07-1258,59,60 Plan Review Comments1.pdf
CE
ITY OF DMONDS
PLANREVIEWCOMMENTS
PLANNINGDIVISION
425.771.0220
DATE: January 31, 2008
TO: Thomas Thompson – AIA
ttsquared@gmail.com
FROM: Kathleen Taylor, Associate Planner
RE: Plan Check #s 2007-1258, 1259, 1260
Project: 3 New Retail Buildings
Project Address: 23330, 23332, 23334 Highway 99
On behalf of the Planning Division, I have reviewed the above building permit
applications. In order to complete my review of the application, please respond in
writing to the following items:
1.Gross v. Net. Refer to the title sheet T-0.1. Please explain the differences in the
gross versus net square footage of the buildings. For Buildings A and C the net
exceeds the gross.
2.Roof Plan. On the roof plan for each building, clearly define the extent of the
roof deck(s).
3.Design Review.
a.Color Elevations. Provide color elevations of the proposal as seen from
all four property lines. Submit three copies of each. Basically any
information that you can provide to best illustrate the project’s final
appearance would be greatly appreciated.
b.Lighting. Submit a lighting plan that demonstrates compliance with
ECDC 16.60.030C3. Also provide a schematic of the exterior light
fixtures.
c.Fee. A fee of $100 will be added to the permit, and a more thorough
review will be done after the colored renderings are submitted.
d.Written Description. Submit a short ‘write-up’ demonstrating how you
think that your project complies with ECDC 16.30.030C1 and C2.
e.Trash Enclosure. Provide a schematic of the trash enclosure. Will it be
screened from above?
P@
LAN REVIEW COMMENTS FOR AZEDMONDS
P2 2/1/2008
AGE
4.Landscaping.
a.The landscaping within the 4-foot street setback and adjacent to the
parking lot must be Type IV per ECDC 16.60.030A12a. Please redline
the Landscape Plan.
b.In scaling it appears that the required width for the landscaped areas has
been met, but to clarify please label the minimum width of the landscaped
areas along the property lines.
c.For the landscaped area along the western property line (northern portion
only – 10 feet in width), it does not appear to meet the requirements of
ECDC 20.13.030A, which requires 2 rows of evergreens and shrubs 3.5
feet high. The landscape plan shows one or other in this narrow area,
rather than both. The other option is to plant on an earthen berm 15 feet
in width. Please revise the landscape plan accordingly.
d.Tree Grates for Street Trees. The Engineering Division will give you the
appropriate size requirements, and the landscape plan should include this
information.
5.Pedestrian Walkways.
a.Revise the site plan to show a pedestrian path from Building C to
Building B. It would be most appropriate to show it from the pathway in
front of Building C, straight west towards the 2 ADA stalls in front of
Building B, and continuing between the 2 ADA stalls.
b.Show compliance with ECDC 16.30.030B3a. In summary use a variation
of textures and/or colors to delineate the pedestrian walkways.
6.Height Calculations. I realize that the building is significantly below the height
limit of 60 feet. However, it is necessary to document the height calculations.
You may redline the site plan. Please refer to the attached handout, which
explains how to determine the average grade and maximum elevation for each
building. Then redline the elevation views for each building with the average
grade, actual elevation, and maximum elevation.
7.SEPA Review. Due to the size of the proposal, environmental review is required.
Submit the following items:
a.SEPA Checklist. See attached Handout #P71 .
b.Adjacent Property Owners List. Handout #P2 attached.
c.Affidavit. Attached to Handout #P2.
d.Fee. There is a $420 processing fee.
8.Critical Areas Determination. According to the Critical Areas Reconnaissance
Report issued January 2, 2008, the site appears to contain an Erosion Hazard
Area as defined by ECDC 23.80. A copy of the report is attached for your
reference. Please respond to its requirements.
P@
LAN REVIEW COMMENTS FOR AZEDMONDS
P3 2/1/2008
AGE
9.Lot Aggregation. The Snohomish County Assessor records suggest that the site
is all one parcel, but the legal description suggests that it is two parcels. If it is in
fact legally two parcels, a lot line adjustment will be required to legally combine
the two lots. Please respond. We can discuss the application process, fees, etc. if
necessary.
10.Parking. As designed the site meets the parking requirements for retail
commercial (1 space per 300 square feet). However, please be aware that
parking requirements vary depending upon the use. An office use requires 1
space per 400 square feet, while a restaurant requires 1 space per 200 square feet.
You may want to review the parking requirements of ECDC 17.50. Ultimately a
tenant may not be allowed to occupy a space if the entire site does not comply
with the parking requirements of ECDC 17.50. (For your information only. No
response needed.)
Please make all submittals to a Development Services Permit Coordinator, Monday,
Tuesday, Thursday, or Friday, 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. If you have any questions, feel free
to contact me at 425.771.0220 ext 1223. I work a part-time schedule. If I am not
available, please ask to speak with the planner-on-duty.
Thank you.
Attachments
Critical Areas Reconnaissance Report
Handout #P2 – Adjacent Property Owners List and associated Affidavit
Handout #P71 SEPA Checklist
Handout #B41 Height Calculation Information
ECDC 16.60.030
ECDC 20.13.030