607 SE EVERETT MALL WAY BASE FILE 2018-01-01 MF Import

� Ran Callahan, Building official i �, Lloyd E. Henning, City Enyineer 4-�d i' September 22, 1978 607 South IImadway, Rnbinson Plim�Sing ,., 9��8 �� � ,��1��''�rs;,✓ .. • te,'},t.rnjy , , »� �'• It was unfortunate you couldn't meet with us earlier this week when Tracy Gill was in. Mr. Gill repreaents the �erett Free Methodist Church which is proposing new facilities inanediately north of the Robinson Plumbing site on 7th Ave. S.E. As you lmow from discusaions Mr. Gill has had with you and others here with the City, he has developed a keen intere3t in Robinson's drainaga syetem since he must tie into it. His investigation has lead to what he seea as inconsiatenciea in the City's application of the new Drainage Ordinance {Ord. 519-78, dated 5-2-78). The discrepancy he cites relates to the lack of an approved drainage plan fcc Phases 3 and/or 4 of Rnbinson's development for which building permi.ts have been issued since the City Drainage Ordinance was appro+ d. Furthermore, Rnbinson has modified the natural drainage patterns s�ewhat and deviated from what appears to have been the drainage plan approved when the building permit was iasued for Phases 1 and 2. It should be noted that the sit•e plan sabmitted rrith the building =exmit application for Phases 1 and 2 included drainage plans for only those first two phases of conatruction and included no detention facilities. 7b swmnarize, it would appear Mr. Robinson was issued a buildiag permit for Phase 3(and/nr 4) without submitting or getting the Engineering Department's approval of supporting drainage plana. And, citing the Lnforcement Section (13) of the Drainage Ordi.nance� Mr. Gill wants to know what the City is going to do about it. Or, if the City is not going to do anything about it, can he too get under this 'tolerance" policy since he is pmjecting costs to the church in excesa of $10,000 to comply with the Drainage Ordinance. I assured Mr. Gill that the City was uniformly enfozcing the Drainage Ordinance and offered two �,oasible explanations of what appears to have xcurred. First, 2 suggeated that tha Building Departrnent may have made an interpratation that the site plan silxnitted for Phases 1 and 2 of itnbinson's construction program, in fact, crovered all phasea o£ rnnstruction. This obviously was a poor decision, made without any investigatian, but could possibly explain why a new site plan and drainage plan were not requestad with Phases 3/4 permit applicatione. The second possible e�c�lanation was that a draina9e plan for Phases 3/4 was, in fact� approved even though we hane no record of it aither here in the Enqineering Department files or in your Building DeFiartment files. (I'm interpreting a little but I think you indicated ta me in a phone convarsation earlier that you too wera unable to find such records.) If no drainage plans were submitted and/or apprwed, I fail to understand ;:��r a build+ng permit could be issued - Z truat you may want to pursue this further. Nr fiJ )31