Loading...
20170531_ResubResponseLetter.pdf10135 se sunnysid e rd t 503.659.9500 suite 200 f 503.659.2227 clackamas, or 97015 www.pacland.com Memorandum Date: 5/31/17 To: Kernen Lien From: Shawn Nguy - PACLAN D Subject: Response to Completeness Comments Planning Division Comments: Landscaping: a. Type I Landscaping Requirements- Type I landscaping between the subject property and the residential zoned property to the west of the site. While the landscaping plan on sheet L-1 indicates some existing trees will be retained, the landscaping shown along the western property boundary is not consistent with the Type I landscaping requirements as detailed in ECDC 20.13 .030.A. Please revise the landscape plan so the landscaping along the western property boundary is compliant with the Type I landscaping requirements. Response: The landscape plan has been updated to show Type I landscaping along the west side of the site. Refer to the updated Landscape Plan. b. Potential Impact from Adjacent Development -A development on the adjacent property has proposed to use this property for potential stormwater facilities (File Number PLN201 60053, plans of which have been provided to you). I understand the property owners are in discussion to potentially grant and utility easement for the Stormwater facility. The location of those stormwater facilities would be in the northwest corner of the subject property. If an easement is granted, this could alter the landscaping in this area. Please update the landscaping plans as necessary if the property does grant an easement for stormwater facilities as noted on the plans under file numberPLN20160053. Response: Noted. Landscape plan has been updated to account for the potential easement area. Refer to the updated Landscape Plan. 2. Signage: Signs are shown on the proposed building elevations and a separate sheet for a free standing sings. Please note that this design review is not approving any particular signage. Signs will be approved under separate building permits. It should be noted that signs are being shown on the west side of the proposed structure. Signs on the west side of the building would not be consistent with ECDC 20.60.025.A.2 as that facade is not a qualifying frontage (does not contain a primary public entrance or is frontage along a public street). If the goal is ultimately to have signage on that facade, pursuant to ECDC 20.60.015.13 the request would be reviewed by Architectural Design Board. Page 2 of 4 City of Edmonds May 31, 2017 Response: Noted. The applicant intends on pursuing signage on the west side of the building as it is a significant issue for the tenants. We request the proposed signage plan be reviewed by the Architectural Design Board. 3. Height calculations: Please provide height calculations for the proposed building. Response: A dimension has been added to all elevations showing the 40'height max being met per IBC 2015 504. 1. See attached. The maximum height of the proposed building is 28ft. 4. Access improvements: Please note that if there is any regrading and other improvements along the access road connecting the site to 244 1h Street SW, a geotechnical report consistent with the requirements of ECDC 23.80 will be required. Response: Improvements and grading are not proposed along the access road with our project. Based on the proposed development plans for the adjacent property, water line and pavement repair will need be completed to serve that development. The adjacent development will also need to improve the driveway on 244th to ADA standards since it serves as access to their property. The owners of the property are currently coordinating a development agreement to address these issues. Engineering Division Comments 1. The plans indicate a 6-foot walkway connection between the parking lot and the sidewalk along Highway 99. Please confirm with the City of Shoreline (and provide a response in writing to the City) that a walkway in this location is acceptable. The grass area along the property frontage may provide a stormwater benefit that cannot be disturbed/regraded without appropriate design. Response: We have submitted the proposed development plans to the City of Shoreline and have received approval for the walkway. See attached email confirmation from Kendra Dedinsky with the City of Shoreline. 2. The subject development falls within the Olympic View Water& Sewer District for water and sewer utilities. Please provide written confirmation that the District finds the proposed development to be feasible with regards to water & sewer availability. Response: See attached availability letter from OVWSD. Stormwater Comments 1. A preliminary stormwater report has been submitted to the City to confirm project feasibility. Please respond to the following: Background This is classified as a Large Project because it involves 1 or more acres of land disturbing activity. Large Project are subject to Small Site Minimum Requirements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 . Minimum Requirement #1 -Preparation of Stormwater Site Plan Comments 1 and 2 shall be addressed as part of the project feasibility review: 1. Stormwater Report, WWHM page 2: Use Puget East rain gage, not Everett rain gage. This is selected in the project information screen by selecting "Use WSDOT data" Page 3 of 4 City of Edmonds May 31, 2017 Response: See attached WWHM Stormwater results. The analysis has been updated using the Puget East rain gage. 2. Sheet PC-2: Grading to the west of the proposed building will lower the existing grade by about 1 -foot. It should be noted that there is high groundwater in this area. Response: Geotechnical investigation of the site did not encounter groundwater at 16ft below existing grade. We also reviewed the Geotech report for the adjacent development and their boring logs did not encounter groundwater at depths 8.5ft below groundwater. We will further investigate this issue. Should shallow groundwater he encountered, the project will install a groundwater intercept system below the pavement to redirect the water to the proposed stormwater system or other acceptable discharge locations. Comments 3-10 are provided to assist in a more complete civil plan submittal at time of building permit: Response: Acknowledged. Construction documents will include the detailed information requested. Fire Department Comments 1. Sheet PC 1 - Call out the distance/dimensions and turning radius of all fire access roads. Fire access roads shall comply with the Department of Fire Prevention Emergency Access Standard (attached in PT). Response: Distance, dimensions, and turning radius have been added to the site plan. An Autoturn route for the proposed fire access route is provided on the site plan. See updated Site Plan. 2. Sheet PC2- Storm Water vault must be rated to support 75,000lbs point load for aerial fire apparatus outriggers. Response: Noted. The storm vault is designed to meet the required load. See attached Vault plans. 3. Sheet PC3- Coordinate with the Engineering Division and Fire Prevention for the location of the vault (DCVA) for the private fire hydrants and fire sprinkler line. 4. Sheet PC3 -Call out Fire Department Connection (FDC) location. Prefer within 10' of either private hydrant, remote from the building. FDC shall comply with Department of Fire Prevention FDC Standard. 5. General Note: Provide a Fire Control room for placement of the fire riser and fire alarm control panel with exterior access Response: The project is not proposing a sprinkler system. Additional hydrants will be added to the site. Based on coordination with Fire Official Kevin Zweber, a sprinkler system is not required per the IBC based on the following: Page 4 of 4 City of Edmonds May 31, 2017 The building is a Mixed -Use building. Building I is A-2 and building 2 is M. The two occupancy types are separated by a 2hr fire wall per table 508.4. The A-2 Restaurant may not exceed 99 occ load and is below the max allowable footage requirement of 5,000 sq. feet per IBC 903.2.1.2. The 3 retail spaces as M occupancy is below the max allowable footage requirement of 12,000 sq feet and meets all other requirements per IBC 2015 903.2.7. This has been noted on the attached floor plan.