 4- 0 r- O IL c m E a z 3 O Q. d O M O O ti T O N Z J IL c rn N O O ti T O N Z J IL c a� E z a Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 152 2.1.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Deb Grigg being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH780849 PLN20170029 & 0030 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 10/11/2017 and ending on 10/11/2017 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $77.40. Subscribed and sworn ore me on this .1G day of N ry Public in and for the State a Washington. City oFEdmonds -LEGAL ADS 114101416 KERNEN LIEN Linda Phillips Notary Public E tate of Washington an[m mj r=Xpires 08/29/202, Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 153 2.1.a CITYOFEDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Thar applicant is proposing to Construct a 6.850 square loos buifding to bar usad as a moon. retell facility. The property Is Iona in the Commerclol Waledront zone and the Urban Mixed Use II shoreline environment. Design review projects which bigger $EPA are Typo ItI-B decisions and shorellnar permlls That otherwlee require a public hearing are Type Ill -A declsions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.0o2JI the applications are being combined and the hearing examiner will Issue the decision regarding beta] design review and the sfwrallne substantial de%t8.W and permit. PROJECT LOCATION; 471 Admiral Way, Ednwnds, WA. Tax Parcel Number 27032300415B06 NAME OF APPLICANT: Pori of Edmonds FILE NO.. PLN20170029 {Shoreline Subsionlial Development) & PLN20170030 (Daslgn Rat= REQUESTED PERM : Shoreline Substantial Development and DeSIF Revlew COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE, October 26. 2017 Anyy pperson ties the Ilghl 10 Comment an this application during Ruhllc Comment period, raosive notice and participate In any aaringgss, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The Cfly may accepl public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecisfon beefing, iI any, or, I1 no open record pred9dtslon hearing Is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. only parliars of record as deflned In ECDG 20.07,003 have Standing to Millais an administralive appeai. Information on this development application can be viewed oe obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 Sth Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the houre of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M- Mondayy, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday: between the hours of 8:30 AM and Noon cn Wednesday: or on no through the CTty's website at httes uMLnils.ed I nds.wa.tyialhu-11. Search lot permit PLN20170029. A Copy of Ilia stall ropofl will be ava9ahlo at least seven days prior to ilia hearing. PUBLIC HEARTNG INFORMATION: A public hearing will be held before the Hearing Examiner on October 26. 2017 at 3 p.m. In the Council Chambers located at 2$0 - Sth Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 CITY CONTACT; Kemen Lien, Senior Planner kernen.lien C edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 ublished: October 11, 2017. N 7 N N _ L O t _ m d O C to C O W O V— O a N C t C� Q t 3 O !Z N [Y O M O O ti T O N Z J a c rn N O O ti O N Z J a c tv E z a Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 154 2.2 Hearing Examiner Agenda Item Meeting Date: 10/26/2017 Westgate Woods Townhomes Height Variance (PLN20160060) and Design Review (PLN20160061) Staff Lead: Kernen Lien Department: Planning Division Prepared By: Kernen Lien Background/History See narrative below. Staff Recommendation Approve with conditions. Narrative The applicant is proposing to construct two 5-unit townhouse buildings at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way. Each townhouse unit will contain a two car garage and an additional two parking spaces on site for visitor parking. The applicant is also seeking a height variance for each structure due to special circumstances at the subject property. Access to the proposed development will be taken off 228th Street SW. Design review projects which trigger SEPA and variance applications are both Type III-B decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.B, the applications are being combined and the hearing examiner will issue the decision regarding both design review and the variance requests. The site is located within the RM- 1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). Attachments: PLN20160060 & PLN20160061 Staff Report with Attachments Packet Pg. 155 2.2.a "oC. 189v Project: File Number: CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5' Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmonds►y . ov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT & RECOMMENDATION TO THE HEARING EXAMINER Westgate Woods Townhomes PLN20160060 (Variance) and PLN20160061 (Design Review) Date of Report: tuber 19, 201 D From: K rnen Lien, S r Planner Public Hearing: October 26, 2017 at 3:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250 - 51h Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ACTION: The applicant is proposing to construct two 5-unit townhouse buildings at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way (Attachments 1 — 5). Each townhouse unit will contain a two car garage and an additional two parking spaces on site for visitor parking. The applicant is also seeking a height variance for each structure due to special circumstances at the subject property (Attachment 21). Access to the proposed development will be taken off 228th Street SW. Design review projects which trigger SEPA and variance applications are both Type III-B decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.B, the applications are being combined and the hearing examiner will issue the decision regarding both design review and the variance requests. The site is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). II. ATTACHMENTS There is some overlap between the attachments associated with this staff report and the Architectural Design Board staff report. To avoid duplication of materials, the Attachments to this staff report maintain the same numbers as the attachments associated with the ADB staff report. Attachments 1 — 16 are the same attachments that were associated with the ADB staff report. Starting with Attachment 17 (the ADB Staff Report) are new attachments specific to this staff report. III. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1. Owner: Westgate Woods, LLC 2. Applicant: Bill Booth, Westgate Woods LLC Packet Pg. 156 2.2.a 3. Location: 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way (Attachment 6) 4. Tax Parcel Number: 27033600101400 and 27033600100200 Zoning: The subject property is zoned Multifamily Residential (RM — 1.5) with a maximum density of one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area. 6. Rem: The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit townhouse development at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way. The 10 units are proposed to be divided between two structures with each unit containing a two car garage and an additional two parking spaces on site for visitor parking. The applicant is also seeking a height variance for each structure due to special circumstances at the subject property. Review Process: Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.003, design review projects which trigger SEPA and variance applications are both Type III-B decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.13, the applications are being combined and the hearing examiner will issue the decision regarding both design review and the variance requests. 8. Major Issues: a. Compliance with ECDC 16.30 Multiple Residential b. Compliance with ECDC 17.50 Off Street Parking Regulations c. Compliance with ECDC 18.90 Sidewalks d. Compliance with ECDC 20.11 General Design Review e. Compliance with ECDC 20.13 Landscaping Requirements f. Compliance with ECDC 20.85 Variance 9. Lot Size: The subject property contains approximately 25,327 square feet of lot area. 10. Existing Use: The site is currently vacant. 11. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit townhouse development. The 10 units are proposed to be divided between two structures with each unit containing a two car garage and an additional two parking spaces on site for visitor parking. IV. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION: Review under SEPA is required for this project because the project exceeds four (4) multifamily residential units. The applicant submitted a SEPA Checklist for the project which is included in Attachment 7. The City of Edmonds determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and issued SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance on February 2, 2017 (Attachment 8). The City did not receive any appeals of the SEPA determination. Westgate Woods Townhomes Height Variance (PLN20160060) and Design Review (PLN20160061) Page 2 of 12 Packet Pg. 157 2.2.a V. PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE: A "Notice of Application and SEPA Determination" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on February 2, 2017. Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. See Attachment 9 for public notice documentation regarding the Notice of Application and SEPA Determination. A specific notice for the ADB meeting was not issued because that meeting was not a public hearing, but rather a public meeting that does not require specific public notice. The ADB meeting agenda was posted on the City's website, as well as at the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library. A "Notice of Public Hearing" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on October 11, 2017. Notice of the public hearing was also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. Notice of public hearing documentation is provided in Attachment 20. The City has complied with the noticing provisions of ECDC 20.03. VI. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE: This application was reviewed by Snohomish County Fire District #1, the Building Division and the Engineering Division. Neither Snohomish County Fire District nor the Building Division had any comments on the proposal (Attachments 13 - 14). The Engineering Division preliminarily approves the design of the proposed development noting the information provided is consistent with the Engineering standards of Title 18 ECDC (Attachment 15). Approval of the design review phase of the project does not constitute approval of the improvements as shown on the submitted plans. Compliance with Engineering Division standards will be verified during the building permit process. VII. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: 1. Topography: The subject property sits lower than the surrounding roads creating a bowl type situation. 2. Soils: According to the Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, the soils on the site consists of "Alderwood-Everett Gravelly sandy loams, 0 - 8% slopes" on the majority of the site, with a sliver of "Alderwood Urban Land Complex 8 —15% slopes" along the northern property boundary. 3. Critical Areas: A critical area determination for the subject site was made under CRA20170022 and it was determined there were no critical areas on or adjacent to the subject property and a "Waiver" determination was issued (Attachment 19). 4. Wildlife: Wildlife associated with the property is typical of an urban environment. Site may be visited by song birds and small mammals. Westgate Woods Townhomes Height Variance (PLN20160060) and Design Review (PLN20160061) Page 3 of 12 Packet Pg. 158 2.2.a 5. Vegetation: There are a number of trees that currently exist on the property with species primarily being a mix of alder and cedar trees. All or most of the trees will be removed with development of the property and replaced with landscaping indicated on the landscape plan included in Attachment 5. 6. Shoreline: The subject property is not located within shoreline jurisdiction. VIII. NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS: The subject property is the only property zoned for multifamily development (RM-1.5) along this block of 228' Street SW (Attachment 6). The existing development on this block consists of single family residences. The property to the east across 95th Place West is zoned BP (Planned Business) and includes a commercial development. The properties on the south side of Edmonds Way are zoned RM-1.5 and mostly developed with multi -family developments. IX. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is "Edmonds Way Corridor." The Comprehensive Plan has the following specific goals that apply to the Edmonds Way Corridor: Commercial Development Goal E. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. E.1 Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. E.2 Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. E.3 Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. E.4 Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible The current project is subject to General Design Review as outlined in Chapter 20.11 ECDC. One of the findings required by ECDC 20.11.020 is that the proposal is consistent with the design Westgate Woods Townhomes Height Variance (PLN20160060) and Design Review (PLN20160061) Page 4 of 12 Packet Pg. 159 2.2.a guidelines provided in the Urban Design Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. There is a detailed analysis about how the proposal complies with the goals and objectives for site design, building form, and building facade contained in the Comprehensive Plan's Urban Design Chapter within the Architectural Design Board staff report included as Attachment 17. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan. X. PUBLIC CONCERNS: Four written comments have been submitted on the proposal; from Snohomish County PUD, Community Transit and from Mark Cooper. These comments are included as Attachments 10 - 12 and responses to the comments are included in Section IV of the ADB staff report (Attachment 17). One additional comment letter was submitted since the drafting of the ADB staff report by James Martin. Mr. Martin's comment letter is provided as Attachment 25. XI. APPLICABLE CODES: 1. Chapter 16.30 ECDC— Multi -Family Residential Zone A. ECDC 16.30.010 Uses The subject property is located with the Multifamily Residential (RM-1.5) zone and subject to the development standards of Chapter 16.30 ECDC. Staff Findings: Multiple dwellings is a permitting primary use pursuant to ECDC 16.30.010.A.1, so the proposed development is consistent with the allowed uses of the RM1.5 zone. B. ECDC 16.30.030 Development Standards Development standards in the RM-1.5 zone are detailed in ECDC 16.30.030 as follows: Minimum Lot Area Minimum Minimum Subdistrict per Street Side Dwelling Setback Setback Unit (Sq. Ft.) 15' RM-1.5 1,500 10, Minimum Rear Setback Maximum Maximum Height Coverage 15' 125" 1 45% 1 Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. Staff Findings — density: The subject property contains 25,237 square feet of lot area. With a density of one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area, a maximum of Westgate Woods Townhomes Height Variance (PLN20160060) and Design Review (PLN20160061) Page 5 of 12 Packet Pg. 160 2.2.a 16 dwelling units can be constructed. The proposal is for 10 dwelling units among two structures so the proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the RM-1.5 zone. Staff Findings — Setbacks: The subject property is a corner lot with street setbacks on three sides (north, south and east) and side setbacks along the western property boundary. The development site currently consists of two parcels. Building B would straddle the property boundary of these parcels. In order to comply with setbacks, either a lot line adjustment must be applied for to combine the lots, or alternatively, the applicants may apply for a unit lot subdivision to create fee simple units for the townhouses. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the structures, the applicant must either complete a lot line adjustment or apply for a unit lot subdivision consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.75.045. Staff has added a proposed condition of approval to address the lot line and setback issue. As proposed, both of the structures are compliant with the required zoning setback requirements for the exterior of the development site (meeting the street setbacks and the side setback for the eastern property boundary). As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the setback requirements of the RM-1.5 zone. Staff Findings— Height: The applicant is seeking a height variance for both of the proposed buildings due to special circumstances with the property related to shape, size, topography and the location of the site. A detailed analysis of the variance request is provided in Section XII of this staff report below. In short, the site is essentially down in a hole and fill will be required in order to provide adequate driveway slope into the property and provide appropriate slope for connections to utilities in the adjacent right- of-ways. Since height is measured from the average grade of the undisturbed soil, this negatively impacts the potential heights of the structure. The proposed buildings are designed to be 30 feet in height from finished grade. A design aspect of the height standards in ECDC 16.30.030 is that the roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. So above the 25 foot elevation, the roof must have 4:12 pitch. The proposed buildings have been designed with a 4:12 pitch above the 25-foot elevation of the buildings. Staff Findings —Coverage: ECDC 21.15.110 defines coverage as the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members or from a point two and one-half feet in from the outside edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area. The application notes a building ground coverage of 8,160 square feet for a coverage of 32.33% of the 25,237 square foot lot. The proposal is consistent with the coverage requirements of the RM-1.5 zone. The project will be reviewed for compliance with all development standards during the building permit review process. 2. Chapter ECDC 17.50 Off Street Parking Regulation Off-street parking requirements for multifamily developments are detailed in the table in ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b. The table below provides the parking requirements of ECDC Westgate Woods Townhomes Height Variance (PLN20160060) and Design Review (PLN20160061) Page 6 of 12 Packet Pg. 161 2.2.a 17.50.020.A.1.b along with the number of units of each dwelling unit type of the number of required parking spaces. Type of multiple dwelling unit Studio 1 bedroom Required parking spaces per dwelling unit 2 bedrooms 1 1.8 Number of units in I Number of parking proposal spaces required 0 0 0 0 C 3 or more bedrooms 1 2.0 10 Total Spaces Required rt The proposal provides 22 parking spaces. Each of the proposed townhouse units contains a two car garage and there are an additional two parking spaces for guests on the internal drive aisle. The proposal is consistent with the off-street parking requirements of Chapter 17.50 ECDC. 3. Chapter 18.90 ECDC Sidewalks Sidewalk improvements are required with the proposed development and ECDC 18.90.030 details the City's sidewalk development standards. The applicant's sought a waiver from the City's minimum sidewalk widths of five feet (Attachment 22). Pursuant to ECDC 18.90.030.13, the Planning Director and City Engineer may waiver specific sidewalk requirements based on special circumstances or other factors which make the construction of the sidewalk economically unfeasible or practically impossible. Due to existing development which restrict sidewalk placement and economic hardship of installing sidewalks to the minimum width, the City of Edmonds granted the waiver request (Attachment 23). The new sidewalks will be ADA compliant and will not be any narrower than sidewalks that currently exist in the area. 4. Chapter 20.11 ECDC General Design Review ECDC 20.11.010 requires the Architectural Design Board to review general design review applications that trigger SEPA. This project required review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) due to the size of the proposed buildings (greater than 4,000 square feet). The ADB staff report (Attachment 17) contains a detailed analysis on how the proposal is consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.11.030.A Building Design and ECDC 20.11.030.13 Site Treatment. The ADB reviewed the proposal at the October 18, 2017 meeting and recommended approval of the project with the following conditions (Attachment 18): 1. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE STRUCTURES, THE APPLICANT MUST EITHER COMPLETE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OR APPLY FOR A UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ECDC 20.75.045. Westgate Woods Townhomes Height Variance (PLN20160060) and Design Review (PLN20160061) Page 7 of 12 Packet Pg. 162 2.2.a 2. THE REAR ELEVATION OF BOTH BUILDING MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FROUNT IN COLOR MODULATION. 5. Chapter 20.13 ECDC Landscaping Requirements Chapter 20.13 ECDC contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB and Hearing Examiner are allowed to interpret and modify according to ECDC 20.13.000. Two types of landscaping are required for the proposed development. Type 11 landscaping is required along the western property boundary to buffer the site from the adjacent single family property and Type III landscaping is required along the northern, eastern, and southern property boundaries. The applicants landscaping plan is included in Attachment 5. A detailed analysis of the landscaping requirements and the landscaping plan proposed by the applicants is included in the ADB staff report in Attachment 17. Overall, staff feels the proposed landscaping is, for the most part, consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.13. Where the proposal varies from the requirements of ECDC 20.13, the provided landscaping still meets the intent of the specific landscape types described above. The landscaping plan was part of the review conducted by the ADB which recommended approval of the project (Attachment 5). XII. VARIANCE CRITERIA ANALYSIS w 1. Request m The applicant is seeking a height variance for each of the structures proposed with this development for reasons detailed below. The site is essentially down in a hole and fill will be r required in order to provide adequate driveway slope into the property and provide Q appropriate slope for connections to utilities in the adjacent right-of-ways. Since height is w measured from the average grade of the undisturbed soil, this negatively impacts the 3 potential heights of the structure. The average grade calculated for Building A is 263.60 feet, 0 so the maximum height allowed by the zone would be 293.60 feet (30 feet). The height point o: of the proposed Building A is 297.06. So the applicant is seeking 3.46 foot height variance for Building A. The average grade calculated for Building B is 265.50 feet, so the maximum height v) allowed by the zone would be 295.50 feet (30 feet). The height point of the proposed Building o 0 B is 297.77. So the applicant is seeking 2.27 foot height variance for Building B. 2. Chapter 20.85 ECDC Variances An applicant may request a variance from any requirement of the zoning ordinance (ECDC Titles 16 and 17), except use and procedural requirements, pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC 20.85. ECDC 20.85.010 contains the findings that must be made in order for a variance application to be approved. According to the aforementioned code section, "No variance may be approved unless all of the findings in this section can be made." The findings are as follows: A. Speciol Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of Westgate Woods Townhomes Height Variance (PLN20160060) and Design Review (PLN20160061) Page 8 of 12 Packet Pg. 163 2.2.a use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the some zoning, Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats, 1 Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the some property; B. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the some zoning, C. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located, E. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone, F. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the some zoning. 3. Applicant's Declarations of Compliance The applicant submitted a detailed statement of compliance with the variance criteria of ECDC 20.85.010 included as Attachment 20. Staff generally concurs with the applicant's statement of compliance with the variance criteria. 4. Staff Analysis and Findings A. Special Circumstances: The subject property is surrounded by roads on three sides (2281" Street SW, 95th Place W, and Edmonds Way) creating a triangular shaped lot. The site sits lower than all of the surrounding roads and the topography is such that the property essentially sits down in a bowl. This creates certain design challenges with access to the site and providing connections to utilities within the adjacent right-of-ways. Some filling of the site is required to meet these design challenges. Where zoning height is measured from the average level of undisturbed soil (ECDC 21.40.030.A), adding fill to the site significantly impacts the ability to construct buildings of to a height more typical of this type of Westgate Woods Townhomes Height Variance (PLN20160060) and Design Review (PLN20160061) Page 9 of 12 Packet Pg. 164 2.2.a development. The special circumstances are not related to any factor personal to the owner of the property. Staff finds that the proposal meets the special circumstances variance criterion of ECDC 20.85.020.A. B. Special Privilege: Approval of the variance would not be a granting of special privilege in comparison with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The applicant is proposing buildings that are 30 feet in height from finished floor and consistent with the design standards of the comprehensive plan and general design standards of ECDC 20.11. The proposed townhome configuration is typical of the types of development the City of Edmonds is seeing in the RM zones throughout the city. Staff finds that granting the requested variance would not constitute a special privilege and the proposal is consistent with ECDC 20.85.020.B. C. Comprehensive Plan: The subject property is located within the Edmonds Way corridor. As noted in the comprehensive plan, the Edmonds Way corridor has an established pattern of multifamily development along much of the corridor. One concern identified in the comprehensive plan is that development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. Access to the site will be taken from 228th Street SW and thus not impact traffic flow along Edmonds Way. The buildings are proposed to step with the slope down into the site, have pitched roofs and provide landscaping to be compatible with the single family development along 228th Street SW. The Architectural Design Board found the development to be consistent with the design guidelines provided in the Urban Design Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff finds that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and ECDC 20.85.020.C. D. Zoning Ordinance: The subject property is located within the RM-1.5 zone. Pursuant to ECDC 16.30.000, one purpose of the RM zones is to reserve and regulate areas for a variety of housing types, and a range of greater densities than are available in the single-family residential zones, while still maintaining a residential environment. The proposed townhome development provides for residential development consistent with the density allowed by the RM-1.5 zone. Apart of the requested height variance, the development is meeting all other standards related to the RM-1.5 zone and detailed in Chapter 16.30 ECDC including design standards such as a pitched roof above the 25-foot elevation of the building (as measured from finished floor given the variance request). Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the zoning ordinance, Chapter 16.30 ECDC and that criterion ECDC 20.85.020.D is met. Westgate Woods Townhomes Height Variance (PLN20160060) and Design Review (PLN20160061) Page 10 of 12 Packet Pg. 165 2.2.a E. Not Detrimental: The proposed development should not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to other property and improvements in the vicinity. The proposed development will take access of the 228th Street SW providing the safety connection to the City's roadways. A preliminary storm water report has been developed consistent with the requirements of ECDC 18.30 to manage storm water impacts associated with the development (Attachment 21). No views will be impacted by the proposed development. Public safety will improve with the installation of ADA compliant sidewalks on three sides of the proposed development. Staff finds that the proposal would not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and criterion ECDC 20.85.020.E is met. F. Minimum Variance: The applicant's statement of compliance in Attachment 20 provides a detailed explanation of why the proposal meets the minimum variance criteria of which staff generally concurs. More generally, the applicants have sloped the driveway into the site as much as possible while still being able to transition from the road into the site which impacts that height of Building A. The lowest elevation of the site is set by the lowest possible elevation while still using a gravity sewer line. The proposed buildings are stepped into the slope to minimize the overall height appearance of the building. The applicants are not seeking to maximize the density on the site proposing only 10 dwelling units on a site where the RM-1.5 zoning designation would allow for 16 dwelling units on the site. Staff finds that the requested setback is the minimum necessary and criterion ECDC 20.85.020.F is met. XIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis within and the attachments included with this report, staff feels the proposal is consistent with the variance criteria detailed in ECDC 20.85 and design of the building and site are consistent with general design review criteria and ECDC 20.11 and the Urban Design Chapter in the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan and recommends that the Hearing Examiner APPROVE the height variance (PLN20160060) and design review (PLN20160061) of the proposed buildings with the following conditions: 1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the structures, the applicant must either complete a lot line adjustment or apply for a unit lot subdivision consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.75.045. 2. The rear elevation of both buildings must be consistent with the front in color modulation. Westgate Woods Townhomes Height Variance (PLN20160060) and Design Review (PLN20160061) Page 11 of 12 Packet Pg. 166 2.2.a XIV. PARTIES OF RECORD: City of Edmonds 121— 5th Avenue N Edmonds, WA 98020 John Bissell Harmsen Associates 125 East Main Street Monroe, WA 98272 James Martin 9514 228th Street SW Edmonds, WA 98020 XV. ATTACHMENTS: Bill Booth Westgate Woods LLC 2817 NW 94th St Seattle, WA 98117 Mark Cooper 22628 — 96th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98020 1. Land Use Application 2. Application Cover Letter 3. Architectural Plans 4. Preliminary Civil Plans 5. Landscape Plan 6. Zoning and Vicinity Map 7. SEPA Checklist 8. SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance 9. Notice of Application and SEPA Determination Public Notice Documentation 10. Snohomish County PUD Letter 11. Community Transit Letter 12. Mark Cooper Email 13. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Comment Form 14. Building Division Comment Form 15. Engineering Division Preliminary Design Approval 16. Steve Fisher, City of Edmonds Recycling Coordinator, Email 17. Architectural Design Board Staff Report 18. October 18, 2017 ADB Synopsis 19. CRA20170022 Critical Area Determination 20. Notice of Public Hearing Public Notice Documentation 21. Applicant Variance Criteria Declarations of Compliance 22. Preliminary Storm Water Drainage Report 23. Applicant Waiver Request for Sidewalk Improvements 24. City of Edmonds Sidewalk Width Waiver 25. James Martin Comments Westgate Woods Townhomes Height Variance (PLN20160060) and Design Review (PLN20160061) Page 12 of 12 w c m E z c� a s 3 0 a m M Cn Packet Pg. 167 2.2.a City of Edmonds ` Land Use Application Rl ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW ❑ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT ❑ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FILE # L 1 .ONEam-1-15 ❑ HOME OCCUPATION (DATE REC' D BY ' 1 ex, M . CI FORMAL SUBDIVISION ❑ SHORT SUBDIVISION FEE RLCE-IPT# ❑ LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT HEARING OA'i E TP--� ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT AHE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB ❑ ADB ❑ CC ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT K VARIANCE/REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION Edmonds l.Day OTHER: //� , '"I 5 11 — R 5 1 • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD + PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION West of 95th PI W. South f 228th St SW, north of Edmonds Way y PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) Westgate Woods Townhomes PROPERTY OWNER Westgate Woods, LLC PHONE # 206 854 8822 ADDRESS 2817 NW 94th St., Seattle, Washington 98117 E-MAIL northbeachweb@msn.com FAX # TAX ACCOUNT # 27033600100200, 27033600101400 SEC. 36 TWp, 27 RNG, 03 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) 10 unit townhouse project in two five unit builidngs + a height varaince due to special circumstances See project description cover letter and variance criteria document DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) See attached Cover Letter and Plan Sets APPLICANT BIII Booth/Westgate Woods LLC PHONE # 206 854 8822 ADDRESS 2817 NW 94th St, Seattle, WA 98117 E-MAIL northbeachweb@msn.com FAX # CONTACT PERSON/AGENT John Bissell, AICP 131I0WF. # 206 498 3610 ADDRESS Harmsen Associates, 125 East Main St. STE 104, Monroe, WA 98272 E-MAIL, John@johnbissell.com FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on 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 part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information famished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herevrqh submitk7l are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that I am authorized to file this applicatio I the behalf I 'h ownei isied below. l l SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENT r vC DATE Property Owner's Authorization I, certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE 1 2' �G Questions? Call (425) 771-0220. Revised on 8122112 B - Land Use Application Page I of I Attachment 1 Packet Pg. 168 2.2.a City of Edmonds Land Use Application X ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW fLJ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HOME OCCUPATION FORMAL SUBDIVISION F� SHORT SUBDIVISION LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ❑ PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ❑ OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT ❑ STREET VACATION ❑ REZONE ❑ SHORELINE PERMIT X VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION OTHER: FILE #PLAI'Z k G)G1u] ZONE DATE 1:r]JI& REC'D BY /A . FEE RECEIPT # HEARING DATE V'9T\ ❑ HE ❑ STAFF ❑ PB >JfADB ❑ CC • PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THE APPLICATION IS A PUBLIC RECORD a PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LOCATION West of 95th PI W. South f 228th St SW, north of Edmonds Way PROJECT NAME (IF APPLICABLE) Westgate Woods Townhomes PROPERTY OWNER Westgate Woods, LLC ADDRESS 2817 NW 94th St., Seattle, Washington 98117 E-MAIL northbeachweb@msn.com TAX ACCOUNT # 27033600100200, 27033600101400 PHONE # 206 854 8822 FAX # SEC. 36 TWP. 27 RNG. 03 DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT OR PROPOSED USE (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) 10 unit townhouse project in two five unit builidngs + a height varaince due to special circumstances See project description cover letter and variance criteria document DESCRIBE HOW THE PROJECT MEETS APPLICABLE CODES (ATTACH COVER LETTER AS NECESSARY) See attached Cover Letter and Plan Sets APPLICANT Bill Booth/Westgate Woods LLC PHONE # 206 854 8822 ADDRESS 2817 NW 94th St, Seattle, WA 98117 E-MAIL northbeachweb@msn.com CONTACT PERSON/AGENT John Bissell, AICP FAX # I'Iit]Nli# 2064983610 ADDRESS Harmsen Associates, 125 East Main St. STE 104, Monroe, WA 98272 E-MAIL John@johnbissell.com FAX # The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on 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 part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. By my signature, I certify that the information -and exhibits hurcyr4hsubmjtt Ott are true and correct to the best of my kn wledgc and that I am authorized to file this appl icatioti T. the behalf of Th 0VwAn I fisted below. . f OF APPLICANT/AGENT :r� / �� l DATE'' �£ 2— SIGNATURE +' Property Owner's Authorization I, , certify under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the following is a true and correct statement: I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application, and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and posting aticndant to this application. ��/ � �' SIGNATURE OF OWNER DAT _W/ 7rrrl Questions? Call (425) 77I-0220. Revised on 822112 R - Land Use Applicalion Page I of I Attachment 1 Packet Pg. 169 2.2.a LAND SURVEYING December 28, 2016 City Review Staff City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98026 *KARMSEN OCIATES INC RE: ADB, Preliminary, Engineering and Height Variance for Westgate Woods, a 10-unit town home project Review Team: CIVIL ENGINEERING The applicant — Westgate Woods LLC, is applying for ADB of a new townhouse project. The project will have 10 units in two buildings. Site Description: The site is located at the intersection of 228th Ste SW, 95th Place West, and Edmonds Way and is comprised of two tax lots. The project site area is 25,237 square feet (0.58 acres). The site is zoned RM 1.5. The site is bounded on three sides by developed rights of way, is triangularly shaped and is almost entirely below the elevations of the surrounding streets and properties. The vegetation is a combination of grasses, tress and both native and ornamental plantings that have not been maintained in decades. The site is currently vacant other than an old house foundation. There is evidence of previous filling and excavation, probably related to a quarry project in the late 1800's that affected the Edmonds Way Corridor from around the intersection of 100th Ave West to near the intersection of 232nd St SW. The quarry operation was followed by road way development around the site, which appears to have affected the site, then the development and subsequent removal of a house on the site, followed by the redevelopment of Edmonds Way, which raised the south property line elevation of the subject site. Development proposal (including stormwater considerations): The applicant is proposing to develop the site with two five -unit townhouse buildings. This development will require the installation of an access drive aisle, stormwater management and utilities. Due to the odd shape and topography of the site, the installation of the access and stormwater will require elevating the site, which will in turn affect building heights and subsequently affect roof design. The applicant is submitting preliminary storm, grading and utility plans as well as a height variance with this application. The storm design has been developed using the DOE's western Washington 2012 (2014 update) manual. As of the date of this application the City of Edmonds has not yet adopted that manual. However, we understand that the application types proposed do not vest, and the City is required by DOE to adopt the new manual by the first day of 2017. Since this project will be reviewed in 2017, we felt it was appropriate to use that manual. As the site is lower than the road, stormwater was a particular concern. In this case, the geotechnical engineer recommended infiltration. The applicant is pursuing infiltration in this case, but also is proposing an adequate overflow. The existing 36-inch concrete stormwater pipe located in Edmonds Way has an invert depth low enough for us to connect for adequate overflow for large storm events. C:\Users\johnb\Dropbox\Projects\Westgate Woods\201612 201st Submittal set\Narrative\Narrative docx ISLAND COUNTY 840 SE Sth Avenue, Ste. 102 Oak Harbor, Washington 98277 tel: (360) 675-5973 / fnx: (360) 675-7155 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 125 East Main Street Ste. 104 Monroe, Washington 98272 tel: (360) 794-7811 / fax: (360) 805-9731 Anticipate / Understand / Guide / Deliver ATH sen'lpr2 SKAGIT COUNTY 603 South First Street Mount Vernon, Washington 98273 tel: (360) 336-9199 / fnx: (360) 981-2637 Packet Pg. 170 Westgate Woods Narrative 2.2.a 12/23/2016 PAGE 2OF3 Clearing and Grading Preliminary Grading calculations indicate approximately 700 cubic yards cut and 1,900 cubic yards fill will be required to construct the proposed project. For the purposes ensuring that the threshold determination addresses the highest possible impact, we are adding a 100% factor of safety for the purpose of SEPA review. Thus we estimate 1,400 cubic yards of cut and 3,800 cubic yards of fill for the purposes of SEPA review. This number is not reflected on the development plans or application forms because the purpose of those plans is to produce the closest estimate of yards to be graded based on the submitted information. The site shape, right of way locations and topography conspire along with the City's anticipated density to require the complete site to be graded. A reduction in the site disturbance area will result in, not only fewer dwelling units, but likely no development of the site at all. Thus all vegetation on the site will most likely need to be removed. The landscape plan anticipates the clearing of the site and the need to replant vegetation with species meeting the intent of the landscape code and the comprehensive plan. Compliance with the Design Guidelines and Comprehensive Plan: This site is challenging as most side of all development face a right of way, and as the grading design limited roof design choices. For safety reasons site access is limited to eh western end of the 228th St SW frontage. This access point then requires a safe transition down into site at a slope that still allows the building vehicle access to function. This requires a six-inch finished floor elevation separation between units. However, roof lines cannot effectively be constructed with six inch separations in elevation. Because of this the roofline of the western building is broken once instead of four times to help with visual relief. The buildings' fenestration ties the facades together and there is ample architectural interest on the facades of each building. Variance: The site characteristics lead us to a building height variance for several reasons. First, the fact that the property is below street level leads to access problems. The access solutions require filling of the site at the location for the drive aisle, which effectively sets a finished floor elevation for the garage floors, which effectively sets a required low point for each dwelling unit. This sets the dwelling unit well above the original grade, handicapping the development in a way no other property in the same zone in the same vicinity is handicapped. Second, the site characteristics force the building to be stepped. Since the height is measured from original grade, and since it is measured as an average of the building site, the average elevation ends up lower than the finished floor elevation as the building works its way up the slope. Third, in addition to making the drive aisle slope work, fill is required at the south end and at the east end of the drive aisles to force positive flow into the bio-infiltration cell. The grading to achieve positive drainage effetely raises finished floors of both buildings, once again handicapping this project in a way that others in the same zone and in the vicinity would not be handicapped. Because of each of these circumstances the building heights are proposed at an elevation greater than the code allows. Building A (the western building) will have a roof elevation of 300.75 (per survey elevations), where a maximum height of 293.6 would be allowed, and building B proposes a roof elevation of 301.5 where a maximum roof elevation of 295.5 height of Future Applications and SEPA concerns: The current application is for ADB review, preliminary grading and drainage review and a building height variance. The applicant also recognizes that the completed development will require building and site development permits. Additionally applicant is would like to propose Town House or Unit Lot Subdivision that would be subject to a SEPA Threshold Determination. The City is in the process of adopting the ordinance for this process, but the process is incomplete. Due to time constraints, the applicant will apply for the code amendment so that the ordinance for a townhouse or unit lot subdivision can be approved in time for this application. Therefore, the applicant is including a 10 lot Unit Lot Formal Subdivisions in the SEPA threshold determination request. We recognize that the code amendment would also require a SEPA Threshold determination, but since that determination would be city wide, it seems inappropriate to include a C:\Users\johnb\Dropbox\Projects\Westgate Woods\201612201st Submittal set\Narrative\Nar ftachment 2 Packet Pg. 171 Westgate Woods Narrative 2.2.a 12/23/2016 PAGE 3OF3 site -specific application with that code amendment. Therefore, the applicant will submit a separate checklist with the code amendment request. A complete list of the permits that we expect to be covered by the SEPA Threshold Determination can be found in the SEPA checklist. Geotech In preparation for the application, the applicant requested a geotechnical study for the site. The Geotech found that the subsurface materials consist of top soils (duff) over unconsolidated human created fill. Under the fill material that native soil is a sandy gravel consistent with Advance Outwash. (See submitted Geotech report) Traffic This project is small enough that no transportation or traffic report is required, and so the applicant has not consulted with a transportation engineer. The current ITE estimates of townhouse traffic varies depending on several factors from less than 6 ADT per DU to nearly (but just under) 10 ADT per DU, with on AM and or PM daily peak trip per DU. In this case ten units are proposed, and therefore the new ADT will be between 60 and 100 trips with 10 peak hour trips. Project Contacts: Applicant and property owner: Westgate Woods, LLC C/O Bill Booth 2817 NW 94th St. Seattle, WA 98117 Contact for the project: John Bissell, AICP Harmsen & Associates, Inc. 125 East Main Street Ste. 104 Monroe, WA 98272 206-498-3610 (preferred) 360-794-7811 (office) johnb@harmseninc.com john@johnbissell.com Thank you for your considered review of this project. Please contact me at your earliest convenience with any questions or concerns. Sincerely �J ohn Bissell, Al Planning Director Harmsen & Associates, Inc. C:\Users\johnb\Dropbox\Projects\Westgate Woods\201612201st Submittal set%Narrative\Alitadiment 2 Packet Pg. 172 2.2.a Attachment 3 FPacket Pg. 173 n 2.2.a n 25YR. ARCHITECTURAL COMP. ROOFING HARDIESHINGLE - ---—--SDING--— -- owl - F®R i IN—Eli E HARDIEPLANK LAP SIDING 4" REVEAL HARDIEPLANK LAPSIDING 5" REVEAL ■ HARDIEPLANK LAP SIDING 7" REVEAL W?v i ELDORADO STONE STACKED STONE SLATE GRAY ------- LjL ------------- ELEV 265.30 IN INN - ■MEN dom■1 ■■\. I■■■■■■■■■\. .M■■■■■■■■■■■\ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIN ■ �� ■ ■■ No MEN MEN NONE mmmoill No INN I LEMS MENEM MEN ..100000000■■■\ I■■■■■■■■■■■■■\. I■■■■■■■■■■■■■\.'MEN 1 _:; ■■ ■■ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIN■■ ■■1111 ■■ PI ONE mill 111111 Em I I =10 FBI BUILDING'A' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 30' FROM AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE = el. 293.60 _ ---------------- \----------- ------------------------- _ MAX PLATE HEIGHT 25' FROM AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE = el. 288.60 ----------------------------- � E 3 a� .y d — z J ELEV 267.30 a ELEV 266.80 U r_ --® — — — — —. �———————————————————————————————— — — — — —-——————————————— — — — — -- ELEV265.80 ELEV266.30 BUILDING'A' � AVERAGE GRADE = 263.60' P 1 FRONT ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" E 0 c 0 N BUILDING'A' o MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 30' FROM AVERAGE NATURAL, GRADE = el. 293.60 N a — — — — — — —— --— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ——————————— — — — — -- — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -- — — — ——— — — — — — — 25YR. ARCHITECTURAL ------- -- � COMP. ROOFING E ------------------------- _ _ _ _BUILDIN_G'A'_ _ MAX PLATE HEIGHT 25' FROM AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE = el. 288.60 -------------------------- n 7 ------------ ----------------------- ---------------------- REAR ELEVATIO 1/4" = 1'-0" AVERAGE GRADE = 263.60' ------------------------- ------------ -------------------------- till 2221 Everett Avenue Suite 4104 Everett WA. 98201 Ph: 425.259.0661 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN www•arch-design.net ASSOCIATES PS 1 5537 REGISTERED ARCHITECT � JAMES A. THOMAS STATE OFWASHINGTON These plans are the copyrighted material of ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.S. any plans that do not bear an architect's stamp signed in blue ink are unauthorized copies and may be in violation of copyright laws. Proposed Multi -Family for: Westgate Woods, LLC REVISIONS DRAWING NAME Date: 05 05 17 Building A WESTGATE WOODS 9511 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FRONT & REAR ELEVATION 2016-14 AlnO ©Copyright 2016 WHITECFJR DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.S. Q n Packet Pg. 174 Attachment 3 2.2.a _ _ _ BUILDIN_G'A' MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 30' FROM AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE = el.293.60 _BUIL_DING'A' _ MAX PLATE HEIGHT 25' FROM AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE = el.288.60 AVtKAUt UKAUt = LbJ.bU' LEFT ELEVATION 1/4" = V-0" TDP nF RMF al 995 n7 BUILDING'A' AVERAGE GRADE = 263.60' RIGHT ELEVATION 1/4" = V-0" 2221 Everett Avenue Suite #104 Everett, WA. 98201 Ph: 425.259.0661 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN www•arch-design.net ASSOCIATES PS 7 5537 REGISTERED ARCHITECT ATHOMASthat OFWASHINGTON These plans are the copyrighted material of ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.S. any plans thatdo not bear an stamp signed in blue ink are unauthorized copies and may be a violation of copyright laws. Proposed Multi -Family for: Westgate Woods, LLC REVISIONS DRAWING NAME Date: 05 05 17 Building g A WESTGATE WOODSVAMES.TATE 9511 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON SIDE ELEVATION 2016-14 Alml ©Copyright 2016 ARCMRE .L DESIGN A..G TES, P.S. Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 175 2.2.a 25YR. ARCHITECTURAL COMP. ROOFING HARDIESHINGLE — — — SIDING HARDIEPLANK LAP SIDING 7" REVEAL ELDORADO STONE STACKED STONE SLATE GRAY 101 lll; II ■ 1■■■■■■■■■\ I■■■■■■■■■■■■■\.MEMOmilli LEI ■. :�. MAX BUILDING HEIGHT 30' _ 0 FROM AVERAGE NATURAL loom EMMMME ■■■■MEMO MMMMMMM GRADE = el. 295.5 .�■■■■■■■■■■■\ I■E■O■O■E■---------------------- O■■■\. , ■ 1 i �ii ii�ii -■— - I III IIIIFROM AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE J 2 a� c a� .y d C R O tG O O O 0 I� 11 U I II 11 II I Z a ------------------EILE-V268-04 ———————————————— BUILDING'B' ELEV 267.50 f° ELEV 266.50 ELEV 267.00 AVERAGE GRADE = 265.50' LM 1 FRONT ELEVATION N d 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 0 c 0 N O O N BUILDING'B' I I I I I I In M ELEV 266.00 !0111 0-1111 1 7FIE-w-MM 1=01 w.-mlill. 1110m. E. I mi El - - ____ ____ ____ --------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------a-------------! ______________________ - MAX BUILDING GHT HEI30' y FROM AVERAGE NATURAL 25YR. ARCHITECTURAL (D GRADE = el. 295.5 COMP. ROOFING ------------------------------------------------- BUILDING'B' ----------------- --- -- -- — _-- --- -- -- ---- C--- --- -- —--®---- --T -- ----------------®®®®®_------------ ----- MAX PLATE HEIGHT 25' -------------------------------------------------------------- FROM AVERAGE NATURAL I IIII IIII III I IIII IIII IIII IIII IIII IN III IIII III III IIII 1111 I 1111 III IIII 1111 III IIII III III IIII III III IIII III �� IC/ 3 L= LL�IL=j I LA d LL ----------- =x �Lj CIO ----------------------------------------------------------------- JI I �i�:�� ■I■I■LI■I■I■I■LI,JEli ■I■I1�■I�II�LI■I�,I"� �1111111111111,1111111_IIIII,IIIIII111111111111111111 � � Omni I I — — — — — — — — — ------------EL-E1-2-98.w0— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — — — - — — — — — — — — -————— — — — — —— ELEV 267.50 1 BUILDING'B' LAVERAGE GRADE = 265.50' ELEV 267.00 ELEV 266.50 REAR ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" ELEV 266.00 2221 Everett Avenue Suite 4104 Everett, WA. 98201 Ph: 425.259.0661 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN www•arch-design.net ASSOCIATES PS 7 A 5537 REGISTERED ARCHITECT ATHOMASthat OFWASHINGTON These plans are the copyrighted material of ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.S. any plans thatdo not bear an stamp signed in blue ink are unauthorized copies and may be in violation of copyright laws. Proposed Multi -Family for: Westgate Woods, LLC REVISIONS DRAWING NAME Date: 12 22 16 Buildin B g WESTGATE WOODSVAMES.TATE 9511 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON FRONT & REAR ELEVATION 2016-14 Alm2 ©Copyright 2016 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.S. oti O to 0 O w O N Z J a Q Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 176 2.2.a as BUILDING'B' AVERAGE GRADE = 265.50' LEFT ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" TOP OF ROOF el 297 77 C? GV M 4 1� BUILDING'B' AVERAGE GRADE = 265.50' RIGHT ELEVATION 1/4" = 1'-0" 2221 Everett Avenue Suite #104 Everett, WA. 98201V__� Ph: 425.259.0661 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN www•arch-design.net ASSOCIATES PS li� 5537 REGISTERED ARCHITECT A. THOMASATE OF WASHINGTON \JAMES These plans are the copyrighted material ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.S. any plans that that do not bear an stamp signed in blue ink are unauthorized copies and maybe in violation of copyright laws. Proposed Multi -Family for: Westgate Woods, LLC REVISIONS DRAWING NAME Date: 12 22 16 Building B WESTGATE WOODS 9511 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON SIDE ELEVATION lAlm]3 2016-1 ©Copyright 2016 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.S. O O to r 0 N Z J d 3 .CD as c aM y d 0 C O O to O O W r O N Z J a as U c �a �L lQ E O c 3 O N O O N R O1 r N tV N E t U c� r Q t 3 O a N �a r to O O to O N Z J a 06 O to 0 0 co r O N Z J a c d E U r r Q Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 177 2.2.a 0 co 120'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" N O O O CV CV CV 4'-0" 19W 1 /2" j 3'-6 1 /2" 19'-8 1 /2" 3'-6 1 /2" 19'-8 1 /2" 3'-6 1 /2" 19'-8 1 /2" j 3'-6 1 /2" 20'-1 " GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE GARAGE CV CV N M M M N N N V V V co La co t ----------------------- T ----------------------- I- ------------------------ ------------------------ -------------------------- 2'-3" 3'-8 3/4" 16-0" 2'-0 1/4" 2'-2" 3'-10" 16-0" 2'-0" 2'-2" 3'-10" 16-0" 2'-0" 2'-2" 3'-10" 16-0" 2'-0" 2'-2" 3-8 3/4" 16'-0" 2'-1 1/4" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 120'-0" 1 LOWER FLOOR PLAN 0 M 2221 Everett Avenue Suite #104 Everett, WA. 98201 Ph: 425.259.0661 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN www•arch-design.net ASSOCIATES PS 5537 REGISTERED � ARCHITECT A. THOMASATE OFWASHINGTON \JAMES These plans are the copyrighted material of ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.S. any plans that that do not bear an stamp signed in blue ink are unauthorized copies and may be in violation of copyright laws. Proposed Multi -Family for: Westgate Woods, LLC REVISIONS DRAWING NAME Date: 12 22 16 Building A & B WESTGATE WOODS 9511 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON LOWER FLOOR PLAN 2016-14 ■ 0 ©Copyright 2016 ARCHI=UC L DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.S. Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 178 2.2.a O O M v Cl) T ED O N 120'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 12'-0 1/2" 11'-11 1/2" 12'-0 1/2" 11'-11 1/2" 12'-0 1/2" 11'-11 1/2" 12'-0 1/2" 11'-11 1/2" 11'-11 1/2" 12'-0 1/2" 2'-5 1/2" 3'-6" 3'-T 2'-T 4'-7 1 /4" 7'-4 1 /4" 2'-5 1/2" 3'-6" 3'-T 2'-7" 4'-7 1 /4" 7'-4 1 /4" 2'-5 1/2" 3'-T 3'-T 2'-T 4'-7 1 /4" 7'-4 1 /4" 2'-5 1/2" 3'-6" 3'-T 2'-T 4'-7 1 /4" 7'-4 1 /4" 2'-4 1/2" 3'-F 3'-F 2'-T 4'-7 1 /4" 7'-5 1 /4" 0 DECK DECK DECK N DECK N N DECK ®0 0 ®0 0 ®0 0 ®0 - 0 ®0 - 0 r— r— r— r— r— i 2�1 i 0 i 0 KITCHEN T KITCHEN T KITCHEN T KITCHEN — — f KITCHEN N M DINING DINING DINING DINING DINING M 4-4' 3' 10 3/4" 1'-8 1/2", 14'-0 1 /4" C9 r` FPWDR-- PWD PWD PWD PWD M CO LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM LIVING ROOM L-I 4====J A A 2'-Y 2'-9" 4'-0" 5-5 3/4" 5-5 3/4" 4'-0 1/2" 2'-81/4" 2'-3 3/4" 4'-0 3/4" 5'-5 3/4" 5-5 3/4" 3'-11 3/4" 2'-81/4" 2'-3 3/4" 4'-0 3/4" 5-5 3/4" 5-5 3/4" 3'-11 3/4" 2'-81/4" 2'-3 3/4" 4'-0 3/4" 5-5 3/4" 5-5 3/4" 3'-11 3/4" 2'-2" 2'-9" 4'-0" 5-5 3/4" 5-5 3/4" 4'-1 1/2" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 120'-0" 1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN N co 2221 Everett Avenue Suite #104 Everett, WA. 98201 Ph: 425.259.0661 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN www•arch-design.net ASSOCIATES PS 5537 REGISTERED ARCHITECT JAMES A. THOMAS STATE OFWASHINGTON These plans are the copyrighted material of G ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.S. any plans that do not bear an architect's stamp signed in blue ink are unauthorized copies and may be in violation of copyright laws. Proposed Multi -Family for: Westgate Woods, LLC REVISIONS DRAWING NAME Date: 12 22 16 Building A & B WESTGATE WOODS 9511 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON MAIN FLOOR PLAN 2016-14 ■ 1 ©Copyright 2016 ARCHI=UC L DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.S. Attachment 3 Packet P9 179 2.2.a N M L9 O N 120'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 24'-0" 5-7 1 /4" 5-5 1 /4" 2'-3 1/2" 5-13/4" 5-6 1 /4" 5-6 1 /4" 5-5 1 /4" 2'-3 1/2" 5-13/4" 5-7 1 /4" 5-6 1 /4" 5-5 1 /4" 2'-3 1/2" 5-13/4" 5-7 1 /4" 5-6 1 /4" 5-5 1 /4" 2'-3 1/2" 5-13/4" 5-7 114" 5-6 1 /4" 5-5 1 /4" 2'-3 1/2" 5-13/4" 5-7 1 /4" g CM _-i eM _ V M BEDROOM 1 N 9'-2" 1'-7" -- - - - - - -_-. _ N (p BEDROOM 2 8'-7 1/2" BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 0 ii BATH TR. ,. --BAT Ec I ---------- �I MSTR. MSTR. BEDROOM W.I.C. 4'-11" 7'-8 3/4" 3'-7 1/2" 7'-8 3/4" BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 0 ii BATH TR. ,. TH U I ---------- I MSTR. MSTR. BEDROOM W.I.C. 4'-11" 7'-8 3/4" 3'-7 1/2" 7'-8 3/4" BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 0 ii j BATR TR. ,. TH 0 �I MSTR. MSTR. BEDROOM W.I.C. 4'-11" 7'-8 3/4" 3'-7 1/2" 7'-8 3/4" BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 0 BATH TR. ,. TH 0 ---------- �I MSTR. MSTR. BEDROOM W.I.C. 4'-11" 7'-8 3/4" 3'-7 1/2" 7'-8 3/4" 2'-3 1 /2" V '-11 1 /2" 4' 0" 53 1/2" 5' 1 / " N V C'7 CV 3' 3 1/2" 7" M M M TR. BA TH 0 0 N N O � BATH ii ,. MSTR . BEDROOM ---------- C.O M TR. S W.I.C. N 3'-7 1/2" 7'-7 3/4" 5-0" 7'-8 3/4" 24'-0" 24'-0" Ir Ir 24'-0" Ir Ir 24'-0" Ir 24'-0" 120'-0" 1 UPPER FLOOR PLAN 0 M 2221 Everett Avenue Suite #104 Everett, WA. 98201 Ph: 425.259.0661 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN www•arch-design.net ASSOCIATES PS 5537 REGISTERED ARCHITECT A. THOMASATE OFWASHINGTON \JAMES These plans are the copyrighted material of G ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.S. any plans that that do not bear an stamp signed in blue ink are unauthorized copies and may be in violation of copyright laws. Proposed Multi -Family for: Westgate Woods, LLC REVISIONS DRAWING NAME Date: 12 22 16 Building A & B WESTGATE WOODS 9511 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON UPPER FLOOR PLAN 2016-14 ■ 2 ©Copyright 2016 ARCHI=UC L DESIGN ASSOCIATES, P.S. Attachment 3 Packet Pg. 180 2.2.a B=2651�T ' E=264A0' A=264.45 GF25l2 it HEIGHT CALCULATIONS BUILDING 'A': A = 264.25' B = 265,50' C = 262.00' D = 262,50' 1,054.25' _ 4 = 263.60 AVERAGE GRADE = 263.60' MAX HEIGHT = 30.00' MAX BLDG HEIGHT = 293.60' *ALL HEIGHT CALCULATION ARE BASED ON EXIST. GRADE C=262.00' SCALE: 1" = 40'-0" 4 2P' , 40' AD/ L555� 2 aF 2557 3 OF 2552 a pF 255 7 WN 5 3F 2552 m BENCHMARK DATUM 0 MANHOLE 267.56' —� 3 o - N 0 _ ca - N ers us g 4 10 d GF2as SF2P4 OHMCf2�2 lg •�, s `'. E u = 68.00, 3 a FlY' HEIGHT CAL _.` CULATIONS o r BUILDING 'B': E = 264.00' N F = 263.00' z T - J Albk 129+00 G = 268.00a. hS10. H - 267.00' 0 1,062.00' + 4 = 265.50 0 w p=262.25' �O�`� AVERAGE GRADE = 265.50, o gig MAX HEIGHT = 30.00' 1 f y P N MAX BLDG HEIGHT = 295.50' J HEIGHT CALCULATION a y ARE BASED ON EXIST. GRADE Attachment 3 m� avam�v[ria pplflTYOt hlkld, YYMI 7WE5TGATE y for: WeShgatC Woods, LLC _ a WOODS 9511 AY MOND Packet Pg. 181 2.2.a N M NE1/4, NE1/4, SEC 36, TWN 27 N, RNG 3 E, WM, EDMONDS WA I I I 11 � I I 0HP 0 LT OSSWAL STRIPING STOP AHEAD SIGN ASPHALT I � w w — --- — --- — --- — GRAVEL --- — --- — --- — --- ASPHALT --- — --- — --- — -- I 4 W DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY 411 W �� W W I w 228th _ --- CD _ __ ---- --CD ------------------- i I FOUND MIC, TAC I - — CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE C/L T N of IN LEAD, DOWN 1. ' ---------------------------- �, FOUND 10-08-09 EOA TYP --------------- ------------�---------------------------------------- ---6"-RAISE-CUR13- - � - - +1----- -- - 5' SIDEWALK _ _OHP r _ "-"----"-" SIGN �SCONC WALK _ _ `�3 _ I N 25 _ _ --� -�---- 137.43' EX STOP G SECTION LINE pOH SIGN o , 86.48' ■ 125' PROPOSED 1 , v 2628.55' DR AISLE INSIDE Cn° BUILDING � 1 24 x 30 UNITS r - _ 31 N 8812 5' POST PAD MOUNTED - " 11, 14 PARKING (TYP) CO OVERHANG (TYP) �" 'ems 30' R/W r �II P TRANSFORMER �')--------__�-_= - - - - ----,------, P2 FO ND MIC BRASS - -- - - - / SCALE: 1 " = 20' 0 10, 20' 40' A FOUND MIC, BRASS CAP W/ CENTER PUNCH, DOWN 1.Y S 18012'34" W 0.07' �4 W 4 W FROM CALCO " INTERSECTION FOUND 10-08-09 Z p N - — - — - — - — - — - - W ------ C1L------------ Ni � p IW Oo wI 25 30 -- 36 31 G FOUND MIC, BRASS CAP W/ CENTER PUNCH, DOWN 0.7' S 11 °23'06" W 0.08' FROM CALC'D 4 INTERSECTION FOUND 10-08-09 U, I I - ----------------- _ ----- 50" DISK W/'X' PUNCH ----------- - - - - - - - - ---- I DOWN 0.3-.--T FOUND iI I I UlI w - - EXTRUDED 4 z 10-08-09 � rFl r I CON YCpURB. /,° •f 0 1 L - 6 I cn Zi z 2 - T �N OU PROPOSED & HIGH S rI� I WOOD FENCE li � I ,,., / 1 _ ^ � ALONG WEST P/L jl QI r 8�8� o II m `- ---- ---- 0' RIW es of ° - -- -- --- - a ---- cv - --- . °. BUILDING a o Io OVERHANG (TYP) �_i a I a ° � 10-1IIF z I PROPOSED WALL / PED w 6+46 I HANDRAIL ON TOP � 6+00 � � / �I ° 5 00 \5+50 DRIVE AISLE 'B' - - ctr 0+89.46 - - STRIPING CROSSW LK PRELIMINARY FIRE ^IA/KIEn WESTGATE WOODS, LLC 2817 NW 94TH ST, SEATTLE, WA 98117 APPLICANT WESTGATE WOODS, LLC c/o BILL BOOTH 2817 NW 94th ST, SEATTLE, WA 98117 PH: 206-854-8822 r%^KITAP+T W -- JOHN BISSELL, AICP HARMSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. - 6" G 125 E MAIN ST, SUITE 104 N u o 2-STALLS -r GR I o MONROE, WA 98272 a,I I T± 8.5'x16.5' - o g— I 498-3610 EM: j 06-b@ arrmseninc.com ° I�4, NCO m g0°:�60 p3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL BSBL O �� 69�SF •• _. ° - ` , / POLE W/ 3 HEADS 10' --+I, C V- o- G�P�� FOUND MIC CONIC W/ PIN, DOWN 0.5' " N 02049'17" W 0.05' d G� 128+50 FROM CALGD INTERSECTION I GP��P� P`'Q128+00 - i i a- T Sp / 63 -------------- ROOF INFILTRATION ) (300, S) ° "NO PARKING WP�� i. FIRE LANE" / EX SIGN (TYP) i o � p,4 i / 126+50 FOUND MON IN / WATER VALVE CASE, 2" IP W/ LEAD PLUG. / PRC 126+26.58 BUILDING LOT COVERAGE: BUILDING LOT COVERAGE INCLUDES BUILDING FOOTPRINT, CANTILEVERED OVERHANGS AND COVERED 2nd FLOOR DECKS MAXIMUM COVERAGE ALLOWED: 45% MAX (11,356.65 SF) MAXIMUM COVERAGE PROPOSED: 32.33% (A=25,237 / 8,160 SF) ARCHITECH JAMES THOMAS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES 2221 EVERETT AVE, STE 101, EVERETT, WA 98201 PH: 425-259-0661 SURVEYOR BRENT EBLE, PLS EMERALD LAND SURVEYING, INC. PO BOX 13694 MILL CREEK, WA 98082 PH: 425-359-7198 EM: emeraldpls@aol.com CIVIL ENGINEER MICHAEL E. RYAN, PE HARMSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. 840 SE 8th AVE, SUITE 102 OAK HARBOR, WA 98277 PH: 360-675-5973 EM: michaelr@harmseninc.com GEOTECHNICAL ENG. EDWARDO GARCIA, PE GEOTEST, INC. 20611 - 67th AVE NE ARLINGTON, WA 98223 PH: 360-733-7318 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT KRYSTAL LOWE ORIGIN DESIGN GROUP PH: 425-346-1905 NOTE INDIVIDUAL TRASH PICKUP (NO DUMPSTER PROPOSED) DRAWING INDEX SHEET SHEET TITLE Cl COVER SHEET / PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN C2 EXISTING CONDITIONS, DEMOLITION & SWPPP C3 PRELIMINARY ROAD, GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C4 PRELIMINARY DRIVE AISLE PROFILES C5 AERIAL VICINITY MAP C6 SECTION VIEW VOLUMES MAP L-1 LANDSCAPING PLAN (TREE REMOVAL) L-2 LANDSCAPING PLAN (PLANTING PLAN) L-3 LANDSCAPING PLAN (DETAILS) SITE P VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 2,000 LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL A THAT PORTION OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED TRACY LYING WEST OF THE WEST LINE OF 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY CONVEYED TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY BY DEED RECORDED UNDER SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDED NO.977133; BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, .M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DISTANT NORTH 88°12'27" EAST 294.17 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTH HALF AND RUNNING; THENCE SOUTH 2°54'05" EAST 139.46 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY MARGIN OF THE COUNTY ROAD; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY, EASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE SAID MARGIN ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT HAVING A RADIUS OF 440.28 FEET, WHOSE TANGENT AT THIS POINT BEARS NORTH 57046,351, EAST A DISTANCE OF 346.15 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID ROAD NORTH 2°54'05" WEST 93.0 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF, A DISTANT SOUTH 88'12'27" WEST 685.00 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTH HALF; THENCE SOUTH 88°12'27" WEST 335.00 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON BY DEED RECORDED IN VOLUME 533, OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 578 UNDER SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING NO.22119903. PARCEL B ALL THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, W.M., RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SUBDIVISION; THENCE NORTH 88°12'27" EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SUBDIVISION 207.69 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE NORTH 88°12'27" EAST 86.48 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 2°54'05" EAST 139.46 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTHERLY MARGIN OF THE SEATTLE EDMONDS HIGHWAY; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE NORTHERLY MARGIN OF SAID HIGHWAY TO A POINT WHICH BEARS SOUTH 2°54'05" EAST TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE; BEGINNING AT A POINT 40 FEET NORTHWESTERLY AND OPPOSITE HIGHWAY ENGINEER'S STATION (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS H.E.S.) 126+00 WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES AND/OR RADIALLY FROM THE CENTERLINE OF SR 104, EDMONDS 5TH AVENUE TO 236TH STREET SOUTHWEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY PARALLEL TO A DISTANCE OF 40 FEET NORTHWESTERLY WHEN MEASURED A RIGHT ANGLES AND/OR RADIALLY FROM SAID CENTERLINE TO A POINT OPPOSITE H.E.S. 126+90; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY IN A STRAIGHT LINE TO A POINT 50 FEET NORTHWESTERLY AND OPPOSITE H.E.S. 127+40 WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES AND/OR RADIALLY FROM SAID CENTERLINE; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY PARALLEL TO AND A DISTANCE OF 50 FEET NORTHWESTERLY WHEN MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES AND/OR RADIALLY FROM SAID CENTERLINE TO A POINT OPPOSITE H.E.S. 128+00 AND THE END OF THIS LINE DESCRIPTION, AS CONVEYED TO THE STATE OF WASHINGTON UNDER SNOHOMISH COUNTY RECORDING NO.2186202. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON. SITE INFORMATION SITE ADDRESS: 9511 - 9513 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WA 98020 TAX ACCOUNT NO'S: 27033600100200 (PARCEL A) 27033600101400 (PARCEL B) ZONING: RM 1.5 SITE AREA: 25,237 SF - 0.58 AC ALLOWED UNITS: 16.82 DU PROPOSED UNITS: 10 DU SCHOOL DISTRICT: EDMONDS SD #15 WATER SERVICE: OLYMPIC VIEW SEWER SERVICE: OLYMPIC VIEW PARKING DATA INSIDE PARKING: 20 (2 PERDU) OUTSIDE PARKING: 2 (INDIVIDUAL STALLS) TOTAL: 22 PARKING SPACES (10 DU) BENCH MARK: POINT NAME: SC31 FOUND 2" BRASS DISK IN LINE MEASURES 1" AT FULL MON CASE, ±6' S OF C/L PVMT IN EASTBOUND TRAY. LANE SIZE PLOT OF 92ND AVE W. DISK IS 0.7' BELOW PAVED SURFACE. A 4' ---1 0 IF SHEET SIZE IS OTHER THAN HIGH FNC COR BEARS S 600 W, 35.9 FROM PT. PP W/ 22"X34" ADJUST SCALE VERTICAL DATUM LUMINAIR BEARS S 45° E, 32.0 FROM PT. ELEV: 291.994. ACCORDINGLY NAVD88 a a 0 0 0 0 W W 0 0 H F- LU w a a u) cn O O N to LU 1 T- n N N 00 CM N r REVISIONS T LO M co N w 0 up Is LU z w �� 000 woo Lu cn X U. V Z WN LUO W LU 1--H Is Q = N N Ld N V) W a O � 00 a W = N Y o a 000 O ��E L __ ► r 31261 ISTEg�� ti sS NAL 812-21201-7 W 0 o J 0J z 0W �a LU 0 W 0 LU = cn Wcn>- w Q W a� Z > �Q 0� (� V J LU ♦♦ ^^ V ♦ = L LJ W a DRAWN BY: GTR CHKD BY: MER DATE: 12/07/2016 16-241 Know what's below. Call before you dig. C 1 Attachment 4 UNPUBLISHED WORK COPYRIGHT 2015V(HARMSEN & ASSOCIATES INC Packet Pg. 182 2.2.a NE1/451 NE1/4, SEC 36, TWN 27 N, RNG 3 E, WM, EDMONDS WA CB TYPE 1 0 GE 268.24 CB TYPE 1 It: N 263.9412" PVC I, 72" SDMH GE 265.65 IE SW 263.9912" PVC cf) GE 267.56 IE W 263.4012" PVC BTM 262.94 cn I IE N 264.8612" DI IE IE NE 263.4012" PVC E 261.76 30" CP BTM 262.25 48" SSMH IE S 261.76 30" CP RIM 267.04 IE SW 262.61 18" PVC CB TYPE 1 IE W 261.39 8" CP BTM 260.06 GE 65.42 IE N 261.39 8" CP II o 72"SDMH 48" SSMH IE W 2613.5212" PVC IE E 261.39 8" CP Rim 2168.92 IE S 263.1212" PVC IES 261.29 8" CP I E NE xxx xx 18" PVC IE W 262.87 8" CP IE E 263.2212" PVC IE E 262.32 30" CP FOUND MIC, BRASS EULVERT E 268.29 12" CP IE E 262.77 8" CP BTM 261.82 �� a6'� OHP I' IE SW 262.6218" PVC CAP W/ CENTER CULVERT CULVERT CULVERT IE W 262.12 30" CP PUNCH, DOWN 1.Y S IE W 268.8212" CP IE W 266.6212" P IE E 265.7412" PVC OSSWA� / BTM 260.32 SCALE: 1" = 20' 18012'34" W 0.07' CULVERT STOP AHEAD SIGN ASPHALT ' STRIP NG FROM CALC'D IE E 270.11 12" CP I _ - - �D_ _ W 4 INTERSECTION _ _ GRAVEL I ----� - - W ASPHALT ------------- --�-- - - I 0 10' 20' 40' FOUND 10-08-09 Z -- I DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAYW 4 W W SS S SS S S S /� O S _SSS SS �'S SS SS S------------ JGO 4�� W W 228th ST � SS SS CB TYPE 1 _ - - --- - -- ---- -- - ------ SS SS t S S SS -f SS CB TYPE 1 SS _ _ _ CRlYP_EA. _--= -- Q ---- -mac -- - -- _--= -- _ - - - o o c�' SS SS SS SS SS -1- -7 cVJ.j ------ S� - _«�_�--- - ---------------------------- IE N 263.1012" PVC I _ _ __________ �___--�- - VE - - - - GE 265.47 FO ND MIC, TAC SD w CONSTRUCTION REFERE P- CIL GE 266.19 CULVERT IE E 261.2412 ADS IE NW 264.67 8" PVC �r�6 IE N 263.1212 PVC IE E 262.9518" PVC �6, SD o� IN DEAD, DOWN 1. ' / IE W 261.52 12"_ ___ ___ _ ______ - �,I FO ND 10 08 09 a EOA ( P) IE SE 264.-- 8 PVC _ -�--------_--------------------5 IES 263.1 _12__25 30 -------- N ---- -----------� o _ _ _ SEX STOP AHED------- o ti oQ C_" SIGN : __�� --- sD-----------�P o - --- -- - -OHP - G OHP - - - - - - 36 31 OHP OHP AL6 BM$ 137.43 �L10 EX STO - - - CB TYPE 1 FOUND MIC BRASS CAP W/ 25 SECTION LINE --"P5 -- r o AL ALD12 - - a - oP ° SIGN o�, + GE 266.90 CENTER PUNCH, DOWN 0 T S °$ ° - V IE NE 263.3018 PVC 11 2306 W 0.08 FROM CALC'D D8 86.48 D12 Q AL12 7 /� AL8 AL32 w / - - N 88012'27" EE m / % o _ AL8 L 2628.55' DF20 LD16 A ° v� 1 30' R / 268 _ o BTM 261.80 INTERSECTION FOUND 10-08-09 31 �D o o S_ - X \ CLEARING / 0 CH6 ) # CLF POST / a . - e \ , 266 - - \ FOUND MIC, BRASS / , / Q" \ �, L4MIT) �i ° cs° ° EX FIRE HYDRANT �" C8 2 DISK W/'X' PUNCH / ��,�p� \ TYP / V° / AL8 C1 0 n oC DOWN 0.3' FOUND 26$' \ / EXTo�F - = TEMPORARY I C8 {�Ls / cis ��` �' o w w 10-08-09 ' � ° 0 15 x 5 ° �� / // CLEARING NOTE: � 1 6`2�'` v r , a I o 26 N\ �pCAS CONSTR c�2 /� / ALL TREES WITHIN THE SUBJECT �) Zg6 Lls o ° ENTRANCE / PROPERTY LINES WILL BE Cie c / EX�OE °� �� I� o 0 o AL16 I _ / DF24 Cis / w REMOVED AS NEEDED. Cia--_--_--___ i+ I I p ,bP24 O I \ f�,� o zi I1 0 AL18 _ ��6� D6 y �I �� 4� �' 0� o j CH8 i i � DF24 C12 ,, 'I� �,m \ I o q l SDMH I� Cio I AL22 ALis Ex1o� I � [ '_1 �' 30' R/W GE 270.86 UNABLE ° I ; PARCE Z CAL14 D8 o TO MEASURE T00 CONC. FOUNDATION "'e DANGEROUS rn CLEARING f� N C6 18 /;' 27033600100200'� w 6 / III C8 LIMITS �� AL8 � o 11,915 SF I o - I� I ( P) PARCEL' B' ITD EMQVED ' ° c12 °. F24 �, - - m cis I 27033600101400 AL12 C8 CLEARING II I 13,322 SF C �\ �� \ ,,op LIMITS _ �, � �'f- � � � AL10 cn � W (TYP) U EX ci o oF� � � `, CROSS�K STRI ING \ I6 BM10 D6 G 611 G I., EMPORARGR �� o e - - STOCKPILE I `f 14� �26g - _-� D � ,'1, SSMH PER AB s \_AR A -�� RE 270.00 P3 i D TRAFFIC SIGNAL I' IE 260.77 (8" N) CAL32 _w �� - "X / � POLE W/ 3 HEADS IE 258.94 (24" E/W) � _,. � :C - Q) x SS 1-)kL 26 o ALD14 �SQ� L20 ° AL8 �� / 77CB :PE �MIC COC ci2 TO MEASURE 3 RE TUNAOO W/ P NFOUNDDOW DOWN AL8�y, / 0 SU 00 AL12 DANGEROUS N 02049"7" W 0.05 D14/,, +50 FROM CALC'D INTERSECTION AL20 c24 4 , - i / tG`I.3 P5 128+00. --_ ICI aD12 4j&_ _ _ - 268 I , a ' xI DF18 � Q) ��zl � CV ODF24 0% SS -266- (N47 S 0 4 c0 /' S , 6 CB TYPE 2 SS / GE 264.44 i 126+50� 5Oq IE 256.34 SS / / / �FOUND MON IN g°' / Z- WATER VALVE CASE, \ 2" IP W/ LEAD PLUG. PRC 126+26.58 STABILIZATION NOTES TEMPORARY ASTABILIZE PAVED AREAS WITH GRAVEL BASE STABILIZE ALL OTHER AREAS WITH SEEDING & 2 4" STRAW MULCH PERMANENT STABILIZE PAVED AREAS WITH ASPHALT PAVING PER APPLICABLE PAVING SECTION STABILIZE ALL OTHER AREAS WITH LOW MAINTENANCE, NATIVE LANDSCAPING & GRASS PRELIMINARY CLEARING LIMITS -wfl EXISTING FLOW PATH -� PROPOSED FLOW PATH OCATCH BASIN INLET PROTECTION EROSION CONTROL NOTE: THIS SITE IS A CLOSED DEPRESSION AND THEREFORE, NO SEDIMENT LADEN RUNOFF IS ANTICIPATED RESULTING FROM THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 1. ATTEND PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS. 2. CALL 811 FOR UNDERGROUND LOCATES PRIOR TO ANY SITE ACTIVITY. 3. DELINEATE CLEARING LIMITS IN FIELD, INSTALL FILTER FABRIC FENCING. 4. CLEAR & GRUB AREAS WITHIN CLEARING LIMITS AND FILTER FENCING. 5. STOCKPILE EXISTING TOPSOIL AND COVER. 6. PERFORM ANY NECESSARY GRADING FOR BUILDING PAD AND CONSTRUCT BUILDING. 7. SPREAD NATIVE TOPSOIL AROUND BUILDING, FINAL GRADE AND SEED. 8. INSTALL INFILTRATION TRENCHES PER PLANS. 9. REMOVE TESC MEASURES AFTER SITE IS STABILIZED AND PROJECT IS COMPLETE. 10. CALL FOR FINAL INSPECTION ON GRADING. LEGEND • FOUND REBAR WITH CAP, MARKED AS NOTED SD STORM DRAIN LINE SS SANITARY SEWER LINE FOUND IRON PIPE, MARKED AS NOTED W WATER LINE - - - - ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY 0 FOUND CASED MONUMENT, MARKED AS NOTED RIGHT-OF-WAY CENTER LINE ADJOINING PLAT/TRACT FOUND ALUMINUM MON, MARKED AS NOTED PROPERTY LINE DITCH OR SWALE CENTER LINE I;t TEMPORARY SITE BENCHMARK WIRE FENCE, AS DESCRIBED 0 STORM DRAIN MANHOLE CHAINLINK FENCE, AS DESCRIBED 0D SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE WOOD FENCE, AS DESCRIBED ® WATER METER VEGETATION LINE WATER VALVE DECIDUOUS TREE FIRE HYDRANT b WATER FAUCET CONIFER TREE CLEANOUT FLOW DIRECTION c3 MAILBOX # FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION STORM DRAIN CULVERT ❑ GATE POST GAS METER POWER METER -Q- UTILITY POLE WITH UNDERGROUND DROP ABBREVIATIONS AFN AUDITOR'S FILE NUMBER BLDG BUILDING CO / LP CLEANOUT / LAMPHOLE CONIC CONCRETE C/L CENTERLINE CPEP CORRUGATED PLASTIC PIPE CY CUBIC YARD DIA DIAMETER (0 ) D/W DRIVEWAY EOA EDGE OF ASPHALT EX EXISTING FT FOOT HDPE HIGH DENSITY POLYETHLYENE IE INVERT ELEVATION PROPERTY CORNERS P1 SET TACK IN LEAD W/ TAG, LS 30581 P2 SET REBAR & CAP, LS 30581 P3 SET MAG W/ TAG, LS 30581, 8' OFFSET P4 SET MAG W/ TAG, LS 30581, 1 Y OFFSET P5 SET REBAR & CAP, LS 30581 FOUND 1/2" OPEN IP, 1.32' E & 0.66' S TREE DESCRIPTIONS IN INCH LP LOW POINT MH MANHOLE PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE REF REFERENCE RE RIM ELEVATION R/W RIGHT-OF-WAY SD STORM DRAIN SF SQUARE FOOT SS SANITARY SEWER TYP TYPICAL UT UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE W/ WITH YB YARD BASIN D DECIDUOUS ALDER (ALNUS) AL C CEDAR (CEDRUS) R ROCK BM BIG LEAF MAPLE (ACER MACROPHYLLUM) ILL HOLLY (LLEZ AQUIFOLIUM) CH CHERRY (PRUNUS CERASUS) DF DOUGLAS FIR (PSEUDOTSUGA MENZIESII) SURVEY NOTES INSTRUMENT USED: SOKKIA SET 5 EDM METHOD USED: FIELD TRAVERSE APPROXIMATE POINT ACCURACY: ±0.05' SURVEY MEETS OR EXCEEDS STATE STANDARDS PER WAC 332-130-090. MONUMENTS SHOWN HEREON WERE VISITED ON OCTOBER 8, 2009. THE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS MAP REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF A SURVEY MADE ON THE INDICATED DATE AND CAN ONLY BE CONSIDERED AS THE GENERAL EXISTING CONDITION AT THAT TIME. NO EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS OR RESERVATION OF RECORD WHICH WOULD BE DISCLOSED BY A TITLE REPORT ARE SHOWN. VERTICAL DATUM - NAVD 88 CONTOUR INTERVAL -2FOOT BENCH MARK: POINT NAME: SC31 Found 2" Brass Disk in Mon Case, ±6' S of c/I pvmt in eastbound tray. lane of 92nd Ave W. Disk is 0.7' below paved surface. A 4' high fnc cor bears S 600 W, 35.9 from pt. PP w/ luminair bears S 450 E, 32.0 from pt. Elev: 291.994. BENCH MARK: POINT NAME: SC31 FOUND 2" BRASS DISK IN MON CASE, ±6' S OF C/L PVMT IN EASTBOUND TRAY. LANE OF 92ND AVE W. DISK IS 0.T BELOW PAVED SURFACE. A 4' HIGH FNC COR BEARS S 60° W, 35.9 FROM PT. PP W/ LUMINAIR BEARS S 450 E, 32.0 FROM PT. ELEV: 291.994. LINE MEASURES 1" AT FULL SIZE PLOT 0 IF SHEET SIZE IS OTHER THAN 22"X34" ADJUST SCALE VERTICAL DATUM ACCORDINGLY NAVD88 00 O O W W 0 0 V U cc W cc W EL a O O cc cc ti C N n 04 N 00 N r REVISIONS r Ln cc lix cp0ION Uj 0 L9�n Z LU c~cti0 0 0 0 woo V c� Z WN V) O Uj Q N N Lis CO V) W JA 'a o o� 00 Q W = N Y O Q 00 O L 1261 IST� 1 ss � NAL 8/2-22/203-7 C.) o J 0 J a cr) 0 pa 0 cn o 0 Z ad Woz v0 W a� ZJ COD a P: 0 0 cn 2 LU Cn Cn w o W W DRAWN BY: GTR CHKD BY: MER DATE: 12/07/2016 16-241 Know what's below. Call before you dig. C2___j Attachment 4 UNPUBLISHED WORK COPYRIGHT 2015V(HARMSEN & ASSOCIATES INC Packet Pg. 183 2.2.a NE1/451 NE1/4, SEC 36, TWN 27 N, RNG 3 E, WM, EDMONDS WA uB TYPE i 0 1 GE 268.24 Cn CB TYPE 1 IE N 263.9412" PVC I, 72" SDMH GE 265.65 IE SW 263.9912" PVC Cn I GE 267.56 IE W 263.4012" PVC BTM 262.94 cn IE N 264.8612" DI IE IE NE 263.4012" PVC E 261.76 30" CP BTM 262.25 48" SSMH IE S 261.76 30" CP RIM 267.04 IE SW 262.61 18" PVC CB TYPE 1 IE W 261.39 8" CP cn BTM 260.06 GE 65.42 IE N 261.39 8" CP I1, 0 72"SDMH 48" SSMH IE W 263.5212" PVC IE E 261.39 8" CP pp IE S 261.29 8" CP E 267.52 Rim 2168.92 IE S 263.12 12 PVC 4 G IE W 262.87 8" CP EIE E 263.2212" PVC CULVERT E 268.2912" CP IE E 262.77 8" CP BTM 261.82 SC CULVERT CULVERT CULVERT IEW 268.8212" CP IEW 266.6212" P IEE 265.7412" PVC CULVERT IE E 270.11 12" CP i STOP AHEAD SIGN D - _ _ _ - /ASPHALT _ GRAVEL - - - - ASPHALT ------------ 4 ----- - ----- - - - DRIVEWAY DRIVEWA W W - s ss 411 W W sS SS s CB TYPE 1 ss ss s ss -Elss 228th ssST ss ss o - MN263.10 10--_--_-- _ - SS SS SS SS Ss o ClYPF_ -- = --- - ---- -�_�- --------------------- 12" PVCS CB TYPE I - - - - 11 GE 265.47�-- E 266.19 11 CULVERT iNSTRUCTION REFERE CE CIL SAWCUT I � IE E 261.2412" ADS IE NW 264.67 8" PVC`�OIE N 263.1212 PVC 2.9518" PVC �6' SD - EOA ( P) EDGE 1268 4 IE SE 264.64 8" PVC IEW ----- --ADS_- ___ _ _ _IE S_263.1 _12" -- -- --1------------------ - ----- --------------------------------- -- - --- -- +1 ------ ---9 9 - - - �_r _► ---- --- -- ---- 5' SIDEWALK 13 ti I 268.5 8 SIGN - 11 �a------- __-- 25 _-- - - OH -- -- - y-- - - -- - - T SECTION LINE P _z----- u = 15 ' - - -EX:I OP----7�- E S GN P12 13 . - � N 88°12'27" E / �$�:48' 11 _I25- � 16 � / GRADING ROOF DRAIN I COLLECTION 31 2628.55' �j26� 14 .� 11 #4 u 0 - - - ~ J SDCO� DAYLIGHT ------- J „_ ___- AYLIGH CLF POST 7 ° -EXTOE �\ , 266 - (TYP) / \� (TYP) (TYP) -- FOUND MIC, BRASS ' 6 - / 26------------ -- 268 DISK W/'X' PUNCH ---- 5 - -------------------F- - �---- DOWN 0.3' FOUND --- / 10-08-09 / ' SS CO - IE 263.4 C) /268LO ° 2 -+ - L f \ 2=-----EX DOE_ d C:)7 ` ^• --- I I I ,,, I EX TOP'- I' ----- I I I 266 --------r-N-�-� - -- -- ° ° T - ° 7 I p SSCO PRVT6"SIDESEWER(TYP)- SSMH = (�P) �� 6+46i� . A i +00 � 6 r 17 I - +50 5 + � DRIVE �LE � - - I SS IE: 261.6 d 0+89.46 1 I 138' -" 1 % 8" PlyC SSC 21 : 263.0 TW 266.4 N I \ o Fr, 265.9 f WALL - - -r 266 rn \ \ \`• T T 6 Q, 268 -TNI 266.8 5 -- TO FG 266.3 \ �26s: O ��ON 5� 9�� gQ°6 0 \ f - TW 265.5 W 264.9 N 2 ° ZU o °° TW 265.E P0CI BW 265.1 CO / LP ® Z��25 �' - ,Ql SO CB TYPE 2 g� G`� 6 Gj GE 270.33 UNABLE w IE NE xxx.xx 18" PVC 11\ IE E 262.32 30" CP FOUND MIC, BRASS II& OHP IE SW 262.6218" PVC CAP W/ CENTER � IE W 262.12 30" CP SCALE: 1" - 20' PUNCH, DOWN 1.Y S G \ BTM 260.32 - 18012'34" W 0.07' OSSWAL STRIP NG FROM CALC'D WW 4 INTERSECTION 4 FOUND 10-08-09 Z S Ss i SS S SS /� N ss----------------- \�-�� S_ - ------ -SD=- - ----�---------- D I FO ND MIC, TAC w 1 � IN EAD, DOWN 1. ' FO ND 10-08-09 �� 25 30 AD LANDING _ _OHP - _ _ - - 36 31 I � CB TYPE 1 FOUND MIC, BRASS CAP W/ V 10 268 30' R - g a GE 266.90 CENTER PUNCH, DOWN 0.7' S IE NE 263.3018" PVC 11 02306" W 0.08' FROM CALC'D - 14 BTM 261.80 INTERSECTION FOUND 10-08-09 R� x II z LU °o cn �pp •6'6, ° o o 11i N 0 off• 20 cfl r�� 0 � ,m 30' RIW C I jw PROPOSED SADDLE cn I',� SSMH RE 270.8 IE 261.0 g�� pVC SS 1 ADA LANDING -G SDMH GE 270.86 UNABLE TO MEASURE TOO DANGEROUS - 6" G CR - sD v��I' RE 270.00 MH ER AB � TRAFFIC SIGNAL II IE 260.77 (8" N) -POLE W/ 3 HEADS IE 258.94 (24" E/W) ss-(-r�-' -� FOUND MIC CONIC TO MEASURE TOO ,; ' W/ PIN, DOWN 0.5 DANGEROUS N 02 4917 W 0.05 --- C' ... 7 ' �`� /w �G� �50 FROM CALC'D INTERSECTION /I G O o r, ° /; 1 - SS ° 28+�,-- g----�- 264 _ _-_- -\WOW 268 I I I o I f' ROOF INFILTRATION 10';+ (300 SF) Cp �� PROPOSED FH w' o� C) o �C I'v i O / v GRADING - / / „ /' C �9 DAYLIGHT ryco`b 22 ` 'L 20 / (TyP) i / ��`' �`�� O �� rA WATER NOTE: N / ''% �/ J�� S� - 266 _� 36 LF - 12"0 SD �'- ��GG� �G 5� �O SS 10 INDIVIDUAL WATER METERS AND A SINGLE 1" EMERGENCY G GO IRRIGATION METER ON MANIFOLD. "SPAGHETTI O0 PUBIC / a P4 ° SO / SS LINE" TO INDIVIDUAL UNITS. STORM SYSTEM �� , C� © DOWNSPOUT NOTE: END CONC- /' �� WALK , ALL BUILDING ROOF DOWNSPOUTS ARE TO BE KEPT UPGRADE / `�(�> % SS SEPARATE (NOT TIED TOGETHER) FROM FOOTING CB TYPE 2 DRAINS FOR THIS SITE PER GEOTECH / GE 264.44 /y126+50/ RECOMMENDATIONS. FOOTING DRAINS TO BE / 001 IE 256.34 SS DISCHARGED DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC STORM 9�L �', SYSTEM. ( REPORT DATED JUNE 10, 2016, PAGE 9 ADA REFERENCE NOTE: FOUNDATION AND SITE DRAINAGE) FOUND MON IN SCO / ADA STANDARDS: C UTILITY NOTE: / C \ WATER VALVE CASE, .�`b2011 PROWAG (CURRENT VERSION) / \ 2" IP W/ LEAD PLUG. / 2009 ANSI 117.1 (CURRENT VERSION) ALL UTILITIES TO BE FIELD LOCATED PRIOR TO ANY PRC 126+26.58 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. LOCATIONS OF WATER, SEWER / j/' / AND GAS SHOWN ON THESE PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE AND / SS \y / GRADING NOTE: TAKEN FROM AVAILABLE ASBUILT INFORMATION. C) SS / S PRELIMINARY SEE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S REPORT PREPARED BY GEOTEST, DATED JUNE 10, 2016 FOR SITE EARTHWORK INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. APPROXIMATE GRADING QTY's CUT: 700 CY's STRUCTURAL IMPORT: 1,900 CY's GRADING QUANTITIES GENERATED USING CIVIL 3D SOFTWARE TO COMPARE TRIANGULATED IRREGULAR NETWORKS (TINS). A PORTION OF EXCESS CUT MATERIAL WILL BE SPREAD ON SITE. EXPORT IS EXPECTED AND SHALL BE TRANSPORTED TO A SUITABLE DUMP SITE. VOLUMES ARE FOR PERMIT ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE INDEPENDENT TAKEOFF FOR BIDDING. DRAINAGE INFORMATION POLLUTION GENERATING IMP. SURF. 8,810 SF NON -POLLUTION GENERATING IMP. SURF. 9,140 SF DISTURBANCE AREA (INCL OFFSITE): 0.65 AC NEW IMPERVIOUS (ONSITE + 228th): 17,730 SF REPLACED IMPERVIOUS (ONSITE + 228th): 220 SF NEW + REPLACED IMPERVIOUS (ONSITE + 228th): 17,950 SF ONSITE NEW + REPLACED IMPERVIOUS: 16,240 SF ONSITE TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS: 64.3% OFFSITE NEW/REPLACED IMPERVIOUS: 1,520 SF (DRAINS TO EDMOND'S WAY BASIN) W _ _ _ EX WALK G 270 NOTES: O 6' x 8' x V THICK ROCK ENERGY DISSIPATION PAD w/ ASPHALT SPILLWAY THRU 268 CURB/WALL O 8' x 16.5' PARKING STALLS OCONCRETE RETAINING WALL w/HANDRAIL ON WALL, OR OPTION FOR A 4' HIGH FENCE. ® EMERGENCY OVERFLOW VIA CB GRATE, RE = 264.00, IE = 261.2 266 O EXTRUDED CONCRETE CURB © 4" WHITE PAINT LINE O "NO PARKING - FIRE LANE" SIGN ® 30' WIDE CURBCUT PER CITY STDS. MAINTAIN 25DRIVE AISLE FOR 30' MEASURED 264 FROM FOC TO TAPER A/P. O6" CONICBARRIER CURB & S CONCRETE S/W (DEPRESSED LIP OF 0.03, AT DRIVE AISLE CURBCUT) 1 Q ADJUST EX CB FRAME & GRATE AS NEEDED TO MATCH F/L AT FACE OF PROPOSED 262 CURB (PLUG 12" SD SOUTH) _ 11 EXISTING CB(s) & STORM PIPE(s) TO BE REMOVED 12 REMOVE/REGRADE & REPLACE RAMP, LANDING AND CLEAR SPACE BEHIND EXISTING TRAFFIC CURB PER ADA/PROWAG R302, R304, & R305. 13 PROVIDE ADA COMPLIANT END OF WALKWAY TRANSITION TO EXISTING ASPHALT ROAD 260 - SURFACE. 0+00 14 PROPOSED PAD MOUNDED TRANSFORMER LOCATION 15 "NO PARKING" SIGN 16 REMOVE/RELOCATE EX "STOP AHEAD" SIGN 17 STORM TEE CONNECTION TO MAIN LINE 18 RECONSTRUCT LANDING TO BE A MIN OF 4' WIDE x S LONG EXCLUSIVE OF CURB TOP AND MEET WITH CURRENT ADA/PROWAG R302, R304 & R305. GRIND CONCRETE PAD AROUND LIGHT STANDARD BASE AS NEEDED PER 2009 ANSI 117.1 403.5 AND TO MATCH WIDTH AND SURFACE AROUND THE UTILITY POLE AND POLE BASE. 1 19 REPLACE APPROXIMATELY 22 LF OF EX BARRIER CURB WITH NEW BARRIER CURB AND C4 PROVIDE A MIN S x S CONCRETE ADA COMPLIANT "PASSING SPACE" PER PROWAG R302.4. SEE BARRIER CURB DETAIL 1. 20 EXISTING ASPHALT SIDEWALK BETWEEN EXISTING TRAFFIC BARRIER CURB AND 2 EXISTING FENCE CURB TO BE REMOVED PER PLAN & REPLACED WITH CONCRETE. IN ABSENCE OF A FENCE CURB, SIDEWALK SHALL BE 5 FT MIN WIDTH EXCLUSIVE C4 OF CURB TOP. SIDEWALK WIDTH SHALL COMPLY WITH PROWAG R302.3 & R302.4. 21 REPLACE GAPS IN EX CHAIN LINK FENCING WITH SIMILAR NEW FENCE AS SHOWN. 22 CB RE= 263.5, IE = 260.0 EX GROUN 10" EX GROUND- EXTRUDED CONCRETE CURB PLACED WHERE SHOWN ON PLAN 6 COMPACTED DEPTH GRAVEL BORROW U 20.17' 12' LANE 0.5 5' S/W U_ 10' EX 10' EX o ¢o PAVEMENT PAVEMENT LU EX. PAVEMENT ! SAWCUT 1' SLP VAR. 1 VAR.1-5% 1.75% -� --------------- 3" THK ASPHALT 3 COMPACTED DEPTH HOT MIX 3" COMPACTED ASPHALTIC (HMA), CLASS 1/2" DEPTH CSTC 3" COMPACTED DEPTH ASPHALT COMPACTED TREATED BASE (ATB), OR HMA, SUBGRADE CLASS 1" 6" CONC. BARRIER 6" COMPACTED DEPTH GRAVEL CURB BORROW NEW ASPH PVM'T (MATCH EX SLP) CROSS - PAVEMENT SECTION q� 228th ST SW FRONTAGE SECTION N.T.S. VARIES 5-11.8' -10, 10' LANE LANE LANE CONIC - z D/W I LU NEW ASPHALT o PAVEMENT SLP VAR DRIVE AISLE PAVING -3" COMPACTED DEPTH HOT MIX ASPHALTIC (HMA), CLASS 1/2-INCH 3 COMPACTED DEPTH ASPHALT TREATED BASE (ATB), OR HMA, CLASS 1" UNIT DRIVEWAY PAVING 5" THICK CONCRETE -2" COMPACTED DEPTH CSTC COMPACTED SUBGRADE CROSS - PAVEMENT SECTION g PRIVATE DRIVE AISLE SECTION N.T.S. 1+00 B10-RETENTION CELL SECTION SCALE: 1" = 2' V., 1" = 20' H. BENCH MARK: POINT NAME: SC31 FOUND 2" BRASS DISK IN MON CASE, ±6' S OF C/L PVMT IN EASTBOUND TRAY. LANE OF 92ND AVE W. DISK IS 0.7' BELOW PAVED SURFACE. A 4' HIGH FNC COR BEARS S 600 W, 35.9 FROM PT. PP W/ LUMINAIR BEARS S 45° E, 32.0 FROM PT. ELEV: 291.994. LINE MEASURES 1" AT FULL SIZE PLOT IF SHEET SIZE IS OTHER THAN 22"X34" ADJUST SCALE ACCORDINGLY 270 260 1 +47 0 VERTICAL DATUM NAVD88 0 0 O O 0 W 0 W O O F- F- U U W W a a N N O O > > LU 1 r- n N N 00 CM N r REVISIONS Cn Cn In r LO %M CID N W 0 Teti to to Z LU mIS000 tC LU ch a D. Z cm W0y O T W LU H IS Q = N N Lis N V) W �tn Q 0 � 00 a W = N Y 0 Q 0000 0 1261 isTEg�� ti sS � NAL 8/22/201-7 W 0 0 of Z O J - 0 O vj Q z oc a 0 c J 0 0 Q LU W� cc Z LV > C� a Z Er o C Ca Cn (n J LV LU LU GC a DRAWN BY: GTR CHKD BY: MER DATE: 12/07/2016 16-241 Know what's below. Call before you dig. C3 Attachment 4 UNPUBLISHED WORK COPYRIGHT 2015V(HARMSEN & ASSOCIATES INC Packet Pg. 184 2.2.a 270 260 -EXISTING PAVED WALKWAY EXISTING MODULAR BLOC WALL � I I PEDESTRIAq HANDRAIL, i SR 104 ROAD OR 4'HIGF FENCE ON SURFACE TOP OF C DNC. WALL iI iI Lu C� I? �I TW 265.5 DRIVE AISLE UI TW 265.0 FG 265.0 PROPOSED RETAINING WS 264.0 WALL (TYP) II - - - - - -- BOTTO - ---- -- -- - 262.5 1.5' DEPTH 1.5:1 AMENDED SOILS 2:1 BOTTOM 261.0 1310-RETENTION CELL 0+00 BIO-RETENTION CELL SECTION SCALE: 1" = 2' V 1" = 20' H 270 EX ASPH PVM'T EX BASE MTUs NE1/4, NE1/4, SEC 36, TWN 27 N, RNG 3 E, WM, EDMONDS WA REPLACED (NEW) ASPH PVM'T 0+00 1+00 1+90 PRELIMINARY 6" 5.5" (OR AS NEEDED) 11 n 1 /2" R .____� -. rnnno%\ IN AREA OF ADA "PASSING SPACE" 1 CONCRETE BARRIER CURB N.T.S. �v 5 THICK CONCRETE TO REPLACE EXISTING ASPHALT WALK PER PLAN COMPACTED CSTC AS NEEDED (OR EX BASE MTL) COMPACTED SUB- BASE 95% MP IA C C E r [D N 00 C7 co 24 max 610 48 min 1220 24 max 610 FIG. 403.5 CLEAR WITH OF AN ACCESSIBLE ROUTE 2009 ANSI 117.1 403.5 EX ASPH WALK DISTANCE VARIES (4'+ TYP) REPLACEMENT WIDTH TO BE PER PLAN (>4' MIN PER PROWAG R302.3 - EXCEPT FOR PROTRUSION AVOIDANCE PER ANSI 117.1 403.5 AS APPLICABLE) EX BARRIER, OR EX CONC VERTICAL CURB TO REMAIN UNDISTURBED EXCEPT NEAR ADA "PASSING SPACE" (NOT TO EXCEED 2.0%) (TYP) 1.75% SLOPE a a 1 a° ° EX ASPH PVM'T I a 1 ° ° ° 4 d a I ° \ \ VA VAVA/VA�VA/VA/V�/VA/V�/VA/V�/VA/V�/VA/VA/VA/\ 5" THICK CONCRETE EXISTING "CURB" TO REPLACE ON TOP OF WALL EXISTING ASPHALT (WHERE EXISTING) WALK PER PLAN ��iv%vvw�wiv� vvivv�i a v�i EXISTING WALL wlw;vv�wv!!vv��wv� p vvv� COMPACTED CSTC (WHERE EXISTING) AS NEEDED (OR EX BASE MTL) EX BASE MTL's ��<v�wvww,ww,ww,wwwv�� EX SUB -BASE (ALSO SEE FIG. 403.5 ABOVE) ALONG NORTH, EAST & SR 104 FRONTAGE EXCEPT IN AREA OF "PASSING SPACE" 2 CONCRETE SIDE WALK SECTION N.T.S. 4+50 5+00 6+00 6+46 OR J d 11 FZ-711] FN BENCH MARK: POINT NAME: SC31 FOUND 2" BRASS DISK IN MON CASE, ±6' S OF C/L PVMT IN EASTBOUND TRAV. LANE OF 92ND AVE W. DISK IS 0.7' BELOW PAVED SURFACE. A 4' HIGH FNC COR BEARS S 600 W, 35.9 FROM PT. PP W/ LUMINAIR BEARS S 450 E, 32.0 FROM PT. ELEV: 291.994. LINE MEASURES 1" AT FULL SIZE PLOT i --1 0 IF SHEET SIZE IS OTHER THAN 22"X34" ADJUST SCALE VERTICAL DATUM ACCORDINGLY NAVD88 a 0 O O � 0 W W 0 0 U U cc W cc W a a z z O O > W > W cc cc T_ T N n T N N 00 � N r REVISIONS r Ln CC Cr Cp0�0N W 0 � W >m n ti Z W (Dticc ti > 0 0 0 5 (0 Z MMM 5 W <i Z N W' O �Lr u UJ I— H ti Q � Cl) N 00 LL O � Q w �n 'Q o � � � °0 o a W = o Y Q 000 0 L G� co 1261 ss NAL 8/2-22/203-7 J_ V LL o J 0 O 0 O _ IL W 0 J 0 Ln O a W W aW �0 a Cn Cn Z W W J W a DRAWN BY: GTR CHKD BY: MER DATE: 12/07/2016 16-241 Know what's b@IOW. Call before you dig. C4___j 0 to 0 N z J CD a� o: c a� .y m 0 c 0 0 0 co 0 N z J d a� 'L Cu 0 r_ 3 0 W 0 0 m a� m N C d t u R r Q r 3 0 Q. as co to 0 r 0 N z J d 0 0 0 0 N z J d I_ M a Attachment 4 UNPUBLISHED WORK COPYRIGHT 2015V(HARMSEN & ASSOCIATES INC Packet Pg. 185 Lo M UNPUBLISHED WORK COPYRIGHT 2015V(HARMSEN & ASSOCIATES INC Attachment 4 2.2.a a 0 O O 0 a w w O O H H U U w w a a u) cn O O in in > w > w T- N n T N 00 N N T REVISIONS T LO M co w p T Z W mom v cc W C W tC Z �M w c X a U. v Z Lcm y O W T Lu Q = CMN CO V W 0 V) W a O Q s 00 m OC = w N o Y a 000 O L CQ �t 1261 W� ISTVI ass ML 812.21201-7 Ci) C ) o J 0.1 a O v) a o � �o o Z w� �W > a� J w Cn cn a w w DRAWN BY: GTR CHKD BY: MER DATE: 12/07/2016 16-241 Know what's below. Call before you dig. C5 Packet Pg. 186 2.2.acc cc Cl) o In LU V00 ) .cn Cn L) cn C 6 ___j ) NE1/4, NE1/4, SEC 36, TWN 27 N, RNG 3 E, WM, EDMONDS WA 300 300 290P�q 290 280 280 LUI 270 - 270 260 ---------------- 260 0+00 1 +00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 M SECTIONS VIEW VOLUME MAP SCALE: 1" = 20' V.,1" = 20' H. 300 300 �I z 290 ® �, 290 a NI O w �� p o 0 ¢_ �o o� 280 0 ELIEEX 0 w 280 - --- RESIDENCE a EXISTING MODULAR o LU rEXISTING ROAD SURFACE -- --- 7 --- L-------------------------------— -- -- -- -- ---------------- I o0 0 00 0 00 0 00 00 o0 0 ®®® 00 0 WALL 270 ----z=====k ===T-- 000 00 0 0 oo 0o i _ -- j ------------ - - - - - - 00 0 ---- - 260 --------------- ------ 260 0+00 1 +00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 N SECTIONS VIEW VOLUME MAP SCALE; 1" = 20' V., 1" = 20' H. NOTE: EXISTING GROUND SURFACE DATA SHOWN OUTSIDE OF THE PROJECT BOUNDARY IS APPROXIMATE. LINE MEASURES 1" AT FULL BENCH MARK: POINT NAME: SC31 FOUND 2" BRASS DISK IN SIZE PLOT 0 MON CASE, ±6' S OF C/L PVMT IN EASTBOUND TRAV. LANE i ---1 P RE LI M I NARY OF 92ND AVE W. DISK IS 0.T BELOW PAVED SURFACE. A 4' HIGH FNC COR BEARS S 60° W, 35.9 FROM PT. PP W/ IF SHEET SIZE IS OTHER THAN 22"X34" ADJUST SCALE VERTICAL DATUM ACCORDINGLY NAVD88 LUMINAIR BEARS S 45' E, 32.0 FROM PT. ELEV: 291.994. 0 m ® 0 0 I I W � ¢I J d � � rn ❑® ❑® ® ® � II EX BLDG II I � EX RES II N � 1 EXISTING I GROUND � 00 0 0 0 0 0 w w 0 0 U U w w EL a z z 0 0 w w ti T- cm n T- N N � N r REVISIONS r � � N W O uLU p n WZ c~cn0 cc Z In M UNPUBLISHED WORK COPYRIGHT 2015V(HARMSEN & ASSOCIATES INC Attachment 4 Packet Pg. 187 2.2.a GENERAL NOTES The General Contractor is to provide subgrades 4" below hard surfaces plus/minus .1 foot. All rough grading shall be positive, draining away from all structures. All stones larger than 1.5" diameter shall be removed from the growing medium. Topsoil shall be placed at a minimum depth OF 4" in all lawn and bed areas. Topsoil shall be tilled into the existing subgrade to eliminate soil interface problems. All bed areas to receive 2" of fine ground fir or hemlock bark, composition mulches are not an acceptable alternative. Trees and shrubs are to be planted at a depth 3/4" higher than the level that they were grown in the nursery. Bark mulch is not to be placed above the root crown. All plants shall at least conform to the minimum standard established by the american association of nurserymen. Lawn areas are to be hydroseeded per manufacturer's specifications, or approved equal. Remove all stones larger than 1" from lawn areas. Substitutions are strongly discouraged. If plant availability is a problem, contact the Landscape Architect for sources or acceptable alternatives. If the site work is different than shown on the Landscape Plan, or poor soils and debris are discovered, requiring changes to the Landscape Plan, contact the Landscape Architect for instruction. The Landscape Contractor is responsible for maintaining the landscape during installation, until final acceptance by the owner's representative. The Landscape Contractor shall warranty all materials and workmanship for a period of one year, from the time of final acceptance. During the warranty period, the Landscape Contractor will not be responsible for plant death caused by unusual climatic conditions, vandalism, theft, fire, or poor maintenance practices. The Landscape Architect shall have sole authority to determine the cause of death. Plant counts provided are estimates only. contractor is responsible for calculating all final area and counts. IRRIGATION ASSESSMENT ALL PROPOSED PLANTS ARE NATIVE OR NATURALIZED TO THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST AND ARE DROUGHT TOLERANT. NO IRRIGATION IS NECESSARY. TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS ALL VEHICLE TRAFFIC SHALL BE ROUTED AWAY FROM SIGNIFICANT TREES DURING CONSTRUCTION TO AVOID EXCESSIVE SOIL COMPACTION. WHERE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC IS REQUIRED THE SOIL SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH A 10" LAYER OF WOODCHIPS AND/OR PLYWOOD PLACED OVER THE PATH OF THE VEHICLE. THE WOODCHIPS MAY BE REMOVED WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED. ALL SIGNIFICANT TREES TO BE SAVED AND/OR RETAINED SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH A 5' HIGH CHAIN LINK OR PLASTIC NET FENCING PLACED AT TREE DRIPLINE OR 15, FROM THE TREE TRUCK WHICH EVER GREATER DURING CONSTRUCTION. THE FENCING SHALL NOT BE REMOVED WITHOUT THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE CONSULTING ARBORIST OR SITE SUPERVISOR. SIGNS MUST BE POSTED ON THE FENCE READING "TREE PROTECTION AREA". TRENCHING WITHIN TREE DRIPLINES SHALL BE AVOIDED. TUNNELING AROUND PRIMARY TREE ROOTS IS PERMITTED WHEN DISTURBANCE WITHIN DRIPLINES IS NECESSARY. STUMP PULLING OF ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED IN THE VICINITY OF SIGNIFICANT TREES TO BE RETAINED SHALL BE AVOIDED. STUMP GRINDING IS PERMITTED AS NECESSARY. IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO PROVIDE SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION DURING DRY PERIODS WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS, AND MULCHING OVER THE ROOTS OF ANY OR ALL PRESERVED TREES. DRIPLINE OF TREE 5' CH FENCI EXISTI: GRADE TREE PR 0 TECTION FENCING SCALE: NTS 1G TREE TCTION OWED WITHIN 1JtC1rLiAh Ur' TREE. NE 1/4, NE 1/4, SEC 36, TWN 27 N, RNG 3 E, Will EDMONDS, WASHINGTON ,wick N' Teen Car Wash k If Edmonds �i. x= f STOP AHEAD SIGN — I GRAVEL -- -- — ------ DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY 4 W 228th VV ST SW I LEARING LIMITS/ TREE Ss- -SS —SS W — � W ss Ss ss Sses�—s SS ss I ss --PROTECTION FENCING TYP.—_— SS SS S — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — - — ti66/ SD- 268.4 -- -------- --------- ----f - a a ° ° ° ---- ---- -- ° a -SIGN,. �D °SD° Ye P.- Ga CIL k 228th St SW 228th St SVV I Wool Estates VICINITY MAP NTS W - I sS S ss SS SS I, — — D FO ND MIC, TAC SD � � of IN EAD, DOWN 1. ' 3 c SECTION■�— — �' — — — f — • __�_ — — — '� � ." � "- - "• .: • III r " •• CLF POST1 " �1LL�•� i III �. _ •• _ � .. �= ::• ._ �,.� AU 6 ---------- C,OOUNDATI• • MUM \* 1 11 V W N11 SE, \ 0�- I• • V fi � , FO ND 10-08-09 0 OHP—k (j) -XISTI RE _ 268 ��n U) �I o =1 1,13 D CD 228th St Sl Westgate Chapel WIIW -S- -- �------- - — - — - N TREE TO BE V,ED TYP. 0 EX FIRE HYD r i I PROPOSED SADDLE SS RE 270.8 o1E261.0 U) G 6 14 TW 266.8 G r 266.3 - 4 SD ' I W 6" G 266 u' N6' ' s P3 i D TRAFFIC SIGNAL10 � � ° I` , TW 265. � � . ° BSBL I, ; — — B o 265 6 - / / —POLE W/ 3 HEADSz ° w i ° �� c0 / S —SSA �� 2�0 — — ss I SS o ; L14 - _ - i AL S— ° o CO/LP ,' �2625 ° 30- 4 FOUND MIC CONC ° IE262.6 �GpNG 6 / - W/ PIN, DOWN 0.5' P --- f N 0204917" W 0.05' I 50 I FROM CALGD INTERSECTION r ' , A 264.7 I ° d I A\ Ao L2 128+00 _ _ — -- I 264 268 ----------------/ - S C PROP. INFILTRATION { I I / ' I (300 SFy� — I I ° - PROPOSED FH IDF18 G *1011� S� I DF 4 / co / 10 266 — � ' � I P4 ° �° �' \ N 0 20' 40' 126+50� I A ORIGIN DESIGN GROUP 1031 185TH AVE NE SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 TEL 425.346.1905 STATE OF WASHINGTON LICENSED LANDSCAP - CHITECT it K/ YS AL LOWE LICENCE NO. 1206 KEVI51ON5: # DESCRIPTION DATE 1 SITE PLAN CHANGES 4-11-17 2 SITE PLAN CHANGES 8-8-17 3 STORM DRAIN CHANGES 8-21-17 DRAWING TITLE: LANDSCAPE PLAN AFFLICANT: WESTGATE WOODS LLC CONTACT: JOHN BISSELL JOHN@JOHNBISSELL.COM DRAWING INFORMATION ODG PROJECT #: 16-141 DRAWN BY: KL CHECKED BY: KL DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2016 5HEET NO: L = 1 OF 3 acnmen Packet Pg. 188 2.2.a NE 1/4, NE 1/4, SEC 36, TWN 27 N, RNG 3 E, WM, EDMONDS, WASHINGTON LANDSCAPE PLANTING SCHEDULE TREES SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE CONDITION 9 Chomoecyparis nootkatensis 'Pendulo' / WEEPING ALASKAN CEDAR 6' MIN. HT. B&B. 7 Pinus flexilis IVonderwolf's Pyramid' / LIMBER PINE 6' MIN. HT. B&B. 10 Thuja occidentolis 'Smorgaard' / EMERALD GREEN ARVORVITAE 6' MIN. HT. B&B. 5 Amelonchier grondiflora 'Autumn Brilliance' / SERVICEBERRY 1 3/4" CAL. B&B. + 6 Pyrus colleryono 'Chanticleer' / CHANTICLEER PEAR 1 1/2" CAL. B&B. SHRUBS SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE CONDITION 0 10 Berberis thunbergii 'Crimson Pygmy' / DWARF BARBERRY 1 GAL. MIN. CON. GRWN., 3' O.C. 28 Ribes songuineum / RED FLOWERING CURRANT 18" MIN. HT. CON. GRWN., 5' O.C. O 17 Myrica colifornica / CALIFORNIA WAX MYRTLE 18" MIN. HT. CON. GRWN., 5' O.C. O20 Cornus albs 'Elegontissimo' / TATARIAN DOGWOOD 18" MIN. HT. CON. GRWN., 5' O.C. 46 Spiroeo nipponico / SNOWMOUND SPIREA 18" MIN. HT. CON. GRWN., 3 O.C. 6 Carex buchonanii / LEATHERLEAF SEDGE 18" MIN. HT. CON. GRWN., 2' O.C. O 18 Lovondula intermedio / GROSSO ENGLISH LAVENDER 1 GAL. MIN. CON. GRWN., 2' O.C. 26 Sorcococca ruscifolio / SWEET BOX 18 MIN. HT. CON. GRWN., 3' O.C. 28 Nandina domestics 'Gulf Stream' / GULF STREAM HEAVENLY BAMBOO 18" MIN. HT. CON. GRWN., 3' O.C. 11 Physocorpus opulifolius 'Monlo' / DIABOLO NINEBARK 18" MIN. HT. CON. GRWN., 3' O.C. SHRUBS/ GROUNDCOVER SYMBOL QTY BOTANICAL/COMMON NAME SIZE CONDITION * Arctosyophylos uvo-ursi / KINNIKINNICK 4" POTS CON. GRWN., 24" O.C. Rubus calycinoides / CRINKLE -LEAF CREEPER 4" POTS CON. GRWN., 24" O.C. 000000000 * Goultheria shollon / SMAAL 4" POTS CON. GRWN., 24" O.C. * Carex obnupto / SLOUGH SEDGE AND 4" POTS CON. GRWN., 24" O.C. Scirpus mircocorpus / SMALL -FRUITED BULRUSH * HYDROSEED LAWN * CONTRACTOR TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT REQUIRED TO COVER GROUND IN 3 YEARS. NOTE: ALL PLANTS ARE NATIVE OR ADAPTED TO THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST AND ARE DROUGHT RESISTANT. 411 W — SS SS SS ,-STOP AHEAD SIGN GRAVEL DRIVEWAY W I - 411 W ------ W 228th ST SS�SS—SS—S �SS SS ss ss ss ---- S------------- -------------- --- �� - CLF POST 6' BOARD FENCE WITH LANDSCAPING TYPE 11 MODIFICATION T\/nr III 128+00 -- <_--268-80 � 'PROPOSED FH �O 266 J � / � S i 126+50"_� U) 0 - SS — S` 0 G \ EX FIRE HYD I I I � I � I I ORIGIN DESIGN GROUP 1031 185TH AVE NE SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 TEL: 425.346.1905 STATE OF WASH I N GTON LICENSED LANDSCAP CHITECT it K YS AL LOWE LICENCE NO. 1206 KF_VI51ON5: # DESCRIPTION DATE 1 SITE PLAN CHANGES 4-11-17 2 SITE PLAN CHANGES 8-8-17 3 STORM DRAIN CHANGES 8-21-17 LANDSCAPING_ �+50 FROM CALGD INTERSECTION O I UU UU � I � I � I � I DRAWING 1TLF_- LANDSCAPE PLAN N AFFLICANT: 0 20' 40' WESTGATE WOODS LLC CONTACT: JOHN BISSELL JOHN@JOHNBISSELL.COM DKAWING INFORMATION ODG PROJECT #: 16-141 DRAWN BY: KL CHECKED BY: KL DATF_: DECEMBER 13, 2016 0 0 co 0 N Z J d a� c .y d 0 m 0 0 0 0 N Z J a a� U c �a T x N d E O c 3 O N O O CD N a 3 O CL cn to 0 c) 0 N Z J a. 06 0 to 0 0 co 0 N Z J a. d t V R Q 51F_E.T NO: L=2 OF 3 actiment b Packet Pg. 189 2.2.a 2.2.a LO CC N 3r. 22605 N Q 22615 c ti °'22627221 9628 22618 0� 22629 N ti 22628 (i 9713 22710 22711 9709 22718 22719 v �• CD �� S ti N T 22721 c o� N N 228T �? O ??80��0b Cis 2809 96 LO 22804 �o ryryFO ryCo N� LL5"I 22518 22519 22516 — 22517 0 22522 2260 2607 LO LO 22604 22605 coo Cn �60 22608 22609 N 22608 22606 2 2609 22612 22613 22612 22613 22620 22619 22620 22619 22706 22705 22708 22706 22705 ,�'�`O RS-8 Ul) WESTGATE C ACE �o) 9505 PARKING N M ww``Py RM-1.5 vv E /MU O�j O� . , s 0. O �Cn 230031 23001 9 23006 ��'pp OOF W 23009 c LO S�j. � yob O�to Q 23017 N 9529 CP54J 9 `�� N N O^A = 23027 9601 9S0 C§O `tip 40� �, 8 0 9609 Q 96 `95�� '� c�pj `'A '17" t8y1 Zoning and Vicinity Map Westgate Woods Townhomes PLN20160060 - Height Variance PLN20160061 - Design Review Attachment 6 93211 9307 C d E Scale a 1 inch = 200 feet Packet Pg. 191 #P71 2.2.a Y: r n . CITY OF EDMONDS ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Site Development and Design Review West Gate Woods 10 Unit Town House Project PREPARED BY: John Bissell, AICP RMSEN HARMSEN ASSOCIATES, INC. 125 East Main Street Ste. 104 Monroe, WA 98272 360-794-7811 December 19, 2016 HAI Project Number 16-241 �L1�1T� Vj�Eu WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist Attachment 7 guidance updated 2014 Packet Pg. 192 2.2.a A. background 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable: Westgate Woods 2. Name of applicant: Westgate Woods, LLC 2817 NW 94"' St. Seattle, WA 98117 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: John Bissell, AICP HARMSEN ASSOCIATES, INC. 125 East Main Street Ste. 104 Monroe, WA 98272 360-794-7811 4. Date checklist prepared: December 21, 2016 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Edmonds 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): There will be no project phasing. The applicant anticipates building construction will start as soon as the permitting phase is complete. We anticipate the permit processing period will last through mid to late 2017. The bulk fof site development will likely be performed in dryer months, and so construction could be as late as 2018, or 2019. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes, explain. No plans for future expansion. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. ■ Geotechnical report prepared by Geotest • Drainage Report prepared by Harmsen • Critical Areas Investigation prepared by Pentech SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 2 of 16 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 193 2.2.a 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. None known 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. • Site Plan Approval • ADB Approval • SEPA Threshold Determination • Building Permits with associated site development and grading permits • Possible, but unlikely need for an NPDES. ■ ROW permits with the City of Edmonds for connection to water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer. ■ Utility permits with the City of Edmonds for connection to storm sewer • Utility permits with Olympic View Water and Wastewater district for connection to water and sanitary sewer. Hight Variance • The applicant is proposing a Town House or Unit Lot Subdivision that would be subject to a SEPA Threshold Determination. The City is in the process of adopting the ordinance for this Te/_1 process, but the process is incomplete. Due to time constraints, the applicant will apply for the �o code amendment so that the ordinance for a townhouse or unit lot subdivision can be approved in �r7� time for this application. Therefore, the applicant is including a 10 lot Unit Lot Formal - �'� 'j f Subdivisions. This subdivision would be subject tot eh bulk standards and access requirements o the parent lot. Therefore, the site development plans submitted and the answers to the questions L in this checklist also include all the impacts that would be created through such a subdivision. v There would be no changes in access, dedication of public roads, or construction impacts that differ from the proposal as submitted 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 tot, describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on projectIf: description.) a. , The project site area is 25,237 square feet 0.58 acres). The site is currently vacant though there is evidence of a house on the site in the past. The site is bounded on the north east and south by City Streets, with the access on the south side being Edmonds Way (SR 104), a five -lane state highway. The area surrounding the site is developed with commercial to the east across 95' Place West), , single family residential to the north (across 228' St SW) and west, and multiple family uses to the south across Edmonds Way The site is in a depression. The depression is not wet, and the geotechnical report confirms that the site soils drain well. It is clear that the topography of the site and surrounding area has been heavily modified over the past century. There are indications in this location, as well as offsite locations nearby such as the gravel parking lot several hundred feet to the west, and at the intersection of Edmonds Way and 100' Ave W. of past gravel excavation. It is also clear that that the super elevated curve on Edmonds Way raised the elevation of the south property line of the subject property. Thus it is reasonable to assume that the depression on site was created by a combination of these activities. — though it is not known how much of the depression was created by excavation, and how much was created by the elevation of he roadway. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 3 of 16 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 194 2.2.a c �a 0 to O O to r O N Z J d V C R �L 2 E 0 M L0 r 0 0 0 Cu 0 N r C 0 E t V R r-+ r.+ Q t r.+ �3 L 0 NN0 0 'b+ v! r O O O w r O N Z J d Ca O O O O tD r O N Z J d r C d E t V R Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 195 2.2.a The site is vegetated with trees and shrubs. The site is a mix of native vegetation and ornamental vegetation gone wild. The existing topography creates several issues in preparation for development. The first issue is access. In order to access the property, a drive aisle must transition down into the depression and then flatten out at the bottom. And it must to this at a slope that allows for emergency vehicle access and building access. Access also needs to be located in a location that will be safe for vehicles entering and exiting the site. For safety reasons, the only possible access point from 2281h St SE, near the west property line. However, this is also the location with the most difficult access topography. For these reasons, the access never reaches the bottom of the depression creating a fill slope for the access and the building located along the west property line. Because of these topographical problems, access problems and drainage issues, there is not RM site design in which existing vegetation could be saved. The applicant has proposed a landscape plan in compliance with the City Landscape Code to mitigate the loss of vegetation on the site. 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 map, 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 on the south side of 2281 St SW, the north side of Edmonds Way, at the intersection of 9511 PI W. The site is addressed as 9511 and 9513 228`h St SW, Edmonds. The site is located in Section 36, Township 27 N, Range 03 E, WM. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1. Earth a. General de criAof the site (circle one): Flat , hilly, steep slopes, mountainous, other b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? 25% for a rise of 8 feet. 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 agricultural land of long-term commercial significance and whether the proposal results in removing any of these soils. The subsurface materials consist of top soils (duff) over unconsolidated human created fill. Under the fill material that native soil is a sandy gravel consistent with Advance Outwash. (see submitted Geotech report) d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. The geotechnical engineer did not see any surficial indications of instability within or adjacent to the property boundaries (See accompanying geotechnical report) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 4 of 16 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 196 2.2.a e. Describe the purpose, type, total area, and approximate quantities and total affected area of any filling, excavation, and grading proposed. Indicate source of fill. Preliminary Grading calculations indicate approximately 700 cubic yards cut and 1,900 cubic yards fill will be required to construct the proposed project. For the purposes ensuring that the threshold determination addresses the highest possible impact, we are adding a 100% factor of safety for the purpose of SEPA review. Thus we estimate 1,400 cubic yards of cut and 3,800 cubic yards of fill for the purposes of SEPA review. This number is not reflected on the development plans or application forms because the purpose of those plans is to produce the closest estimate of yards to be graded based on the submitted information. The area to be graded is indicated on the preliminary grading plans submitted with this application and shown with clearing limit designations. The grading will include areas required for utilities, roads, storm drainage management and lots as needed. The grading area is approximately 0.5 acres. All grading will be evaluated according to City of Edmonds Standards. Any fill will be from onsite excavation material if suitable. Any import/export will use County -approved sites. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. Erosion is always a concern in site development as grading for access, building sites and utilities will be required. However, the applicant proposes a temporary erosion control plan that will use best management practices to avoid erosion to the maximum extent possible. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? The development plans show approximately 58.5% h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: In the short term, the applicant proposes to use best management practices in their temporary erosion control plan during construction. Construction cannot start until said plan is approved by the City of Edmonds. For the long tern, the applicant proposes to use an engineered drainage system to manage storm water volumes, rates and quality. 2. Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal during construction., operation, and maintenance when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. Air quality may be temporally affected by the operation of heavy machinery on the site during the site development process. This impact would be minimal and temporary. Long term impacts are those associated with the increase population in the southern Snohomish and King Counties urban growth areas, including vehicle emissions of residents and emission from natural gas. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. None known Gj� f SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 5 of 16 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 197 2.2.a c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: None proposed by the applicant. Emission mitigation for vehicles and natural gas are controlled by state and federal law at the time of manufacture. 3. Water a. Surface Water: 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 water body nearby 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. No surface water withdrawals or diversions are proposed. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. The proposal is not located within the 100 year floodplain. 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. IM b. Ground Water: 1) Will groundwater be withdrawn from a well for drinking water or other purposes? If so, give a general description of the well, proposed uses and approximate quantities withdrawn from the well. Will water be discharged to groundwater? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. No groundwater withdrawals are proposed SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 6 of 16 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 198 2.2.a 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. The applicant proposes on site infiltration of stormwater. The water will be cleaned by a system meeting the 2012 (2014 update) DOE Western Washington Stormwater manual. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 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. Water runoff will be in the form of stormwater runoff originating from roads, driveways, rooftops, patios, walkways and landscaped areas. Stormwater will be collected via catch basins and piping, and will be routed to a stormwater management system, that includes stormwater filtration for water quality, and infiltration into the ground. Please see the stormwater construction plans, the attached Stormwater Report and the attached geotechnical report. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. Stormwater will be collected. Pollutants will be removed though a filtration system prior to the stormwater entering the ground. 3) Does the proposal alter or otherwise affect drainage patterns in the vicinity of the site? If so, describe. The stormwater will not alter existing drainage patterns. The existing soil is porous and the existing stormwater infiltrates as the site is in a depression with no outlet. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water, and drainage pattern impacts, if any: Water runoff will be in the form of stormwater runoff originating from roads, driveways, rooftops, patios, walkways and landscaped areas. Stormwater will be collected via catch basins and piping, and will be routed to a stormwater management system, that includes stormwater filtration for water quality, and infiltration into the ground. Please see the stormwater construction plans, the attached Stormwater Report and the attached geotechnical report. 4. Plants a. Check the types of vegetation found on the site: X deciduous tree: _X—evergreen tree: X shrubs X grass pasture alder, maple, aspen, other fir, cedar, pine, other crop or grain Orchards, vineyards or other permanent crops. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Attachment 7 Page 7 of 16 Packet Pg. 199 2.2.a wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? ' c� The development plan is a somewhat high density urban proposal. Therefore, the entire site will need _ to be cleared to allow construction at the required density. (See project description in Section A.11 of . 1 r this document). lz�hQ,;4 "C N c. List threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: The City of Edmonds Code Section 20.13 contains requirements for compatible urban development landscaping. This code section requires the submittal of a complaint landscape plan. Though the landscape code does not specifically require native vegetation on site, the Design Review Board and Staff have been encouraging the use of more native plants and more drought tolerant plants. The applicant's consulting landscape architect has endeavored to use more native and drought tolerant plants where practical. e. List all noxious weeds and invasive species known to be on or near the site. None known. 5. Animals a. List any birds and other animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site. Examples include: birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: raccoons, squirrels, rats. fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other b. List any threatened and endangered species known to be on or near the site. None known b. Is the site part of a migration route? If so, explain. All of the lowlands of the Puget Sound Basin are part of the Pacific Flyway. However, this site provides no special habitat in that migration route. No other migration routes are present on the site. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: None SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 8 of 16 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 200 2.2.a e. List any invasive animal species known to be on or near the site. Eastern Gray Squirrel. Norway Rats. 6. Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed projects energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. Electricity and natural gas will be the energy sources for this project. 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: The buildings will be constructed to the standards of the IBCARC and the Washington State Energy code. 7. Environmental health 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. None known 1) Describe any known or possible contamination at the site from present or past uses. No known past contamination. 2) Describe existing hazardous chemicals/conditions that might affect project development and design. This includes underground hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines located within the project area and in the vicinity. None Known 3) Describe any toxic or hazardous chemicals that might be stored, used, or produced during the project's development or construction, or at any time during the operating life of the project. During construction heavy machinery will operate on site. Fuel will be stored in the fuel tanks of the machinery. After construction the site will be developed with townhouses. Hazardous materials that are associated with residential uses will likely be found on the site including paint, gasoline for lawn mowers, various insecticides and herbicides typical of hone use SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 9 of 16 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 201 2.2.a 4) Describe special emergency services that might be required. No special emergency services will be required 5) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: None proposed b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? Traffic noise from Edmonds Way is audible at the site. 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. Short term bases construction noise from the operation of heavy machinery and from the construction of houses. On a long term basis the site will grenade noise consistent with moderate density multiple family townhouse site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Constriction operations will be limited to typical working hours and construction equipment will be muffled as required. 8. Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? Will the proposal affect current land uses on nearby or adjacent properties? If so, describe. The project site area is 25,237 square feet 0.58 acres). The site is currently vacant though there is evidence of a house on the site in the past. The site is bounded on the north east and south by City Streets, with the access on the south side being Edmonds Way (SR 104), a five -lane state highway. The area surrounding the site is developed with commercial to the east across 95'h Place West), , single family residential to the north (across 228' St SW) and west, and multiple family uses to the south across Edmonds Way The site is in a depression. The depression is not wet, and the geotechnical report confirms that the site soils drain well. It is clear that the topography of the site and surrounding area has been heavily modified over the past century. There are indications in this location, as well as offsite locations nearby such as the gravel parking lot several hundred feet to the west, and at the intersection of Edmonds Way and 100`h Ave W. of past gravel excavation. It is also clear that that the super elevated curve on Edmonds Way raised the elevation of the south property line of the subject property. Thus it is reasonable to assume that the depression on site was created by a combination of these activities. — though it is not known how much of the depression was created by excavation, and how much was created by the elevation of he roadway. The site is vegetated with trees and shrubs. The site is a mix of native vegetation and ornamental vegetation gone wild. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Attachment 7 Page 10 of 16 Packet Pg. 202 2.2.a The existing topography creates several issues in preparation for development. The first issue is access. In order to access the property, a drive aisle must transition down into the depression and then flatten out at the bottom. And it must to this at a slope that allows for emergency vehicle access and building access. Access also needs to be located in a location that will be safe for vehicles entering and exiting the site. For safety reasons, the only possible access point from 228`" St SE, near the west property line. However, this is also the location with the most difficult access topography. For these reasons, the access never reaches the bottom of the depression creating a fill slope for the access and the building located along the west property line. Because of these topographical problems, access problems and drainage issues, there is not RM site design in which existing vegetation could be saved. The applicant has proposed a landscape plan in compliance with the City Landscape Code to mitigate the loss of vegetation on the site. The proposal should have limited to no affect on the surrounding uses. The area is in transition, so there are a number of different types of uses. This project simply adds to that current diversity. b. Has the project site been used as working farmlands or working forest lands? If so, describe. How much agricultural or forest land of long-term commercial significance will be converted to other uses as a result of the proposal, if any? If resource lands have not been designated, how many acres in farmland or forest land tax status will be converted to nonfarm or nonforest use? There is no historical record that this site was a working farm or working forest. 1) Will the proposal affect or be affected by surrounding working farm or forest land normal business operations, such as oversize equipment access, the application of pesticides, tilling, and harvesting? If so, how: It is not likely that the proposal will be affected by working farms or forests. The surround uses suburban or urban residential and the comprehensive plan intends for area to increase in residential density. c. Describe any structures on the site. There are no structures on site. There is a partial foundation on site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? There are no structures on site. There is a partial foundation on site. The partial foundation will be removed. e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? RM 1.5 — Multiple family residential, Density allowed = one unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area.. f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? Edmonds Way Corridor g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? N/A h. Has any part of the site been classified as a critical area by the city or county? If so, specify. No — No portion of the site is a critical area. (See submitted CA Determination) SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 11 of 16 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 203 2.2.a i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? Assuming 2 per residence, the completed project would house 20 people. j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? Assuming 2.5 per residence, the project would eliminate housing for 0 people. k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: _ None L. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: In addition to compliance with the zoning and the comprehensive plan, and the design standards, the City has a Design Review Board charged with reviewing projects for compliance with these standards to ensure compatibility. m. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts to agricultural and forest lands of long-term commercial significance, if any: N/A 9. Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. The proposed project will provide 10 new middle income townhouse units. b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low-income housing. Zero housing unit will be removed. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: None 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? The buildings are designed to be no more than 30 feet from slab to peak. However, due to the need to fill portions of the site, some portion of the units will measure as tall as 35 feet from the original grade as measured by the City height calculations. b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? None SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 12 of 16 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 204 2.2.a c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: None 11. Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur? Street lights, porch lights and automobile lights are the likely sources of light and glare. This light would be produced at night b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? No. 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? N r Parks abound in the City of Edmonds and the sounding area. C E • Elm Street Park 1.0 mile ■ Chase lake Park 1.0 mile w Q ■ Inter -urban trail 1.3 miles ■ Pine Ridge Park 1.4 miles 3 • Lake Ballenger Park, Playfields and recreation area 1.6 miles • Frances Anderson Community Center 1.8 miles ao�i • Edmonds Civic Center Playfields and Skate Park 1.9 miles r • City Park 2.0 miles r • Edmonds Waterfront including o ■ Waterfront Trail 2.4 miles • Brackets Landing Park 2.4 miles N • Marina Beach Park 2.9 miles Z • Richmond Beach Salt Water Park 2.9 miles a- 06 • City of Mountlake Terrace Community Center — o Pool, Gym, Park, Trails and Ultimate Frisbee park 3.7 miles to b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. lO SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 13 of 16 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 205 2.2.a c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: None proposed 13. Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any buildings, structures, or sites, located on or near the site that are over 45 years old listed in or eligible for listing in national, state, or local preservation registers? If so, specifically describe. There are no buildings located on the subject site. The State Department of Archeology and Historic preservation on line data base (WISAARD) shows no indication of historically significant buildings on or near the site. b. Are there any landmarks, features, or other evidence of Indian or historic use or occupation? This may include human burials or old cemeteries. Are there any material evidence, artifacts, or areas of cultural importance on or near the site? Please list any professional studies conducted at the site to identify such resources. No evidence or known landmarks. No studies have been performed. c. Describe the methods used to assess the potential impacts to cultural and historic resources on or near the project site. Examples include consultation with tribes and the department of archeology and historic preservation, archaeological surveys, historic maps, GIS data, etc. The State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation GIS (WISAARD) was consulted. That websitc indicates that the subject site is medium risk for archeological artifacts. However, it appears that this moderate rating is based on existing topography, as the neighboring hillsides have a low risk rating and other areas with lower slopes have the moderate rating. It's important in this case to note that the topography in this location has been heavily modified, both excavated and filled. It appears that this site was used as a quarry sometime in the last 150 years, probably when the demand for logging railroads was very high in the late 1800. After the site was excavated, it was partially filled on two occasions, once when a building was constructed (removed prior to site records), and a second time when Edmonds Way (SR 104) was rebuilt several decades ago. Because of these site modifications the odds of finding archeological artifacts is very low for two reasons: 1 St, the assumptions of archeological finds based on existing topography is not correct because the nature of the existing topography is unknown. 2nd, even if his site had been used by early settlers or native Americans, all evidence will have been removed and destroyed during development over the past 150 years. Also The site also does not list historic buildings on the site. d. Proposed measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for loss, changes to, and disturbance to resources. Please include plans for the above and any permits that may be required. Since there is no evidence of archeological impacts on the site, there will be no additional permitting required. The applicant will keep close watch during construction, and if archeological evidence is found, the applicant will report the findings per State regulations. SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Page 14 of 16 Attachment 7 Packet Pg. 206 2.2.a 14. Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site or affected geographic area and describe proposed access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. The site has frontage on Edmonds Way (SR 104), 228`h St SW, and 95' Place West. b. Is the site or affected geographic area currently served by public transit? If so, generally describe. If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? The site is served by Community Transit bus service with a stop on the Edmonds Way frontage. c. How many additional parking spaces would the completed project or non -project proposal have? How many would the project or proposal eliminate? The project will create a minimum of two parking spaces per dwelling unit an the applcint is also proposing two non -required guest stalls for a total of 22 parking spaces. Zero parking stalls will be eliminated. d. Will the proposal require any new or improvements to existing roads, streets, pedestrian, bicycle or state transportation facilities, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). The Edmonds Way Frontage has an existing sidewalk. The City Code indicates that frontage improvements are required to be installed on 228`' St SW and 95" Pl. W. However, the City Pre- App meeting notes indicate that the City will not be requiring improvements on those streets. Because of these notes, the applicant has proposed no improvements. e. Will the project or proposal use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. M f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project or proposal? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur and what percentage of the volume would be trucks (such as commercial and nonpassenger vehicles). What data or transportation models were used to make these estimates? This project is small enough that no transportation or traffic report is required, and so the applicant has not consulted with a transportation engineer. The current ITE estimates of townhouse traffic varies depending on several factors from less than 6 ADT per DU to nearly (but just under) 10 ADT per DU, with on AM and or PM daily peak trip per DU. In this case ten units are proposed, and therefore the new ADT will be between 60 and 100 trips with 10 peak hour trips. g. Will the proposal interfere with, affect or be affected by the movement of agricultural and forest products on roads or streets in the area? If so, generally describe. Me SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Attachment 7 Page 15 of 16 Packet Pg. 207 2.2.a h. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: Payment of required mitigation fees.. 15. Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, public transit, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. No 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: ec ricE ura wa er use servic a ep o ni ary sewe eptic system, other b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, c and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. 2 Electricity: PUD #1 Natural Gas: Puget Sound Energy Services Water & Sewer: Olympic View Water and Wastewater District Telephone: Frontier Communications r c m C. Signature The above answers are true and corn lete to the best w e. I understand that the Q lead agency is relying t make its Signature: o Name of sig ee John Bissell, AICP Position a gency/Organization Planning Director, Harmsen Associates, Inc a Date Submitted: December 29, 2016, SEPA Environmental checklist (WAC 197-11-960) July 2016 Attachment 7 Page 16 of 16 Packet Pg. 208 of EUA,4''Do N CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 WAC 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Description of proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit multi -family development. The 10 units are proposed in two structures each containing five dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking height variances for each structure due to special circumstance at the subject property. Access to the proposed development will be taken off 228th Street SW. (PLN20160060 and PLN20160061) Proponent: Westgate Woods, LLC Location of proposal, including street address if any: 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA Tax Parcel Numbers: 27033600101400 and 27033600100200 Lead agency: City of Edmonds The lead agency has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and/or mitigating measures have been applied that ensure no significant adverse impacts will be created. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21 C.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 14 days from the date below. Comments must be submitted by Februa 16 2017 Project Planner: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner Responsible Official: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Contact Information: City of Edmonds 1 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 1 425-771-0220 i1 Date: XX t� Signature: You may appeal this determination to Robert Chave, Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020, by filing a written appeal citing the specific reasons for the appeal with the required appeal fee, adjacent property owners list and notarized affidavit form no later than February 23, 2017 . You should be prepared to make specific factual objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals. XX Posted on February 2, 2017 , at the Edmonds Public Library and Edmonds Public Safety Building. Published in the Everett Herald. Emailed to the Department of Ecology SEPA Center (SEPAunit = ecy.wa.gov). Mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. XX Distribute to "Checked" Agencies below. The SEPA Checklist, project plans, location map, and DNS are available at https://permits.edmonds.wa.us/citizen.; Search for file number PLN20160060. These materials are also available for viewing at the Planning Division — located on the second floor of City Hall: 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020. E Q Page 1 of 2 SEPA DETERMINATION DOC 2/1/17 SEPA Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 209 2.2.a Notice Mailed to the following: XX COMCAST Outside rlanl Engineer, North Region 1525 751 St. SW Ste 200 Everett, WA 98203 XX Washington State Dept. of Transportation Attn: Ramin Pazooki SnoKing Developer Services, MS 221 15700 Dayton Ave. N. PO Box 330310 Seattle, WA 98133-9710 XX Tulalip Tribal Council 6700 Totem Beach Road Marysville, WA 98270 XX Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, WA 98124-3755 XX Snohomish County Boundary Review Board Snohomish County Courthouse Everett, WA 98201 XX Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Headquarters Station No. 1 Attn.: Director of Fire Services 12310 Meridian Avenue South Everett, WA 98208-5764 Attachments pc. File No. SEPA Notebook XX Edmonds School District No. 15 20420 68th Avenue West Lynnwood, WA 98036-7400 XX Community Transit Attn.: Kate Tourtellot 7100 Hardeson Road Everett, WA 98203 XX Olympic iew Water & Sewer District 8128228 St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 XX Department of Archaeology & Historic Preservation PO Box 48343 Olympia, WA 98504-8343 XX Puget Sound Energy Attn: David Matulich PO Box 97034, M/S BOT-1 G Bellevue, WA 98009-9734 david. matu lich(a)pse, com XX M. L. Wicklund Snohomish Co. PUD PO Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206-1107 SEPA DETERMINATION D, Page 2 of 2 Attachment 8 Packet Pg. 210 2.2.a FILE NOS.: PLN20160060 and PLN20160061 Applicant: Westgate Woods, LLC DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 2nd day of February, 2017, the attached Notice of Application and SEPA Determination was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant. I, Denise Nelson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 2nd day of February, 2017, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: z' U4_� {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 211 2.2.a FILE NOs.: PLN20160060 and PLN20160061 Applicant: Westgate Woods, LLC DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 2nd day of February, 2017, the attached Amended Notice of Application and SEPA Determination was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 00 State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this 2nd day of February, 2017, at Edmonds, Washington. C Signed: r E r w a w �3 L 0 NN0 'b+ v! {BFP747893 DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 212 2.2.a Notice of Application and SEPA Determination - File Numbers PLN20160060 (Height Variance) and PLN20160061 (Design Review) NOTICE OF APPLICATION Description of Proposal: The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit multi -family development. The 10 units are proposed in two structures each containing five dwelling units. The applicant is also seeking height variances for each structure due to special circumstance at the subject property. Access to the proposed development will be taken off 228th Street SW. Design review projects which trigger SEPA and variance application are both Type III-B decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.0023, the applications are being combined and the hearing examiner will issue the decision regarding both design review and the variance requests. The site is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). Name of Applicant: Westgate Woods, LLC Location: 9513 and 9511 Edmonds, WA, Tax Parcel Numbers 27033600101400 and 27033600100200 File No.: PLN20160060 (Height Variance) and PLN20160061 (Design Review) Date of Application: December 29, 2016 Date of Completeness: January 27, 2017 Date of Notice: February 2, 2017 Requested Permits: Height Variance and Design Review. Notice of Public Hearing will be provided once a date has been scheduled. Other Required Permits: Building permits. Required Studies: None Existing Environmental Documents: Critical Areas Determination, SEPA Environmental Checklist, Storm Water Drainage Report and Geotechnical Report Comments on Proposal Due: February 1.7 2017. Any person has the right to comment on this application during the public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 - 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. Office hours are Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Wednesdays from 8:30 a.m. to noon. Information can also be viewed online through the City's website at https://permits.edmonds.wa.us. Search under permit file number PLN20160060. City Contact: Kemen Lien, (425) 771-0220, kernen.iien cr,edmondswa.gov *SEPA NOTICE ON REVERSE SIDE* Attachment 9 1Packet Pg. 213 2.2.a *NOTICE OF APPLICATION ON REVERSE SIDE* STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA) NOTICE DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Lead Agency: The City of Edmonds is SEPA lead agency for the proposed subdivision (File No. PLN20160060 and PLN20160061). SEPA Determination: Notice is hereby given that the City of Edmonds has issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) under WAC 197-11-340(2) for the above project. Date of Issuance: February 2, 2017 SEPA Comments Due: February 16, 2017 SEPA Appeal Deadline: FebruaEy 23 2017 at 4:00 p.m. Appeals must be filed in writing citing the specific reasons for appeal with the required fee to the City of Edmonds Planning Division, 121 — 5th Ave. N, Edmonds, WA 98020. wa 8 Tx SI� s EAD E DIMWes ?i pl F06r.J { frfiY Mn MtIPGH I A, A- T$ 24N'tv YCLhGI W:. IAC% FCcra+opyA y �• m Rr+r I�FV�NY - I r8 = i 1 1 I 'M' W RW Y ' WE 1UM5 128-50 yd. low san.m�� a� r 'A 9f 0W FFDN CUM YYIENSECTUN W. ,.0 a' W. � � �h*109 _ _ -- c i V s C 0. M W Attachment 9 1Packet Pg. 214 2.2.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Kathleen Landis being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH742153 PLN20160061 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 02/02/2017 and ending on 02/02/2017 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $113.52. ' 1-7 Subscribed and sworn before me on this day of lab n 1 R Notary Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 KERNEN LIEN DEBRA ANN GRIGG Notary Public State of Washington My commission Expires October 31, 2017 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 215 2.2.a c La O O O CID T- O N Z J d CITY OF EDMONDS Notice of Application and SEPA 001edmina0on - O File Numbers PLN20160050 (Height Vartmica) and Review) U PLN2016006% [[Despn NOTICE OF pPFEfCATIDN i5rascrielEon n} Rreeasal: ills applicant i5 proposing to construct a O ftf 10-knit molti•Samity development. The 10 units are propOaed in In�L SUucture$ on contain lag live Ovslling units. The applicant is 3" Seeking height vnrinm"e i for each structure due to special ; Circumstance at the subject property. Access to the proposed rr development will be taken air 228th Sheaf SW. Design review t VJec% which trlpger SEPA; and variance application are both Type I11-6 doclsrons, Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.9. the •� applications are being comYmmd and the hr roring examiner will issue the docislpn regarding both desl n review end Itte vatiance re uasis.The site is local o+l within the RM.I 5 zone {One dwelling y unit per 1,500 square feet ofldt area), baa,2 a} Apor! ht: Wasl ate Wood%; LLC LoCetium 9513 and 9511 Edmonds, WA, d Tex Parcel Numbers 27023Mi01400 and 27033600100200 O Hie No_ PLN2016006D (He hl Variance) and L PLh}261fi0061 (Ds n Review) 17aN {N_Op1i1[ki1t90L Decembor 2016 f7�tQat.�vmpLelan�s: Jbnuary 2i, za17 0 -Qt,1!f JkrF .. Fe➢rutoy 2. 2017 Ri9gpga.S.tod Perlmft Weight Varlonce and Design Reviiww. Notice of P"lle F10ari Will be provided once a date has been sehOddled. inutter Pedrrvts: Building permits. 'a outAred Studies: None EPAEEn..+.'U9M�#.OIOLR.g�C�uumrnlss Critical Areas Deierrninalion, frnlronmCntal Cho(L st. Storm Water Drainage Report and O O Goolechnical Report r .EtWLInty 17. 20t7. Alarson has the rigghl to comment an this IL Pit during the in RuGllc comment perEod, receive notice and pbrlicipblo Ony earin s. and request a copy of the decinfon on the application, The Oily may accept public comments at any time. prior to the ftf closing of the record nl an open romd prodeciston hearing, if any, Dr. it"open retard predeosion hearing is provided, print to the docr5lon on Ina project pdrmll. Cnlyy parties el record as defined In appeal. ECDC 20,07.003 have standing Rm inEllelo an administraltva information on this development application can be viewed or .�. Obtained at Sho City of Edmonds: Development SerylCe-s fn Caparlment, 121 - Slh Ave. N. Edmonds. WA 98D20.OIIice hours Are Mondays. Tuesdays, Thursdays and. Fridays Irom 8:00 a.m. to d 4130 pm., and Wednesdays from 8:30 a.m. to aoan, lnlormaI[on can Oise be viewed online through The City's webslle at E bJlyL�faermiSearch under permit the number PLN20160060. U %lty Contact: Xernen Liars, (426) 771.0220, t4 STATE ENVIRONNMMEEd17TA P I Y ACT (SEPA) NOTICE Q DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE Lg pd Agency_ The Clly of Edmonds Is SEPA toad agencyy for the subdivision [file NOS. PLN20f 0080 and pproppdaed PL N20160001], ,3 .BEApw-.RjMja:Wnn: NollCa Is hereby ggiven ihOl iha 0il99 of o[ ly.4n81flnillcance fDAlS]fDHS] Edmonds has Issued a f?BSOIAaYtiarl0n tinder WAC 197.1 f-340 [21 for thb et)ove "Ocl. 0 Dale of Isstrarlc� February 2, 20t7 Q SEPA.S: 2N7 �1715 Ql(di F0Ctuary 16, 2017 O A sale for (� must bellife6 inn wdtinnriling the specs c reasons appeall with the tequited fee to the City of Sdmonds Planning Division, 121 - 5th Ave. N. Edmonds. WA 98020. r Y J PuCli5hod: February 2. 2017. EUH1411!�3 to O O W r O cV Z J d O O O O tC r O N Z J d C d E t V rt5 Attachment 9 Packet Pg. 216 2.2.a SNC?HCOMFSH C40UNTY ;WL I I PUB1.1C UTILITY DISFRICT NO. l Kernen Lien City of Edmonds 121 5"' Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. Lien: Providing quality water, power and service at a competitive price that our customers value Reference: Westgate Woods District DR Number: 17-029 February 16, 2017 The District presently has sufficient electric system capacity to serve the proposed development. However, the existing District facilities in the local area may require upgrading. Existing PUD facilities and easements may need modifications or relocations at the developer's expense. Any relocation, alteration or removal of District facilities to accommodate this project shall be at the expense of the project developer, and must be coordinated with the PUD in advance of final design. Please include any utility work in all applicable permits. Cost of any work, new or upgrade, to existing facilities that is required to connect this proposed development to the District electric system shall be in accordance with the applicable District policy. The developer will be required to supply the District with suitable locations/easements upon its property for any electrical facilities that must be installed to serve the proposed development. Please contact the District prior to design of the proposed project. For information about specific electric service requirements, please call the District's South County office at 425-670-3200 to contact a Customer Engineer. Sincerely, Edward Pride Interim Senior Manager Planning, Engineering, & Technical Services 1802 — 7511 Street S.W. + Everett, WA • 98203 / Mailing Address: P.O. Box 1107 • Everett, WA • 98206-1107 425-783-4300 • Toll -free in Western Washington at 1-877-783-1000, ext. 4300 • www.snopud.com Attachment 10 Packet Pg. 217 2.2.a "commun'itytransit Kernen Lien City of Edmonds 121 5" Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 February 3, 2017 Re: Westgate Woods, Permit # PLN20160060_61 Dear Kernen: Emmett Heath, Chief Executive Officer Community Transit appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on long range planning projects and current development proposals being considered by our jurisdictional partners. Because local land use authorities have the greatest impact on our ability to provide transit service, it is our policy to evaluate projects for their compatibility with Community Transit's current operations and Long Range Transit Plan to ensure the agency can continue to provide public transportation and services in an efficient manner throughout Snohomish County. Staff is providing the following comments in response to the SEPA DNS issued for Westgate Wood, (PLN20160060_61). 1. There is an existing bus pullout and stop served by Community Transit route 416 (Edmonds — downtown Seattle commuter route). We request a Type 4 Shelter Pad be included with the Edmonds Way frontage improvements for this development. A schematic of the Type 4 bus pad is attached for your reference. If you have questions, please contact Tony Smith, Capital Transit Planner, at Ton .Smith commtrans.or or (425) 348-2303. 2. If construction of the development requires the bus stop be temporary closed, please have the developer work with Dana Osborn, Transportation Supervisor, at Dana.0sborn commtrans.or or (425) 348-7191. We appreciate receiving the SEPA Determinations, but also request being placed on the list for agencies receiving the Notice of Application and/or notice of pre -application meetings. Although many projects will not impact or be impacted by transit, it's much easier to work with the City and developer at the preliminary application stage when improvements are needed. Thank you for considering our request for a transit pad with the frontage improvements for Westgate Woods. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Siti creiy, y'�C ate Tourtellot, AICP Senior Transportation Planner Community Transit Kate.tourtellot@commtrans.org (425) 348-2314 Enclosure cc: Development Review Group, Community Transit 7100 Hardeson Rd. Everett, WA 98203-5834 oh (425) 348-7100 TTY Relay: 711 Attachment 11 www.communitytransit.org Packet Pg. 218 2.2.a From: coopernwelectric(Ebgmail.com To: Lien, Kernen Subject: Fwd: Sepa determination PLN20160060 , PLN20160061 Date: Saturday, February 04, 2017 7:30:59 PM Sent from my Wad Begin forwarded message: From: coopemwelectric&gmail.com Date: February 4, 2017 at 7:27:32 PM PST To: kernen.liegedmondswa.gov Subject: Sepa determination PLN20160060 , PLN20160061 Hello Kemen , I have a couple of concerns regarding the above notice I received today. 1) The Height variance is not mentioned, what is the total finished height of all the proposed structures ? 2) 228th St SW has no sidewalks on either side of the proposed street access and they are not shown in the plan submitted to me . 3) What provisions are to be made at this location to prevent a vehicle from entering these structures via SR 104 ? I have been a resident of his area for 30+ years this corner has had numerous cars leave the road and crash into the exact spot were this project is located, you can visit this area today and see the fence , curb and structures that have been damaged by these accidents . The state has lowered the speed limit with no result. 4) I also see on the site plan that there is one exit stop sign , along with this if sidewalks will be included there should be " no parking " along 228th as these developments have no provisions for additional parking for guests. 5) At the top of 228th St SW and 96th Ave W there is a three way stop , this is temporary and should be made permanent as traffic will increase from North on 96th Ave W. This is a response to the proposed project, I have no issue with this project other then the concerns listed above and would like to be notified for the public hearing Sincerely , Mark Cooper 22628 96th Ave W Edmonds, WA. 98020 Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 219 2.2.a Sent from my Wad c �a 0 0 0 to 0 N Z J d 0 0 C R �L 2 E 0 M L0 r 0 0 0 Cu 0 N r C d E t V R r-+ Q t �3 L 0 N0 0 'b+ v! r O O O w r O N Z J d Ca O O O O tD r O N Z J d r C d E t V R Attachment 12 Packet Pg. 220 C. OF EDMONDS - PLANNING DIVi )N STAFF COMMENT FORM ❑ PW-Engineering Fire ❑ PW -Maintenance ❑ Parks & Rec. ❑ Building Project Number: PLN20160060 PLN20160061 Applicant's Name: WESTGATE WOODS LLC JOHN BISSELL Property Location: 9511— 9513 EDMONDS WAY Date Application Received: 12.29.16 Date Application Routed Zoning: RM-1.5 1.08.17 Project Description: CONSOLIDATED PERMITS FOR ADB REVIEW & HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 10- UNIT TOWNHOUSE IN TWO 5-UNIT BLDGS. If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff. JEN MACHUGA Name of individual Submitting Comments: Title: 1f y V 111 have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECTMY DEPARTMENT so I have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. Ext. 1224 1 w r have reviewed this land use proposal for c E y department and have concluded that IT WnULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT, so l Q have provided comments or conditions below or attached. 3 0 Q. a� r Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Attachment 13 Packet Pg. 221 I 2.2.a I Ci. i OF EDMONDS — PLANNING DIVI.>.JN STAFF COMMENT FORM ❑ PW-Engineering ❑ Fire ❑ PW -Maintenance ❑ Parks & Rec. Building Project Number: PLN20160060 PLN20160061 Applicant's Name: WESTGATE WOODS, LLC, / JOHN BISSELL Property Location: 9511— 9513 EDMONDS WAY Date Application Received: 12.29.16 Date Application Routed Zoning: RM-1.5 1.08.17 Project Description: CONSOLIDATED PERMITS FOR ADB REVIEW a HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR 10- UNIT TOWNHOUSE IN TWO 5-UNIT BLDGS. If you have any questions or need clarification on this project, please contact: Responsible Staff JEN MACHUGA Ext. 1224 Name of Individual Submitting Comments: f W Title: V ul C" C14 c, C-C' Date 1�T��: - �Ij have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD NOT AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT so 1 have no comments. My department may also review this project during the building permit process (if applicable) and reserves the right to provide additional comments at that time. ❑ I have reviewed this land use proposal for my department and have concluded that IT WOULD AFFECT MY DEPARTMENT so I have provided comments or conditions below or attached. Comments (please attach memo if additional space is needed): The following conditions should be attached to this permit to ensure compliance with the requirements of this department (please attach memo if additional space is needed): Attachment Packet Pg. 222 2.2.a IllIH1Ius] M_ 01110LVAI Date: September 27, 2017 To: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner From: JoAnne Zulauf, Engineering Technician Subject: PLN20160060/61— Design Review Westgate Woods Multi Family 9511-13 Edmonds Way Engineering has reviewed the design review application for the proposed multi -family buildings for the location of 9511-13 Edmonds Way. Approval of the design review application shall not be interpreted to mean approval of the improvements as shown on the preliminary plans. The information provided is consistent with Title 18 Edmonds Community Development Code & Engineering standards. Compliance with Engineering Division standards will be verified during the building permit process. The comments noted by the Engineering Division in the memo dated May 25, 2017 and Febuary 7, 2017 have been adequately addressed for design review purposes. A complete waiver request was received September 19, 2017 and is currently under consideration by the Public Works Department. The request is to waive the 5 ft minimum width sidewalk requirement to install the new sidewalk in the same footprint as the existing sidewalk with widths between 4 ft and 5 ft. A determination shall be made before October 5, 2017. Traffic impact fees and general facility charges will be assessed at the time of building permit issuance. Thank you. City of Edmonds Attachment 15 Packet Pg. 223 7/28/2017 Gmail - Westgate Woods 2.2.a Westgate Woods Fisher, Steve <Steve.Fisher@edmondswa.gov> To: ' John@johnbissell.com" <john@johnbissell.com> Cc: "Zulauf, JoAnne" <JoAnne.Zulauf@edmondswa.gov> Hi John, john bissell <jba2llc@gmail.com> Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 4:45 PM Thank you for meeting with me today to discuss the proposed trash collection scenario for the Westgate Woods project. You verified that a trash enclosure would not be necessary as the intent is to have residents subscribe to individual garbage and recycle services. The "hammerhead" layout of the drive aisles on the site plan would provide safe access and egress for the collection trucks to service individual carts. I agreed that you could proceed with this plan and scenario, which follows all of my previous review comments. Steve Fisher Recycling Coordinator Cities of Edmonds & Lynnwood 425-771-0235 Attachment 16 Packet Pg. 224 https://mail.google.com/mail/u/1 /?ui=2&ik=f425adc929&jsver=HFKfDbXmXEw.en.&view=pt&msg=l 5c8a1987cca22b0&q=steve.fisher% 2.2.a III C. I gqV CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020 Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edmondswa.ov DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Project: Westgate Woods Townhomes File Number: PLN20160060 (Variance) and PLN20160061 (Design Review) Date of Report: Se ember 28, 201 0 Staff Contact: K rnen Lien, Sen' lanner Public Hearing: Wednesday — October 4, 2017 at 7:00 P.M. Edmonds Public Safety Complex: Council Chambers 250-5th Avenue N, Edmonds, WA 98020 I. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit townhouse development at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way (Attachments 1 — 5). The 10 units are proposed to be divided between two structures with each with five units in each building. Each townhouse will unit contain a two car garage and an additional two parking spaces on site for visitor parking. The applicant is also seeking a height variance for each structure due to special circumstances at the subject property. Access to the proposed development will be taken off 228th Street SW. Design review projects which trigger SEPA and variance applications are both Type III-B decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.6, the applications are being combined and the hearing examiner will issue the decision regarding both design review and the variance requests. The site is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). II. GENERAL INFORMATION 1. Owner: Westgate Woods, LLC 2. Applicant: Bill Booth, Westgate Woods LLC 3. Tax Parcel Number: 27033600101400 and 27033600100200 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 225 2.2.a IV 4. Location: 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way (Attachment 6) 5. Size: The subject property contains approximately 25,327 square feet. 6. Zoning: The subject property is zoned Multifamily Residential (RM — 1.5) with a maximum density of one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area. 7. Existing Use: The site is currently vacant. 8. Proposed Use: The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit townhouse development at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way. The 10 units are proposed to be divided between two structures with each unit containing a two car garage and an additional two parking spaces on site for visitor parking. 9. Process: Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.003, design review projects which trigger SEPA and variance applications are both Type III-B decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.13, the applications are being combined and the hearing examiner will issue the decision regarding both design review and the variance requests. A public hearing before the Hearing Examiner is tentatively scheduled for October 26, 2017. SEPA THRESHOLD DETERMINATION Review under SEPA is required for this project because the project exceeds four (4) multifamily residential units.. The applicant submitted a SEPA Checklist for the project which is included in Attachment 7. The City of Edmonds determined that the requirements for environmental analysis and protection have been adequately addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive plan adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other local, state, or federal laws or rules, as provided by RCW 43.21C.240 and WAC 197-11-158 and issued SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance on February 2, 2017 (Attachment 8). The City did not receive any appeals of the SEPA determination. PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENTS A "Notice of Application and SEPA Determinations" was published in the Herald Newspaper, posted at the subject site, as well as the Public Safety Complex, Community Development Department, and the Library on February 2, 2017. Notices were also mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. See Attachment 9 for public notice documentation regarding the Notice of Application and SEPA Determination. Three written comments have been submitted on the proposal; from Snohomish County PUD, Community Transit and from Mark Cooper. Snohomish County PUD No. 1 noted the district has sufficient electric system capacity to serve the proposed development; however, the existing facilities in the area may require upgrading. PUD noted any relocation, alteration or removal of district facilities to accommodate this project shall be at the expense of the developer and must be coordinated with PUD in advance (Attachment 10). Page 2 of 15 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 226 2.2.a Staff Response: Utilities will be included on the civil portion of the building permit and it will be the responsibility of the developer to coordinate with PUD. Community Transit noted the existing bus pull out on Edmonds Way and requested a Type 4 Shelter Pad be included with frontage improvements. Community Transit also requested the developer contact them if the bus stop must be temporarily closed during construction (Attachment 11). Staff Response: The applicant has proposed replacing the existing sidewalk with a four foot wide sidewalk and there is not enough space for a shelter pad to be constructed. It will be the applicant's responsibility to contact Community Transit if the bus stop has to be temporarily closed during construction. Mr. Cooper submitted comments during the Notice of Application and SEPA comment period with five specific questions regarding 1) information in the notice, 2) frontage improvements on 228t", 3) safety of the site on the corner of Edmonds Way, 4) parking along 2281n, and 5) the three way stop at 228tn Street SW and 96t" Avenue W (Attachment 12). Staff Response: 1) Mr. Cooper mentioned there was no mention of the variance in the 0 Notice of Application and SEPA Notice. The requested height variance was noted in the Notice of Application and SEPA notice (Attachment 9). 2) The original application did not include sidewalks on 228t". Subsequent submittals provide for a new side walk on 228tn Street SW as well as sidewalk improvements along 96t" Avenue W and Edmonds Way. 3) Washington State Department of Transportation and the City of Edmonds have been r working on making improvements for traffic safety along Edmonds Way. It is not the E developer's responsibility to provide any additional safety features on this corner. The development will be taking access to the site off 228tn Street SW. 4) There will be no on- .2 street parking along 228t" Street. The applicants have provided parking on site consistent with the City's parking standards and have provided an additional two space above the 3 parking requirements for guest parking. 5) The three way stop at 228tn Street SW and L 0 96t" Avenue is not a temporary feature and will remain. r V. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE This application was reviewed by Snohomish County Fire District #1, the Building Division and the Engineering. Neither Snohomish County Fire District nor the Building Division had any comments on the proposal (Attachments 13 - 14). The Engineering Division preliminarily approves the design of the proposed development noting the information provided is consistent with the Engineering standards of Title 18 ECDC (Attachment 15). Approval of the design review phase of the project does not constitute approval of the improvements as shown on the submitted plans. Compliance with Engineering Division standards will be verified during the building permit process. At the time of the drafting of this staff report, the Engineering Division is considering a Page 3 of 15 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 227 2.2.a request to waive the five foot sidewalk width requirement. A decision on this request should be made by the October 4th ADB meeting. The sidewalk width should not have any impact on the overall site design of the proposed project. VI. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan designation for the site is "Edmonds Way Corridor." Commercial Development Goal E. The Edmonds Way Corridor consists of portions of Edmonds Way between the 100th Avenue West intersection and Highway 99. This corridor serves as a key transportation corridor, and also provides a key link between Edmonds and Interstate 5. Established residential areas lie on both sides of the corridor. An established pattern of multiple family residential development lies along much of the corridor, while small-scale businesses can be found primarily near intersections. A major concern is that the more intensive development that occurs along the corridor should not interfere with the flow of through traffic or intrude into adjoining established communities. E.1 Permit uses in planned multiple family or small-scale business developments that are designed to minimize contributing significantly to traffic congestion. E.2 Provide for transit and pedestrian access to development. E.3 Use design review to encourage the shared or joint use of driveways and access points by development onto SR-104 in order to support the movement of traffic in a safe and efficient manner. Site access should not be provided from residential streets unless there is no feasible alternative. E.4 Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family neighborhoods, use design techniques such as the modulation of facades, pitched roofs, stepped -down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide designs compatible with single family development. Make use of natural topography to buffer incompatible development whenever possible The current project is subject to General Design Review as outlined in Chapter 20.11 ECDC. One of the findings required by ECDC 20.11.020 is that the proposal is consistent with the design guidelines provided in the Urban Design Chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Below is a detailed analysis on how the proposal complies with the goals and objectives for site design, building form, and building facade contained in the Comprehensive Plan's Urban Design Chapter. Comprehensive Plan Urban Design Objectives Design Objectives for Site Design. The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts with its site and its surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent Page 4 of 15 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 228 2.2.a development, reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive and coherent physical environment. A.1 Vehicular Access. Reduce the numbers and width of driveways (curb cuts) in order to improve pedestrian, bicycle and auto safety. Staff Findings: The subject property is a corner lot with frontage on three streets; 228th Street SW, 95th Place W, and Edmonds Way (SR-104). Access to the site will be via a single driveway accessed off 228th Street SW. The driveway is placed as far west of the intersection of 228th Street SW and 95th Place W as possible which provides the safest access point to the property from the adjacent streets. A.2 Layout of Parking. Locating buildings in proximity to the street to facilitate direct pedestrian access and help define the street edge. Parking should be placed to the side and rear. Staff Findings: The property is a corner lot with three street frontages. The buildings are placed near the street setback lines. The majority of the parking will be located within the two car garages provided with each unit. Two additional parking spaces are being provided for guest parking outside the setback and adjacent to the biorention cell along the Edmonds Way frontage. A.3 Connections On- and Offsite. Design site access and circulation within and between sites to encourage linkages for pedestrians, vehicles, and bicycles. Special attention should be paid to providing and improving connections to transit. N r Staff Findings: Sidewalks will be added along 228th Street SW which will wrap around the property to Edmonds Way and provide direct access to the transit stop along the south side of the property on Edmonds Way. Additionally, 228th Street SW is identified as a minor arterial just east of the site and improvements to 228th Street SW corridor provide Q a direct access to the Montlake Terrace Interstate-5 transit center. 3 A.4 Building Entry Location. Building entries should be configured to provide clear entry o points to buildings, be oriented to pedestrian walkways/pathways, and support the overall intent of the streetscape environment. Space at the entry for gathering or seating is desirable for residential or mixed use buildings. in Staff Findings: Entry to the individual units is from the internal drive aisle for the o development. Topography makes it difficult to provide direct connections to the o CN pedestrian walkways on the adjacent streets. No gathering space is intended for the z development. a. A.5 Setbacks. Create and maintain the landscape and site characteristics of each neighborhood area and provide a common street frontage tying each site to its neighbor. Setbacks should be appropriate to the desired streetscape, providing for transition areas between public streets and private building entries where a variety of activities and amenities can occur. Page 5 of 15 Attachment 17 1Packet Pg. 229 2.2.a Staff Findings: Project meets the setbacks requirements for the zone and landscaping is provided within and around the perimeter of the development consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC. A.6 Open Space. For residential settings, create green spaces to enhance the visual attributes of the development and provide places for interaction, play, seating, and other activities. Staff Findings: The perimeter of the property is landscaped which will provide some green spaces. While this landscaping will enhance the visual attributes of the site, it is not intended to provide places for interaction, play, seating or other activities. A.7 Building/Site Identity. Improve pedestrian access and way finding by providing variety in building forms, colors, materials and individuality of buildings. Staff Findings: Both of the buildings have a similar design and color scheme. Each building is a three story building with a garage on the ground floor and living space above. Each townhouse unit is identified by a slightly different color than the adjacent unit. The addition of the sidewalk along 228th Street SW and sidewalk improvements along 951n Place W and Edmonds Way will help improve pedestrian access. A.8 Weather Protection. Provide covered walkways and entries for pedestrian weather protection. Staff Findings: Covered entries for each unit are provided. A.9 Lighting. Provide adequate and appropriate illumination in all areas used by automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians — including building entries, walkways, parking areas, circulation areas and other open spaces — to support activity and security. Staff Finding : No lighting details were provided in the application materials. The applicants have been advised that they should be prepared to discuss lighting at the ADB meeting. A.10 Signage. Encourage signage that provides clear information and direction for properties and businesses while preventing the streetscape from becoming cluttered. Encourage the use of graphics and symbols in signage to support the city's emphasis on uniqueness and the arts. Staff Findings: No signage proposed at this time. A.11 Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical Systems. Minimize the noise, odor and visual impacts of utility systems using such features as landscaping, building forms, or integrated design. Staff Findings: No trash enclosure is proposed for the development as the intent is to have residents subscribe to individual garbage and recycle services (Attachment 16). A transformer will be placed on the west side of the driveway at the entrance to the site and generally screened with landscaping. Page 6 of 15 Attachment 17 1Packet Pg. 230 2.2.a A.12Integrating Site Features. Integrate natural landscape features and unique landforms — such as rocky outcroppings or significant trees — into site design whenever possible. Staff Findings: No significant features exist on the site. A.13 Landscape Buffers. Use landscaping and/or other features such as fences to maintain privacy and create a visual barrier between incompatible uses. These buffering techniques should also be used to soften hard edges (such as the perimeters of parking lots) and reinforce pedestrian ways and circulation routes. Native plants and rain gardens should be promoted as alternatives to lawns and runoff retention areas. Staff Findings: Landscaping is provided consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC. See the discussion on landscaping in Section 7.D below. Design Objectives for Building Form. Building height and modulation guidelines are essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance with policies in the city's Comprehensive Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views to the mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form. A.14 Building Form. Encourage new construction to avoid repetitive, monotonous building forms. Staff Findings: The proposed buildings are not repetitive or monotonous. A.15 Massing. Reduce the apparent bulk and mass of buildings by encouraging human scale elements in building design and/or by subdividing building masses vertically or horizontally. Staff Findings: Bulk and mass of the buildings are reduced through use of materials, colors, and building form subdividing the buildings both vertically and horizontally. A.16 Roof Modulation. Use roof forms to help identify different programs or functional areas within the building and support differentiation of building form and massing. Roof design, in combination with wall modulation, can allow for additional light to enter buildings or pedestrian spaces. Staff Findings: The gabled ends of the roof help identify the separate units within the two buildings and provide modulation to the overall roof form. A.17 Wall Modulation. Variation in materials, decorative elements, or other features should be employed to support pedestrian scale environments and streetscapes, or to help break up large building masses to keep in scale with the surrounding environment. Staff Findings: The proposed buildings provide variation in colors, materials and projections that help break up the masses of the buildings both vertically and horizontally. Page 7 of 15 Attachment 17 1Packet Pg. 231 2.2.a Design Objectives for Building Facade. Building facade objectives ensure that the exterior of a building — the portion of a building that defines the character and visual appearance of a place — is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds. A.18 Building Facade Design. Encourage building fagades that reinforce the appearance and consistency of streetscape patterns while supporting diversity and identity in building design. Staff Findings: The subject property is the only property zoned for multifamily development along on this block of 228th Street SW (Attachment 6). The existing development on this block consists of single family residences. The townhouses will add diversity of design to the streetscape while the scale of the buildings and there location below the street elevation will fit in with the character of the neighborhood. A.19 Window Variety and Articulation. Use window size and placement to help define the scale and character of the building. Use the organization and combinations of window types to reinforce the streetscape character or to provide variation in a facade, as well as provide light and air to the building interior. Staff Findings: Windows are typical of residential development. The windows help provide variation to the facade and should provide light and air into the interior of the residences. A.20 Variation in Facade Materials. Employ variation in materials, colors or design elements on building fagades to help define the scale and style of the structure. Variation in facade materials can help reduce the apparent bulk of larger buildings while allowing variety and individuality of building design. Staff Findings: The proposed buildings provide variation in colors, materials and projections that help break up the bulk of the buildings both vertically and horizontally. VII. DEVELOPMENT CODE A. Chapter 16.30 ECDC - Multi -Family Residential Zone: The subject property is located with the Multifamily Residential (RM-1.5) zone and subject to the development standards of Chapter 16.30 ECDC. ECDC 16.30.010 Uses Staff Findings: Multiple dwellings is a permitting primary use pursuant to ECDC 16.30.010.A.1, so the proposed development is consistent with the allowed uses of the RM1.5 zone. Page 8 of 15 Attachment 17 1Packet Pg. 232 2.2.a ECDC 16.30.030 Development Standards Minimum Lot Area Minimum Subdistrict per Street Dwelling Setback Unit (Sq. Ft.) Minimum Side Setback Minimum Maximum Rear Height Setback Maximum Coverage RM-1.5 1,500 15' 10, 15' 25" 45% ' Roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. Staff Findings — Density: The subject property contains 25,237 square feet of lot area. With a density of one dwelling unit for every 1,500 square feet of lot area, a maximum of 16 dwelling units can be constructed. The proposal is for 10 dwelling units among two structures so the proposal is consistent with the density requirements of the RM- 1.5 zone. Staff Findings — Setbacks: The subject property is a corner lot with street setbacks on three sides (north, south and east) and side setbacks along the western property boundary. The development site currently consists of two parcels. Building B would straddle the property boundary of these parcels. In order to comply with setbacks, either a lot line adjustment must be applied for to combine the lots, or alternatively, the applicants may apply for a unit lot subdivision to create fee simple units for the townhouses. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the structures, the applicant must either complete a lot line adjustment or apply for a unit lot subdivision consistent with the requirements of ECDC 20.75.045. Staff has added a proposed condition of approval to address the lot line and setback issue. As proposed, both of the structures are compliant with the required zoning setback requirements for the exterior of the development site (meeting the street setbacks and the side setback for the eastern property boundary). As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with the setback requirements of the RM-1.5 zone. Staff Findings — Height: The applicant is seeking a height variance for both of the proposed building due to special circumstances with the property related to shape, size, topography and the location of the site. The Hearing Examiner will review the variance criteria and make a decision regarding the requested variance. In short the site is essentially down in a hole and fill will be required in order to provide adequate driveway slope into the property and provide appropriate slope for connections to utilities in the adjacent right-of-ways. Since height is measured from the average grade of the undisturbed soil, this negatively impacts the potential heights of the structure. The proposed buildings are designed to be 30 feet in height from finished grade. A design aspect of the height standards in ECDC 16.30.030 is that the roof only may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater. So above the Page 9 of 15 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 233 2.2.a 25 foot elevation, the roof must have 4:12 pitch. The proposed buildings have been designed with a 4:12 pitch above the 25-foot elevation of the buildings. Staff Findings — Coverage: ECDC 21.15.110 defines coverage as the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members or from a point two and one-half feet in from the outside edge of a cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area. The application notes a building ground coverage of 8,160 square feet for a coverage of 32.33% of the 25,237 square foot lot. The proposal is consistent with the coverage requirements of the RM-1.5 zone. B. ECDC 17.50.020 — Off -Street Parking Regulations Off-street parking requirements for multifamily developments are detailed in the table in ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b. The table below provides the parking requirements of ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b along with the number of units of each dwelling unit type of the number of required parking spaces. Type of multiple dwelling unit Studio 1 bedroom 2 bedrooms 3 or more bedrooms i Required parking spaces per dwelling unit 1.2 1.5 Number of units in proposal Ft FE 1.8 1 0 2.0 1 10 Total Spaces Required Number of parking spaces required [J 9 The proposal provides 22 parking spaces. Each of the proposed townhouse units contains a two car garage and there are an additional two parking spaces for guests on the internal drive aisle. The proposal is consistent with the off-street parking requirements of Chapter 17.50 ECDC. C. Chapter 20.11 ECDC — General Design Review ECDC 20.11.010 requires the ADB to review general design review applications that trigger SEPA. ECDC 20.11.030 lists the criteria for Building Design and Site Treatment that must be met. ECDC20.11.030.A Building Design. No one architectural style is required. The building shall be designed to comply with the purposes of this chapter and to avoid conflict with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. All elements of building design Page 10 of 15 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 234 2.2.a shall form an integrated development, harmonious in scale, line and mass. The following are included as elements of building design: 1. All exterior building components, including windows, doors, eaves, and parapets, Staff Findings: Building components are harmonious with the existing character of the nearby area. 2. Colors, which should avoid excessive brilliance or brightness except where that would enhance the character of the area, Staff Findings: The proposed colors scheme avoids excessive brilliance or brightness (Attachment 3). 3. Mechanical equipment or other utility hardware on the roof, grounds or buildings should be screened from view from the street level, Staff Findings: A transformer will be placed on the west side of the driveway at the entrance to the site and generally screened with landscaping. 4. Long, massive, unbroken or monotonous buildings shall be avoided in order to comply with the purposes of this chapter and the design objectives of the comprehensive plan. Staff Findings: The proposed buildings provide variation in colors, materials and projections that help break up the bulk of the buildings both vertically and horizontally. 5. All signs should conform to the general design theme of the development. Staff Findings: The proposed development does not currently propose any signage. Any signage will be reviewed under a subsequent building permit application. ECDC 20.11.030.8 Site Treatment. The existing character of the site and the nearby area should be the starting point for the design of the building and all site treatment. The following are elements of site treatment: 1. Grading, vegetation removal and other changes to the site shall be minimized where natural beauty exists. Large cut and fill and impervious surfaces should be avoided. Staff Findings: The development site sites down in a hole relative to the surrounding area. Significant fill will be required to develop the site and meet driveway slope requirements and provide utility connections to the utilities in the right-of-way. This is part of the reason for the variance request associated with this development which will be heard before the Hearing Examiner. 2. Landscape treatment shall be provided to enhance the building design and other site improvements. Page 11 of 15 Attachment 17 1Packet Pg. 235 2.2.a Staff Findings: Landscaping consistent with the requirements of Chapter 20.13 ECDC is being provided with the development. See the discussion on landscaping o requirements in Section 7.D below. o 3. Landscape treatment shall be provided to buffer the development from N surrounding property where conflict may result, such as parking facilities near yard z spaces, streets or residential units, and different building heights, design or color. a Staff Findings: Landscaping is being provided consistent with Chapter 20.13 ECDC and as will provide buffers from surrounding properties. 4. Landscaping that could be damaged by pedestrians or vehicles should be protected by curbing or similar devices. Staff Findings: Landscaping adjacent to the internal drive aisle will be protected by E curbing. 0 5. Service yards, and other areas where trash or litter may accumulate, shall be c o screened with planting or fences or walls which are compatible with natural materials. U) 'D 0 Staff Findings: No trash enclosure is proposed for the development as the intent is to 0 have residents subscribe to individual garbage and recycle services (Attachment 16). a a� 6. All screening should be effective in the winter as well as the summer. Staff Findings: The landscaping requirements in Chapter 20.13 ECDC for the perimeter include a mix of evergreen and deciduous species that will be effective in screening the site year round. E 7. Materials such as wood, brick, stone and gravel (as opposed to asphalt or concrete) Q maybe substituted for planting in areas unsuitable for plant growth. Staff Findings: Not applicable. 3 L 8. Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security. Excessive 0 brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible with the overall in design theme. Staff Findings: No lighting details were provided in the application materials. The 0 to applicants have been advised that they should be prepared to discuss lighting at the N ADB meeting. a ECDC 20.11.030(C) Other Criteria. 06 0 1. Community facilities and public or quasi -public improvements should not conflict co with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. c Staff Findings: The proposed building is not a community facility. N a 2. Street furniture (including but not limited to benches, light standards, utility poles, c newspaper stands, bus shelters, planters, traffic signs and signals, guardrails, E Page 12 of 15 Attachment 17 1Packet Pg. 236 2.2.a rockeries, walls, mail boxes, fire hydrants and garbage cans) should be compatible with the existing and planned character of the nearby area. Staff Findings: No specific street furniture is proposed or required. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the design standards of ECDC 20.11.030. D. Chapter 20.13 ECDC — Landscape Requirements Chapter 20.13 ECDC contains specific landscaping requirements for new developments, which the ADB and Hearing Examiner are allowed to interpret and modify according to ECDC 20.13.000. Two types of landscaping are required for the proposed develop. Type II landscaping is required along the western property boundary to buffer the site from the adjacent single family property and Type III landscaping is required along the northern, eastern, and southern property boundaries. ECDC 20.13.030 provides the requirements for each landscaping type. Type 11 Landscaping. Type 11 landscaping is intended to create a visual separation between similar uses. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 30 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 20 feet on center, and 2. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height and other plant materials, planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. .. N Staff Findings: Landscaping generally consistent with the Type II landscaping requirements is proposed (Attachment 5). The trees proposed for the Type II E landscape trees are emerald green arborvitae. The Type II landscaping area is also r back by a six-foot board fence. Arborvitae a typically used more as a hedge than trees, Q but the arborvitae together with the fence, shrubs and ground cover will create a w visual separation between the subject property and the adjacent single family 3 L property. Pursuant to ECDC 20.13.000, the ADB and Hearing Examiner are allowed to Q. interpret and modify the landscaping requirements. Staff feels the proposed W landscaping along the western property is consistent with intent of Type II r landscaping. r Type 111 Landscaping. Type 111 landscaping is intended to provide visual separation of uses from streets, and visual separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and building elevations. 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 30 feet on center, and 2. If planted to buffer a building elevation, shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover planted so that the ground will be covered within three years; or Page 13 of 15 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 237 2.2.a 3. If planted to buffer a parking area, access, or site development other than a building, any of the following alternatives may be used unless otherwise noted: a. Shrubs, a minimum of three and one-half feet in height, and living ground cover must be planted so that the ground will be covered within three years. b. Earth -mounding, an average of three and one-half feet in height, planted with shrubs or living ground cover so that the ground will be covered within three years. This alternative may not be used in a downtown or waterfront area. c. A combination of earth mounding, opaque fences and shrubs to produce a visual barrier at least three and one-half feet in height. Staff Findings: Landscaping consistent with the requirements of Type III landscaping is provided along the northern, eastern and southern property boundaries. Staff finds the proposal is consistent with the intent and requirements of the landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13. VIII. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to ECDC 20.11.020, when approving proposed development applications, the ADB is required to find that the proposed development is consistent with the criteria listed in ECDC 20.11.030 (General Design Review), the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning ordinance. Based on the findings, analysis, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff recommends that the ADB recommend APPROVAL of the design for the proposed Westgate Woods Townhomes to the Hearing Examiner, file PLN20160061, with the following conditions: 1. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE STRUCTURES, THE APPLICANT MUST EITHER COMPLETE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OR APPLY FOR A UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ECDC 20.75.045. IX. PARTIES OF RECORD City of Edmonds 121— 51h Ave N. Edmonds, WA 98020 John Bissell Harmsen Associates 125 East Main Street Monroe, WA 98272 Bill Booth Westgate Woods LLC 2817 NW 941h St Seattle, WA 98117 Mark Cooper 22628 — 96th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98020 Page 14 of 15 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 238 2.2.a X. ATTACHMENTS 1. Land Use Application 2. Application Cover Letter 3. Architectural Plans 4. Preliminary Civil Plans 5. Landscape Plan 6. Zoning and Vicinity Map 7. SEPA Checklist 8. SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance 9. Public Notice Documentation 10. Snohomish County PUD Letter 11. Community Transit Letter 12. Mark Cooper Email 13. Snohomish County Fire District No. 1 Comment Form 14. Building Division Comment Form 15. Engineering Division Preliminary Design Approval 16. Steve Fisher, City of Edmonds Recycling Coordinator, Email Page 15 of 15 Attachment 17 Packet Pg. 239 2.2.a BASED ON THE FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED PORT OF EDMONDS MARINE RETAIL BUILDING TO THE HEARING EXAMINER (PLN20170029 AND PLN20170030) WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND OTHER UTILITY HARDWARE ON THE ROOF, GROUNDS, OR BUILDINGS SHALL BE SCREENED TO MITIGATE VIEW IMPACTS FROM STREET LEVEL. SCREENING COULD INCLUDE THE USE OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, LANDSCAPING AND/OR FENCING. 2. STREET TREES SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3 INCHES IN CALIPER SPECIES, LOCATION AND SPACING OF THE STREET TREES WILL BE DETERMINED DURING CIVIL PLAN REVIEW WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION. 3. IF A TRASH/RECYCLING COLLECTION AREA IS ADDED TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITE, IT SHOULD BE PROVIDED IN A GATED TRASH ENCLOSURE TO SCREEN VIEW OF THE WASTE AND RECYCLING CONTAINERS. BOARD MEMBER GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATION: WESTGATE WOODS TOWNHOMES DESIGN REVIEW RECOMMENDATION (PLN20160061) AND VARIANCE APPLICATION (PLN20160060) Mr. Lien advised that the applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit townhouse development at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way. The ten units are proposed to be divided between two structures, each with five units. The applicant is also seeking a height variance for each structure due to special circumstances at the subject property. He explained that design review projects that trigger State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review and variance applications are both Type III-B decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.B, the applications are being combined. The Architectural Design Board will forward a recommendation to the Hearing Examiner regarding design, and the Hearing Examiner will issue the decision regarding both design and the variance request. Mr. Lien provided an aerial view of the subject parcels, noting that the properties are zoned Multi -Family Residential (RM-1.5). He explained that the subject site is a corner lot, with frontage on three sides: 228" Street Southwest on the north, 95' Place West on the east, and Edmonds Way on the south. Access to the site will be via a single driveway accessed off 228' Street Southwest. The proposed buildings meet all of the setback requirements for the RM-1.5 zone. Mr. Lien advised that the height limit in the RM-1.5 zone is 25 feet, with an additional 5 feet if all portions of the roof above 25 feet have a 4:12 pitch or greater. The applicant is seeking a height variance for both of the proposed buildings due to special circumstances related to shape, size, topography and location. The site is essentially down in a hole and fill will be required in order to provide adequate driveway slope into the property and appropriate slope for connection to utilities in the adjacent rights -of -way. Since height is measured from the average grade of the undisturbed soil, this negatively impacts the potential height of the buildings. The proposed structures are designed to be 30 feet in height from finished grade, and the project is designed to have a 4:12 pitched roof above the 25-foot elevation of the building. Mr. Lien said the parking requirement for 3-bedroom units is two spaces per unit. The proposal actually identifies 22 parking spaces, two in the garages of each individual unit, and two additional surface parking spaces for guests on the internal drive aisle. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the off-street parking requirements in ECDC 17.50. Mr. Lien noted that Type III landscaping is required around the perimeter of the site, and Type II landscaping is required c along the western boundary. There is existing vegetation on site that will have to be removed to accommodate E development. The applicant is proposing to plant Emerald Green Arborvitae along the western boundary, which will be Architectural Design Board Meeting .r Minutes of Special Meeting Q October 18, 2017 Page 8 of l l Attachment 18 Packet Pg. 240 2.2.a backed by a 6-foot board fence. Arborvitae is typically used more as a hedge than trees, but together with the fence, shrubs and ground cover, staff believes it will create a visual separation between the subject property and the adjacent single-family property. Pursuant to ECDC 20.13.000, the Board and Hearing Examiner are allowed to interpret and modify the landscaping requirements, and staff feels the proposed landscaping along the western property is consistent with the intent of the Type H landscaping standards. Staff also recommends that the Type III landscaping provided along the northern, eastern and southern property boundaries is consistent with the requirements of the Type III landscape standards. Mr. Lien concluded that staff is recommending approval of the proposed Westgate Woods Townhomes with the condition that the applicant must either complete a lot line adjustment or apply for a unit -lot subdivision in order to comply with the setback requirements. He reminded the Board that the development site consists of two parcels, and Building B would straddle the property boundary. John Bissell, Project Planner, Harmsen Associates, commented that Mr. Lien did a great job of presenting the project and explaining how it complies with the design requirements. He advised that the project utilizes a variety of materials, and modulation and different roof types and cap ends have been used to provide interest. While Mr. Lien already described the difficulties associated with developing the site, Mr. Bissell added that the south side of the property along Edmonds Way has an existing wall. Sometime in the past half century, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) improved Edmonds Way using a self -elevated curb, raising the elevation on the north side of the street. They put a wall on the subject parcel, which was already below the elevation of the road. It is also difficult to make the project work because it has street frontage on three sides. Board Member Broadway asked what would be done to compact the soil to avoid future problems caused by settling. Mr. Bissell answered that the developer would use a process that requires the soil to be compacted each time a layer of fill is added. The details of the process will be provided as part of the construction plans that are submitted at the time of Building Permit application. Each lift that is put down will be inspected to ensure there is adequate compaction. This is a Building Code requirement, and settling is no longer a significant risk or problem. Board Member Herr asked if the units would be sold or rented. Mr. Bissell said it is the developer's intent to sell the units, but no one in City government nor the builder can control who ends up owning the units after they are finished. Board Member Herr commented that, with land at a premium, it is very ambitious for the applicant to take on a project in what was once used as a quarry site that needs significant fill. Mr. Bissell agreed that it is both difficult and costly to develop the site, and he believes the proposed plan will work on the site. Vice Chair Strauss said it appears that the rooflines on the back of the buildings will all be the same. She also asked if modulation would be used to separate the units on the back side. Mr. Bissell referred to the elevation drawings where the modulation is more apparent. He advised that the back of the building would have modulation, as well as roof overhangs and cantilevering. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the units would be differentiated by color on the back, similar to what is proposed for the front. She noted that the back of the units would face 228"' Street Southwest, so they should be aesthetically pleasing to look at. Mr. Bissell said he assumes that the color scheme depicted on the front of the buildings could be carried over to the back of the buildings, as well. Vice Chair Strauss asked how the units would be separated so that each can have its own color. She suggested that the trim on the face of the building could be carried all the way up the 3'd floor to provide a differentiation between the colors. Chair Walker referred to the landscape and vicinity plans, noting that the back side of the building would be visible from 228' Street Southwest. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that Type III landscaping would be required around the property to screen it from the streets. Type H Landscaping will be required along the western boundary to screen the development from adjacent residential uses. Board Member Boroflca voiced concern about the large expanse of wall at the ends of each of the buildings. He asked if the proposed vegetation would screen the wall from the street view. Mr. Lien said that dense vegetation with trees Attachment 18 Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting Q October 18, 2017 Page 9 of 11 Packet Pg. 241 2.2.a would cover the entire wall and screen it from the street view. Looking from Edmonds Way, the end units would be down in a hole, with landscaping between the buildings and Edmonds Way. Vice Chair Strauss asked if the new grade of the site would meet up with the street on the west side of the property or if a retaining wall would be needed. Mr. Lien said there is no plan to add a retaining wall in this location, but a 6-foot fence is proposed. The property is in a bowl, with slopes on all sides. The intent is likely to bring the site closer to the level at the property line on all sides. Board Member Tarrant pointed out that when traveling westbound on Edmonds Way, the proposed development will be quite visible. She voiced concern that headlights from oncoming cars may impact those who live in the units. Board Member Herr pointed out that the living spaces would be a full height above Edmonds Way so headlights should not be a problem. Board Member Guenther pointed out that Edmonds is becoming more built out. With fewer sites to develop, it is likely that the sites with more extenuating circumstances will also be developed. It seems appropriate that they allow the height to be measured from the fill level in this case and not the original grade. At the request of the Board, Mr. Lien reviewed the variance criteria, noting that, in order to obtain a variance, the applicant must meet all of the criteria: • Special Circumstances. Because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. • Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. • Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of variance will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. • Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located. • Not Detrimental. That the variance, as approved or conditionally approved, will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. • Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Vice Chair Strauss asked if issues relative to the bus stop have been worked and if the bus stop would remain in its current location. Mr. Bissell answered affirmatively. Chair Walker asked if there would be a 6-foot fence on top of the retaining wall, and Mr. Bissell noted that there is an existing fence on top of the wall, and the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that they add something to protect from falls. Board Member Broadway asked if 228' Street Southwest is the only place to access the site from street grade, and Mr Bissell answered affirmatively. He said 95' Place West would still be lower, and the wall would wrap around the site. BASED ON THE FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, CONCLUSIONS, AND ATTACHMENTS IN THE STAFF REPORT, BOARD MEMBER BOROFKA MOVED THAT THE BOARD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE DESIGN FOR THE PROPOSED WESTGATE WOODS TOWNHOMES (PLN20160061) TO THE HEARING EXAMINER WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: Attachment 18 Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting Q October 18, 2017 Page 10 of 11 Packet Pg. 242 2.2.a 1. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE STRUCTURES, THE APPLICANT MUST EITHER COMLETE A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT OR APPLY FOR A UNIT LOT SUBDIVISION CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ECDC 20.75.045. BOARD MEMBER HERR SECONDED THE MOTION. VICE CHAIR STRAUSS MOVED THAT THE MOTION BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION TO READ, 2. THE REAR ELEVATION OF BOTH BUILDINGS MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FRONT IN COLOR MODULATION. BOARD MEMBER BROADWAY SECONDED THE MOTION TO AMEND, WHICH WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED, WAS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS/ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Mr. Lien announced that the Board's next meeting will be a joint meeting with the Planning Board on December 13r' ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: The Board discussed the proposed change that would make Board Member Strauss the lay member and Board Member Tarrant the professional member. Mr. Lien reminded the Board that the change must be approved by the City Council. ADJOURNMENT: z The meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. a s 3 Attachment 18 r- 0 0. m 0 Cn Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Special Meeting Q October 18, 2017 Page 11 of 11 Packet Pg. 243 2.2.a #F20 Critical Areas File #: Q4ZAaQ1=0a2 City of Edmonds ❑ Initial Determination - $100 Development Services Department El'subsequent Determination - $50 Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 Date Received: 1. .1 Vww.edmondswa.gov Date Mailed to ApplicarML2 IL 1 -- The purpose of this checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any critical areas and/or buffers are located on or adjacent to the subject property. Critical areas, such as wetlands, streams and steep slopes, are ecologically sensitive or hazardous areas that are regulated to protect their functions and values. The City's critical area regulations are contained within Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 through 23.90. Property Owner's Authorization A property owner, or an authorized representative, must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City. Staff will review the checklist, conduct a site visit, and make a determination of whether there are critical areas and/or critical area buffers on or near the site. If a "Critical Area Present" determination is issued, a report addressing the applicable critical area requirements of ECDC Chapters 23.40 through 23.90 may be required depending on the scope of the proposed activity. By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection attendant to this application. The undersigned owner, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on 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 part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. SIGNATURE OF OWNER I J..i� iwY► C DATE- 2 ` 4 y - 26 l 7 Owner: LL C Applicant/Agent. eS oo�S Name Z b 1 1 1 W �q ��-�- _ Name - ( 2 t /V . t 22-tJ S4 —.-m� Street Add s _ .., +� VA City late (? Zip Telephone: Z Q 6 S Email address: n e 9 C Vjp._ ✓tSnr Com Str�e. 29.M(e 4 �� Address/ � � � �� J _l City ate Zip Telephone:(266)�-- 13] Z Email Address: Revised on 114117 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist Attachment 19 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 244 2.2.a #P20 CA File No: C�(ZP,'Zyj� UC'�2"� Critical Areas Checklist Site Information 1 Uql j�� S_(3 E4�1� �Q 1. Site Address/Location: .� { S MOONS w► J 2. J Property Tax Account Number: 2 7 D 3 -3 & D O l b a 2 G b Z 7 0" O C? O 1 4 b b 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): Cre S � 4. Is this site currently developed? ❑ Yes Ei?<o > If yes, how is the site developed? 5. Describe the Reneral site topography. Check all that apply. _ Flat to Rollin No slope on adjacent to the site or slopes generally less than 15% a vertical g= p / l p g Y ( U) � E rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). c Moderate: Slopes present on/ to site of more than 15% and less than 40% (a vertical o rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 25 to 66-feet). MENEENEW N ElSteep: Slopes of greater than 40% present on/ to site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a °o horizontal distance of less than 25-feet). 6. ^� Have there been landslides on or near the site in the past? El'N Yes Cl�o a� If yes, please describe: 7. � Site contains areas of year-round standing water? El Yes (approx. depth: ) ff No 8. --!! Site contains areas of seasonal standing water? ❑Yes (approx. depth: ) [P o c If yes, what season(s) of the year? 9. Site is in the floodway or floodplain of a water course? ❑ Floodway ❑ Floodplain I)o Q 10. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? ❑ Yes No 3 If yes, are flows year-round or seasonal? ❑ Year-round ❑ Seasonal (time of year: ) Q. 11. Obvious wetland is present on site? ❑ Yes 0 1. Zoning: 3. SCS ma 13. soil - For City Staff Use Only V. C.A. map in tcates Critical Area on site: b V k, 14. Site within designated North Edmonds Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Area (ESHLA)? i \ O Reviewed by: ETERMINATION L AREA RESENT 'Z/ WAIVER Date: �-- r Revised on 114117 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist Page 2 of 2 Attachment 19 Packet Pg. 245 DA Zone J� c1101M al.7YY 21M nN 2191521830 21901 sm 21910 21911 21900 21901 21WS 1141 m 9604 ^� 21821 21823 2191 1N 902 904 21920 21919 9630 m m 21912 21909 ry�.b]9 21902 21909 9415 9413 21926 •60 m m m m 21925 21915 m m 9607 9417 9407 ... 9215 22004 22005 22004 22005 22006 22011 m m 22014�. 22015 ?2p,4 22015 22014Nd y ,�5 �34 22017 220221221 ❑22011 I 22018 2201fi722024 22029 22027 22030 220M 2202522034 1223 '2VU 2203422039 A2201 22028 22102 22042 ry22104 i �22101 22106 . 2204 22048 22168 044 �. 22047 22110 22115 22112 22118 221092114 22,2A852 22050 22052 22053 22051 22124V } West � V Jna LciElemenitar�22203 2222122 22117 22122 /2,37 g 2�5 ZWO7 ' 22210 22128 22129 22130 22214 J 9601 22205E22228 2xzw �Y p 22208 22205 22204 22009 22214 1251 22221 22225 22224 22218 22219 22221 22220 22216 22215 22200 m N 1206 1259 22229 22220 22225 22229 22222 22228 22223 �7 $ ii•3y 303 '�{ 22221 22220 22303 238Q3 22304 1 n 22305 22302 22226 22301 22304 22801 53 14 22311 22310 • 22311 22306 22307 22314 22309 N 22310 72314 7220i 22307 n �B 991s T2312 a '12315 > > Q 22315 22314 Q 22317 22320 > ¢ 22317 m �$ .� 22318 a 7Z81-7 4 e3 22316 22311 N 22312 22326 F r F F �' Q Of 9923 22324 S rn 9717 22320 9619 9601 N 9521 9517 9513 9501 'l1327 ,n„ � m 22318 gg 224TH ST SW 8{ U1 22407 9918 9902 9820 9808 �22401 m 22408 22407 22406 9514 9512�224 9510 9502 9316 22404 9222 •y 22415 22416 411 22415 22414 22405 ,M 10 22409 22408 921E ?2d2241409 22422 22421 22421 22409 22408 22423 22425 22424 22422 22421 22422 " 22423 22428 22427 22428 22413 22412 22413 22416 22413 22416 •• 22429 22427 22432 22431 22432 dgg h 22413 22430 22503 22504 22421 22420 22421 22420 22421 22420 Ids 8825¢ 9855 9845 22504 22509 Edmonds 22429 22506 22507 22506 22507 22506 1449 905 9835 22506 9924,p. 22515 Presbyterian 22511 _ 22510 22511 22510 22511 :n 22510 57ti6syy 9825 22522 22521 Church 22515 22514 22515 22514 Q`ry m 22526 22515 22516 9032 22531 22600 22519 22518 22519 22516 22517 22518 22606 S 98 PL 22605 m N 22605 22604 a22 22604 22605 22604 9920 gg0g 22615 22608 22608 22609 22608 9816 22618 c m 9916 m 22618 22627 22623 22612 22613 22612 22613 22612 9906 22615 N 22784 22702 22. 9715 22628 : 22629 22620 ?� 22619 22620 22619 22704 9827 22710 m m o � 71 2tp$ 9713 22710 m w. 22711 22706 J d 22705 22708 � J ?2706 0. al 9821 �� 9724 m �� 9709 22718 � �• o 22705 22706 �,\ 22712 W �" 22719 � T rn 22715 � > 22717 m 9820 Q 9706 9513 9509 p m m N WM Q 9826 22714 22727 9702 8701 r"� 22721 9505 22723 m m r 2Ri81 22805 m r ZM5 22W3 r m 22807 �7 ( 1 - ...._- 22811 m =915 • m 288R� ��H y��-- EDMONDS WAY 22815 22 PLSW 2280a m Westgate — Chapel 0 r rn N 2.2.a ." I b , Critical Area Map CRA20170022 9511 & 9513 Edmonds Way Attachment 19 Legend Erosion Hazard Areas Iw 15% - 40% Landslide Hazard Areas i40% and greater .ram •A �i�� - cn a 3 0 N J d Scale a 1 inch = 40 feet Packet Pg. 247 2.2.a FILE NOS.: PLN20160060 and PLN20160061 Applicant: Westgate Woods, LLC DECLARATION OF MAILING On the 111h day of October, 2017, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed by the City to property owners within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the above -referenced application. The names of which were provided by the applicant. I, Denise Nelson, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct this I Ph day of October, 2017, at Edmonds, Washington. Signed: {BFP747887.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 248 2.2.a FILE NOs.: PLN20160060 and PLN20160061 Applicant: Westgate Woods, LLC DECLARATION OF POSTING On the 1 1 th day of October, 2017, the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at the subject property, Civic Hall, Library and Public Safety buildings. I, Kernen Lien, hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington that the foregoing is true �)d correct this 1 1 th day of October, 2017, at Edmonds, Washington. ` �d Signed: {BFP747893.DOC;1\00006.900000\ } Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 249 2.2.a CITY OF EDM ON DS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING c. 189� PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 10-unit townhouse development at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way. The 10 units are proposed to be divided between two structures with each with five units in each building. Each townhouse will unit contain a two car garage and an additional two parking spaces on site for visitor parking. The applicant is also seeking a height variance for each structure due to special circumstances at the subject property. Access to the proposed development will be taken off 228th Street SW. Design review projects which trigger SEPA and variance applications are both Type III-B decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002.13, the applications are being combined and the hearing examiner will issue the decision regarding both design review and the variance requests. The site is located within the RM-1.5 zone (One dwelling unit per 1,500 square feet of lot area). PROJECT LOCATION: 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, WA. Tax Parcel Numbers 27033600101400 and 27033600100200 NAME OF APPLICANT: Westgate Woods, LLC FILE NO.: PLN20160060 (Height Variance) and PLN20160061 (Design Review) REQUESTED PERMIT: Height Variance and Design Review COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: October 26, 2017 Any person has the right to comment on this application during public comment period, receive notice and participate in any hearings, and request a copy of the decision on the application. The City may accept public comments at any time prior to the closing of the record of an open record predecision hearing, if any, or, if no open record predecision hearing is provided, prior to the decision on the project permit. Only parties of record as defined in ECDC 20.07.003 have standing to initiate an administrative appeal. Information on this development application can be viewed or obtained at the City of Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 5th Ave North, Edmonds, WA 98020 between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday; between the hours of 8:30 AM and Noon on Wednesday; or online through the City's website at https:llpermits.edmonds.wa.us/citizen. Search for permit PLN20160060. A copy of the staff report will be available at least seven days prior to the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A public hearing will be held before the Hearing Examiner on October 26, 2017 at 3 p.m in the Council Chambers located at 250 — 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 CITY CONTACT: Kernen Lien, Senior Planner kernen.lien@edmondswa.gov 425-771-0220 Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 250 2.2.a s !1x. Gt nurH.rF �s r Q i 95tn QLi rt o l ` I Y• 1 N C s 0 0. M Cn Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 251 2.2.a Everett Daily Herald Affidavit of Publication State of Washington } County of Snohomish } ss Deb Grigg being first duly sworn, upon oath deposes and says: that he/she is the legal representative of the Everett Daily Herald a daily newspaper. The said newspaper is a legal newspaper by order of the superior court in the county in which it is published and is now and has been for more than six months prior to the date of the first publication of the Notice hereinafter referred to, published in the English language continually as a daily newspaper in Snohomish County, Washington and is and always has been printed in whole or part in the Everett Daily Herald and is of general circulation in said County, and is a legal newspaper, in accordance with the Chapter 99 of the Laws of 1921, as amended by Chapter 213, Laws of 1941, and approved as a legal newspaper by order of the Superior Court of Snohomish County, State of Washington, by order dated June 16, 1941, and that the annexed is a true copy of EDH780847 PLN20160060 & 0061 as it was published in the regular and entire issue of said paper and not as a supplement form thereof for a period of 1 issue(s), such publication commencing on 10/11/2017 and ending on 10/11/2017 and that said newspaper was regularly distributed to its subscribers during all of said period. The amount of the fee for such publication is $87.72. Subscribed and sworn t? re me on this day of 1-7 �Zy Public in and for the State of Washington. City of Edmonds - LEGAL ADS 114101416 KERNEN LIEN Linda Phillips y Notary Public MY �A state E ' Washington PrrO$ 08O9 .,, Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 252 2.2.a �0S CITY OF EDMONDS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PROJECT pESCRtPTION: The applicant is praposmgg to construct a 10-unit townhouse developrneni at 9511 and g513 Edmonds Way, The 10 units are prapoead to be divided between two structures with each with {lye units in each building EaCh townhouse vhlI unit coniain a two car garage and an additional two parking spaces on silo for vlsilvr parking -The applicant ks also sae king a he 1phI va rFanCe to[ each Structure due to sp Pei al cirCumstancex at Iha subject properly. Access to the proposed duvelopmenl wkll be taken o1l 228th Skeet SW. Design review projects which trigger SEPA and variance. applications are both Type III-9 decisions. Pursuant to ECDC 20.01.002-B. the applications are being combined and the hearing examiner wl11Issue the decision regarding both doskon rovlew and the variance toque, is. The site is located withln tfia RIM. 1.6 ,ions (One dwollIng unit per 1,600 square Seel of lot area). PRO,i£CT LOCATION: 9511 and 0513 Edmonds WOy Edmonds, WA, Tax Fwcel Numbers 270336, 6101400 and 27033600100200 NAME OF APPLICANT: Westgate Woods, LLC FILE NO.: PLN20160060 (Haight Valiance) and PLN201150061 (Design "Now) REQUESTED PERMIT: Haight Variance and Design Review COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL DUE: October 26, 2017 Any poison has the right to eornment on this opptleatlon during ppNhlic comment period. receive notice and parlIrIpale 1n any hadrings, and request a COPY of the decision on the application. The City may accept public Comments tit any lima prior la the closing of the retard of an open record piudoclsion hearing, If arty, or, if no open record predecislon hearing is provided, prior to lha decision an the project pormit. Only parties Of record as defined in ECDC 20.07." have standing to Millais an adminisirallve appeal. Information on this devatopmoni appllcalron can be ell. Information or Cola In ad at the City at Edmonds Development Services Department, 121 Sth Ave North, Edmonds. WA 98020 between the hours o1 8:00 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. Mondegy, TuosdaY�. Thursday and Friday; batwean the hours of 8:30 AM ano ['fCon On Wednesday, or online through the City's websife at wa.uslcitlzen. Search for permit PLN20160060. A copy of the staff report wlit be available al least seven days lonv to the hearing. PUBLIC HEARING INFORMATION: A public hearing will be held b9lo(e the F18afing Examiner on Ocl0sr 26. 2017 at 3 p.m.In the Council Charnbers located at 250 - SM Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98O20 CITY CONTACT: Kernan Lien, Senior Planner kornar dis rtaednlondswa.gov 425-771-0220 �ublished: October 11, 2017, EDH78084� c M 0 co 0 0 m 0 N Z J a a� c M �L a CD N CD O t C O t— W O O r O 1171 fn d N C O E t V M Q 3 O CL M r Cn CD CD W r O N Z J a otS CD 0 0 0 r 0 N Z a c m E M ..r r Q Attachment 20 Packet Pg. 253 2.2.a _ LAND *t(ARMSENCIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYINGOCIATES INC Revised June 06, 2017 City Review Staff City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Variance Criteria — Declarations of Compliance Revised per City First Review Comments Review Team: The applicant, Westgate Woods LLC, is applying for a height variance in conjunction with an Architectural Design Board (ADB) application. The purpose of this document is to describe the property and the need for the variance, indicate the exact variance requested, and show how the variance proposal complies with the criteria for approval. Site Description: The site is located at the intersection of 228th Street Southwest, 95th Place West, and Edmonds Way and is comprised of two tax lots. The project site area is 25,237 square feet (0.58 acres) and is zoned RM 1.5. The site is bounded on three sides by developed rights of way, is triangularly shaped, and is almost entirely below the elevations of the surrounding streets and properties. The vegetation is a combination of grasses, tress and both native and ornamental plantings that have not been maintained for decades. The site is currently vacant other than an old house foundation. There is evidence of previous fill and excavation, probably related to a quarry project in the late 1800's that affected the Edmonds Way Corridor from around the intersection of 100th Ave West to near the intersection of 232nd St SW. The quarry operation was followed by road way development around the site. Subsequently the site was developed with a house, was then removed. Somewhere as a result of the roadway development or the house development or the quarry project, the site was split into two small basins with a berm between that appears to be fill material. Finally, Edmonds Way was redeveloped, widened and a super elevated curve was added which raised the elevation of the roadway and placed a rock retaining wall along the south property line of the subject site. Development proposal: The applicant is proposing to develop the site with two five -unit townhouse buildings. This development will require the installation of an access drive aisle, stormwater management, and utilities. Due to the odd shape and topography of the site, the installation of the access and stormwater management will require raising the elevation of portions of the site. Raising the site will in turn affect building heights and ultimately the roof design. The applicant is submitting preliminary storm, grading and utility plans as well as a height variance with this application. As the site is lower than the road, stormwater was a particular concern. In this case, the geotechnical engineer recommended infiltration. The applicant is pursuing infiltration, but also is proposing an adequate overflow. The existing 36-inch concrete stormwater pipe located in Edmonds Way has an invert depth low enough for us to connect for adequate overflow for large storm events. The elevation of the surface of the stormwater facility is not set by the overflow elevation as is often the case. Instead the surface elevation of the overflow is set by the elevation of the toe of the rockery on the south property line. In this case the C:\Users\john\ShareFile\Shared With Me\16-241 Westgate\PL\3rd Submttal Docs\Varaince 2nd revised.docx ISLAND COUNTY 840 SE 8th Avenue, Ste. 102 Oak Harbor, Washington 98277 tel: (360) 675-5973 / fax: (360) 675-7255 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 125 East Main Street Ste. 104 Monroe, Washington 98272 tel: (360) 794-7811 / fax: (360) 805-9732 Anticipate / Understand r I f Guide / Deliver ALIff6 I IeCI 021 SKAGIT COUNTY 603 South First Street Mount Vernon, Washington 98273 tel: (360) 336-9199 / fax: (360) 982-2637 Packet Pg. 254 Westgate Woods Revised Variance Criteria 2.2.a 6/6/2017 geotechnical engineer has recommended that site excavation be setback at least 10 feet from the rockery, and that the highest elevation of the stormwater facility not be located at a depth lower than the toe of the rockery. PAGE 2OF6 Olympic View Water and Sewer District (Olympic View) is responsible for providing potable water and sanitary sewer disposal. Olympic View strongly discourages pumps and official state in their standards that pumps are not allowed. Therefore, the lowest elevation of the lowest dwelling unit on the site must be able to connect to the sewer manhole available in 228t" St SW. Variance: There are several special circumstances related to the shape, size, topography and location of this property that all conspire to create a hardship in conforming to building heights. Most of the site area is below road grade. The site is surrounded by three rights -of -way, all requiring street setbacks. The site is triangular in shape reducing the effective building area. The south property line contains an existing wall that is part of the Highway 104 / Edmonds Way right of way and on which the roadway improvements are constructed. These circumstances force several site design requirements. First the triangular shape combined with the topography and street locations dictate the point of access and thus the site design. For safety reasons, access must be taken near the western end of the north property line for the following reasons: 1) The access cannot be brought off Edmonds Way due to traffic volumes and speeds. 2) The access cannot be brought in from 95t" Place West because that frontage is too short to provide safe separation. 3) For an access from 228t" St SW, safe separation from 95t" PI W requires the access to be located near the western end of the 228t" St SW frontage. The access point combined with the triangular shape of the site then dictate the building type and location. Access to and construction of a monolithic apartment building would be almost impossible. Single family residences are also a difficult fit because of the additional drive aisle and building separations required. This leaves the site designer with townhouse style units. Since the widest part of the lot is the western property line, and the access needs to be near the western property line, a townhouse building can be made to fit along the western property line, with another building placed lengthwise parallel to 228t" St SE. The ECDC section 21.40.030 defines Height as the "average vertical distance from the average level of the undisturbed soil of the site covered by a structure to the highest point of the structure". This means that structures placed on fill or stair stepped up a slope are handicapped by reducing the vertical distance from the fill slope to the tallest allowable building elevation on the uphill portions of the site. Since we need to locate the building along the western property line, the building will to be stair stepped up the slope. To complicate this height calculation issue, the transition (vertical curve) needed to access the site requires the entrance to site to be placed on fill. Additionally, the site must be served by sanitary sewer. The Olympic View Water and Sewer District is responsible for sanitary sewer. Olympic View Water and Sewer District prohibit the pumping of sewage. Therefore, the finished floor of Building A can be no lower than 265.3 feet. These issues are further compounded by the existence of the SR 104 retaining wall. The frontage of SR 104 adjacent to the subject site is built on fill and retained with a rock wall. There is no adequate way to investigate the quality of the construction of the wall or the nature of the fill material on which SR 104 constructed. The project geotechnical engineer has evaluated the site and the wall and has determined that the wall shows no obvious signs of instability, but that the developers best course of action is to keep construction away from the wall and to not excavate below the elevation of the wall. Because of this requirement, the stormwater facility is set at the elevation of the bottom of the wall and setback 10 feet from C:\Usersuobr\SnareFle\Sba red With Me\16-241 westgate\PL\3rd Submttal Docs\Varalrce Machment 21 1Packet Pg. 255 Westgate Woods Revised Variance Criteria 2.2.a 6/6/2017 PAGE 3OF6 the toe of the wall. Thus the wall sets the surface elevation at the stormwater facility and then for the drive aisle that feeds into that facility. Additionally, unit 10 (the eastern unit of Building B) has a finished floor of 268 feet so that the access drive aisle in the southeast corner can be set at the same elevation as the base of the retaining wall. 268 feet is approximately 2 feet higher than the natural grade in the location of unit 10, thus placing that building on fill. Specific Request: The applicant proposes two new five (5) unit townhouse buildings. As noted on the site plan, building A is to be located near the western property line and building B is to be more centrally located south of 228t" St SW and east of building A. Building A: Allowed height 25 feet + five addition feet for buildings with a 4:12 or steeper roof pitch, where all portions of the building above 25 feet are roof only. The City has interpreted that gable ends can be considered part of the roof for this purpose. Allowed elevation at the bottom of the roof 288.60 Proposed Elevation at the bottom of the roof 291.77 Allowed elevation at the top of the roof 293.60 Proposed elevation at the top of the roof 297.06 Total building height form natural grade proposed is 3315.5" where 30 feet is the maximum allowed. Building B: Allowed height 25 feet + five addition feet for buildings with a 4:12 or steeper roof pitch, where all portions of the building above 25 feet are roof only. The City has interpreted that gable ends can be considered part of the roof for this purpose. Allowed elevation at the bottom of the roof 290.5 Proposed Elevation at the bottom of the roof 292.46 Allowed elevation at the top of the roof 295.5 Proposed elevation at the top of the roof 297.77 Total building height form natural grade proposed is 33' 3.25" where 30 feet is the maximum allowed. Variance Criteria (ECDC 20.85.010) A. Special Circumstances. That, because of special circumstances relating to the property, the strict enforcement of the zoning ordinance would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. 1. Special circumstances include the size, shape, topography, location or surroundings of the property, public necessity as of public structures and uses as set forth in ECDC 17.00.030 and environmental factors such as vegetation, streams, ponds and wildlife habitats. Applicant's Response: The site contains several special circumstances unique to the subject property and that would deprive the owner of use rights and privileges permitted to other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Shape of the Lot The site is nearly triangular. The eastern portion of the site becomes so narrow as to become nearly C:\Users\ohn\ShareFile\Shared With Me\16-241 Westgate\PI-\3rd Submttal Docs\VarainceMachment 21 1Packet Pg. 256 Westgate Woods Revised Variance Criteria 2.2.a 6/6/2017 unbuildable Topography The site is below the elevation of the three surrounding roads PAGE 4OF6 Surroundings o The site is surrounded by three improved right of ways — Edmonds Way (SR 104), 95th Place West, and 228th Street Southwest The south property line is bounded by a retaining wall, the toe of the retaining wall is on the subject property's south line. The top of the wall supports the structure of Edmonds Way. As described above in the project description section of this document, these special circumstances drive the site design. They require portions of the buildings to be placed on fill and the require portions of the building to be stair stepped along the slope. The applicant is presenting buildings that are 30 feet tall from finished floor to the top of the buildings. If the site constraints were more typical, as is found on the properties to the west, north, east, and south, the proposed buildings would meet code requirements. However, with the site constraints, the same buildings are found to be over height on the subject property. 2. Special circumstances should not be predicated upon any factor personal to the owner such as age or disability, extra expense which may be necessary to comply with the zoning ordinance, the ability to secure a scenic view, the ability to make more profitable use of the property, nor any factor resulting from the action of the owner or any past owner of the same property; Applicant's Response: The special circumstances is purely based on the surroundings. the shape of the lot, and the topography; not to any factor personal to the owner. B. Special Privilege. That the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege to the property in comparison with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; Applicant's Response: The applicant is requesting relief based on the site characteristics, not because of any factor personal to the owner The characteristics are unique as compared to other properties in the vicinity. Above we have shown the site is encumbered with special circumstances. Below we show how the request meets each of the remaining criteria. Approval based on compliance with each of the criteria would not be a grant of special privilege. C. Comprehensive Plan. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the comprehensive plan; Applicant's Response: The applicant is proposing to provide multi -family dwellings along the Edmonds Way Corridor. This area is designated for larger multiple family buildings. The applicant is proposing townhouse buildings that meet the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Denial of the height variance actually would reduce the density of the site below what was envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan (see density description in the "Minimum Variance" Section below). Therefore, approval of the variance is in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan while denial of the variance would not. Additionally, the applicant has proposed buildings that comply with the general design guidelines found in the comprehensive plan and in the zoning code. Therefore, this proposal will be constant with the comprehensive plan. D. Zoning Ordinance. That the approval of the variance will be consistent with the purposes of the zoning ordinance and the zone district in which the property is located; Applicant's Response: C:\Users\ohn\ShareFile\Shared With Me\16-241 Westgate\PL\3rd Submttal Docs\VarainceMachment 21 1Packet Pg. 257 Westgate Woods Revised Variance Criteria 2.2.a 6/6/2017 PAGE 5OF6 The applicant is proposing to develop a property zoned for multiple family use with multi -family buildings. The project complies with all use elements of the zoning code. E. Not Detrimental. That the variance as approved or conditionally approved will not be significantly detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the vicinity and same zone; Applicant's Response: The most common detrimental objection to height variances is blocking a scenic view. The subject site and surrounding properties have no scenic views. The second most common concern is building massing. The proposed development massing will be similar to other compliant developments in the vicinity and throughout Edmonds. In addition, the development site is located along Edmonds Way. This area is a multiple family and commercial high use corridor along a high intensity arterial street. The development will be similar to and smaller than most other developments along this corridor. So the massing will not be out of proportion. And finally, there is likely to be one asset for the neighboring houses to the north across 228th St SW. Currently these dwelling units are buffered from Edmonds Way only by vegetation. Vegetation provides an inadequate sound buffer. The proposed buildings would provide a much more substantial sound buffer for the existing dwellings. Therefore, the proposed variance will not create a detriment. F. Minimum Variance. That the approved variance is the minimum necessary to allow the owner the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. Applicant's Response: There are two points to this answer. The first is how what the applicant is asking for equals the rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and the same zoning. The other is why achieving that right requires a variance That applicant is proposing townhouses in the RM 1.5 zone. The applicant is proposing buildings with three stories. The first story is primarily garage space, while the second and third stories are living space. The floor to ceiling height in each floor has been reduced below what is often found on the market and the architect has made use of the rafters to gain ceiling height in the top floor. This design has reduced the building height from the finished ground floor to the top of the building to below 30' in total. Though this design is shorter than found in surrounding jurisdictions, it is typical in the City of Edmonds in the RM 1.5, 2.4 and 3 zones all of which have the same height limitation. Therefore, the applicant is proposing buildings that represent the rights enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning. The reason that each building requires a variance is different for each building. Building A is the western building. Building A finished floor of Unit 1 is the highest unit elevation proposed, and thus Unit 1 sets the maximum height of the building. (See the definition of Building Height earlier in tis document.) The elevations of the remaining finished floors, which are at a lower elevation, have no effect on the elevation of the highest point of the building, since the average elevation is set by the elevation of the undisturbed soil, and because unit 1 will be the highest. So to discuss the minimum variance, we only need to discuss the elevation of Unit 1. As described in the project description section above, the access point is set near the western property line and off 228th St SW for safety reasons. The access point must enter the property, and as it does, it must create a vertical curve to transition from the elevation of 228th St SW down into the site. This transition is set by engineering standards and is based on the shortest distance in which a typical car can change from a horizontal surface to a sloping surface. The profile shows a 5% downslope starting from the back (property side) of the sidewalk to Unit 1 This profile also shows no vertical curve, but instead a sharp transition. Two questions arise from this: 1, why no vertical curve, and two why only 5% when the fire code allows up to a 15% slope? Which leads to the question, wouldn't a steeper entrance slope lower the elevation of Unit 1? The answers to these questions is somewhat counter intuitive. The short answer is that in this case a 5% slope will lead to the lowest possible elevation of Unit 1. Here's why: A vertical transition of up to 4% can be made with no C:\Users\ohn\ShareFile\Shared With Me\16-241 Westgate\PL\3rd Submttal Docs\VarainceMachment 21 1Packet Pg. 258 Westgate Woods Revised Variance Criteria 2.2.a 6/6/2017 PAGE 6OF6 vertical curve. (Think of the center line of a road — with typical side slopes of 2% and a crown with no vertical curve). The maximum cross slope allowed on the sidewalk is 2% and that is what is shown. However, survey tools and auto -levels have a typical error rate of .5% or more in the short measuring distance of a sidewalk width, so from a maximum functional slope transition, we must assume the sidewalk cross slope will be as little as 1 % when constructed (It cannot exceed 2% so for the .5% factor of safety contractors will build to 1.5 — leading to a maximum of 2% and a minim of 1 %). Thus, the proposed 5% slope gives us a transition right at the back of the sidewalk. Conversely, if we were to increase the slope by any amount, an actual vertical curve would be required to maintain functionality. The vertical curve requires about 30 feet of run to work, which means the apex of the curve would be located at about the north side of Unit 1. Since the apex of the curve would be located at about the location of the finished floor of Unit 1, the drop that would be achieved by a steeper slope would occur south of the finished floor of unit one, thus increasing the height of the finished floor. Therefore, the transition as designed achieves the lowest finished floor for unit 1. The elevation of Building B is set by its highest unit, unit 10 (the eastern most unit). The finished floor elevation of Unit 10 is set by the elevation of the access road directly south of unit 10. The access road is set as low as possible due to the proximity of the retaining wall along 95th Place West and Edmonds Way. Additional restrictions also exist such as Unit 5 is set as low as possible while still using a gravity sewer. There has been suggesting that the applicant should work with Olympic View Water and Sewer District to find out if a pump system could be allowed to reduce the elevation of unit five. The applicant disagrees with this direction for two reasons. First, because it is irrelevant. The elevation of the highest point of the building for which the variance is requested is set by unit 1, and the change in elevation of units 2 through five will not alter the height calculations. Second, the applicant contends that requiring a dwelling unit to pump sewer when a gravity line is available, and when topographical special circumstances exist, would create an undue burden, abridging the rights of the property owners as compared to those rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and in the same zone. the applicant has proposed buildings similar to what would be allowed for other properties in the same zone and in the vicinity. The applicant has shown that the topography, shape of the lot and access requirements have conspired so that such a building is over the allowable height. With this information, the applicant has shown that the proposed variance is the minimum necessary to allow the property owner the same rights enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity. With the site restriction, the reduction in density, the examination of possible site grading changes, and the architect's modifications to the building; we believe we have met the minimum variance criteria. Thank you for your considered review of this project. Please contact me at your earliest convenience with any questions or concerns. Sincerely John Bissell, AICP Planning Director Harmsen & Associates, Inc. C:\Users\ohn\ShareFile\Shared With Me\16-241 Westgate\PL\3rd Submttal Docs\VarainceMachment 21 1Packet Pg. 259 2.2.a necei v STORMWATER SITE PLAN AGGAZ 10E'017 DRAINAGE REPORT P44/V1V11V6'9F� FOR l W ESTGATE WOODS 9511-9513 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Based on 2012/2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual HARMSEN & ASSOCIATES INC CIVIL ENGINEERING Anticipate ! Understand LAND SURVEYING Guide Deliver Packet Pg. 260 2.2.a STORMWATER SITE PLAN DRAINAGE REPORT FOR WESTGATE WOODS 9511-9513 EDMONDS WAY EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98020 April 11, 2017 Revised August 16, 2017 08/ I I / 2017 *t(ARMSEN OC1ATES INC Based on 2012/2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual. SNOHOMISH COUNTY 125 E Main St, Suite 1-04 1 PO Box 516 Monroe, Washington 98272 tel:36o.794,7811 1 fax:36o.8o5.973z ISLAND COUNTY 840 SE 8tn Avenue, Suite 102 Oak Harbor, Washington 98z77 tel:36o.675.5973 1 fax:36o.675.7255 SKAGIT COUNTY 603 South First Street Mount Vernon, Washington 982, tel:36o.336.9199 I fax:36o.g82.2 www.Harmsenlnc.com Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 261 STORMWATER SITE PLAN WESTGATE WOODS :imor<ds' ' �co deli . © OGnadtvlq fdmondr � m Na1Pa YYY voomgw: ::sr' -A nac �)iana�ds�7l Markel. Fn++,r.,a.0 P W84�r6Hn."s� A� vr's$�lerpc K© SeGuoyah Conanmvalume 0 Y 9anen Dn gfto Scrikea Lak, H,gh School C E V.OnUR HolphiS K-170 W4*M.W41 V001naw rwr0 l owr b nr;Nrlrvl�Q 0 Cia Map data 02016 Google 500 ft I. Figure 1: Vicinity Map 2.2.a Aug 16, 2017 PAGE PROJECT OVERVIEW This Stormwater Site Plan has been prepared for Westgate Woods, a multifamily residential project located at 9511-9513 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, WA. This two parcel parent lot has a combined area of 0.58 acres and proposes two, 5-unit residential buildings with garages and an internal drive aisle. Curb, gutter and sidewalk is also being added along the 228th Frontage as well as approximately 2ft of lane widening. See Figure 1: Vicinity Map for graphic location and Figure 3: Developed Site for the proposed site plan. The site is currently undeveloped. See Figure 2: Existing Conditions. METHODOLOGY Per 2012/2014 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual, all Minimum Requirements are required. The site achieves 100% infiltration of stromwater runoff. The drainage design for the project has been prepared based on the requirements of the 2012 Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual (DOE Manual) with 2014 revisions Work(Sharel.ile)l:'r(Jectsl'_OI6�16-241 V,'cstgatc\CE',I)OUS'd)raii1 017 0k 18 16-'_41 'We A gn te Drainagc Rcl)oii Llot� Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 262 STORMWATER SITE PLAN WESTGATE WOODS 2.2.a Aug 16, 2017 PAGE 2 as shall be adopted by the City of Edmonds in early 2017. In addition, this report uses design guidelines provided by the Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound. WWHM2012 (AKA WWHM4) as provided by DOE has been used for determining basin runoff and for sizing of the stormwater facilities. Based on the flow chart in Figure 1-2.4.1 of DOE Manual (attached) and the site parameters, the project is subject to all Minimum Requirements (MR 1-9). The project site parameters per Figure 1-2.4.1 are: • The existing site has less than 35% existing impervious coverage. • The project does result in 5,000 sf or greater of new hard surface area. Therefore all minimum requirements apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. MR 1: PREPARATION OF STORMWATER SITE PLANS DRAINAGE PLAN DESCRIPTION Direct precipitation is the source of on -site stormwater and all existing stormwater appears to completely and rapidly infiltrate onsite. Geotech site analysis confirms infiltration capable soils with no hydric soils present and no indication of wetland or other sensitive areas are known on - site. Proposed stormwater runoff shall be routed for treatment and complete infiltration via on -site bioretention cell with overflow connectivity to the public storm system beneath the adjacent Edmond's Way. An infiltration trench is also provided to accommodate This project expects no contribution of storm runoff into the public storm conveyance system. WATER QUALITY MEASURES Following is a list of the proposed construction water quality BMPs. These are discussed fully in the Project Surface Water Pollution Prevention Narrative under separate cover. The proposed BMPs are as follows: BMP C101, Preserving Natural Vegetation BMP C103, High Visibility Fence BMP C105, Construction Entrance BMP C106, Wheel Wash BMP C107, Construction Road/Parking Area Stabilization BMP C120, Temporary and Permanent Seeding BMP C121, Mulching BMP C123, Plastic Covering BMP C125, Topsoiling/Composting BMP C130, Surface Roughening f,IwoikfSl"arJil16 I11(4`S Prat)'_'fl;'. nT i'.,.atsatcDraina,,c R, n,�i� Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 263 STORMWATER SITE PLAN WESTGATE WOODS BMP C140, Dust Control BMP C150, Materials On Hand BMP C151, Concrete Handling BMP C152, Sawcutting and Surfacing Pollution Prevention BMP C153, Material Delivery, Storage and Containment BMP C154, Concrete Washout Area BMP C160, Certified Erosion and Sediment Control Lead BMP C200, Interceptor Dike and Swale BMP C201, Grass -Lined Channels BMP C207, Checkdams BMP C209, Outlet Protection BMP C220, Storm Inlet Protection BMP C233, Silt Fence BMP C241 Temporary Sediment Pond Post Construction BMPs would include: Maintenance of Stormwater Drainage and Treatment Systems Parking lot sweeping 2.2.a Aug 16, 2017 PAGE 3 DETENTION SIZING WWHM12 from the Department of Ecology was used for treatment and detention sizing Calculations and sizing are discussed further in MR 7. Roof discharge is per BMP T5.10A. CONVEYANCE CALCULATIONS Conveyance calculations are provided in MR 5. STORMWATER TREATMENT BMP'S The runoff from the new PGIS on -site will flow to a bio-retention cell sized in MR 6, PROTECTION OF WETLANDS There are no critical areas located on the site. OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE The specific requirements for the ongoing operation and maintenance of the proposed storm water systems is detailed in Minimum Requirement #10. II:',Work (Sharclil16 16-141'VVC'tL'ate(_1�1)0(17S'I)tamIL'_nl?(1'�1€ I1'vV'q;:tei)rail Ia_-ci?cl;olt.do, Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 264 STORMWATER SITE PLAN WESTGATE WOODS EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY 2.2.a Aug 16, 2017 PAGE 4 DESCRIPTION Westgate Woods is proposed to span two adjacent, undeveloped parcels located at 9511-9513 Edmonds, Way in Edmonds, WA. The site is bound on three sides by existing streets with storm drain systems. Along the north side lies 228th Street SW, the short east side is bound by 95th Place West, and the south edge is faced Edmonds Way/SR104. The fourth side abuts a developed residential lot. Although the site is a topographically a local low point, there is no evidence on sheet, shallow or channel flow on -site from adjacent properties nor is there any evidence of damp or ponding areas. The west half of the site, approximately, has a rather flat floor with sides that climb west and north and east. The east half of the site contains a second flat floor that rises again along the eastern edge. The south side of the site abuts the toe of a 2 to 4 ft tall rockery that retains Edmonds Way. The site is currently vegetated with trees and understory over a combined area of 0.58 acres. See Figure 1: Vicinity Map for graphic location and Figure Figure 2: Existing Conditions. Figure 2: Existing Conditions per Snohomish County SnoSCAPE SOILS DESCRIPTION Geotest, Inc has prepared a geotechnical report for the site titled Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, dated June 10, 2016 and is attached as appendix B. Five test pits were explored to depths of 7.5 to 10ft deep via an excavator. Depths near 4.5 to 8ft deep encountered gravelly sand and advanced outwash soils. Soil samples were also classified via the USDA soil r ,r • r l-:;tts �n l' fs� �• I r�-'-1 �[',�si�:rtc ilosinns•� ii-. �.. Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 265 STORMWATER SITE PLAN WESTGATE WOODS 2.2.a Aug 16, 2017 PAGE 5 classification system and include loamy sand and sand and rated at 2" per hour infiltration rates in the vicinity of the proposed biocell. The WWHM12 calculations were conducted conservatively with an infiltration rate of 2 in/hr and a Ksat factor of 4. Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) tests were also conducted for near surface materials and found to meet or exceed DOE criteria for CEC and organic content for use in stormwater treatment processes. The near surface material may be used for water quality treatment, and /or be amended further to meet amended soil criteria as per DOE. EXISTING BASIN The existing basin is bound to the north by 228th SW, to the east by 951h Place W, and to the south by Edmonds Way. The west edge is bound by a topographic break approximately 500 ft west southwest and approximates 2.5 acres. The basin is well vegetated and contains a mix of empty parcels and single family residences. w C E t V c� Q s 3 0 a m 0 Cn UPSTREAM ANALYSIS The basin has no apparent water courses that lead to the subject site. All stormwater appears to be originated as direct rainfall and also infiltrates or is consumed by the vegetation. lh%orkiSiiarciile)'Pxujcats`?(tl(r1b?41 Westg;atc�(:FJX) O� IS 16-141'bVcstyateDminascRvportdo, Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 266 STORMWATER SITE PLAN WESTGATE WOODS 2.2.a Aug 16, 2017 PAGE 6 DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS This site is a topographic local low and no flow currently leaves the site. With no apparent water courses onsite, the existing stormwater appears to infiltrator and or be absorbed by the vegetation such that no flow ever leaves the site. Proposed conditions contain a biocell for water quality treatment and infiltration. Calculations show 100% infiltration onsite. An overflow via tightline into the public storm system beneath Edmonds Way is also proposed. Tree credits for stormwater absorption have not yet been applied. This site does not anticipate any contributions to the City storm system and to downstream flow. The City storm system follows Edmonds Way to a stormwater outfall into Puget Sound near the south side of the Edmonds Marina. CAPACITY The existing storm system beneath Edmonds Way is a 36" dia concrete storm pipe that eventually connects to a 42" cmp, which becomes 48" concrete pipe at the 1001" street crossing. The existing storm system has no capacity constraints. MR 2: CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION A Department of Ecology Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan will be prepared under separate cover and supplied with construction plans and drainage report. MR 3: WATER POLLUTION SOURCE CONTROL CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER BMPs Construction source controls are covered under the SWPPP PERMANENT SOURCE CONTROL BMPs The following source controls apply: • Container storage of wastes; • Vegetation management; Cleaning of paved surfaces; • Storm drainage maintenance; c E a s 3 1` 0 a M Cn t'rori (Sitarvia]cl?'4�ro,1cct5': t116%i6-�'1 %2O17Ok1 iG-�.14'i'�st�ateDnliria.tow Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 267 STORMWATER SITE PLAN 2.2.a Aug 16, 2017 WESTGATE WOODS MR 4: PRESERVATION OF NATURAL DRAINAGE Natural drainage is preserved. The pre -developed achieves complete infiltration and the developed conditions achieves complete infiltration as well. No drainage courses are altered. MR 5: ON -SITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Per 2014 DOE, Volume 1, Table 2.5.1, this is a new development inside the UGA and is required to meet Minimum Requirements #1-9. As such, the site shall meet the Low Impact Development Performance Standard and BMP T5.12; or use List #2 at the applicant's option. This project is opting to meet the Low Impact Development Performance Standard and use BMP T5.13. Low impact Development Standards are achieved by infiltrating 100% of the stormwater runoff, thus post development discharge rates of zero are less than 8% of the 2-year peak flow and less than all of the 50-year flow. BMP T5.13 Post Construction Soil Quality and Depth are required for disturbed soils that shall be vegetated. BMP T5.10A Downspout Full Infiltration is used for buildings 1-5. BMP T7.30 Bioretention cell is used to manage buildings 6-10 and all other onsite hardscape, with a horizontal surface area of at least 5% of the contributing area to that biocell. Additionally, should List #2 be desired: Lawn and Landscaped Areas: 1) Post Construction Soil Quality and Depth: BMP T5.13 will be implemented on disturbed and landscaped areas. Roof Areas: 1) Full Dispersion is not practical on this site due flow path lengths and proximity to boundaries or structures; 2) BMP T5.10A Downspout Full Infiltration Systems may be used in Medium Sand at 30 LF (of 2ft wide trench or area equivalent) for every 1000 SF of contributing roof area. The use of downspout infiltration may be used to augment a bioretention facility for rooftop stormwater management. Rooftops may also be directed to a BMP T7.30 Bioretention facility. PAGE 7 v, c m E z c� a s 3 1` 0 a m M Cn 1Vmk (Shanctilcrllr(�jccts 201 (,;16-241 0i; 18 16- 211 ''Vc. irate Drainasc Kepartdoa Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 268 STORMWATER SITE PLAN 2.2.a Aug 16, 2017 WESTGATE WOODS PAGE 8 3) BMP T7.30 Bioretention Cell will be used. The projected area of the cells must total at least 5% of the tributary roof area. Pavement Areas: 1) Full Dispersion is not practical on this site due flow path lengths and proximity to boundaries or structures; 2) Permeable Pavement is an option of equal significance to bioretention. A bioretention facility has been chosen rather than the use of permeable pavement. 3) Bio-retention: A single biocell is proposed for this site. The projected area of the cell must total at least 5% of the tributary paved area. The proposed frontage sidewalk along 228t" has a longitudinal grade that varies from 5% to nearly flat and shall have an adverse cross slope to direct sidewalk sheet flow onto the project site. The sheet flow shall naturally disperse into native vegetation and/or BMP T5.13 treated soil with a flow path of 15-20 ft over an A/B native base and achieve total infiltration. This sidewalk does not receive flow from any pollution generating surface. A proposed catch basin located in 228t" is proposed to catch an area equivalent to the newly widened pavement area. The proposed catch basin shall direct its discharge into the onsite bioretention facility for water quality treatment and infiltration. Because the biocell has a surface area requirement of 5% of the contributing area, and the biocell has limited space available, rooftops were directed to an infiltration trench calculated per BMP T5.10A Roof Infiltration for Medium Sandy soil (301-f of 2ft trench per 1000 SF of contributing roof area). An equivalent trench area shall meet or exceed BMP T5.10A requirements. The following contributing areas are tabulated as follows: Facility Contributing Area Required Area Provided Area (SF) (SF) (SF) BMP T7.30 Biocell 12,861 (min 5%) 643 690 BMP T5.10A Roof Infiltration 8,100 270 300 c m E z c� a s 3 0 a m M Cn sfshare171c)'dlroieo ''n16+1 VV0"atedCp.�DO(' 'Drmn3IOFH; P816-'41 iReuoxr.doc Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 269 STORMWATER SITE PLAN 2.2.a Aug 16, 2017 WESTGATE WOODS MR 6: RUNOFF TREATMENT With more than 5,000 sf of pollution generating impervious surface the site requires runoff treatment. Oil Control: The site does not meet the threshold of 100 vehicles per day/1,000 sf of building area; oil control is not required. Phosphorous Control: We have reviewed the 303d listing and there are no water bodies listed in the local area. Enhanced Treatment: Enhanced treatment is required when a commercial site discharges directly to fresh waters or conveyance systems tributary to fresh waters designated for aquatic life use or that have an existing aquatic life use. This site proposed complete infiltration and emergency overflow discharge to the City system. Bio-retention is the proposed method of runoff treatment and does meet the requirements for Enhanced Treatment. However, Enhanced Treatment is provided and achieved by the use of a BMP T73.0 Bioretention cell. The biocell contains imported soil mix and provides Enhanced Treatment if 91% of the runoff requiring treatment passes through the mix. All PGIS is directed to the biocell and 100% of that flow passes through the media. BIORETENTION CELLS Runoff Treatment will be addressed through the design and installation of a BMP T7.40 Bioretention cell. Bioretention cells incorporate amended soils and vegetation that use the chemical, biological, and physical properties of plants, microbes, and soils to remove, or retain, pollutants from stormwater runoff prior to infiltration. The 2012/2014 SWMM has "infeasibility criteria" for bioretention and rain garden facilities, which requires the use of double negative descriptions to allow the use of such products. The following is included per 2012/2014 SWMM, but essentially states that the use of bioretention is not infeasible (Bioretention is therefore feasible). If it pleases the City, this infeasibility section will gladly be omitted from future publications of this report. Bioretention Infeasibility criteria The following criteria describe conditions that make bioretention or rain gardens not required. If a project proponent wishes to use a bioretention or rain garden BMP though not required to because of these feasibility criteria, they may propose a functional design to the local government. Note: Criteria with setback distances are as measured from the edge of the bioretention soil mix. PAGE 9 Yri:'urk iSha�ufilzjJ' ��rects'�r41(, 16-241 h17 Wl i� 16-11 lVicemgwteDrainage Repon,doc Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 270 STORMWATER SITE PLAN WESTGATE WOODS 2.2.a Aug 16, 2017 PAGE 10 Citation of any of the following infeasibility criteria must be based on an evaluation of site - specific conditions and a written recommendation from an appropriate licensed professional (e.g., engineer, geologist, hydrogeologist): • Where professional geotechnical evaluation recommends infiltration not be used due to reasonable concerns about erosion, slope failure, or down gradient flooding. No issue. Geotech supports the use of infiltration. ■ Within an area whose ground water drains into an erosion hazard, or landslide hazard area. No issue. • Where the only area available for siting would threaten the safety or reliability of pre- existing underground utilities, pre-existing underground storage tanks, pre-existing structures, or pre- existing road or parking lot surfaces. No issue. • Where the only area available for siting does not allow for a safe overflow pathway to the municipal separate storm sewer system or private storm sewer system. An overflow is provided that connects to an existing discharge. ■ Where there. is a lack of usable space for rain garden/bioretention facilities at re- development sites, or where there is insufficient space within the existing public right-of- way on public road projects. No issue. • Where infiltrating water would threaten existing below grade basements. No known issue. • Where infiltrating water would threaten shoreline structures such as bulkheads. No issue. The following criteria can be cited as reasons for a finding of infeasibility without further justification (though some require professional services): • Within setbacks from structures as established by the local government with jurisdiction. There is adequate clearance. ■ Where they are not compatible with surrounding drainage system as determined by the local government with jurisdiction (e.g., project drains to an existing stormwater collection system whose elevation or location precludes connection to a properly functioning bioretention facility). Not an issue. ■ Where land for bioretention is within area designated as an erosion hazard, or landslide hazard. Not an issue. Where the site cannot be reasonably designed to locate bioretention facilities on slopes less than 8%. Not an issue. • Within 50 feet from the top of slopes that are greater than 20% and over 10 feet of vertical relief. w c m E z c� a s 3 1` 0 a 0 M iSitar�liIC1H11oj,2c[sV1f)1(, 16-241 Drate CI I 08 }F, 16-'41 Wcsu,atc D rainawe Rcpori.doc Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 271 STORMWATER SITE PLAN 2.2.a Aug 16, 2017 WESTGATE WOODS PAGE 11 There are man-made slopes within 50 feet but no natural slopes that meet that criteria for steepness or for height. • For properties with known soil or ground water contamination (typically federal Superfund sites or state cleanup sites under the Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA)): o Within 100 feet of an area known to have deep soil contamination; o Where ground water modeling indicates infiltration will likely increase or change the direction of the migration of pollutants in the ground water; o Wherever surface soils have been found to be contaminated unless those soils are removed within 10 horizontal feet from the infiltration area; o Any area where these facilities are prohibited by an approved cleanup plan under the state Model Toxics Control Act or Federal Superfund Law, or an environmental covenant under Chapter 64.70 RCW. No issue. + Within 100 feet of a closed or active landfill. Does not apply. • Within 100 feet of a drinking water well, or a spring used for drinking water supply. No wells within 100 feet. • Within 10 feet of small on -site sewage disposal drainfield, including reserve areas, and grey water reuse systems. For setbacks from a "large on -site sewage disposal system," see Chapter 246-272B WAC. No issue. ■ Within 10 feet of an underground storage tank and connecting underground pipes when the capacity of the tank and pipe system is 1100 gallons or less. (As used in these criteria, an underground storage tank means any tank used to store petroleum products, chemicals, or liquid hazardous wastes of which 10% or more of the storage volume (including volume in the connecting piping system) is beneath the ground surface. Not an issue. • Within 100 feet of an underground storage tank and connecting underground pipes when the capacity of the tank and pipe system is greater than 1100 gallons. Not an issue. s Where the minimum vertical separation of 1 foot to the seasonal high water table, bedrock, or other impervious layer would not be achieved below bioretention or rain gardens that would serve a drainage area that is: 1) less than 5,000 sq. ft. of pollution - generating impervious surface, and 2) less than 10,000 sq. ft. of impervious surface; and, 3) less than % acres of pervious surface. N/A • Where the a minimum vertical separation of 3 feet to the seasonal high water table, bedrock or other impervious layer would not be achieved below bioretention that: 1) would serve a drainage area that meets or exceeds: a) 5,000 square feet of pollution -generating impervious surface, or b) 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, or c) three-quarter (3/4) acres of pervious surfaces; and 2) cannot reasonably be broken down into amounts smaller than indicated in (1). Based on a review of the geotechnical report there is more than 7.5' to groundwater. =S10ti: ( 11E:7ehli ti��t�_)JCC?5 ;?f)j/. Ir_714 \tlec, t;:lte',('}=I-)O('S'll)rnP20 i 7 Ox I 16-141 1x'«tUa;le l rainape i Zepoil.16' Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 272 STORMWATER SITE PLAN 2.2.a Aug 16, 2017 WESTGATE WOODS Where the field testing indicates potential bioretention/rain garden sites have a measured (a.k.a., initial) native soil saturated hydraulic conductivity less than 0.30 inches per hour. If the measured native soil infiltration rate is less than 0.30 in/hour, this option should not be used to meet the requirements of MR#5. In these slow draining soils, a bioretention facility with an underdrain may be used to treat pollution- generating surfaces to help meet Minimum Requirement #6, Runoff Treatment. If the underdrain is elevated within a base course of gravel, the bioretention system will also provide some modest flow reduction benefit that will help achieve Minimum Requirement #7. Not an issue. Geotech supports infiltration rates of 2 inlhr, the WWHM12 calculations were conducted with tin/hr. Other site suitability factors Utility conflicts: Consult Snohomish County requirements for horizontal and vertical separation required for publicly -owned utilities, such as water and sewer. Consult the appropriate franchise utility owners for separation requirements from their utilities, which may include communications and gas. When separation requirements cannot be met, designs should include appropriate mitigation measures, such as impermeable liners over the utility, sleeving utilities, fixing known leaky joints or cracked conduits, and/or adding an underdrain to the bioretention. No issue. Transportation safety: The design configuration and selected plant types should provide adequate sight distances, clear zones, and appropriate setbacks for roadway applications in accordance with Snohomish County requirements. No issue. Poncling depth and surface water draw -dawn: Flow control needs, as well as location in the development, and mosquito breeding cycles will determine draw -down timing. For example, front yards and entrances to residential or commercial developments may require rapid surface dewatering for aesthetics. No issue. Impacts of surrounding activities: Human activity influences the location of the facility in the development. For example, locate bioretention areas away from traveled areas on individual lots to prevent soil compaction and damage to vegetation or provide elevated or bermed pathways in areas where foot traffic is inevitable. Provide barriers, such as wheel stops, to restrict vehicle access in roadside applications. Curbing, wheel stops and separation will protect the facilities. Visual buffering: Bioretention facilities can be used to buffer structures from roads, enhance privacy among residences, and for an aesthetic site feature. N/A. PAGE 12 i�4cts?f11C,Ir-�^, ,. �taLt,.: flOC�1)xmn Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 273 STORMWATER SITE PLAN WESTGATE WOODS 2.2.a Aug 16, 2017 PAGE 13 Site erowine characteristics and plant selection: Appropriate plants should be selected for sun exposure, soil moisture, and adjacent plant communities. Native species or hardy cultivars are recommended and can flourish in the properly designed and placed Bioretention Soil Mix with no nutrient or pesticide inputs and 2-3 years irrigation for establishment. Invasive species control may be necessary. The landscaping will select appropriate plantings for the site conditions. BIORETENTION CELL DESIGN The underlying soils are sandy gravel. Per Geotest, the long terms infiltration rate meets or exceeds 2"/hr which exceeds that of the percolation rate of the amended soil and underdrains are not needed. Geotest's soil logs show that no groundwater, or evidence of groundwater was observed in any of the exploration pits which ranged deeper than 7.5'. The bioretention cell floor is approximately 7.5ft above the shallowest test pit in that vicinity. The Low Impact Development Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound was referenced to design the specific facilities for this site. The following items are common for all bioretention cells: Side slopes (retained) Amended Soil Depth Amended Soil Infiltration Rate Maximum Surface Storage Depth Subdrainage 0.1:1 18" 2.0"/hr 18" Native soil exceeds 2"/hr, no additional material added for storage. The amended soils will help support plant and microbial growth and provide additional stormwater storage capacity with a designed voids ratio of 40% as recommended by the design manuals. To meet treatment requirements, an excess of 91% of the runoff must filter through the amended soils. 100% of the runoff to the biocell passes through the media, 100% of the flow is infiltrated. TREATMENT FACILITY SUMMARY There bioretention cell provides treatment and infiltration of the parking and vehicular circulation routes, including a small amount of runoff from 228th. Contributing Area (SF) Required 5% Area (SF) Provided Area (SF) BMP T7.30 Biocell 12,861 643 690 See attached WWHM12 screen shots in Appendix B for sizing calculations. With 100 percent filtered through the amended soil, the site meets treatment requirements. ':lt'or�riSita:elilcl`,Psojcol�'Ui6'IG'�,i\- �tz�atr -)0(''',C7rmti:'_(1,0f-'Ii 16-'41'�VIsi:_.ratciiraina€eRcpo;,,doc Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 274 STORMWATER SITE PLAN WESTGATE WOODS 2.2.a Aug 16, 2017 PAGE 14 EMERGENCY OVERFLOW An overflow will be provided for the cell that connects to the public storm system beneath Edmond's Way. A Type-1 catch basin fitted with a trash rack will serve as a weir inlet and an emergency overflow. This structure is conveyed to the public storm system via an existing Type-2 located on the near curb of Edmonds Way. The proposed stormwater facilities are expected to infiltrate 100%, no overflow is expected. MR 7: FLOW CONTROL Runoff from the site is 100% infiltrated via the combined efforts of a BMP TT.30 Bioretention Cell and BMP T5.10A Downspout Infiltration. No additional Flow Control is necessary, see discussion in previous section of report. MR 8: WETLANDS PROTECTION There are no wetlands on or near the site to protect. MR 09: OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE An Operations and Maintenance Manual shall be provided under separate cover with the Construction plans and drainage manual. OPTIONAL GUIDANCE Financial Liability: The land owner and developer shall bear the full financial liability for the construction and maintenance of the private facilities on this project. The developer shall bear the financial responsibly to construct the public features as required and as approved on the construction plans. The land owner or developer shall bear no financial liabilities to maintenance and upkeep of elements that become public except as may be stated in law. Offsite Analysis and Mitigation: No offsite analysis or mitigation is required for this project other than as described in this document or as shown on the plans. E z c� a s 3 0 a m M Cn P:'%Vod. (""haleJ-lC VPioiees 2016' 16-211 Drain:'D17 08 1 I ! V-'csIUaae Orama--c 12ehonAo: Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 275 2.2.a 2012/2014 DOE Flow Chart FIGURES & BASIN MAPS Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 276 2.2.a Figure 1-2.4.1 Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for New Development Start Here Does the site have 35% or more of existing impervious coverage? m Does the project result in 5,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area? Yes All Minimum Requirements apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and converted vegetation areas. V►� DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY State of Washington Yes See Redevelopment Minimum Requirements and Flow Chart (Figure 1-2.4.2). Does the project convert 34 acres or more of vegetation to lawn or landscaped areas, or No convert 2.5 acres or more of native vegetation to pasture? Yes Minimum Requirements #1 through #5 apply to the new and replaced hard surfaces and the land disturbed. Yes Ye: No Does the project result in 2,000 square feet, or greater, of new plus replaced hard surface area? No Does the project have land disturbing activities of 7,000 square feet or greater? IF No Minimum Requirement #2 applies. Figure 1-2.4.1 Flow Chart for Determining Requirements for New Development Revised June 2015 Please see http://www ecy. wa.gov/copyright.html for copyright notice including permissions, limitation of liability, and disclaimer. 2014 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington Vo/um,AftZlGhff t22-4 37 Packet Pg. 277 FIGURE 3: DEVELOPED SITE MAP Not to Scale wsih A N 44 tn E 0 Q. Attachment 22 1 Packet Pg. 278 1 2.2.a APPENDIX A WWHM12 SCREEN SHOTS Isfand2012 1Snohomish2012 V f Map Controls ■ _I S] ±j *J j SITE LOCATION Site Information Site Name Westgate Woods l ,address 19511 Edmonds Way! city !Edmonds Gage Everest Precip Factor B UseWS-DOT data Show DOT Zones D 0 T R egion: Puget E ast Isohyetal value 36 Attachment 22 1Packet Pg. 279 2.2.a WWMM2C:.2 LG-2di Wes�R;r File €dit View yelp summary Report ® -" ra [ENO N 9 Schematic 5t:ENAR105 I > x)yhno- FrOnlayB ❑� rrrrwrr..�•d 1 I . 0 Mooed Run Scenario ba+ic 0l naro utJ��n® Qg.®f EEL-99a Pro Elements II F25 ®� �7 Move Elements • Save xy Load vu Y �I ji PRE DEVELOPED BASIN C3 i:,nrtrng• Frsntegr Prcdeveloprd Subbasin Netme:EEa;:u rFmxa� Surface Interflow Groundwater Flows To: Area in Basin ry Show Only Selected Available Pervious Acres Available Impervious Acres 3y k', Forest rkt ForeaL Steen Pervious Total R'S15 Acres Impervious Total C Acres Basin Total Ip.E15 Acres lC.isC' Select By:. GU Basin. T En irJr EIIGL MULTI 8/18/2017 in PM f Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 280 2.2.a DEVELOPED BASINS ; rvHrazau 11 west rt�ic - 4W l File Edit yrew Help 6ummaryReport _ ®W7102 �_ Schematic SCENARIOS pm PytlavatppCw� hlr,pal�: i Run Scenaiio _ Basic Elements _ proElwner3n GpmmateW To*ox Idovat_lerr�rrts Save xy Load r.,y x Bosin tl Developed Mrtigated Subbasin Name:[6eQ_d DeignxeasBypassforPOC Surface Interflow Groundwater Flows To : & afaee8WAI __.. . utx* Baacd t _ Area in Basin i� Show Only Selected Available Pervious Acres Available Im ervious Acres rv- AA, ctae rTa e16 I✓ .ROAPSIFLAT 7 - DRIVEWAYSMAT _' .187 - Pervious Total :D.a16 Acres Impervious Total Gr202 Acres 8asirtTotal 0-619 Acres Select By: GO Ergfch ENGL MUM $16If3,:017 a361`1,1 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 281 2.2.a File Edit view Help �ummarylkeport C) fii;®` Y. g5Oft 9 ythl�I��nl I' Schematic SCENARIOS 10 Predevelcped Uubd rdfotr Run Scenario J Ila ®� Basic Elements Pro Elements w Commercml Toolbox Move Elements - - - 7_ save" LoadRm Y 9= �Blocell4 INFILTRATING BIOCELL 6M Rioswa, iZ5 • siocdl I Mitigated Facility Name Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Outlet 3 Downstream Connection 110 Facility Type 6iolatentiorrSwele _ i Use simple Biorelention QuickSwrale Size. Water _Quality i SueFecft. Underdrain Used Bioretention Bottom Elevation Bioretention Dimensions Flow Through Underdrain (ac-f() 0 Riore'xnuon Length (It) y(kpfp Total Outflow (ac-ft) Bioretention Bottom Width (ft) g,gp0 Freeboard (It) J I WO Perce Filtered 100 Overload Finor'.ang Rtl �r1 OLIO .1 ,Facility Dimension Diagram 'Effective Total Depth (ft) ,4 I Uli nrs slope of bioreterdion.(0-1) o Q1fl Riser Outlet Structure T- Sidewall Invert Location Outlet Structure Data Flom and Back side slope (HN) 13,100 Riser Height Above bioretenlion surface (ft) Lelt Side Slope (HN) ig,100 Riser Diameter (in) 12 - Right Side Slope (HAfI 0.100 Riser Type ( �? _ Material Layers for Layer 1 Layer 2 Layer 3 Depth (ft) 1500 IQrAo �^ Soil Layer 1 SM)AWW 12><dhl I Soil Layer 2 Sand Orifice Diameter Height Soil Layer 3 �, Number (in) (ft) Edit Soil Types 2 F0— J F0 -- KSat Safety Factor g Fo— J Fo— J ' None { 2 4 Show Bioretention opm Saba - Bioielention Volume at Riser Head (ac-ft) .050 Native Infiltration Yes Total Volume Infiltrated ac-ft ( J 80.659 Measured Infiltration Rate (in/hr) )2 Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft) 0 Reduction Factor (infill"factor) F -? Total Volume Through Facihly(acft) 00.659 Use Wetted Surface Area (sidewalls) NO - Percent Infiltrated 100 Precipitation on Facility (acre-Il) 6 745 Evaporation from Facility (acre-ft) 2 547 Ero;h EIdGL MUL11 r%Il812017 ;W-M Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 282 2.2.a c �a 0 0 0 0 to r APPENDIX B N Z J GEOTECH REPORT a �L 2 E 0 M L0 r 0 0 i 0 Cu 0 i N C d E t V R r-+ r.+ Q t r.+ �3 L 0 NN0 0 'b+ v! r O O O tD r O N Z J O O O O tD r O N Z J d Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 283 2.2.a c �a APPENDIX C o O OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE to N Z J d V C R �L 2 E 0 L0 r 0 0 i 0 Cu 0 i N C d E t V R r-+ r.+ Q t r.+ �3 L 0 N0 0 'b+ v! r O O O tD r O N Z J d O O O O tD r O N Z J d Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 284 2.2.a WWHM2012 PROJECT REPORT Attachment 22 1Packet Pg. 285 2.2.a General Model Information Project Name: 16-241 Westgate Site Name: Westgate Woods Site Address: 9511 Edmonds Way City: Edmonds Report Date: 8/18/2017 MGS Region: Puget East Data Start: 1901 /10/1 Data End: 2058/09/30 Timestep: 15 Minute DOT Data Number02 Version Date: 2016/11/18 Version: 4.2.13 POC Thresholds Low Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Percent of the 2 Year w High Flow Threshold for POC1: 50 Year N r C d E t V R r-+ Q t �3 L 0 NN0 'b+ v! r O O O tD r O N Z J a - Ca O O O O tD r O N Z J d C 0 E t V R r-+ a 16-241 Westgate Attali`gh2'8 Pmacket Pg. 286 2.2.a Landuse Basin Data Predeveloped Land Use Existing+ Frontage Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Forest, Flat 0.561 A B, Forest, Steep 0.058 Pervious Total 0.619 Impervious Land Use acre Impervious Total 0 Basin Total 0.619 Element Flows To: -6 Surface Interflow Groundwater 0 Cu w N r C d E t V R r-+ Q t �3 L 0 NN0 'b+ v! r O O O tD r O N Z J O O O O tD r O N Z J d C d E t V R r-+ a 16-241 Westgate AttaPlh'1'8 PM Packet Pg. 287 2.2.a Mitigated Land Use Developed Bypass: No GroundWater: No Pervious Land Use acre A B, Pasture, Flat 0.416 Pervious Total 0.416 Impervious Land Use acre ROADS FLAT 0.015 DRIVEWAYS FLAT 0.187 Impervious Total 0.202 Basin Total 0.618 Element Flows To: N Surface Interflow Groundwater 0 Surface Biocell 1 Surface Biocell 1 Cu w a� N r C d E t V R r-+ Q t �3 L 0 NN0 'b+ v! r O O O tD r O N Z J O O O O tD r O N Z J d C 0 E t V R r-+ a 16-241 Westgate AttabfTf 'd f:f2' PM Packet Pg. 288 2.2.a Routing Elements Predeveloped Routing M 0 0 0 0 N Z J a a� c M �L M t N O E O z C 3 O O O m M tM m c m E z U c� Q s 3 O a m M Cn m 0 0 w r O N Z J IL Ca 0 0 0 r O N Z J IL c m E Q 16-241 Westgate Attkffidd--22Y' PM Packet Pg. 289 2.2.a Mitigated Routing Biocell 1 Bottom Length: Bottom Width: Material thickness of first layer: Material type for first layer: Material thickness of second layer: Material type for second layer: Material thickness of third layer: Material type for third layer: Infiltration On Infiltration rate: Infiltration safety factor: Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.) Percent Infiltrated: Total Precip Applied to Facility: Total Evap From Facility: Underdrain not used Discharge Structure Riser Height: 1.5 ft. Riser Diameter: 12 in. Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 70.00 ft. 9.90 ft. 1.5 SMMWW 12 in/hr 0 Sand 0 GRAVEL 2 1 80.659 0 80.659 100 6.745 2.547 Bioretention Hydraulic Table Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs) 0.0000 0.0165 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0440 0.0165 0.0002 0.0000 0.0000 0.0879 0.0164 0.0003 0.0000 0.0001 0.1319 0.0164 0.0005 0.0000 0.0001 0.1758 0.0164 0.0006 0.0000 0.0002 0.2198 0.0164 0.0008 0.0000 0.0004 0.2637 0.0164 0.0010 0.0000 0.0007 0.3077 0.0164 0.0011 0.0000 0.0010 0.3516 0.0163 0.0013 0.0000 0.0013 0.3956 0.0163 0.0014 0.0000 0.0018 0.4396 0.0163 0.0016 0.0000 0.0023 0.4835 0.0163 0.0018 0.0000 0.0029 0.5275 0.0163 0.0019 0.0000 0.0036 0.5714 0.0163 0.0021 0.0000 0.0044 0.6154 0.0162 0.0023 0.0000 0.0053 0.6593 0.0162 0.0024 0.0000 0.0062 0.7033 0.0162 0.0027 0.0000 0.0073 0.7473 0.0162 0.0031 0.0000 0.0085 0.7912 0.0162 0.0034 0.0000 0.0098 0.8352 0.0162 0.0037 0.0000 0.0112 0.8791 0.0162 0.0040 0.0000 0.0127 0.9231 0.0161 0.0044 0.0000 0.0144 0.9670 0.0161 0.0047 0.0000 0.0161 1.0110 0.0161 0.0050 0.0000 0.0180 1.0549 0.0161 0.0054 0.0000 0.0201 1.0989 0.0161 0.0057 0.0000 0.0222 16-241 Westgate AttaliMU7''28 PM L Packet Pg. 290 2.2.a 1.1429 0.0161 0.0060 0.0000 0.0245 1.1868 0.0160 0.0063 0.0000 0.0269 1.2308 0.0160 0.0067 0.0000 0.0294 1.2747 0.0160 0.0070 0.0000 0.0321 1.3187 0.0160 0.0073 0.0000 0.0321 1.3626 0.0160 0.0077 0.0000 0.0321 1.4066 0.0160 0.0080 0.0000 0.0321 1.4505 0.0159 0.0083 0.0000 0.0321 1.4945 0.0159 0.0086 0.0000 0.0321 1.5000 0.0159 0.0087 0.0000 0.0321 Bioretention Hydraulic Table Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs) 1,5000 0.0165 0.0087 0.0000 0.1981 0.0000 1.5440 0.0165 0.0094 0.0000 0.1981 0.0000 1.5879 0.0165 0.0101 0.0000 0.2038 0.0000 1.6319 0.0165 0.0109 0.0000 0.2094 0.0000 1.6758 0.0165 0.0116 0.0000 0.2151 0.0000 1.7198 0.0165 0.0123 0.0000 0.2207 0.0000 1.7637 0.0166 0.0130 0.0000 0.2263 0.0000 1.8077 0.0166 0.0138 0.0000 0.2320 0.0000 1.8516 0.0166 0.0145 0.0000 0.2376 0.0000 1.8956 0.0166 0.0152 0.0000 0.2433 0.0000 1.9396 0.0166 0.0160 0.0000 0.2489 0.0000 1.9835 0.0166 0.0167 0.0000 0.2546 0.0000 2.0275 0.0167 0.0174 0.0000 0.2602 0.0000 2.0714 0.0167 0.0182 0.0000 0.2658 0.0000 2.1154 0.0167 0.0189 0.0000 0.2715 0.0000 2.1593 0.0167 0.0196 0.0000 0.2771 0.0000 2.2033 0.0167 0.0204 0.0000 0.2828 0.0000 2.2473 0.0167 0.0211 0.0000 0.2884 0.0000 2.2912 0.0168 0.0218 0.0000 0.2940 0.0000 2.3352 0.0168 0.0226 0.0000 0.2997 0.0000 2.3791 0.0168 0.0233 0.0000 0.3053 0.0000 2.4231 0.0168 0.0240 0.0000 0.3110 0.0000 2.4670 0.0168 0.0248 0.0000 0.3166 0.0000 2.5110 0.0168 0.0255 0.0000 0.3222 0.0000 2.5549 0.0169 0.0263 0.0000 0.3279 0.0000 2.5989 0.0169 0.0270 0.0000 0.3335 0.0000 2.6429 0.0169 0.0277 0.0000 0.3392 0.0000 2.6868 0.0169 0.0285 0.0000 0.3448 0.0000 2.7308 0.0169 0.0292 0.0000 0.3504 0.0000 2.7747 0.0169 0.0300 0.0000 0.3561 0.0000 2.8187 0.0170 0.0307 0.0000 0.3617 0.0000 2.8626 0.0170 0.0315 0.0000 0.3674 0.0000 2.9066 0.0170 0.0322 0.0000 0.3730 0.0000 2.9505 0.0170 0.0330 0.0000 0.3787 0.0000 2.9945 0.0170 0.0337 0.0000 0.3843 0.0000 3.0385 0.0170 0.0344 0.0800 0.3899 0.0000 3.0824 0.0170 0.0352 0.2501 0.3956 0.0000 3.1264 0.0171 0.0359 0.4712 0.4012 0.0000 3.1703 0.0171 0.0367 0.7255 0.4069 0.0000 3.2143 0.0171 0.0374 0.9966 0.4125 0.0000 3.2582 0.0171 0.0382 1.2676 0.4181 0.0000 3.3022 0.0171 0.0390 1.5217 0.4238 0.0000 3.3462 0.0171 0.0397 1.7445 0.4294 0.0000 3.3901 0.0172 0.0405 1.9255 0.4351 0.0000 3.4341 0.0172 0.0412 2.0620 0.4407 0.0000 Atta6Ih%�U 2Y Packet Pg. 291 2.2.a 3.4780 0.0172 0.0420 2.1614 0.4463 0.0000 3.5220 0.0172 0.0427 2.2755 0.4520 0.0000 3.5659 0.0172 0.0435 2.3694 0.4576 0.0000 3.6099 0.0172 0.0442 2.4597 0.4633 0.0000 3.6538 0.0173 0.0450 2.5468 0.4689 0.0000 3.6978 0.0173 0.0458 2.6310 0.4746 0.0000 3.7418 0.0173 0.0465 2.7126 0.4802 0.0000 3.7857 0.0173 0.0473 2.7918 0.4858 0.0000 3.8297 0.0173 0.0480 2.8689 0.4915 0.0000 3.8736 0.0173 0.0488 2.9439 0.4971 0.0000 3.9176 0.0174 0.0496 3.0170 0.5028 0.0000 3.9615 0.0174 0.0503 3.0885 0.5084 0.0000 4.0000 0.0174 0.0510 3.1583 0.5133 0.0000 16-241 Westgate Atta628 PM I Packet Pg. 292 2.2.a Surface Biocell Element Flows To: Outlet 1 Outlet 2 Biocell 1 16-241 Westgate Atta(./hfrl hf-2L 8PM Packet Pg. 293 2.2.a Analysis Results POC 9 � c 0umulahse Pro6abilrt; o coi ll @3 w 000 U .1. 0Lt1 — ouoi 0 � e�cm LL � ow 0 OOI OE•5 10E.4 10E-3 10E-2 10E4 1 10 1 Paraervt Tima Exoeederi9 �> I - M Si M 4; � ``-N5 1 + Predeveloped x Mitigated Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 0.619 Total Impervious Area: 0 Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1 Total Pervious Area: 0,416 Total Impervious Area: 0.202 Flow Frequency Method: Log Pearson Type III 17B Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1 Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0.000309 5 year 0.000403 10 year 0.000452 25 year 0.000501 50 year 0.000531 100 year 0.000556 Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated Return Period Flow(cfs) 2 year 0 5 year 0 10 year 0 25 year 0 50 year 0 100 year 0 Annual Peaks Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated Year Predeveloped Mitigated 1902 0.000 0.000 1903 0.000 0.000 1904 0.000 0.000 1905 0.000 0.000 1906 0.000 0.000 1907 0.000 0.000 1908 0.000 0.000 1909 0.000 0.000 1910 0.000 0.000 1911 0.000 0.000 POC #1 POC #1 tn C d E a 3 0 Q. a� 16-241 Westgate Attaffi%WH -&" PM Packet Pg. 294 2.2.a 1912 0.000 0.000 1913 0.000 0.000 1914 0.000 0.000 1915 0.000 0.000 1916 0.000 0.000 1917 0.000 0.000 1918 0.000 0.000 1919 0.000 0.000 1920 0.000 0.000 1921 0.000 0.000 1922 0.000 0.000 1923 0.000 0.000 1924 0.000 0.000 1925 0.000 0.000 1926 0.000 0.000 1927 0.000 0.000 1928 0.000 0.000 1929 0.000 0.000 1930 0.000 0.000 1931 0.000 0.000 1932 0.000 0.000 1933 0.000 0.000 1934 0.000 0.000 1935 0.000 0.000 1936 0.000 0.000 1937 0.000 0.000 1938 0.000 0.000 1939 0.000 0.000 1940 0.000 0.000 1941 0.000 0.000 1942 0.000 0.000 1943 0.000 0.000 1944 0.000 0.000 1945 0.000 0.000 1946 0.000 0.000 1947 0.000 0.000 1948 0.000 0.000 1949 0.000 0.000 1950 0.000 0.000 1951 0.000 0.000 1952 0.000 0.000 1953 0.000 0.000 1954 0.000 0.000 1955 0.000 0.000 1956 0.000 0.000 1957 0.000 0.000 1958 0.000 0.000 1959 0.000 0.000 1960 0.000 0.000 1961 0.000 0.000 1962 0.000 0.000 1963 0.000 0.000 1964 0.000 0.000 1965 0.000 0.000 1966 0.000 0.000 1967 0.000 0.000 1968 0.000 0.000 1969 0.000 0.000 16-241 Westgate AttaMMnf :3 PM Packet Pg. 295 2.2.a 1970 0.000 0.000 1971 0.000 0.000: 1972 0.000 0.000 1973 0.000 0.000 1974 0.000 0.000 1975 0.000 0.000 1976 0.000 0.000 1977 0.000 0.000 1978 0.000 0.000 1979 0.000 0.000 1980 0.000 0.000 1981 0.000 0.000 1982 0.000 0.000 1983 0.000 0.000 1984 0.000 0.000 1985 0.000 0.000 1986 0.000 0.000 1987 0.000 0.000 1988 0.000 0.000 1989 0.000 0.000 1990 0.000 0.000 1991 0.000 0.000 1992 0.000 0.000 1993 0.000 0.000 1994 0.000 0.000 1995 0.000 0.000 1996 0.000 0.000 1997 0.000 0.000 1998 0.000 0.000 1999 0.000 0.000 2000 0.000 0.000 2001 0.000 0.000 2002 0.000 0.000 2003 0.000 0.000 2004 0.000 0.000 2005 0.000 0.000 2006 0.000 0.000 2007 0.000 0.000 2008 0.000 0.000 2009 0.000 0.000 2010 0.000 0.000 2011 0.000 0.000 2012 0.000 0.000 2013 0.000 0.000 2014 0.000 0.000 2015 0.000 0.000 2016 0.000 0.000 2017 0.000 0.000 2018 0.000 0.000 2019 0.000 0.000 2020 0.000 0.000 2021 0.000 0.000 2022 0.000 0.000 2023 0.000 0.000 2024 0.000 0.000 2025 0.000 0.000 2026 0.000 0.000 2027 0.000 0.000 16-241 Westgate AttaGl%616f:29-5' PM Packet Pg. 296 2.2.a 2028 0.000 0.000 2029 0.000 0.000 2030 0.000 0.000 2031 0.000 0.000 2032 0.000 0.000 2033 0.000 0.000 2034 0.000 0.000 2035 0.000 0.000 2036 0.000 0.000 2037 0.000 0.000 2038 0.000 0.000 2039 0.000 0.000 2040 0.000 0.000 2041 0.000 0.000 2042 0.000 0.000 2043 0.000 0.000 2044 0.000 0.000 2045 0.000 0.000 2046 0.000 0.000 2047 0.000 0.000 2048 0.000 0.000 2049 0.000 0.000 2050 0.000 0.000 2051 0.000 0.000 2052 0.000 0.000 2053 0.000 0.000 2054 0.000 0.000 2055 0.000 0.000 2056 0.000 0.000 2057 0.000 0.000 2058 0.000 0.000 Ranked Annual Peaks Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 0.0005 0.0000 2 0.0005 0.0000 3 0.0005 0.0000 4 0.0005 0.0000 5 0.0005 0.0000 6 0.0005 0.0000 7 0.0005 0.0000 8 0.0005 0.0000 9 0.0005 0.0000 10 0.0005 0.0000 11 0.0005 0.0000 12 0.0005 0.0000 13 0.0005 0.0000 14 0.0005 0.0000 15 0.0005 0.0000 16 0.0005 0.0000 17 0.0005 0.0000 18 0.0005 0.0000 19 0.0004 0.0000 20 0.0004 0.0000 21 0.0004 0.0000 22 0.0004 0.0000 23 0.0004 0.0000 POC #1 16-241 Westgate Atta&%W: 3 PM Packet Pg. 297 2.2.a 24 0.0004 0.0000 25 0.0004 0.0000 26 0.0004 0.0000 27 0.0004 0.0000 28 0.0004 0.0000 29 0.0004 0.0000 30 0.0004 0.0000 31 0.0004 0.0000 32 0.0004 0.0000 33 0.0004 0.0000 34 0.0004 0.0000 35 0.0004 0.0000 36 0.0004 0.0000 37 0.0004 0.0000 38 0.0004 0.0000 39 0.0004 0.0000 40 0.0004 0.0000 41 0.0004 0.0000 42 0.0004 0.0000 43 0.0004 0.0000 44 0.0004 0.0000 45 0.0004 0.0000 46 0.0004 0.0000 47 0.0004 0.0000 48 0.0004 0.0000 49 0.0004 0.0000 50 0.0004 0.0000 51 0.0004 0.0000 52 0.0004 0.0000 53 0.0004 0.0000 54 0.0003 0.0000 55 0.0003 0.0000 56 0.0003 0.0000 57 0.0003 0.0000 58 0.0003 0.0000 59 0.0003 0.0000 60 0.0003 0.0000 61 0.0003 0.0000 62 0.0003 0.0000 63 0.0003 0.0000 64 0.0003 0.0000 65 0.0003 0.0000 66 0.0003 0.0000 67 0.0003 0.0000 68 0.0003 0.0000 69 0.0003 0.0000 70 0.0003 0.0000 71 0.0003 0.0000 72 0.0003 0.0000 73 0.0003 0.0000 74 0.0003 0.0000 75 0.0003 0.0000 76 0.0003 0.0000 77 0.0003 0.0000 78 0.0003 0.0000 79 0.0003 0.0000 80 0.0003 0.0000 81 0.0003 0.0000 16-241 Westgate Attao�fi3 PM Packet Pg. 298 2.2.a 82 0.0003 0.0000 83 0.0003 0.0000 84 0.0003 0.0000 85 0.0003 0.0000 86 0.0003 0.0000 87 0.0003 0.0000 88 0.0003 0.0000 89 0.0003 0.0000 90 0.0003 0.0000 91 0.0003 0.0000 92 0.0003 0.0000 93 0.0003 0.0000 94 0.0003 0.0000 95 0.0003 0.0000 96 0.0003 0.0000 97 0.0003 0.0000 98 0.0003 0.0000 99 0.0003 MOM 100 0.0003 0.0000 101 0.0003 0.0000 102 0.0003 0.0000 103 0.0003 0.0000 104 0.0003 0.0000 105 0.0003 0.0000 106 0.0003 0.0000 107 0.0003 0.0000 108 0.0003 0.0000 109 0.0003 0.0000 110 0.0003 0.0000 111 0.0003 0.0000 112 0.0003 0.0000 113 0.0003 0.0000 114 0.0003 0.0000 115 0.0003 0.0000 116 0.0003 0.0000 117 0.0003 0.0000 118 0.0002 0.0000 119 0.0002 0.0000 120 0.0002 0.0000 121 0.0002 0.0000 122 0.0002 0.0000 123 0.0002 0.0000 124 0.0002 0.0000 125 0.0002 0.0000 126 0.0002 0.0000 127 0.0002 0.0000 128 0.0002 0.0000 129 0.0002 0.0000 130 0.0002 0.0000 131 0.0002 0.0000 132 0.0002 0.0000 133 0.0002 0.0000 134 0.0002 0.0000 135 0.0002 0.0000 136 0.0002 0.0000 137 0.0002 0.0000 138 0.0002 0.0000 139 0.0002 0.0000 16-241 Westgate AttaE �fT1eCl J23 PM Packet Pg. 299 2.2.a 140 0.0002 0.0000 141 0.0002 0.0000 142 0.0002 0.0000 143 0.0002 0.0000 144 0.0002 0.0000 145 0.0002 0.0000 146 0.0002 0.0000 147 0.0002 0.0000 148 0.0002 0.0000 149 0.0002 0.0000 150 0.0002 0.0000 151 0.0001 0.0000 152 0.0001 0.0000 153 0.0001 0.0000 154 0.0001 0.0000 155 0.0001 0.0000 156 0.0001 0.0000 157 0.0001 0.0000 16-241 Westgate Attac�gmenJ:221 PMpnno Packet Pg. 300 2.2.a Duration Flows The Facility PASSED Flow(cfs) Predev mit Percentage Pass/Fail 0.0002 4580 0 0 Pass 0.0002 4394 0 0 Pass 0.0002 4210 0 0 Pass 0.0002 4075 0 0 Pass 0.0002 3920 0 0 Pass 0.0002 3740 0 0 Pass 0.0002 3577 0 0 Pass 0.0002 3406 0 0 Pass 0.0002 3296 0 0 Pass 0.0002 3150 0 0 Pass 0.0002 2985 0 0 Pass 0.0002 2876 0 0 Pass 0.0002 2745 0 0 Pass 0.0002 2685 0 0 Pass 0.0002 2587 0 0 Pass 0.0002 2481 0 0 Pass 0.0002 2389 0 0 Pass 0.0002 2280 0 0 Pass 0.0002 2225 0 0 Pass 0.0002 2115 0 0 Pass 0.0002 2027 0 0 Pass 0.0002 1945 0 0 Pass 0.0002 1848 0 0 Pass 0.0002 1777 0 0 Pass 0.0002 1695 0 0 Pass 0.0002 1605 0 0 Pass 0.0003 1511 0 0 Pass 0.0003 1404 0 0 Pass 0.0003 1341 0 0 Pass 0.0003 1288 0 0 Pass 0.0003 1212 0 0 Pass 0.0003 1165 0 0 Pass 0.0003 1109 0 0 Pass 0.0003 1065 0 0 Pass 0.0003 1023 0 0 Pass 0.0003 966 0 0 Pass 0.0003 925 0 0 Pass 0.0003 879 0 0 Pass 0.0003 843 0 0 Pass 0.0003 828 0 0 Pass 0.0003 798 0 0 Pass 0.0003 768 0 0 Pass 0.0003 742 0 0 Pass 0.0003 714 0 0 Pass 0.0003 686 0 0 Pass 0.0003 626 0 0 Pass 0.0003 602 0 0 Pass 0.0003 572 0 0 Pass 0.0003 510 0 0 Pass 0.0003 493 0 0 Pass 0.0003 481 0 0 Pass 0.0003 455 0 0 Pass 0.0004 431 0 0 Pass 16-241 Westgate AttaSCf1&7rl f!�23 PM L Packet Pg. 301 2.2.a 0.0004 406 0 0 Pass 0.0004 395 0 0 Pass 0.0004 377 0 0 Pass 0.0004 352 0 0 Pass 0.0004 337 0 0 Pass 0.0004 318 0 0 Pass 0.0004 310 0 0 Pass 0.0004 303 0 0 Pass 0.0004 291 0 0 Pass 0.0004 268 0 0 Pass 0.0004 243 0 0 Pass 0.0004 242 0 0 Pass 0.0004 235 0 0 Pass 0.0004 227 0 0 Pass 0.0004 210 0 0 Pass 0.0004 189 0 0 Pass 0.0004 187 0 0 Pass 0.0004 184 0 0 Pass 0.0004 171 0 0 Pass 0.0004 160 0 0 Pass 0.0004 143 0 0 Pass 0.0004 127 0 0 Pass 0.0004 124 0 0 Pass 0.0004 118 0 0 Pass 0.0004 109 0 0 Pass 0.0005 96 0 0 Pass 0.0005 94 0 0 Pass 0.0005 83 0 0 Pass 0.0005 74 0 0 Pass 0.0005 59 0 0 Pass 0.0005 54 0 0 Pass 0.0005 49 0 0 Pass 0.0005 46 0 0 Pass 0.0005 31 0 0 Pass 0.0005 26 0 0 Pass 0.0005 16 0 0 Pass 0.0005 4 0 0 Pass 0.0005 2 0 0 Pass 0.0005 0 0 0 Pass 0.0005 0 0 0 Pass 0.0005 0 0 0 Pass 0.0005 0 0 0 Pass 0.0005 0 0 0 Pass 0.0005 0 0 0 Pass 0.0005 0 0 0 Pass 0.0005 0 0 0 Pass 0.0005 0 0 0 Pass 16-241 Westgate AttkAmi en .1224 PM Packet Pg. 302 2.2.a Water Quality Water Quality BMP Flow and Volume for POC #1 On-line facility volume: 0 acre-feet On-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. Off-line facility target flow: 0 cfs. Adjusted for 15 min: 0 cfs. 16-241 Westgate /gtta(( fTl�fl :! 4 PM Packet Pg. 303 2.2.a LID Report LID Technique Used for Total Volume Volume Infiltration Cumulative Percent Water Quality Percent Comment Treatment? Needs Through Volume Volume Volume WalerQuallty Treatment Facility (ar,-t) 101"flon Inriltrated Treated (ac-fl) (ac-1t) Credit Biocell 1 POC ❑ 73.40 ❑ 100.00 Total Volume inwltrated 73.40 0.00 000 100.00 0_00 Ova No Treat. Credit Compliance with LID duration Standard 8% 02-}T to 50% of analysis 2-yr Result = Passes C M O c� O 0 m 0 N Z J a o) V c M �L M t in O E O z C 3 0 H to O 0 m 0 tM m to c m E z U M Q s 3 0 a m tY 0 Cn m 0 0 co r O N Z J a O 0 0 r O N Z J a c m E 0 Q 16-241 Westgate Atta8GflfTlefl L 4 PM Packet Pg. 304 2.2.a Model Default Modifications Total of 0 changes have been made. PERLND Changes No PERLND changes have been made. IMPLND Changes No IMPLND changes have been made. 16-241 Westgate Att.&flfTle7 T'2219 M LL Packet Pg. 305 2.2.a Appendix Predeveloped Schematic s .. -1 To r O t0 O O t0 O N Z J d o. t) C R �L t N w E 0 L C 3 0 H U) 0 0 a� 0 a� U) m N r C d E t t) a 3 L 0 Q NCD r N r O O to r O N Z J d 06 O t0 O O to r O N Z J d r C tU E L t) Q 16-241 Westgate Att&RRAI:22 PM Packet Pg. 306 O t0 O O t0 O N Z J d o. t) C R �L t N w E 0 L C 3 0 H U) 0 0 a� 0 a� U) m N r C d E t t) a 3 L 0 Q NCD r N r O O to r O N Z J d 06 O t0 O O to r O N Z J d r C tU E L t) Q 16-241 Westgate Att&RRAI:22 PM Packet Pg. 306 2.2.a Mitigated Schematic I 16-241 Westgate Attac�h1211 n :4229 PM Packet Pg. 307 2.2.a Predeveloped UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1901 10 01 END RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> END FILES OPN SEQUENCE 2058 09 30 UNIT SYSTEM 1 < ----------- File Name-- ---------------------------->*** *** INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 1 PERLND 3 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<---------- Title ----------- >***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 1 Existing+ Frontage MAX END DISPLY-INFOI END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** END OPCODE PARM # # K *** END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 2 30 9 <PLS ><------- Name ------- >NBLKS Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** 1 A/B, Forest, Flat 3 A/B, Forest, Steep END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** in out *** 1 1 1 1 27 0 1 1 1 1 27 0 ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO v <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* Q 16-241 Westgate Atta8CflfT 61: L29 PM Packet Pg. 308 2.2.a 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFO HWT *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 1 0 5 2 400 0.05 0.3 0.996 3 0 5 2 400 0.15 0.3 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - $# ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 1 0.2 0.5 0.35 0 0.7 0.7 3 0.2 0.5 0.35 0 0.7 0.7 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 1 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 END PWAT-STATEI END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><------- Name ------- > Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <ILS > ******** Print -flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* END PRINT -INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** END IWAT-PARM1 IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 16-241 Westgate Attac�8men��` T PM Packet Pg. 309 2.2.a <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEl <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS END IWAT-STATEI END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <Name> # Existing+ Frontage*** PERLND 1 PERLND 1 PERLND 3 PERLND 3 ******Routing****** END SCHEMATIC <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# 0.561 COPY 501 12 0.561 COPY 501 13 0.058 COPY 501 12 0.058 COPY 501 13 NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer *** # - #<------------------ >< --- > User T-series Engl Metr LKFG *** in out *** END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PLNK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* END PRINT -INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC Al A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** END HYDR-PARMl HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** <------ ><-------- ><--------><--------><--------><-------->< ---> *k* END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------><-------- > <---><---><---><---><---> *** <---><---><---><---><---> END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES 16-241 Westgate Attabffff6fift,29 PM Packet Pg. 310 2.2.a SPEC -ACTIONS END SPEC -ACTIONS FTABLES END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 DIV PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 DIV IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 501 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS -LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult--> <Target> <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> <Name> # #<-factor-> <Name> <Name> # #*** MASS -LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS -LINK 12 MASS -LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS -LINK 13 END MASS -LINK END RUN 16-241 Westgate Atta& 'dhf:2Y9 PM Packet Pg. 311 2.2.a Mitigated UCI File RUN GLOBAL WWHM4 model simulation START 1901 10 01 END RUN INTERP OUTPUT LEVEL 3 0 RESUME 0 RUN 1 END GLOBAL FILES <File> <Un#> END FILES OPN SEQUENCE 2058 09 30 UNIT SYSTEM 1 < ----------- File Name------------------------------>*** *** INGRP INDELT 00:15 PERLND 4 IMPLND l IMPLND 5 GENER 2 RCHRES 1 RCHRES 2 COPY 1 COPY 501 DISPLY 1 END INGRP END OPN SEQUENCE DISPLY DISPLY-INFO1 # - #<---------- Title ----------- >***TRAN PIVL DIG1 FIL1 1 Surface Biocell 1 MAX END DISPLY-INFO1 END DISPLY COPY TIMESERIES # - # NPT NMN *** 1 1 1 501 1 1 END TIMESERIES END COPY GENER OPCODE # # OPCD *** 2 24 END OPCODE PARM # # K *** 2 0. END PARM END GENER PERLND GEN-INFO PYR DIG2 FIL2 YRND 1 2 30 9 <PLS ><------- Name ------- >NBLKS Unit -systems Printer *** # - # User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 4 A/B, Pasture, Flat 1 1 1 1 27 0 END GEN-INFO *** Section PWATER*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC *** 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16-241 Westgate Atta61b171f'LL]9 PM Packet Pg. 312 2.2.a END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ***************************** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW PWAT SED PST PWG PQAL MSTL PEST NITR PHOS TRAC ********* 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO PWAT-PARM1 <PLS > PWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP UZFG VCS VUZ VNN VIFW VIRC VLE INFC HWT *** 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM1 PWAT-PARM2 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 2 *** # - # ***FOREST LZSN INFILT LSUR SLSUR KVARY AGWRC 4 0 5 1.5 400 0.05 0.3 0.996 END PWAT-PARM2 PWAT-PARM3 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 3 *** # - # ***PETMAX PETMIN INFEXP INFILD DEEPFR BASETP AGWETP 4 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 END PWAT-PARM3 PWAT-PARM4 <PLS > PWATER input info: Part 4 *** # - # CEPSC UZSN NSUR INTFW IRC LZETP *** 4 0.15 0.5 0.3 0 0.7 0.4 END PWAT-PARM4 PWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation ran from 1990 to end of 1992 (pat 1-11-95) RUN 21 *** # - # *** CEPS SURS UZS IFWS LZS AGWS GWVS 4 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 END PWAT-STATEI END PERLND IMPLND GEN-INFO <PLS ><------- Name ------- > 1 ROADS/FLAT 5 DRIVEWAYS/FLAT END GEN-INFO *** Section IWATER*** Unit -systems Printer *** User t-series Engl Metr *** in out *** 1 1 1 27 0 1 1 1 27 0 ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL *** 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <ILS > ******** Print -flags ******** PIVL PYR # - # ATMP SNOW IWAT SLD IWG IQAL ********* 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 5 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO IWAT-PARM1 <PLS > IWATER variable monthly parameter value flags *** # - # CSNO RTOP VRS VNN RTLI *** 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 END TWAT-PARM1 16-241 Westgate AttabP ht:V2-9 PM Packet Pg. 313 2.2.a IWAT-PARM2 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 2 *** ## - # *** LSUR SLSUR NSUR RETSC 1 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 5 400 0.01 0.1 0.1 END IWAT-PARM2 IWAT-PARM3 <PLS > IWATER input info: Part 3 *** # # ***PETMAX PETMIN 1 0 0 5 0 0 END IWAT-PARM3 IWAT-STATEI <PLS > *** Initial conditions at start of simulation # - # *** RETS SURS 1 0 0 5 0 0 END IWAT-STATEI END IMPLND SCHEMATIC <-Source-> <--Area--> <-Target-> MBLK *** <Name> # <-factor-> <Name> # Tbl# *** Developed*** PERLND 4 0.416 RCHRES 1 2 PERLND 4 0.416 RCHRES 1 3 IMPLND 1 0.015 RCHRES 1 5 IMPLND 5 0.187 RCHRES 1 5 ******Routing****** PERLND 4 0.416 COPY 1 12 IMPLND 1 0.015 COPY 1 15 IMPLND 5 0.187 COPY 1 15 PERLND 4 0.416 COPY 1 13 RCHRES 1 1 RCHRES 2 8 RCHRES 2 1 COPY 501 17 RCHRES 1 1 COPY 501 17 END SCHEMATIC NETWORK <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 DISPLY 1 INPUT TIMSER 1 GENER 2 OUTPUT TIMSER .0011111 RCHRES 1 EXTNL OUTDGT 1 <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** END NETWORK RCHRES GEN-INFO RCHRES Name Nexits Unit Systems Printer # - #<------------------ ><---> User T-series Engl Metr LKFG in out 1 Surface Biocell -007 3 1 1 1 28 0 1 2 Biocell 1 2 1 1 1 28 0 1 END GEN-INFO *** Section RCHRES*** ACTIVITY <PLS > ************* Active Sections ***************************** # - ## HYFG ADFG CNFG HTFG SDFG GQFG OXFG NUFG PKFG PHFG *** 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16-241 Westgate Attab( f fl: ,. 9 PM Packet Pg. 314 2.2.a END ACTIVITY PRINT -INFO <PLS > ***************** Print -flags ******************* PIVL PYR # - # HYDR ADCA CONS HEAT SED GQL OXRX NUTR PINK PHCB PIVL PYR ********* 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9 END PRINT -INFO HYDR-PARM1 RCHRES Flags for each HYDR Section *** # - # VC Al A2 A3 ODFVFG for each *** ODGTFG for each FUNCT for each FG FG FG FG possible exit *** possible exit possible exit * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** 1 0 1 0 0 4 5 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 2 0 1 0 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 END HYDR-PARM1 HYDR-PARM2 # - # FTABNO LEN DELTH STCOR KS DB50 *** < _ _ _ _ _ _ > < _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > < _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > < _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ > < _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > < _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > < _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > >F 1c 1 1 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2 2 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 END HYDR-PARM2 HYDR-INIT RCHRES Initial conditions for each HYDR section *** # - # *** VOL Initial value of COLIND Initial value of OUTDGT *** ac-ft for each possible exit for each possible exit <------>< -------- > <--- ><--- ><--- ><--->< --- > *** <--- ><--->< --- >< --- ><---> 1 0 4.0 5.0 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 END HYDR-INIT END RCHRES SPEC -ACTIONS *** User -Defined Variable Quantity Lines *** addr *** <------> *** kwd varnam optyp opn vari sl s2 s3 tp multiply lc is ac as agfn *** < * * * * > < _ _ _ _ > < _ _ _ _ > < - > < _ _ _ _ > < - > < - > < - > < - > < _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ > < > < - > UVQUAN vo12 RCHRES 2 VOL 4 UVQUAN v2m2 GLOBAL WORKSP 1 3 UVQUAN vpo2 GLOBAL WORKSP 2 3 UVQUAN v2d2 GENER 2 K 1 3 *** User -Defined Target Variable Names *** addr or addr or *** <------> <------> *** kwd varnam ct vari sl s2 s3 frac oper vari sl s2 s3 frac oper <****> <---- ><-> <---- ><-><-><-> <--- > <__> <____><-><-><-> <___> <__> UVNAME v2m2 1 WORKSP 1 1.0 QUAN UVNAME vpo2 1 WORKSP 2 1.0 QUAN UVNAME v2d2 1 K 1 1.0 QUAN *** opt foplop dcdts yr mo dy hr mn d t vnam sl s2 s3 ac quantity tc is rp <****><-><--><><-><--> <> <> <> <><><> <---- ><-><-><-><-><-------- > <> <-><-> GENER 2 v2m2 = 357. *** Compute remaining available pore space GENER 2 vpo2 = v2m2 GENER 2 vpo2 vo12 *** Check to see if VPORA goes negative; if so set VPORA = 0.0 IF (vpo2 < 0.0) THEN GENER 2 vpo2 = 0.0 END IF *** Infiltration volume GENER 2 v2d2 = vpo2 END SPEC -ACTIONS FTABLES FTABLE 2 36 5 Depth Area Volume Outflowl Outflow2 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 16-241 Westgate AttaGcflTi 0dhf :�l9 PM Packet Pg. 315 2.2.a 0.000000 0.016461 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.043956 0.016459 0.000160 0.000000 0.000013 0.087912 0.016443 0.000320 0.000000 0.000052 0.131868 0.016427 0,000480 0.000000 0.000127 0.175824 0.016411 0.000641 0.000000 0.000249 0.219780 0.016394 0.000802 0.000000 0.000423 0.263736 0.016378 0.000962 0.000000 .0.000656 0.307692 0,016362 0.001123 0.000000 0.000954 0.351648 0.016346 0.001284 0.000000 0.001322 0.395604 0.016330 0.001446 0.000000 0.001765 0.439560 0.016313 0.001607 0.000000 0.002267 0.483516 0.016297 0.001769 0.000000 0.002893 0.527473 0.016281 0.001930 0.000000 0.003587 0.571429 0.016265 0.002092 0.000000 0.004373 0.615385 0.016249 0.002254 0.000000 0.005253 0.659341 0.016232 0.002417 0.000000 0.006234 0.703297 0.016216 0.002742 0.000000 0.007316 0.747253 0.016200 0.003067 0.000000 0.008505 0.791209 0.016184 0.003392 0.000000 0.009802 0.835165 0.016168 0.003718 0.000000 0.011212 0.879121 0.016151 0.004044 0.000000 0.012737 0.923077 0.016135 0.004370 0.000000 0.014381 0.967033 0.016119 0.004697 0.000000 0.016146 1.010989 0.016103 Q.005024 0.000000 0.018034 1.054945 0.016087 0.005352 0.000000 0.020050 1.098901 0.016071 0.005680 0.000000 0.022195 1.142857 0.016054 0.006008 0.000000 0.024473 1.186813 0.016038 0.006336 0.000000 0.026885 1.230769 0.016022 0.006665 0.000000 0.029434 1.274725 0.016006 0.006994 0.000000 0.032083 1.318681 0.015990 0.007323 0.000000 0.032083 1.362637 0.015974 0.007653 0.000000 0.032083 1.406593 0.015957 0.007983 0.000000 0.032083 1.450549 0.015941 0.008313 0.000000 0.032083 1.494505 0.015925 0.008644 0.000000 0.032083 1.500000 0.015909 0.018239 0.000000 0.032083 END FTABLE 2 FTABLE 1 58 6 Depth Area Volume Outflowl Outflow2 outflow 3 Velocity Travel Time*** (ft) (acres) (acre-ft) (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) (ft/sec) (Minutes)*** 0.000000 0,015909 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.043956 0.016478 0.000724 0.000000 0.198141 0.000000 0.087912 0.016494 0.001449 0.000000 0.203782 0.000000 0.131868 0.016510 0.002174 0.000000 0.209423 0.000000 0.175824 0.016526 0.002900 0.000000 0.215064 0.000000 0.219780 0.016543 0.003627 0.000000 0.220705 0.000000 0.263736 0.016559 0.004354 0.000000 0.226346 0.000000 0.307692 0.016575 0.005083 0.000000 0.231987 0.000000 0.351648 0.016592 0.005812 0.000000 0.237628 0.000000 0.395604 0.016608 0.006541 0.000000 0.243269 0.000000 0.439560 0.016624 0.007272 0.000000 0.248910 0.000000 0.483516 0.016640 0.008003 0.000000 0.254551 0.000000 0.527473 0.016657 0.008734 0.000000 0.260193 0.000000 0.571429 0.016673 0.009467 0.000000 0.265834 0.000000 0.615385 0.016689 0.010200 0.000000 0.271475 0.000000 0.659341 0.016706 0.010934 0.000000 0.277116 0.000000 0.703297 0.016722 0.011669 0.000000 0.282757 0.000000 0.747253 0.016738 0.012404 0.000000 0.288398 0.000000 0.791209 0.016754 0.013140 0.000000 0.294039 0.000000 0.835165 0.016771 0.013877 0.000000 0.299680 0.000000 0.879121 0.016787 0.014615 0.000000 0.305321 0.000000 0.923077 0.016803 0.015353 0.000000 0.310962 0.000000 0.967033 0.016820 0.016092 0.000000 0.316603 0.000000 1.010989 0.016836 0.016832 0.000000 0.322244 0.000000 1.054945 0.016852 0.017572 0.000000 0.327885 0.000000 1.098901 0.016869 0.018313 0.000000 0.333526 0.000000 1.142857 0.016885 0.019055 0.000000 0.339167 0.000000 16-241 Westgate AttaMM:4 - 9 PM Packet Pg. 316 2.2.a 1.186813 0.016901 0.019797 0.000000 0.344808 0.000000 1.230769 0.016918 0.020541 0.000000 0.350449 0.000000 1.274725 0.016934 0.021285 0.000000 0.356090 0.000000 1.318681 0.016950 0.022029 0.000000 0.361731 0.000000 1.362637 0.016967 0.022775 0.000000 0.367372 0.000000 1.40G593 0.016983 0.023521 0.000000 0.373013 0.000000 1.450549 0.016999 0.024268 0.000000 0,378654 0.000000 1.494505 0.017016 0.025015 0.000000 0.384295 0.000000 1.538462 0.017032 0.025764 0.079976 0.389936 0.000000 1.582418 0.017049 0.026513 0.250137 0.395577 0.000000 1.626374 0.017065 0.027263 0.471194 0.401218 0.000000 1.670330 0.017081 0.028013 0.725495 0.406859 0.000000 1.714286 0.017098 0.028764 0.996598 0.412500 0.000000 1.758242 0.017114 0.029516 1.267570 0.418141 0.000000 1.802198 0.017131 0.030269 1.521742 0.423782 0.000000 1.846154 0.017147 0.031022 1.744468 0.429423 0.000000 1.890110 0.017163 0.031776 1.925525 0.435064 0.000000 1.934066 0.017180 0.032531 2.061968 0.440705 0.000000 1.978022 0.017196 0.033286 2.161385 0.446347 0.000000 2.021978 0.017213 0.034043 2.275546 0.451988 0.000000 2.065934 0.017229 0.034800 2.369422 0.457629 0.000000 2.109890 0.017245 0.035557 2.459718 0.463270 0.000000 2.153846 0.017262 0.036316 2.546815 0.468911 0.000000 2.197802 0.017278 0,037075 2.631029 0.474552 0.000000 2.241758 0.017295 0.037835 2.712631 0.480193 0.000000 2.285714 0.017311 0.038595 2.791849 0.485634 0.000000 2.329670 0.017327 0.039357 2.868880 0.491475 0.000000 2.373626 0.017344 0.040119 2.943896 0.497116 0.000000 2.417582 0.017360 0.040881 3.017047 0.502757 0.000000 2.461538 0.017377 0.041645 3.088466 0.508398 0.000000 2.500000 0.017391 0.042313 3.158271 0.513334 0.000000 END FTABLE 1 END FTABLES EXT SOURCES <-Volume-> <Member> SsysSgap<--Mult-->Tran <-Target vols> <-Grp> <-Member-> *** <Name> # <Name> # tem strg<-factor->strg <Name> # # <Name> # # *** WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 DIV PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 DIV IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 PERLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 IMPLND 1 999 EXTNL PETINP WDM 2 PREC ENGL 1 DIV RCHRES 1 EXTNL PREC WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.5 RCHRES 1 EXTNL POTEV WDM 1 EVAP ENGL 0.76 RCHRES 2 EXTNL POTEV END EXT SOURCES EXT TARGETS <-Volume-> <-Grp> <-Member-><--Mult-->Tran <-Volume-> <Member> Tsys Tgap Amd *** <Name> # <Name> # #<-factor->strg <Name> # <Name> tem strg strg*** RCHRES 2 HYDR RO 1 1 1 WDM 1004 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 2 HYDR O 1 1 1 WDM 1005 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 2 HYDR O 2 1 1 WDM 1006 FLOW ENGL REPL RCHRES 2 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1007 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR STAGE 1 1 1 WDM 1008 STAG ENGL REPL RCHRES 1 HYDR 0 1 1 1 WDM 1009 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 1 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 701 FLOW ENGL REPL COPY 501 OUTPUT MEAN 1 1 48.4 WDM 801 FLOW ENGL REPL END EXT TARGETS MASS -LINK <Volume> <-Grp> <Name> MASS -LINK PERLND PWATER END MASS -LINK <-Member-><--Mult--> <Name> # #<-factor-> 2 SURO 0.083333 2 MASS -LINK 3 PERLND PWATER IFWO END MASS -LINK 3 0.083333 <Target> <Name> RCHRES <-Grp> <-Member->*** <Name> # #*** INFLOW IVOL INFLOW IVOL 16-241 Westgate Attablhf:219 PM Packet Pg. 317 2.2.a MASS -LINK 5 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS -LINK 5 MASS -LINK 8 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 2 RCHRES INFLOW IVOL END MASS -LINK 8 MASS -LINK 12 PERLND PWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END.MASS-LINK 12 MASS -LINK 13 PERLND PWATER IFWO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS -LINK 13 MASS -LINK 15 IMPLND IWATER SURO 0.083333 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS -LINK 15 MASS -LINK 17 RCHRES OFLOW OVOL 1 COPY INPUT MEAN END MASS -LINK 17 END MASS -LINK END RUN 16-241 Westgate AttaEffAb6f:V29 PM Packet Pg. 318 2.2.a Predeveloped HSPF Message File m 0 0 0 0 N Z J a a� c m �L m t N O E O z C 3 O w O O m m tm m c m E z u c� Q s 3 O a m m Cn m 0 0 w r O N Z J IL Ca 0 0 0 r O N Z J IL c CD E Q 16-241 Westgate AttabP hf:VZ9 PM Packet Pg. 319 2.2.a Mitigated HSPF Message File 0 0 0 to r O N Z J d V C R �L 2 E 0 L0 r 0 0 0 0 cn 0 N r C 0 E t V R r-+ Q t �3 L 0 NN0 0 'b+ v! r O O O w r O N Z J d ca O O O O tD r O N Z J d r C d E t V R 16-241 Westgate AttaG1�1ht3:09 PM Packet Pg. 320 2.2.a Disclaimer Legal Notice This program and accompanying documentation are provided 'as -is' without warranty of any kind. 1 entire risk regarding the performance and results of this program is assumed by End User. Clear Creek Solutions Inc. and the governmental licensee or sublicensees disclaim all warranties, either expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of program and accompanying documentation. In no event shall Clear Creek Solutions Inc. be liable for any damages whatsoever (including without limitation to damages for loss of business profits, loss of business information, business interruption, and the like) arising out of the use of, or inability to use this program even if Clear Creek Solutions Inc. or their authorized representatives have been advised of the possibility of such damages. Software Copyright © by : Clear Creep Solutions, Inc. 2005-2017; All Rights Reserved. Clear Creek Solutions, Inc. 6200 Capitol Blvd. Ste F Olympia, WA. 98501 Toll Free 1(866)943-0304 Local (360)943-0304 www.clearcreeksolutions.com 16-241 Westgate Atta b1hV:2Y9 PM Packet Pg. 321 2.2.a 009 GGOTG'ST June 10, 2016 Project No. 16-0234, REVISION 1 Westgate Woods, LLC C/O Bill Booth 2817 NW 94th Street Seattle, Washington 98117 741 h%urine Drive Bellingham, VVA 98225 360 m 7379 20611-67" Avenue NE '.:I- • :.- Arlington.WA 98223 M2B1 W76 Re: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Edmonds Townhouses 9511 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Booth: 360 7337418 As requested, GeoTest Services, Inc. is pleased to submit this report summarizing the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the proposed Edmonds Townhouses Development, located at 9511 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington. (see Vicinity Neap, Figure 1). This report has been prepared in general accordance with the terms and conditions established in our services agreement, dated April 22, 2016. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site consists of two adjacent, moderately vegetated parcels in an existing residential neighborhood. GTS anticipates that the properties will be cleared of native vegetation and that new construction will consist of multi -story townhomes utilizing wood -frame construction. GTS anticipates the use of shallow conventional foundations and slab -on -grade floors. GTS has not been provided structural loading, but we anticipate that structural loads will be relatively light. GTS anticipates minimal lot setbacks, reduced parking areas, and below -grade tanks or covered infiltration facilities to maximize the allowable area of development. GTS currently anticipates multiple units distributed across the property. GTS understands that the project site contains several feet of previously placed, uncontrolled fill materials. SITE CONDITIONS This section discusses the general surface and subsurface conditions observed at the project site during the time of our field investigation. Interpretations of the site conditions are based upon the results of our review of available information, site reconnaissance, subsurface explorations, laboratory testing, and our experience in the project vicinity. Surface Conditions The project site is bordered by Edmonds Way to the south, 95th Place West along the eastern property boundary, and 228th Street SW along the northern property boundary. Regional topography consists of a large gully -like depression that drops to the west, with Edmonds Way following the center of this gully and slopes rising to the north and south to either side of the site. Page 1 of 15 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 322 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc. REVISION 1 June 10, 2016 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA Job No. 16-0234 The eastern half of the subject property is at or near the surrounding roadway grades, while the western half of the project site is approximately 5 feet lower and generally depressed relative to roadways to the north and south of the site. An approximately 5 foot high modular block retaining wall with railing separates the Edmonds Way right-of-way from the property. GTS understands that historic grading activities may have lowered portions of the site, possibly with the intent of removing sand and gravel from the site to be used as an exported material. Aside from the moderatly steep 5 foot drop between the eastern and western portions of the property, the site is relatively flat with less than a few feet of elevation differential. The west property shows indications of previous site development that include a concrete foundation. The previous structure has been largely removed from the site. Other indicators of previous site development remain, such as concrete foundation remnants, cleared areas of vegetation, and uncontrolled fill on the property. The site supports a moderate to dense growth of vegetation that consists of evergreen and deciduous trees, as well as typical forest undergrowth. GTS is aware that a drainage system was historically installed by the City along 228th Street SW with an outlet pipe draining onto the subject property without the previous property Owner's permission. GTS understands that the previous property Owner notified the City on or around 2010 of negative impacts to the property and that the drainage system was immediately removed, sealed, and/or decommissioned by the City. Since the removal of the City's drainage system over 5 years ago and property ownership being taken by the current Owner, GTS is not aware of surface drainage, wetland, or similar drainage -related issues being present on the site. Subsurface Soil Conditions Subsurface conditions were explored by advancing 5 exploration test pits (TP-1 though TP-5) on May 6, 2016. The explorations were advanced to depths of between 7.5 and 10 feet below ground surface (BGS) using a subcontracted excavator. The approximate locations of the explorations are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. The subsurface soils on the east half of the site generally consisted of a thin section of topsoil and/or forest duff, underlain by approximately 4 to 7 feet of previously placed, uncontrolled fill with variable amounts of cobbles, boulders, brick, concrete, and similar construction debris. Underlying the fill at depths of between 4.5 to 8 feet was native, medium dense to dense gravelly sand that was interpreted to be representative of Advance Outwash. On the west half of the site, GTS encountered a thin section of topsoil and/or forest duff underlain by loose, trending to dense, gravelly sand that was interpreted to be representative of Advance Outwash. See the attached Site and Exploration Map (Figure 2) and the Log of Test Pits (Figures 5 through 7) for more information regarding the approximate locations of the exploration pits and subsurface soil conditions encountered. General Geologic Conditions Geologic information for the project site was obtained from the "Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington" (Minard, 1983), published by the United States Geological Survey. According to Minard, surficial soils in the vicinity of the project site consist of Advance Outwash (Qva), with Till (Qvt) in close proximity to the site. Till is recorded as being a more recent deposit and consisting of a non -sorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, pebbles, cobbles, and boulders. Till is a dense to very dense, glacially consolidated Page 2 of 15 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 323 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc. REVISION 1 June 10, 2016 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA Job No. 16-0234 material deposited directly by and overridden by glacial ice. Advance Outwash is mapped below the Till and is described as a mostly clean pebbly sand with increasing amounts of gravel higher in the section. The Advance Outwash was deposited by the meltwater before being overridden during the advance of the glacier. Advance Outwash is typically dense to very dense due to the glacial consolidation that it experienced. Subsurface soils encountered within the exploration test pits were generally consistent with Advance Outwash. Groundwater At the time of our subsurface investigation in April of 2016, groundwater seepage was not observed in any of our explorations. The groundwater conditions reported on the exploration logs are for the specific locations and dates indicated, and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other locations and/or times. Groundwater levels and/or seepage rates are not static and it is anticipated that groundwater conditions will vary depending on local subsurface conditions, season, precipitation, changes in land use both on and off site and other factors. The dense to very dense nature of the subsurface soils, combined with generally looser materials encountered in the upper 2 to 3 feet suggest that perched groundwater conditions may develop during extended periods of rainfall. Perched groundwater conditions are encountered when looser or more granular materials overlie denser or siltier materials, thus preventing groundwater seepage from adequately draining. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is our opinion that subsurface conditions at the site are suitable for the proposed improvements, provided the recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the project design Geologic Hazards and Recommended Mitigation The proposed area of improvement is relatively flat and underlain by dense to very dense, glacially consolidated materials. As such, the property does not meet the criteria established in the City of Edmonds Municipal Code for slope, seismic, or erosion hazards. These hazards include slope stability hazards, liquefaction hazards, and landslide hazards. The closest fault trace to the project site is the South Whidbey Island -Lake Alice Fault, but this fault is located several miles from the projected fault line and, historically, has not had indications of surficial ground rupture. As such, no specific mitigations for geologically hazardous areas or surficial ground rupture are required for this project. Site development is, however, anticipated to include a Washington State Department of Ecology Construction Storm Water General Permit to mitigate the erosion potential of soils exposed during construction or site grading activities. In order to meet the criteria established by the Department of Ecology, an erosion control plan consistent with the governing municipal standards and best management practices will be required for this project. The contractor will be responsible for implementing the erosion control plan as established in the plans and specifications approved by the governing municipality for the project. Page 3 of 15 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 324 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc. REVISION 1 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA Site Preparation and Earthwork June 10, 2016 Job No. 16-0234 The portions of the site to be occupied by proposed foundation, floor slabs, and/or sidewalks should be prepared by removing any existing pavements, topsoil, existing fill, deleterious material and significant accumulations of organics from the area to be developed. Based on our subsurface soil explorations, GTS anticipates that up to 8 feet of Uncontrolled Fill will be removed on the east half of the site, and that about 1 to 1.5 feet of Uncontrolled Fill and Topsoil will be removed on the west half of the site. Given the unknowns regarding how the fill was initially placed and the variable thickness of fill across the site, GTS recommends that flexibility be built into contract documents regarding the removal of on -site Uncontrolled Fill from development areas. The thickness of the Uncontrolled Fill is not uniform and may be either shallower or deeper in other areas of the site than what was observed during our explorations. GTS recommends that we be present during stripping operations to document the depth of removed soils. Such documentation may become important in determining contractual reimbursement to the contractor and will be dependent upon how the contract is structured. Prior to, placement of any foundation elements or structural fill, the exposed subgrade under all areas to be occupied by soil -supported floor slabs or new foundations should be recompacted to a firm and unyielding condition and proof rolled with a loaded dump truck, large self-propelled vibrating roller, or similar piece of equipment applicable to the size of the excavation. The purpose of this effort is to identify possible loose or soft soil deposits and recompact, if feasible, the soil disturbed during site excavation activities. Proof rolling should be observed by qualified geotechnical personnel. Areas exhibiting significant deflection, pumping, or observed to have elevated moisture contents that prevent the soil from being adequately compacted should be overexcavated to firm soil. Overexcavated areas should be backfilled with structural fill as recommended elsewhere in this report. During periods of wet weather, proof rolling could damage the exposed subgrade. Under these conditions, qualified geotechnical personnel should observe subgrade conditions to determine if proof rolling is feasible. Fill and Compaction Structural fill used to obtain final elevations for footings, soil -supported floor slabs, and/or sidewalks must be properly placed and compacted. In general, non -organic, predominantly granular soil may be used as structural fill provided the material is properly moisture conditioned prior to placement and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D1557. Material containing topsoil, wood, trash, organic material, or construction debris will not be suitable for reuse as structural fill and should be properly disposed offsite or placed in nonstructural areas. Soils containing more than approximately 5 percent fines are considered moisture sensitive. These soils are very difficult to compact to a firm and unyielding condition when over the optimum moisture content by more than approximately 2 percent. The optimum moisture content is that which allows the greatest dry density to be achieved at a given level of compactive effort. Reuse of On -Site Soil We generally do not recommend the re -use of near -surface Uncontrolled Fill as structural fill due to the presence of brick, discarded concrete, and similar indications of construction debris Page 4 of 15 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 325 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc. REVISION 1 June 10, 2016 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA Job No. 16-0234 within this soil. These soils also contained elevated fines and moisture contents significantly above the assumed optimum moisture content for this soil. Native Advance Outwash consists of predominantly sand and gravel and this material is suitable for re -use as structural fill if allowed for in the project plans and specifications. Imported Structural Fill We recommend that imported structural fill consist of clean, well -graded sandy gravel, gravelly sand, or other approved naturally occurring granular material (pit run) with at least 30 percent retained on the No. 4 sieve, or a well -graded crushed rock. Structural fill for dry weather construction may contain on the order of 10 percent fines (that portion passing the U.S. No. 200 sieve) based on the portion passing the U.S. No. 4 sieve. Accordingly, we recommend that imported structural fill with less than 5 percent fines be used during wet weather conditions. Due to wet weather or wet site conditions, soil moisture contents could be high enough that it may be very difficult to compact even "clean" imported select granular fill to a firm and unyielding condition. Soils with over -optimum moisture contents should be scarified and dried back to more suitable moisture contents during periods of dry weather or removed and replaced with drier structural fill. Compaction of Structural Fill Structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts 8 to 10 inches in loose thickness and thoroughly compacted. All structural fill placed under load bearing areas should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D1557. The top of the compacted structural fill should extend outside all foundations and other structural improvements a minimum distance equal to the thickness of the fill. We recommend that compaction be tested after placement of each lift in the fill pad. Wet Weather Earthwork It is our experience that near -surface portions of Advance Outwash soil can be susceptible to degradation during wet weather. As a result, it may be difficult to control the moisture content of the site soils during the wet season. If construction is accomplished during wet weather, we recommend that structural fill consist of imported, clean, well -graded sand or sand and gravel as described above. If fill is to be placed or earthwork is to be performed in wet weather or under wet conditions, the contractor may reduce soil disturbance by: • Limiting the size of areas that are stripped of topsoil and left exposed • Accomplishing earthwork in small sections • Limiting construction traffic over unprotected soil • Sloping excavated surfaces to promote runoff • Limiting the size and type of construction equipment used • Providing gravel "working mats" over areas of prepared subgrade ■ Removing wet surficial soil prior to commencing fill placement each day • Sealing the exposed ground surface by rolling with a smooth drum compactor or rubber - tired roller at the end of each working day • Providing up -gradient perimeter ditches or low earthen berms and using temporary sumps to collect runoff and prevent water from ponding and damaging exposed subgrades Page 5 of 15 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 326 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc. REVISION 1 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA Temporary and Permanent Slopes June 10, 2016 Job No. 16-0234 Actual construction slope configurations and maintenance of safe working conditions, including temporary excavation stability, should be the responsibility of the contractor, who is able to monitor the construction activities and has direct control over the means and methods of construction. All applicable local, state, and federal safety codes should be followed. All open cuts should be monitored during and after excavation for any evidence of instability. If instability is detected, the contractor should flatten the side slopes or install temporary shoring. Temporary excavations in excess of 4 ft should be shored or sloped in accordance with Safety Standards for Construction Work Part N, WAC 296-155-657. Temporary unsupported excavations in the existing fill and Advance Outwash encountered at the project site are classified as a Type C soil according to WAC 296-155-657 and may be sloped as steep as 1 H:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical). All soils encountered are classified as Type C soil in the presence of groundwater seepage. Flatter slopes or temporary shoring may be required in areas where groundwater flow is present and unstable conditions develop. Temporary slopes and excavations should be protected as soon as possible using appropriate methods to prevent erosion from occurring during periods of wet weather. We recommend that permanent cut or fill slopes be designed for inclinations of 2H:1V or flatter. Permanent cut or fill slopes that are part of detention ponds, retention ponds, infiltration facilities, or other earth structures intended to receive stormwater should be designed for inclinations of 3HAV or flatter. All permanent cut slopes should be vegetated or otherwise protected to limit the potential for erosion as soon as practical after construction. Permanent slopes requiring immediate protection from the effects of erosion should be covered with either mulch or erosion control netting/blankets. Areas requiring permanent stabilization should be seeded with an approved grass seed mixture, or hydroseeded with an approved seed -mulch - fertilizer mixture. Seismic Design Considerations The Pacific Northwest is seismically active and the site could be subject to ground shaking from a moderate to major earthquake. Consequently, moderate levels of earthquake shaking should be anticipated during the design life of the project, and the proposed structure should be designed to resist earthquake loading using appropriate design methodology. For structures designed using the seismic design provisions of the 2012 International Building Code, the Advance Outwash interpreted to underlie the site within the upper 100 feet classifies as Site Class D, according to 2010 ASCE -7 Standard — Table 20.3-1, Site Class Definitions. The corresponding values for calculating a design response spectrum for the assumed soil profile type is considered appropriate for the site. Please reference the following values for seismic structural design purposes: Conterminous 48 States — 2012 International Building Code Zip Code 98020 Central Latitude = 47.792240 Central Longitude =-122.360144 Page 6 of 15 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 327 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc REVISION 1 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA Short Period 0.2 sec Spectral Acceleration Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Value of SS = 1 Site Response Coefficient, Fa = 1.000 (Site Class D) Adjusted spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, Design spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, One Second Period 0 sec) Spectral Acceleration June 10, 2016 Job No. 16-0234 263 (g) SMS = SS x Fa = 1.263 (g) SDS = 2/3 x SMS = 0.842 (g) Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) Value of S, = 0.494 (g) Site Response Coefficient, Fv = 1.506 (Site Class D) Adjusted spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SM, = S, x Fv = 0.744 (g) Design spectral response acceleration for Site Class D, SD1 = 2/3 x SM, = 0.496 (g) Foundation Support New foundations should not be placed on existing Uncontrolled Fill soils. Foundation support for the proposed improvements may be provided by continuous or isolated spread footings founded on proof -rolled, undisturbed, dense to very dense native soils or on properly compacted structural fill placed directly over undisturbed, firm and unyielding native soil. We recommend that qualified geotechnical personnel confirm that suitable bearing conditions have been reached prior to placement of structural fill or foundation formwork. To provide proper foundation support, we recommend that existing topsoil, existing Uncontrolled Fill, and/or loose upper portions of the native soil be removed from beneath the building foundation area(s) or replaced with properly compacted structural fill as described elsewhere in this report. Alternatively, localized overexcavation could be backfilled to the design footing elevation with lean concrete or foundations may be extended to bear on undisturbed native soil. In areas requiring overexcavation to competent native soil, the limits of the overexcavation should extend laterally beyond the edge of each side of the footing a distance equal to the depth of the excavation below the base of the footing. If lean concrete is used to backfill the overexcavation, the limits of the overexcavation need only extend a nominal distance beyond the width of the footing. In addition, we recommend that foundation elements for the proposed structure(s) bear entirely on similar soil conditions to help prevent differential settlement from occurring. Continuous and isolated spread footings should be founded a minimum of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent final grade for freeze/thaw protection. -Perimeter footings should be at least 14 inches wide and sized in accordance with the structural engineer's prescribed design criteria and seismic considerations. Allowable Bearing Capacity Assuming the above foundation support criteria are satisfied, continuous or isolated spread footings founded directly on dense to very dense native soils or on compacted structural fill placed directly over undisturbed native soils may be proportioned using a net allowable soil bearing pressure of 2,500 pounds per square foot (psf). The term "net allowable bearing pressure" refers to the pressure that can be imposed on the soil at foundation level resulting from the total of all dead plus live loads, exclusive of the weight of the footing or any backfill placed above the footing. The net allowable bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient wind or seismic loads. Page 7 of 15 Attachment 22 1Packet Pg. 328 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc. REVISION 1 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA Foundation Settlement June 10, 2016 Job No. 16-0234 Settlement of shallow foundations depends on foundation size and bearing pressure, as well as the strength and compressibility characteristics of the underlying soil. Assuming construction is accomplished as previously recommended and for the maximum allowable soil bearing pressure recommended above, we estimate the total settlement of building foundations should be less than about one inch and differential settlement between two adjacent load -bearing components supported on competent soil should be less than about one half the total settlement. Floor Support Conventional slab -on -grade floor construction is considered feasible for the planned site improvements. Floor slabs may be supported on properly prepared, firm and unyielding native subgrade or on structural fill placed over properly prepared native soil. New floor slabs should not be founded on existing topsoil, Uncontrolled Fill, or loose native soils. Prior to placement of the structural fill, the subgrade soil should be proof -rolled as recommended in the Site Preparation and Earthwork section of this report. For design purposes, a vertical modulus of subgrade reaction of 150 pounds per cubic inch (pci) should be expected for slab -on -grade floors constructed over properly prepared dense to very dense Advance Outwash or structural fill placed over native Advance Outwash. We recommend that interior concrete slab -on -grade floors be underlain by a minimum of 6 inches of compacted, clean, crushed free -draining gravel with less than 3 percent passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve (based on a wet sieve analysis of that portion passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 sieve). The purpose of this layer is to provide uniform support for the slab, provide a capillary break, and act as a drainage layer. GTS recommends that material conforming to Washington State Department of Transportation Standard Specification 9- 03.12(4), "Gravel Backfill for Drains", with the added requirement that the material consist of a crushed, angular aggregate material be used as capillary break material. To help reduce the potential for water vapor migration through floor slabs, at a minimum a continuous impermeable membrane of 10- to 15-mil polyethylene sheeting with tape -sealed joints should be installed below the slab. The American Concrete Institute (ACI) guidelines suggest that the slab may either be poured directly on the vapor retarding membrane or on a granular curing layer placed over the vapor retarding membrane depending on conditions anticipated during construction. We recommend that the architect or structural engineer specify if a curing layer should be used. If moisture control within the building is critical, we recommend an inspection of the vapor retarding membrane to verify that all openings have been properly sealed. Exterior concrete slabs -on -grade, such as sidewalks, may be supported directly on undisturbed native or on properly placed and compacted structural fill; however, long-term performance will be enhanced if exterior slabs are placed on a layer of clean, durable, well -draining granular material. Page 8 of 15 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 329 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc. REVISION 1 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA Foundation and Site Drainage June 10, 2016 Job No. 16-0234 Positive surface gradients should be provided adjacent to the proposed building to direct surface water away from the proposed building and toward suitable drainage facilities. Roof drainage should not be introduced into the perimeter footing drains, but should be separately discharged directly to the stormwater collection system or a similar municipality -approved outlet. Pavement and sidewalk areas, if present, should be sloped and drainage gradients should be maintained to carry surface water away from the building towards an approved stormwater collection system. Surface water should not be allowed to pond and soak into the ground surface near buildings or paved areas during or after construction. Construction excavations should be sloped to drain to sumps where water from seepage, rainfall, and runoff can be collected and pumped to a suitable discharge facility. To reduce the potential for groundwater and surface water to seep into interior spaces, we recommend that an exterior footing drain system be constructed around the perimeter of new building foundations as shown in the Typical Footing Drain Section, Figure 3. The drain should consist of a minimum 4-inch diameter perforated pipe, surrounded by a minimum 12 inches of filtering media with the discharge sloped to carry water to an approved collection system. The filtering media may consist of open -graded drain rock wrapped by a nonwoven geotextile fabric (such as Mirafi 140N, or equivalent) or a graded sand and gravel filter. For foundations supporting retaining walls, drainage backfill should be carried up the back of the wall and be at least 12-inches wide. The drainage backfill should extend from the foundation drain to within approximately 1 foot of the finished grade and consist of open -graded drain rock containing less than 3 percent by weight passing the U.S. Standard No. 200 sieve (based on a wet sieve analysis of that portion passing the U.S. Standard No. 4 sieve). The invert of the footing drain pipe should be placed at approximately the same elevation as the bottom of the footing or 12 inches below the adjacent floor slab grade, whichever is deeper, so that water will not seep through walls or floor slabs. The drain system should include cleanouts to allow for periodic maintenance and inspection. Resistance to Lateral Loads The lateral earth pressures that develop against retaining walls will depend on the method of backfill placement, degree of compaction, slope of backfill, type of backfill material, provisions for drainage, magnitude and location of any adjacent surcharge loads, and the degree to which the wall can yield laterally during or after placement of backfill. If the wall is allowed to rotate or yield so the top of the wall moves an amount equal to or greater than about 0.001 to 0.002 times its height (a yielding wall), the soil pressure exerted will be the active soil pressure. When a wall is restrained against lateral movement or tilting (a nonyielding wall), the soil pressure exerted is the at -rest soil pressure. Wall restraint may develop if a rigid structural network is constructed prior to backfilling or if the wall is inherently stiff. We recommend that yielding walls under drained conditions be designed for an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic ft (pcf) for structural fill or dense to very dense native Advance Outwash in active soil conditions. Nonyielding walls under drained conditions should be designed for an equivalent fluid density of 55 pcf for structural fill in at -rest conditions. Design of walls should include appropriate lateral pressures caused by surcharge loads located within a horizontal distance equal to or less than the height of the wall. For uniform surcharge pressures, a uniformly distributed lateral pressure equal to 35 percent and 50 percent of the vertical surcharge pressure should be added to the lateral soil pressures for yielding and nonyielding walls, respectively. GTS also recommends that a seismic surcharge pressure of Page 9 of 15 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 330 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc. REVISION 1 June 10, 2016 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA Job No. 16-0234 12H be included where H is the wall height in feet. The seismic surcharge should be modeled as a rectangular distribution with the resultant applied at the midpoint of the wall. Passive earth pressures developed against the sides of building foundations, in conjunction with friction developed between the base of the footings and the supporting subgrade, will resist lateral loads transmitted from the structure to its foundation. For design purposes, the passive resistance of well -compacted fill placed against the sides of foundations may be considered equivalent to a fluid with a density of 250 pounds per cubic ft. The recommended value includes a safety factor of about 1.5 and is based on the assumption that the ground surface adjacent to the structure is level in the direction of movement for a distance equal to or greater than twice the embedment depth. The recommended value also assumes drained conditions that will prevent the buildup of hydrostatic pressure in the compacted fill. Retaining walls should include a drain system constructed in general accordance with the recommendations presented in the Foundation and Site Drainage section of this report. In design computations, the upper 12 inches of passive resistance should be neglected if the soil is not covered by floor slabs or pavement. If future plans call for the removal of the soil providing resistance, the passive resistance should not be considered. An allowable coefficient of base friction of 0.35 for undisturbed native soil or structural fill, applied to vertical dead loads only, may be used between the underlying soil and the base of the footing. However, if passive and frictional resistance are considered together, one-half the recommended passive soil resistance value should be used since larger strains are required to mobilize the passive soil resistance as compared to frictional resistance. A safety factor of about 1.5 is included in the base friction design value. We do not recommend increasing the coefficient of friction to resist seismic or wind loads. Utilities It is important that utility trenches be properly backfilled and compacted to reduce cracking or localized loss of foundation or slab support. It is anticipated that excavations for new shallow underground utilities will be in dense to very dense Advance Outwash with varying amounts of gravel and scattered cobbles or Uncontrolled Fill with scattered construction debris. Trench backfill in improved areas (beneath structures, sidewalks, etc.) should consist of structural fill as defined earlier in this report. Outside of improved areas, trench backfill may consist of re -used native fill provided it can be compacted to the project specifications. Trench backfill should be placed and compacted in general accordance with the recommendations presented in the Fill and Compaction section of this report. Surcharge loads on trench support systems due to construction equipment, stockpiled material, and vehicle traffic should be included in the design of any anticipated shoring system. The contractor should implement measures to prevent surface water runoff from entering trenches and excavations. In addition, vibration as a result of construction activities and traffic may cause caving of the trench walls. Actual trench configurations are the responsibility of the contractor. All applicable local, state, and federal safety codes should be followed. All open cuts should be monitored by the contractor during excavation for any evidence of instability. If instability is detected, the contractor should flatten the side slopes or install temporary shoring. If groundwater or groundwater seepage is present, and the trench is not properly dewatered, the soil within the Page 10 of 15 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 331 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc REVISION 1 June 10, 2016 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA Job No. 16-0234 trench zone may be prone to caving, channeling, and running. Trench widths may be substantially wider than under dewatered conditions. Stormwater Infiltration Potential From the subsurface information obtained from our exploration pits, 8 representative soil samples were selected and mechanically tested for grain size distribution and interpretation according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) soil textural classification. These classifications are reproduced in Table 1 below. TABLE 1 Soil Sample USDA Classification Test Pit Number Sample Depth (feet) USDA Classification TP-1 -i 1.5 Loamy Sand TP-1 3 Loamy Sand TP-1 7.5 Sand TP-3 3.0 Sand TP-3 5.0 Sand TP-4 2.0 Loamy Sand Sand TP-4 3.0 Loamy Sand Sand TP-5 2.8 Sand Our approach for determining infiltration feasibility is based on elements of Exhibit A from the Stormwater Code Supplement to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter 18.30, running a USDA soil textural classification based on criteria established in the 2005 Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Stormwater Manual), our subsurface exploration program, and our experience in the area. Based on the results of our USDA textural analysis and interpretation of our soil logs, the near surface fill soil (TP-1 @ 1.5 feet and TP-1 @ 3 feet) and the weathered portions of the Advance Outwash (TP-4 @ 2.0 feet, and TP-4 @ 3.0 feet) classify as Loamy Sand and the native Advance Outwash soils (TP-1 @ 7.5 feet, TP-3 @ 3 feet, TP-3 @ 5 feet, and TP-5 @ 2.8 feet) classify as Sand. The Stormwater Manual does not recommend the infiltration of stormwater into Uncontrolled Fill soils. Uncontrolled Fill should be completely removed from areas where infiltration is desired and infiltration facilities should be founded in either native Advance Outwash or imported structural fill that has defined properties and a known infiltration rate. GTS can assist the design team with developing infiltration rates for structural fill as part of a separate scope of services. The Stormwater Manual recommends an infiltration rate of 2 inches per hour for USDA Sand. It is, however, our experience that the USDA approach may somewhat overestimate the long-term infiltration design rates of glacially consolidated dense to very dense soil. However, the analysis above suggests that the conventional infiltration of stormwater is feasible on the site, and no Page 11 of 15 Attachment 22 1Packet Pg. 332 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc. REVISION 1 June 10, 2016 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA Job No. 16-0234 restrictive layers or groundwater that would otherwise impede infiltration was encountered within the limits of our explorations. Due to the potential for "real world" infiltration rates being different than those provided for the Stormwater Manual, we recommend that long-term design infiltration rates for any proposed infiltration facilities be determined by in -situ methods such as PIT (Pilot Infiltrating Test) testing. At the time of this report, Civil design has not been completed and the locations, sizes, and depths of infiltration facilities have not been established. GTS recommends that these parameters be established prior to further investigation to allow for testing at the location and depth of the proposed facilities. Stormwater Treatment Capacity Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC), organic content and pH tests were performed by Northwest Agricultural Consultants on two samples collected during this investigation. These samples were considered representative of the near -surface, weathered Advance Outwash and the unweathered Advance Outwash encountered at depth. A copy of the laboratory test results is attached at the end of this report. A summary of the test results is presented in Table 2 on the following page. Table 2 Testing of Treatment Capacity Parameters Test Pit Sample pH CEC Organic Number Depth Geologic Unit (unitless) (meq/100g) Content (Feet) (percent) TP-4 2.0 Weathered 6.4 6.8 1.98 Advance Outwash TP-4 3 Advance Outwash 6.2 4.6 1.55 The Department of Ecology Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington (Ecology), SSC-6 Soil Physical and Chemical Suitability for Treatment states that the Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) of the treatment soil must be greater than or equal to 5 milliequivalents CEC/100g dry soil. SSC-6 also recommends a minimum organic content of 1 percent of the dry weight. Testing indicates that the Weathered Advance Outwash, typically encountered within the upper few feet of soil across the site, may be suitable for stormwater treatment purposes, as indicated by Cation Exchange Capacities of 5.0 or greater. The Advance Outwash encountered at greater depths, however, is not suitable for stormwater treatment purposes due to Cation Exchange Capacities observed to be significantly below 5.0. The Advance Outwash could also be amended to have properties recommended in the Stormwater Manual for an amended soil. Amendment could include mixing higher fines and organic content soils or adding mulch (or other admixtures) to elevate the cation exchange capacity. It has been our experience, however, that it is challenging to obtain a uniformly blended amended soil using conventional construction equipment to mix on -site soils and imported materials. On -site amended soil would require additional testing of the amended soil to confirm compliance with Ecology -recommended soil properties. Additionally, amendment of the Advance Outwash has the potential to reduce the infiltration potential the soil. GTS is available Page 12 of 15 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 333 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc. REVISION 1 June 10, 2016 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA Job No. 16-0234 to perform additional laboratory testing and provide revised recommendations as part of an expanded scope of services if the soil is to be amended. Alternatively, the Owner may elect to import amended soils with the desired properties for planned treatment facilities. Recommendations for Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control We recommend the site specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and/or Temporary Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (TESC) focus on the implementation of source control BMP's specifically targeting SWPPP Element #5, Stabilize Soils (Volume 2, Chapter 4.1 of the Stormwater Management Manuel for Western Washington). These BMP's are intended to limit the potential for site soils to become suspended within stormwater. Once suspended, silt and clay may prove time consuming and/or costly to remove from stormwater prior to discharge. If large areas of the site soil are left exposed during wet conditions, the turbidity of stormwater may be difficult to control. We anticipate treatment BMP's to manage highly turbid stormwater may be costly and/or require large portions of the site to implement. We recommend all temporary erosion and sediment control measures conform to the Washington State Department of Ecology Best Management Practices (BMP's) and/or other applicable regulatory bodies. Geotechnical Consultation and Construction Monitoring GeoTest Services recommends that we be involved in the project design review process. The purpose of the review is to verify that the recommendations presented in this report have been properly interpreted and incorporated in the plans and specifications for this project. We recommend that geotechnical construction monitoring services be provided. These services should include observation by GeoTest personnel during subgrade preparation operations, structural fill placement, and to confirm that design subgrade conditions are obtained beneath the proposed improvements. We also recommend that periodic field density testing be performed to verify that the appropriate degree of compaction is obtained. The purpose of these services would be to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications, and recommendations of this report. In the event that subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated before the start of construction, GeoTest Services would be pleased to provide revised recommendations appropriate to the conditions revealed during construction. GeoTest is also available to provide a full range of materials testing and special inspection during building construction as required by the local building department and the International Building Code. This may include specific construction inspections on materials such as reinforced concrete, reinforced masonry, wood framing and structural steel. These services are supported by our fully accredited materials testing laboratory. Page 13 of 15 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 334 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc. REVISION 1 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA USE OF THIS REPORT June 10, 2016 Job No. 16-0234 GeoTest Services has prepared this report for the exclusive use of the Westgate Woods, LLC and their design consultants for specific application to the design of the Edmonds Townhouses project, located at 9511 Edmonds Way in Edmonds, Washington. Use of this report by others is at the user's sole risk. This report is not applicable to other sites. Our services have been conducted in accordance with generally accepted practices of the geotechnical engineering profession; no other warranty, express or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. Our site explorations indicate subsurface conditions at the dates and locations indicated. It is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions at other locations and times. The analyses, conclusions, and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions to the limited depth of our explorations at the time of our exploration program, a geological reconnaissance of the area, and a review of previously published USGS geological information for the site. If variations in subsurface conditions are encountered during construction that differs from those in this report, we should be allowed to review the recommendations contained in this report and, if necessary, make revisions. If there is a substantial lapse of time between submission of this report and the start of construction, or if conditions change due to construction operations at or adjacent to the project site, we recommend that we review this report to determine the applicability of the conclusions and recommendations contained herein. The earthwork contractor is responsible to perform all work in conformance with all applicable WISHA/OSHA regulations. GeoTest Services, Inc. should not be assumed to be responsible for job site safety on this project, and this responsibility is specifically disclaimed. Page 14 of 15 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 335 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc. REVISION 1 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA June 10, 2016 Job No. 16-0234 We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project and look forward to assisting you during the construction phase. If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully Submitted, GeoTest Services, -Inc. t vvas/?rh p.P00 A. C iglnacrng GealOgEs: � 2945 Justin Brooks Justin Brooks, L.E.G. Engineering Geologist 0410 a, 9 ter �, vFcrg rgRt G�tA S�QN At, Edwardo Garcia, P.E. Project Geotechnical Engineer Attachments: Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Site and Exploration Plan Figure 3 Typical Footing and Wall Drain Section Figure 4 Soil Classification System and Key Figures 5-7 Boring Logs Figure 8 and 9 Grain Size Analysis Attached Northwest Agricultural Consultants Results (1 page) REFERENCES Minard, J.P , 1985. Geologic Map of the Everett 7.5 Minute Quadrangle, Snohomish County, Washington. US Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-1748 Washington State Department of Ecology Water Quality Program. February 2005. Stormwater Management Manual for Western Washington. Publication Numbers 05-10-029 through 05-10-033. Page 15 of 15 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 336 2.2.a Jord®rnw Hoad-Canyon Creek .. Granite Falls_. Verlot Tulalip Bay t+ ar�rsv-Ile ; Langley r� fix- . o z _-- Labe Stevens Whidbey Island Stevens Lake Stevens_] Clinton Everett -- _ ! M .Aaxwlelton Mukilteo Three Lakes r' CD CD Snohomish 0 Project Site o Woods Creek `^ Mill Creep ".7 ` r �.-—Sul!tar� {-- - o CD f l� NORTH zc�. Ly woad Ountiake Terrace Echo Lake - f L t E 57) Bothell Shoreline--- Cottage Lake r: Duvall s 5. /7 �' 3 CL 1703) _ Redmond Cn JP Icy ` ti C� nation �— a ("Leoi co - r ' s- Seattle Bellevue .rw J r- ' IL�f �:: 'r Island +� _ Klahanie- _ Fall Cltvi 11, GEOTEST SERVICES, INC. 741 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225 phone: (360) 733-7318 fax: (360)733-7418 Iokul r cm Newcastle s _ ,� -� a `. cm !S5aqualz •` 's'- M; pfrorr� � l per2.1 a Date:5-13-16 By: JB Scale: none Project 4) VICINITY MAP 16-0234 EDMONDS TOWNHOUSE Figure 95511 EDMONDS WAY Q EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Packet Pg. 337 2.2.a re' 7 ' � o cM � O 3N�, ti o) y E r O t c o o to Q y Cn ^J^ z U } Q tm O O O Z 1.6 Z Q N m-j~2--E o u X W o Co W OZ - Z Y Q In w°'WY �Q 3 W cn F- O ai fa ram+ Cl) Co O O to 0 N L7 J Z d 06 LCD U a) to CD U [7 ~ CD Z - y�- cu a H r I--, a: r WI,— m `W Q Packet Pg. 338 2.2.a SHALLOW FOOTINGS WITH INTERIOR SLAB -ON -GRADE �. . �. Typical Framing Compacted Impervious Soil (12 inch minimum) , , , Floor Slab or Pavement (2inchminimum) ,.�.�. .�.z.�.�.�.i.�.�.�.�.�.+.�.�.�. Slope to drain away from structure. Suitable Soil r Approved Non -woven Geotextile Filter Fabric— -- -- (18 inch minimum fabric lap) Drainage Material (Drain Rock or Clear' Crushed Rock w/no fines) r •,•,•,• '•4 ..S.ti 1.q.ti+y,S•ti•'.•'.•R.'�L•ti•S•4+4•".••.•ti••.•4�S•ti•5,•ti.ti. .:•; r•r-.•+r•r•r•r•r•r•r•: •r•:.r �; �; �; � •r.r-: •r•:-. •r•:•r•r•: • � • � • +. ti.�..•ti.ti..+...•ti....ti••..-•• . �+ti.�+�.ti.ti•ti••..ti•ti+•.• •�•r•r•r•r;r•r.r; r•r;. r•.�: r r r r r r •: r • :•r•r•r 7// Coarse Gravel CapillaryBreak y:'•' :'� (6 inch minimum typically clear crushed) ,' ,' `•" Free Draining Sand and Gravel Fill f Suitable Soil ppropriate Waterproofing Applied to Exterior of Wall Four Inch Diamater, Perforated, Rigid PVC Pipe (Perforations oriented down, wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric, directed to suitable discharge) Notes: Footings Should be properly buried for frost protection in accordance with International Building Code or local building codes (Typically 18 inches below exterior finished grades) GEOTEST SERVICES, INC. 741 Marine Drive Bellingham, WA 98225 phone: (360) 733-7318 fax: (360)733-7418 Date: 5-13-16 By: JB Scale: None TYPICAL FOOTING & WALL DRAIN SECTION EDMONDS TOWNHOUSE 9511 EDMONDS WAY EDrAQ-NDS, WASHINGTON _ Project 16-0234 Figure ; 3 Packet Pg. 339 2.2.a Soil Classification System uSCS MAJOR GRAPHIC LETTER DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONSt'1t�1 CLEAN GRAVEL ) 0. o. o GW Well -graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines GRAVEL AND vuv 0 0 0 p o GP m y^ GRAVELLY SOIL (Little or no fines) Poorly graded gravel; gravel/sand mixture(s); little or no fines H GRAVEL WITH FINES GM U) . 0, p (More than 50% of Silty gravel; gravel/sand/silt mixture(s) d yEti coarse fraction retained on No. 4 (Appreciable amount of fines) Clayey gravel; gravel/sand/clay mixture(s) GC sieve) IX .pN 0 8:? CLEAN SAND SW Well -graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines Lh c c 2 - W m SAND ANDto SANDY SOIL (Little or no fines) Poorly graded sand; gravelly sand; little or no fines SP Q `o SM w (More than 50% of Silty sand; sand/silt mixture(s) coarse fraction passed SAND WITH FINES SC through No. 4 sieve) (Appreciable amount of Clayey sand; sand/clay mixture(s) fines) ML Inorganic silt and very fine sand; rock flour; silty or clayey fine '� SILT AND CLAY sand or clayey silt with slight plasticity CL ❑ ¢ $ Inorganic clay of low to medium plasticity; gravelly clay, sandy E d (Liquid limit less than 50) clay; silty clay; lean clay Lu ° N QL Organic silt; organic, silty clay of low plasticity Z o W N Q CD J 7 X o_ MH Inorganic silt; micaceous or diatomaceous fine sand m N SILT AND CLAY w m N Z CH Inorganic clay of high plasticity; fat clay o u LL (Liquid limit greater than 5D) OH Organic clay of medium to high plasticity; organic silt HIGHLY ORGANIC SOIL PT Peat; humus; swamp soil with high organic content GRAPHIC LETTER OTHER MATERIALS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DESCRIPTIONS PAVEMENT AC or PC Asphalt concrete pavement or Portland cement pavement ROCK Nffl RK Rock (See Rock Classification) WOOD WD Wood, lumber, wood chips DEBRIS DB Construction debris, garbage Notes: 1. Soil descriptions are based on the general approach presented in the Standard Praclice for Descriphan and fdenlrfcaliDn of Soils (Visual -Manual Procedure), as outlined in ASTM D 2488. Where laboratory index testing has been conducted, sail mass€fications are based on the Standard Test Method for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes, as outlined in ASTM D 2487. 2. Soil description terminology is based on visual estimates (in the absence of laboratory test data) of the percentages of each soil type and is defined as follows: Primary Constituent: > 50% - "GRAVEL," "SAND," "SILT," "CLAY,". etc. Secondary Constituents: > 30% and < 50% - "very gravelly," "very sandy," "very silty," etc. > 12% and < 30% - "gravelly," "sandy," "silty," etc. Additional Constituents: > 5% and < 12% - "slightly gravelly," "slightly sandy," "slightly silty," etc. < 5% - "trace gravel," "trace sand," "trace silt," etc., or not noted. Drilling and Sampling Key Field and Lab Test Data SAMPLE NUMBER & INTERVAL SAMPLER TYPE Code Description Code Description Sample Identification Number a 3,25-inch O.D., 2.42-inch I.D. Split Spoon PP = 1.0 Pocket Penetrometer, tsf b 2.00-inch O.D., 1.50-inch I.D. Split Spoon TV = 0.5 Torvane, tsf Recovery Depth interval c Shelby Tube PID = 100 Photoionization Detector VOC screening, ppm 1SS 7 a Sample Depth Interval d Grab Sample W = 10 Moisture Content, % e Other - See text if applicable D = 120 Dry Density, pcf Portion of Sample Retafned 1 300-lb Hammer, 30-inch Drop -200 = 60 Material smaller than No. 200 sieve, % for Archive or Analysis 2 140-Ib Hammer, 30-inch Drop GS Grain Size - See separate figure for data 3 Pushed AL Atterberg Limits - See separate figure for data 4 Other- See text if applicable GT Other Geotechnical Testing Groundwater CA Chemical Analysis Q Approximate water elevation at time of drilling (ATD) or on date noted. Groundwate ATD levels can fluctuate due to precipitation, seasonal conditions, and other factors. Figure Edmonds Townhouse eo ��"r 9511 Edmonds Way Soil Classification System and Key �I Edmonds, Washington 4 a Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 340 2.2.a a C7 of w 0 0 Z 3 0 0 0 a TP-1 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER E a Excavation Method: Tracked Excavator Z ~ U) T 07 Ground Elevation (ft): �269 E � 6, m 0 Excavated By: Gillen Construction CU OL se, dark brown, moist, very organic. SM slightly gravelly, silly, SAND {Topsail and Duff) Groundwater not encountered. W = 10 1= d Medium dense to dense, brown, damp, slightly 2 GS silty to silty, gravelly, SAND (Uncontrolled Fill) W = 10 with trace organics, cobbles, boulders, brick, 2= d GS and concrete A increasing cobbles and boulders below 4 feet BGS 3= d SP Medium dense, orange tan, damp, slightly SP silty, gravelly, SAND (Weathered Outwash) with numerous roots W = 6 4= d Medium dense to dense, tan, damp, very 8 GS gravelly, SAND (Advance Outwash) 10 Test Pit Completed 05/06/16 Total Depth of Test Pit = 10.0 ft. 12 TP-2 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER a 75 Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: Z T T Z ~ U e T rn Ground Elevation (ft): —269 cL a)o a E E U) Excavated By: Gillen Construction p CO 06 (n 1-- C7 � 0A. A OL Loose, dark brown, moist, very organic, 51 d SM &iighU gravelly, silty, SAND [Topsoil and Buff) Groundwater not encountered. Medium dense to dense, brown, damp, slightly 2 silty to silty, gravelly, SAND (Uncontrolled Fill) with trace organics, cobbles, boulders, brick, and concrete 4 6= d increasing cobbles, boulders, brick and & concrete debris below 5 feet BGS SP Medium dense to dense, tan, damp, very gravelly, SAND (Advance Outwash) 10 Test Pit Completed 05/06/16 Total Depth of Test Pit = 9,0 ft. 12 Notes: 1. Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. Edmonds Townhouse Figure OeoTe5T 9511 Edmonds Way Log of Test Pits Edmonds, Washington c M 0 co 0 0 co O N Z J a tl) V C M Lm t 2 to O E O t C 3 O N O O O r M tm N a� to c m E z V Q �3 O tZ M r co W O O t0 r O N Z J IL ca O O O O tD r O N Z J IL C d E t V M Q Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 341 2.2.a TP-3 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER Q 0 Excavation Method: Tracked Excavator 2 CU 0 cn Ground Elevation (ft): —263 oD o n o7 j Excavated By: Gillen Construction — 0 OL Loose, dark brown, moist, organic. slightly 7= d gravelly, silly, SAND (Tapsoigand Duff) (,p_ Groundwater not encountered. 2 Loose to medium dense, red orange, damp, GM g Z d 3 slightly organic, slightly silty, very sandy, - W = 4 GRAVEL (Weathered Outwash) 9= d GS p.o GP Medium dense, orange tan, damp, very sandy, — 4 ) 0 o GRAVEL (Advance Outwash) 0 _ 10= d GS4 SP Dense, yellow tan, damp, very gravelly. SAND g (Advance Outwash) _ 11 Z d — 8 SP Very dense, grey, damp, slightly gravelly to gravelly, SAND (Advance Outwash) 12= d 10 Test Pit Completed 05/06/16 Total Depth of Test Pit = 10.0 fL 12 TP-4 SAMPLE DATA SOIL PROFILE GROUNDWATER a E Tracked Excavator Excavation Method: jT T z m rn >1 —261 �, � ;� U o7 Ground Elevation (ft): Q (D a o Q rn - ? Excavated By: Gillen Construction cn cn F OL Loose, dark brawn, moist, organic, slightly > gravelly, silty, SAND (Topsoil and Quff) with seatlered building and canstruclian debris Groundwater not encountered. SM Medium dense, orange, damp, silty, gravelly, 2 13= d W = 10 GS w 9 = SAND (Weathered Outwash) with trace roots SM pense, yellow tan. damp, slightly gravelly, 14= d 4 silty. SAND (Advance Ouhvash) GP Dense, grey. damp, very sandy. GRAVEL 15= d 0 0 6 (Advance Oulwash) with Irace eobblus and boulders SP Very dense, yellow tan, damp, very gravelly, _ 16= d SAND (Advance Outwash) 8 Test Pit Completed 05/06/16 10 Total Depth of Test Pit = 8.5 ft. 12 Notes: 1_ Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. Edmonds Townhouse Figure C��T��T 9511 Edmonds Way Log of Test Pits G Edmonds, Washington V 0 to O O co 0 N Z J d N v C i t 2 to N E O t C 3 O H to O O N to to a� to c m E t a 3 L O !Z N r co to O O to O N Z J d 06 O to O O to r O N Z J d r C N E L Q Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 342 2.2.a SAMPLE DATA a� E a) z a) E c E a) r n 06 � H 0 2 4 6 8 10 j L 12 L 7 U U C J 17=1 d I W=3 GS TP-5 SOIL PROFILE E Excavation Method: Tracked Excavator rn T co Ground Elevation (ft): �263 U) 0 Excavated By: Gillen Construction 0 D ? OL Loose, [Fork brown. moist, organic, slightly Sp_ gravelly, silty, SAND (Topsoil and Duff) wilh SM scattered building and construction debris Loose to medium dense, orange tan, damp, Gp slightly silty to silty, gravelly. SAND o(bleat Bred 0ulwash) with trace roots 00 Medium dense, yellow tan, damp, very sandy, SP GRAVEL (Advance Outwash) Dense to very dense, grey tan, damp, very gravelly, SAND (Advance Outwash) Test Pit Completed 05/06/16 Total Depth of Test Pit = 7.5 fL GROUNDWATER Groundwater not encountered. j Notes: 1: Stratigraphic contacts are based on field interpretations and are approximate. a 2. Reference to the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of subsurface conditions. 'n 3. Refer to "Soil Classification System and Key" figure for explanation of graphics and symbols. 'n Edmonds Townhouse Figure GlleoTe5T 9511 Edmonds Way Log of Test Pits 7 Edmonds, Washington Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 343 2.2.a 5116116 CWSERSUUSTIN\DESKTOPUORFILES\16-0234-EDMONDSDEVELOPMENT16-0234-EDMONDSTOWNHOMES.GPJ GRAIN SIZE WISTATS i � • ___________ter �N�rMr�_____ ■■ ■■■■■■■■ ■■■■��A 0- ' .cn , _►rlwrJ== iiiiiii!!!ii!'1�iii��li • • • . . Zcn CD - SSF: 'III : C� lii!®!!R✓�»T®��1�»E"i�. - mill • iiiiiiiiiliiiiliiiir N N E O t C O H U) O O d R 01 y O O t v O r Q t Q CL d w 1a co to 0 0 w 0 N Z J IL 0 to 0 0 co 0 N Z J IL c m U Q Attachment zz Packet Pg. 344 2.2.a "■■■■II111111Y��v11IYYYIIVI111■Y■IIIIIII■■illllll■■ ., ■■■llllll■L�■�111�■IIIIII■■■IIIIII■■■IIIIII■■ ■■■llllll■�1®Illll�..t�llllll■■■llllll■■■IIIII■■ :0701 1■■■IIIIII■■lllllll�■Il11■■■IIIIII■■■IIIII■■ ■■■IIIIII■■l llllll ■ ■\\l� VII■ ■■IIIIII■■■IIIIII ■■ ■■■IIIIII■■�7111111■■i� .�111■■■IIIIII■■■llllll■■■ 1■■■Ill! 11■ ■i�IIIII■ ■■lllllr■ ■■IIIIII ■■■llllll■ ■■ ..,1■■■llllll■■llillll■■■IIll11��■■IIIIII■■■IIIIII■■ 1■■illll Il■ ■ lllilllY■ ■ I Illllil■■llllll ■■■IIIIII■ ■ 1■■■Illlll�■®IIlI�11■■■Ilill��■■IIIIII■■■IIIIII■■ 1■■■IIIIII■■®III I!�■■ ■ Il 111 1111■■IIIIII■■illllll■■ ,1■■■IIIIII■■®IIl111�1■■iIIIII�L7■llllll■■■IIIIII■■ 1■ ■ ■IIIIII■■®Il ll 11■�■II llll ■■■Ill III■ ■ ■llllll■■ ,1■■■IIIIII■■®llllllYilllllll■�ill�llllll■■■llllll■■■ 1 ■ ■ ■IIIIII ■■■ I lllll■■llil I II■ ■�\llllll■ ■■IIIIII ■■■ ,1■■■llllll■■®IIIIII■■■!.lIII■�►�lI�III■■■IIIIII■■■ 1 ■ ■■IIIIII ■■■IIIIII ■ ■■I II �11■ ■l��R�11Y■■IIIIII ■■■ ,1■■■llllll■■■IIIIII■■■IIlI1�Y■■11��1■■■IIIIII■■ It■■llllll■■llllll■ ■■ I IlI11Y■■IIIIII ■■■llllll■ ■ l■■■IIIIII■■®llllll■■1111111Y1:i!!�1�1■■■IIIIII■ I Cobbles Gravel Sand Silt or Clay coarse I fine coarse I medium I fine Point Depth Classification LL PL PI CG Cu i TP-4 2.0 Silty, gravelly, fine to medium SAND (USDA Loamy Sand) (SM) m TP-4 3.0 Slightly gravelly, silty, fine to medium SAND (USDA Loamy Sand) (SM) A TP-5 2.8 Very sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL (GP) 0.71 19.21 Point De th p D lo0 D 60 D 50 D 30 D 10 %Coarse Gravel % Fme Gravel �o coarse Sand �o Medium Sand ,o Fme Sand % Fines TP-4 2.0 19 0.534 0.378 0.203 0.0 12.1 6.8 26.6 41.3 13.2 m TP-4 3.0 12.5 0.38 0.298 0.15 0.0 7.0 6.0 22.4 48.4 16.2 A TP-5 2.8 37.5 7.721 5.205 1.481 0.402 19.2 33.1 13.6 23.3 9.6 1.1 'I■ �� Edmonds Townhouse 9511 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Cc = Dso /(Dso* D,o) To be well graded: 1 < C, < 3 and Cu = D6dD,o Cu > 4 for GW or Cu > 6 for SW Figure Grain Size Test Data 9 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 345 2.2.a Grower Northwest Agricultural Consultants 2545 West Falls Kennewick, WA 99336 (509) 783-7450 Fax: (509) 783-5305 Sampler Field No, Job No. 16-0234 PAP -Accredited GEOTEST SERVICES INC 741 MARINE DR BELLINGHAM, WA 98225 2015 SOIL Client No.: 9678 Date Received: 05-10-2016 Report No.: 38362 Page: 1 of 1 3aae3b-67130 Field Name Crop Year Crop 0 c 0 H to 0 0 m �a a� rn Yield Goal m c Deptn Available NO3-N NH4-N Sulfur pH Soluble Organic P(bic) K(blc) F(ace) K(ace) Calcium Magne- Sodium trr Boron Zinc Manga- Iron Copper CEC % Base Chicnoe Bray 1 P Total Sampiei fft.) Inches Ibs/acre Ibs/acre ppm Salts Matter ppm ppm ppm ppm (meq slum (meq ppm ppm nese ppm ppm (meq Sat Ibs per ppm Bases D (mmhos Percent per 100 (meq per 100 ppm per 100 acre (meq /cm) grams) per 100 grams) grams) per 100 ams) ams 1 6.4 1.98 6.8 2 6.2 1 1.55 4.6 Total 1 0, 00 Estimated Nitrogen Release from Organic Matter Comments Sample ID pH TP4-2 6.4 TP4-3 6.2 CEC Method: EPA 9081 Estimated Total Nitrogen Available to Crop Loss on Ignition OM 1.986 1.550 Last Years Crop Cation Exchange Capacity 6.8 meq/100g 4.6 meq/100g Fertilizer fC O 0 m 0 N Z J a 06 0 0 0 0 m 0 N Z J a r c m E U R r Q Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 346 1 2.2.a REPORT LIMITATIONS AND GUIDELINES FOR ITS USE' Subsurface issues may cause construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help: Geotechnical Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects At GeoTest our geotechnical engineers and geologists structure their services to meet specific needs of our clients. A geotechnical engineering study conducted for a civil engineer may not fulfill the needs of an owner, a construction contractor or even another civil engineer. Because each geotechnical engineering study is unique, each geotechnical engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. No one except you should rely on your geotechnical engineer who prepared it. And no one — not even you — should apply the report for any purpose or project except the one originally contemplated. Read the Full Report Serious problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical engineering report did not read it all. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selected elements only. A Geotechnical Engineering Report is Based on a Unique Set of Project -Specific Factors GeoTest's geotechnical engineers consider a number of unique, project -specific factors when establishing the scope of a study. Typical factors include: the clients goals, objectives, and risk management preferences; the general nature of the structure involved its size, and configuration; the location of the structure on the site; and other planned or existing site improvements, such as access roads, parking lots, and underground utilities. Unless GeoTest, who conducted the study specifically states otherwise, do not rely on a geotechnical engineering report that was: • not prepared for you, • not prepared for your project, • not prepared for the specific site explored, or • completed before important project changes were made. Typical changes that can erode the reliability of an existing geotechnical engineering report include those that affect: • the function of the proposed structure, as when it's changed, for example, from a parking garage to an office building, or from a light industrial plant to a refrigerated warehouse, • elevation, configuration, location, orientation, or weight of the proposed construction, • alterations in drainage designs; or • composition of the design team; the passage of time; man-made alterations and construction whether on or adjacent to the site; or by natural alterations and events, such as floods, earthquakes or groundwater fluctuations; or project ownership. Always inform GeoTest's geotechnical engineer of project changes — even minor ones — and request an assessment of their impact. Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that occur because their reports do not consider developments of which they were not informed. Information in this document is based upon material developed by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences(asfe org) ,&gment 22 Packet Pg. 347 2.2.a Subsurface Conditions Can Change This geotechnical or geologic report is based on conditions that existed at the time the study was performed. Do not rely on the findings and conclusions of this report, whose adequacy may have been affected by: the passage of time; by man-made events, such as construction on or adjacent to the site; or by natural events, such as floods, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Always contact GeoTest before applying the report to determine if it is still relevant. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis will help determine if the report remains applicable. Most Geotechnical and Geologic Findings are Professional Opinions Our site exploration identifies subsurface conditions only at those points where subsurface tests are conducted or samples are taken. GeoTest's engineers and geologists review field and laboratory data and then apply their professional judgment to render an opinion about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual subsurface conditions may differ — sometimes significantly — from those indicated in your report. Retaining GeoTest who developed this report to provide construction observation is the most effective method of managing the risks associated with anticipated or unanticipated conditions. A Report's Recommendations are Not Final Do not over -rely on the construction recommendations included in this report. Those recommendations are not final, because geotechnical engineers or geologists develop them principally from judgment and opinion. GeoTest's geotechnical engineers or geologists can finalize their recommendations only by observing actual subsurface conditions revealed during construction. GeoTest cannot assume responsibility or liability for the report's recommendations if our firm does not perform the construction observation. A Geotechnical Engineering or Geologic Report may be Subject to Misinterpretation Misinterpretation of this report by other design team members can result in costly problems. Lower that risk by having GeoTest confer with appropriate members of the design team after submitting the report. Also, we suggest retaining GeoTest to review pertinent elements of the design teams plans and specifications. Contractors can also misinterpret a geotechnical engineering report. Reduce that risk by having GeoTest participate in pre -bid and preconstruction conferences, and by providing construction observation. Do not Redraw the Exploration Logs Our geotechnical engineers and geologists prepare final boring and testing logs based upon their interpretation of field logs and laboratory data. To prevent errors of omissions, the logs included in this report should never be redrawn for inclusion in architectural or other design drawings. Only photographic or electronic reproduction is acceptable; but recognizes that separating logs from the report can elevate risk. Give Contractors a Complete Report and Guidance Some owners and design professionals mistakenly believe they can make contractors liable for unanticipated subsurface conditions by limiting what they provide for bid preparation. To help prevent costly problems, give contractors the complete geotechnical engineering report, but preface it with a clearly written letter of transmittal. In that letter, consider advising the contractors that the report was not prepared for purposes of bid development and that the report's accuracy is limited; encourage them to confer with the GeoTest and/or to conduct 'Information in this document is based upon material developed by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences(asfe org) pment 22 Packet Pg. 348 2.2.a additional study to obtain the specific types of information they need or prefer. A pre -bid conference can also be valuable. Be sure contractors have sufficient time to perform additional study. Only then might you be in a position to give contractors the best information available, while requiring them to at least share some of the financial responsibilities stemming from unanticipated conditions. In addition, it is recommended that a contingency for unanticipated conditions be included in your project budget and schedule. Read Responsibility Provisions Closely Some clients, design professionals, and contractors do not recognize that geotechnical engineering or geology is far less exact than other engineering disciplines. This lack of understanding can create unrealistic expectations that can lead to disappointments, claims, and disputes. To help reduce risk, GeoTest includes an explanatory limitations section in our reports. Read these provisions closely. Ask questions and we encourage our clients or their representative to contact our office if you are unclear as to how these provisions apply to your project. Environmental Concerns Are Not Covered in this Geotechnical or Geologic Report The equipment, techniques, and personnel used to perform an environmental study differ significantly from those used to perform a geotechnical or geologic study. For that reason, a geotechnical engineering or geologic report does not usually relate any environmental findings, conclusions, or recommendations; e.g., about the likelihood of encountering underground storage tanks or regulated containments, etc. If you have not yet obtained your own environmental information, ask your geotechnical consultant for risk management guidance. Do not rely on environmental report prepared for some one else. Obtain Professional Assistance to Deal with Biological Pollutants Diverse strategies can be applied during building design, construction, operation, and maintenance to prevent significant amounts biological pollutants from growing on indoor surfaces. Biological pollutants includes but is not limited to molds, fungi, spores, bacteria and viruses. To be effective, all such strategies should be devised for the express purpose of prevention, integrated into a comprehensive plan, and executed with diligent oversight by a professional biological pollutant prevention consultant. Because just a small amount of water or moisture can lead to the development of severe biological infestations, a number of prevention strategies focus on keeping building surfaces dry. While groundwater, water infiltration, and similar issues may have been addressed as part of this study, the geotechnical engineer or geologist in charge of this project is not a biological pollutant prevention consultant; none of the services preformed in connection with this geotechnical engineering or geological study were designed or conducted for the purpose of preventing biological infestations. 'Information in this document is based upon material developed by ASFE, Professional Firms Practicing in the Geosciences(asfe.org) 1015F b;b?,c}ment 22 Packet Pg. 349 2.2.a 009 GG'OTeST April 14, 2017 Project No. 16-0234 Westgate Woods, LLC C/O Bill Booth 2817 NW 94th Street Seattle, Washington 98117 741 Maiine Dnve _ Bellingham, b'vA 98225 WO 7,a3 7318 20611-67" Avenue NE _ 1 ;-_4 Arlinaton, WA 98223 SN 251 5276 Re: Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Edmonds Townhouses 9511 Edmonds Way Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Booth: 360733_741B GeoTest Services, Inc. (GTS) is pleased to submit this response to the City of Edmond's review comments, provided to us by Harmsen and Associates. GeoTest Services (GTS) has previously completed a geotechnical report for the above referenced project, titled Edmonds Townhouses, 9511 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington, dated June 10, 2016. City Review Comments Listed below are the City's review comments that are applicable to the work that GTS performed, followed up with GTS's response to those comments. City Review Comment #3 GeoTest Determined an infiltration rate per the 2005 DOE Manual. The City now uses the 2014 manual. GTS Response: In our geotechnical report, GeoTest utilized a grain size approach to determine the feasibility of infiltration on the property in general accordance with the 2005 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington. The results of our grain size analysis indicated that an infiltration rate of 2 inches per hour in predominately granular soil was feasible using this approach. GTS understands that the City of Edmonds currently uses the 2012 Stormwater Manual for Western Washington, amended in 2014, as a basis for determining infiltration feasibility. Using a grain size approach under this manual, GTS determined a Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity (Ksat) value using the sieve data from our original geotechnical report. The Ksat value was then reduced through the application of correction factors based on the size of the facility, soil variability, and the grain size approach in general accordance with the recommendations presented in the Manual. GTS calculated a corrected, long-term design Ksat value of between 6 and 32 inches per hour using this approach. It is our understanding that the current design infiltration rate for facilities on site is 2 inches an hour. It is our opinion that the 2 inch per hour design rate is suitable for use on this project site. Page 1 of 2 Attachment 22 Packet Pg. 350 2.2.a GeoTest Services, Inc. April 14, 2017 Edmonds Townhouses, Edmonds, WA Job No. 16-0234 City Review Comment #4 GeoTest recommends performing an in -situ infiltration test. No in -situ test results are included. GTS Response: The 2014 Manual grain size approach using our historic data produced an infiltration rate, with built-in correction factors per the Manual, of 6 inches per hour. The infiltration rate used in the design of the proposed bioretention facility is 2 inches per hour. GTS did not encounter groundwater or restrictive layers during our explorations that would indicate a further reduction would be needed to address mounding of groundwater. It is our opinion that a design rate of 2 inches per hour is adequate for infiltration facilities on this project site. GTS does not require additional confirmation of infiltration rates (i.e., Pilot Infiltration Testing) provided that design infiltration rates are 2 inches per hour or less. Closure We appreciate the opportunity to provide geotechnical services on this project and look forward to assisting you during the construction phase. If you have any questions regarding the information contained in this report, or if we may be of further service, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully Submitted, GeoTest Services, Inc. 00 R. OF wp'9 -� a p -h r �tos4- ra r- �S' fi��SrEfkS ' '-, t, . t 7 Edwardo Garcia, P.E. Geotechnical Department Manager Page 2 of 2 Attachment 22 1Packet Pg. 351 2.2.a _ LAND *t(ARMSENCIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYINGOCIATES INC September 19, 2017 City Review Staff City of Edmonds Development Services Department 121 5th Ave N Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Revised Waiver Request for Sidewalk Improvements Review Team: The applicant, Westgate Woods LLC, is applying for approval to construct two, five -unit townhouse buildings on the property located north of Edmonds Way, west 95th Place West and south of 228th St SW. In a previous waiver request, the applicant proposed the elimination of the planter requirement and the allowance of the existing sidewalks to remain. The City responded verbally that the planter strip requirement could be eliminated with street trees to be placed on the private property side of the sidewalk, but that the sidewalk would need to be replaced with a five -foot -wide sidewalk. The rational for the denial of the applicant's request to retain the existing sidewalk was twofold. 1. That the sidewalk side slopes exceeded the ADA minimum side slope of 2%, and 2. that the existing sidewalk was less than five feet wide and, City Staff asserted, ADA minimum sidewalk requirement is five feet wide. The applicant's design and legal team has researched the ADA requirements and found an ADA compliant design that also resolves the City's concern with cross slope, as well as resolves the applicant's concern with exceeding the width of the existing rock wall located on the property side of the existing sidewalk. Site Description: The site is located at the intersection of 228th Street Southwest, 95th Place West, and Edmonds Way and is comprised of two tax lots. The project site area is 25,237 square feet (0.58 acres) and is zoned RM 1.5. The site is bounded on three sides by developed rights of way, is triangularly shaped, and is almost entirely below the elevations of the surrounding streets and properties. The vegetation is a combination of grasses, trees and both native and ornamental plantings that have not been maintained for decades. The site is currently vacant other than an old house foundation. There is evidence of previous fill and excavation, probably related to a quarry project in the late 1800's that affected the Edmonds Way Corridor from around the intersection of 100th Ave West to near the intersection of 232nd St SW. The quarry operation was followed by road way development around the site. Subsequently the site was developed with a house, which was then removed. Finally, Edmonds Way was redeveloped, widened and a super elevated curve was added which raised the elevation of the roadway above the elevation of the site, and placed a rock retaining wall along the south property line of the subject site. C:\Users\john\ShareFile\Shared With Me\16-241 Westgate\PL\4th Submittal -sidewalk waiver\Revised sidewalk waiver 3.docx ISLAND COUNTY 840 SE 8th Avenue, Ste. 102 Oak Harbor, Washington 98277 tel: (360) 675-5973 / fax: (360) 675-7255 SNOHOMISH COUNTY 125 East Main Street Ste. 104 Monroe, Washington 98272 tel: (360) 794-7811 / fax: (360) 805-9732 Anticipate / Understand r I f Guide / Deliver ALIff6 I IeCI 023 SKAGIT COUNTY 603 South First Street Mount Vernon, Washington 98273 tel: (360) 336-9199 / fax: (360) 982-2637 Packet Pg. 352 Westgate Woods Revised Sidewalk Waiver Request 2.2.a 9/19/2017 PAGE 2OF3 Specific Request: The applicant requests that the width of the replacement sidewalk along a portion of 95th PI W and along Edmonds Way adjacent to and on top of the existing rock wall be reduced to less than five feet, but be constructed at least four feet wide, so as to fit between the existing roadway side curb and the existing property side curb that is constructed on top of the existing rock retaining wall. The applicant has revised the plans to address the City's concerns regarding ADA compliance. (Please see Attachment 1, plans for revised proposal and Attachment 2 for ADA compliance). ECDC Regulatory Requirements: ECDC 18.90.030 Table of Sidewalk Standards. Engineering Standard Detail E2.13 concrete sidewalks. Compliance with Criteria for approval of a Waiver: Waiver from sidewalk minimum width requirements of 5ft: The existing sidewalk along Edmonds Way and most of 95th PI. W. is constructed on top of fill that is retained by a rock retaining wall. The wall is in the right of way and close to the property line of the subject property. A curb has been constructed on top of the rock wall on the property side of the wall — which is the property side of the sidewalk — all still in the right of way. The sidewalk is constructed as an asphalt sidewalk placed between the curb I just described, and the curb along the improved roadway. The asphalt sidewalk width varies from 4 feet, 6 inches to 4 feet 10 inches. Replacement of the sidewalk with a 5-foot sidewalk would require removal of the curbing on top of the existing wall, and the construction of a new wall to support the expanded sidewalk. We suspect, but don't know that the removal of the existing curb would damage the existing wall. We anticipate the coast of removing the curb, repairing the existing wall and constructing a new wall would exceed $400,000.00 Since the property has street frontage on three sides and most of the lineal feet of street frontage is construction on fill, we believe that special circumstances related to topography exist. These special circumstances will cause the construction of a sidewalk to be prohibitively expensive, making the required improvements economically infeasible. Therefore, we believe that the requested waiver meets the criteria for approval. Thank you for your considered review of this project. Please contact me at your earliest convenience with any questions or concerns. Sincerely J�ohn Bissell, AICP Planning Director Harmsen & Associates, Inc. Packet Pg. 353 Westgate Woods Revised Sidewalk Waiver Request 2.2.a 9/19/2017 Attachments: 1. Sheets C3 and C4 of Harmsen Plan Set 2. ADA Code Citations 3. Email and letter from Community Transit denying removal of the bus pullout 4. Email from Community Transit Approving new curbing in bus pullout 5. Letter from Rich Hill to Jeffrey Taraday dated August 8, 2017 6. Letter from Jeffrey Taraday to Rich Hill Dated September 11, 2017 cc. Bill Booth —Applicant Michael Ryan PE Rich Hill, Attorney at Law PAGE 3OF3 Packet Pg. 354 2.2.a DAVE FABLING CITY OF EDMONDS r MAYOR 1215THAVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • 425-771-0220 - FAX425-672-5750 Website: www.edmondswa.gov �89 �} �� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Engineering Division October 4, 2017 Bill Booth Westgate Woods, LLC 2817 NW 94th St Seattle, WA 98117 RE: Sidewalk Width Waiver for Edmonds Way Dear Mr. Booth, The City has reviewed the waiver request submitted by John Bissel, Harmsen & Associates on your behalf. The request is for a waiver of the five-foot width requirement for sidewalk construction on Edmonds Way, dated September 15, 2017. Sidewalks are required along the Edmonds Way property frontage as a condition of development for the proposed multi -family project at 9511 and 9513 Edmonds Way. While five feet is the minimum width for sidewalk construction required per ECDC 18.90.030 Sidewalk Standards, you have requested that the City review this project site and code requirements for a determination of economic unfeasibility, under ECDC 18.90.030 B. The request is to construct the replacement sidewalk along a portion of 95th PI W and along Edmonds Way adjacent to and on top of the existing rock wall be reduced to widths less than five feet but still be constructed in the footprint of the existing sidewalk where widths vary between four feet six inches to four feet eleven inches. The request contends that replacement of the sidewalk with a five foot sidewalk would require removal of the curbing along the back of the sidewalk on top of the existing wall and the construction of a new wall to support the wider sidewalk. A cost estimate for the construction of a new wall was submitted in the amount of approximately $400,000. The waiver of the five- foot minimum sidewalk width is requested due to economic infeasibility. City staff has reviewed the waiver request, cost estimate and site conditions. The waiver is hereby granted to construct the replacement sidewalk at widths between four feet six inches width to four feet ten inches in width in the portions of the Edmonds Way and 95th PI W where the sidewalk is constructed over the rockery, PROVIDED THAT the replacement sidewalk shall not be any narrower than the existing sidewalk in any area. This waiver does not approve construction of a sidewalk under the five foot minimum width in any other area of the site. A proved: a. (j r ,y�! ,eK t L)5 17 � �'�' � l�1 5 � E Robert Engfish Date Wane Hope Da � City Engineer Development Services Director a C: Design Review File — pin20170060/61 Attachment 24 Packet Pg. 355 H 0 Rr= T(I N0,6-17 �-E fo i� �-Y ��P L �1 OC I I _ _F )L"P M D IVOfi� �Q C Ti �15 ------ ;N G Ar g s�X1T F zll� �,� �, �,!- I "' / � f- \�� `vim R'71� N P � �ti � �� R,. TW F fJ IT I A-KI TRuc-�< CLIV N I 1 �� .� 4L F Co CIA) C-'Itt� � ! U t-r p A i� K CA or f G- 7- Attachment 25 Packet Pg. 356