Moreinfo#2_PLN20160060_61.pdffllc. 189.,
May 26, 2017
CITY OF E ONS
121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: vyNvw.eda of ds .gqy
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
John Bissell
Harmsen & Associates Inc.
125 East Main St, STE 104
Monroe, WA 98272
Ilwrml� jj hnbisscli.com
Subject: Request for Additional Information 42
Westgate Woods Townhomes
Variance Application PLN20160060
Design Review Application PLN20160061
Dear Mr. Bissell,
The City of Edmonds has reviewed the May 11, 2017 resubmittal for the proposed 10 -unit
Townhouse Project located at 8509 — 244th Street SW. Additional inforn ation and clarifications
are needed for continued review of the application. Please respond to the following so review of
this application can proceed:
Planning Division Comments:
1. Variance Criteria:
a. Minimum Necessary Criteria Statement: Partially addressed. The response to
variance criteria ECDC 20.85.010.F addresses the allowable density at the subject
property; however, the variance request is to exceed the allowable height in the
RM -1.5 zone. The response should address what has been done, or what
considerations were taken into account in order to minimize the requested height
variance.
statementMay 26, 2017 Comment: The criteria relies_.
nsity argument
to demonstrate how the proposal meets the minimum necessary criteria for a
height variance. Part of thedensityargumentI
t given site constraints, the
applicant is not able to achieve the density allowed by the zone. The special
circumstances criteria ECDC rnotes
I special
I I e
property.should not be predicated on the ability to make a more profitable use of the
height variance request
a achieving a maximum
b. Minimum Necessary Considerations:
Partially addressed: One of the special circumstances noted for the site is
the transition from the road down in the site. The proposed driveway
slope into the site is shown at 5% transitioning to 2% into the property
(Drive Isle `A' Profile, Sheet C4). The Fire Department has noted that the
driveway slope could be a maximum of 12% and still allow fire access to
the site. A steeper driveway would minimize the amount of fill required
and the amount of height variance request. Have you considered a steeper
driveway slope to minimize the amount of variance requested?
May 26, 20:17 Comment: 'fhe May l I 1 response ]letter notes the lowest
elevations of the buildings are either a result ofthe access point, retaining
walls, or sewer connections. It seems like the access point response is no
different from the transition into the site. Have there been any
considerations to providing a steeper driveway into the site? See
Engineering Comment #9 below regarding the sewer connection.
ii. Addressed.
iii. Partially Addressed. Have considerations been given to using less fill
which would help minimize the requested height variance request?
May 26, 2017 Comment: The applicanthas stated that the retaining wall
along SP 104 is one of the reasons for requested height variance. 'rile
profile for .Drive Isle A on Sheet C4 shows approximately 2 feet of fill at
the base of the retaining wall along SR 1.04. Has there been consideration
for using less fill? Also see Engineering Co cents #1 and. #9.
2. Height 4:12 Pitch:
a. .Addressed.
3. Critical Area Determination: Addressed..
4. Garbage: Partially Addressed. No garbage enclosure was shown on the site plan and no
description of how garbage is to be handled was described in the application materials.
Please note how garbage is proposed to be handled in the proposed development.
May 26, 2017 Comment: See Engineering Comment # 12 below.
5. SEPA: Noted.
6. Lot combination: Acknowledged.
7. Coverage Calculations: Addressed.
8. February 6 Email Comment: Partially addressed. When I was posting the site last week,
I was looking at the landscaping along the north side of the development that is indicated
on the plans as providing Type III landscaping. I'm not sure the existing vegetation
would meet the criteria for Type III landscaping. When you resub on the project, please
show the existing landscaping as well, as opposed to just bubbling the area. While the
Page 2 of 10
ADB and Hearing Examiner may interpret and alter the landscaping requirements, we
need to know what is present to evaluate how the existing landscaping does or does not
comply with the Type III landscaping requirements.
May 26, 2017 Comment: 'IIhe existing landscaping has been shown in the bubbled area,
but it does not coin ply with the Type III landscaping requirements detailed in ECDC
20.13.030.C. The landscaping with either has to be supplemented to comply with the
Type III landscaping requirements or the application must include a request for a
modification of the landscaping requirements from the ADB and Hearing Exat iner.
Enaineerina Dvisioci Comments:
The Engineering division has reviewed the applicant's response to the comment letter dated
February 7, 2017 and the revised plans for the Westgate Woods project located at 9511 and 9513
Edmonds Way. The Engineering Division is unable to provide approval of the requested
variance and design submittal at this time. Please ask the applicant to review the Engineering
Division responses below and provide a fully consistent and responsive revision.
1. Variance Criteria:
a. Minimum Necessary Considerations:
i. One of the special circumstances mentioned is that due to the lower elevation of
the site, stormwater conveyance was a concern. Before a true assessment of the
ability to attain positive flow, the project design shall revise the Drainage Report
to meet the requirements for the Edmonds Way Direct Discharge Basin. Please
review Edmonds Community Development Code 18.30.060.1) Minimum
Technical Requirements Section 5.b.iv.b for the specific design parameters. If a
similar design is feasible, other considerations may be:
a. Locating several smaller bmps to collect sections of runoff, for example,
at the end of the drive aisles negating the need for additional fill.
b. The minimum pipe slope necessary to provide flow is .05%. The
elevation of the outfall could be several feet lower before it is not possible
to connect to the public storm system.
c. Outfalls may be able to connect to another bmp, for example, a drywell.
It is not a requirement to connect to the public storm main.
d. The outfall pipe shown on the plans has a 12" diameter. Outfall pipes
are usually 6" (see SWMMWW bmp details). Using a 6" pipe would add
6" of elevation to the outfall pipe, increasing the ability to lower the
system.
j2licanfs R,e,5,ponse� After closer review of the drainage system, the
interfere with the retaining wall along the south pr,Nr-
revealed that t. lowest elevation of the site is determined by theelevation
sewer line. Therefore the suggested changes to the stormwater system above
have no bearing on the elevation of the site or the proposed buildings.
Page 3 of 10
Milt Afivil iqfillralion report is still required to consider
the variance request. The submittedproposal requires all tispects of the site design U.)
be achievable as proposed. If the storm watersystem (s) is lat,ger than expected due to
a lower it?filtration rate, it may not be able lofil in the same location,- with the
restrictions on this site it may be an issue that significantly alters the overallsile
design.. To avoidfivrther comments on this issue, please haveyour geolech review
Appendix B of'the Edmonds rc51ormwater Addendum available on the City website to
h —
.nsa . xi conde'ngs
e"Swe f e r' u fes' ngmelhoduse,land'he resu"ing " ilff'raei,*t,,)n&f--t-,,-,,.,-Y(-Ni-e'
1". — — X & ff #1 & 120
submitted are consistent swath ,51'17A,011 W'W and rqflective of the speclc requirements (?f'
the City oEdmonds as outlined in the 1!,"d)nondv Community Development Code 18-30
and the Edmonds ,51ormwater Addendum,, Once the infiltration rate is vervied, the
sizing oaf the systems will need to be calculated using the 2014,51,41ABMW and the
).'dtnoods ,Storm water Addendumfi)r a categoy 2 site. The plans should include all
inverts (?f'the proposed cbs.
Lra addition; the current plans show a calch basin collecting runqf ftom 228'h and
,f
conveying it to the biorelentionsystem. The signi/icant volume of `street runqfprom
228th does not appear to be included in the sizing g the biorelenlionsystem. ff7hile a
catch basin ma be required in the curb line to convey the road run(#
Y f,' it should not be
directed to the private s ' ),,slem. ff the intention was to collect the nimpervious
anew impervus
created by the prqJ'ect in the right of way, it is acceptable to size the private s 'Ystem to
including the new row iinpervious yet not actually capture and convey it to the system.
ForJurther it ift)),nuvion rt,',, Cad Ihis a/find"arice, ph",'ave ctwihicl thw (,"i y, slornnvater
engineer, Robert 1!,dwards, 425-771-0220.
P'lease also note: In the Variance Criteria -Declarations letter received with this
subinilitil, on page 1, De veloptnenl 2 is inconsisieniti,ith th(,,F
geotechnical report and the other response information provided including this
stibinim,"d inclttding Me plan set. For exanip/e, an is coqfiesed ivilh
the biorelention system that is proposed] ®ft from the wall and there is not a clear
Ile, 1110"U'le 1eg'o'rding the tvettu',il lhtw has been tulded to the revised
plans south of'the west building, As discussed above the all documents and plans must
reflect the final storm water design and system (Y) that have been chosen for the project.
Variance Criteria response regarding the &wer connection is included in Comment
119
2. Sidewalk Requirements:
a. Edmonds Way: 5 ft concrete sidewalks with 4 ft landscape strip
51 J- IIJ TAL)l Edmonds Way currently has an asphalt sidewalk and
concrete curb, and an extensive retaining wall beneath. The applicant is requesting thal
the sidewalk not be replaced, and an exception to the 4' planter strip be issued. To this
end the applicant is submitting a sidewalk waiver request with this submittal.
Page 4 of 10
,5121L] LL7,yglr
The current .sidewalk along the Edmonds Way .f outage
is not ADA compliant. With the redevelopment of the property the sidewall(s must be
removed and replaced to be compliant with ADA requirements. The request. for relief of'
replacing the sidewalk cannot be granted. The 4' landscape strip will be required where
there is a minimum of 7fi of right of way measured from the back ofturb.
Pending a response from Community Transit (CT), the bus pull-out area may no longer
be needed at that location. In that case, the curbIgutter shall be brought out along the
drive lane consistent with properties to the west. This would allow for the full
improvements,- 5fit concrete sidewalks, 4 f landscape strip and street trees. Bertrand
[Muss, City Transportation Engineer, will contact you with CTs decision early next
week.
c. 95th Ave W: 5 ft concrete sidewalks between curb ramps
I ai t' Ih
5L !J!_An21J_C 95 currently hasati islfluflt NA,cflkway \Niitli concre'te
curb extending the entire len , gth of the project fron'tage. nicethig 228 Ih and Edtlionds
Way on either end, A waiver is supplied seeking relief from the requirement to alter
the sidewalk.
5124117,Uyg,Lnt yinonse. The current sidewalk along the 95 PlWfronlage is
not ADA compliant. With the redevelopment of the property the sidewalks must be
removed and replaced to meet ADA requirements for compliance. The request for
relief'of'altering the sidewalk cannot be grantedJbr any reason including the expense
that may or may not be incurred due to the existing wall.
3. Street Trees shall be located in the 4 foot landscape strip, spaced at 40 feet on center.
Tree cutouts shall be 4' x 4' placed at the curb side and have approved ADA grates.
Please show location of trees along Edmonds Way frontage.
5/11/1,7Np , i�q §pppq: Due to special cirCUinstances the applicant is requesting a
waiver from the requirement to add a planter strip to Edmond Way. Therefore, no
Edmonds Way street trees are proposed. The waiver request is included with this
submittal.
,j124117.L7ggyering AtV2Anse. Yee the Engineering Response to comment 2.a.
4. Bus Stop platform: concrete pad within the landscape strip is required at the location
pedestrians will be exiting the bus. Please keep this in mind when placing street trees.
511,111,17 -An icant's-RespQnse: Due to special circumstances the applicant is requesting a
waiver from the requirement to add a planter strip to Edmond Way. Therefore, there will
be no planter strip and there will be no pedestrian platform (is) needed. The waiver
request is included with this submittal,
Page 5 of 10
i12,411 LI
the h),igiray ering Response to comment 2.a.
Curb Ramp Replacement Requirements:
a. Edmonds and 95th Ave W standard
b. 228th and 95th Ave W, one directional curb directing pedestrian traffic north across
95th.
5/,J, -t/ -!--?-'-A -flicant's_j,' ,i The ap � t has not revised plans In light of the
.. I - 1. -- --J?J - - ----- plica.n
subrnifted sidewalk waivers., Depending on the disposition. of those waivers, this
requirern.ent.r.-night change. 'nerefore., the applicant requests that the nallp requirements
be made a condition. of approval instead of a requirement for a new review.
512'4117 EqgLneerit
qgAgMgyM A114
compliant curb rainpv are required (is part of there development (?f Ihis property. 7.hilsl
requirement is indqpendeni qfatry sidewalk requirementsfibr this site, Please revise plans
6. Addressed.
7. Addressed.,
8. Addressed.,
Utilities:
9. Water and sewer utilities fall under the purview of the Olympic View Water & Sewer
District. Please provide confirmation that OVWSD has been made aware of the proposed
project and that the proposal is found to be feasible from their perspective.
5/11117,&pHeapt's RCsponse: The applicant has requested water and. sewer availability
. ......... — j -1— � -.- 1-1--l-
from. Olymp.ic View Water and. Sewer District. Olympic view returned. the EUC form.
with the project number 16,,,.08..
512411 7fFy The submitted EUC
-- Ibrm is not responsive to this
comment, One qf the sign�ficant circumstances noted in the variance request is
regarding,- the elevation necessary to connect to the sewer main.. 7heparameterslimilin,"",
the abili�y to connect to the sewer with the original grades musl be slq)ported with
documentationftom 0 MM Please provid( , a written response ftom Olympic View
Wait er,.5ewer District coy? firgain g, the date of'the plan set they review and their comments,
speci/ically noting the circumstances stated in your variance request. Their response
needs to reference the option of'pumping and any other regulations that would, prevent a
way to connect to the sewer system without needing as height variance, including but not
restricted to.,
a. Is a ("'Onneahni in h,dMon.dv IlYqY afloivedfiw the ivest bttdding,?
Page 6 of 10
b. What is the minimum slope OVW_D requires fbr the sewer line on and off the site?
Do they allow less or more slope under certain conditions? Include all supporting
information to support your statements.
c. Would they make an exception if the applicant accepts private ownership of the line
on private property (including the pump) and only take possession of the connection
in the right of way?
d Please provide the minimum sewer invert necessary for the west building to gravity to
the sewer main.
e. The plan must include inverts for all of the sewer structures, length and slope for all
pipe and invert elevations at the structures.
f Pumping to the sewer can be provided either internally or externally to the structure,
Your response needs to address internally pumping, the sewer.
In orderfbr the Engineering Division to be able to make a determination whether the
sewer elevation is a limitin,"', ctor su i,,,,,:,Po tin& t e variance, Oou need to respond to all of
the possible options available to avoid a variance. Please make sure that you provide
supporting evidence (i.e. regulations, codes, etc.) to support your responses.
Please also note: In the Variance Criteria -Declarations letter received with this
submittal, Development proposal section, page 2, paragraph 2, states "Olyawic View
strongly discourages pumps and official state in their standards that pumps are not
allowed " The following Variance section, paragraph 5 states "OI;vnyfic View Water and
'Sewer District prohibit(s) the pumping of sewage' , . The two statements are not fully
consistent. The requested review comments from 0 Vw,SD will provide a specific
determination, please reference consistently in all documents in the next submittal.
On Site De,�Mllr,,
10. Addressed.
11. Addressed.
12. Show the location of the dumpster. See handout E37 for turnaround requirements etc.
5/11/ 1 7..Apj,,?jjcqnt's RcsjL( s,e,: No du Aster is proposed. The facility shall use
individual trash bins per unit.
5124g7,�'rMlr°r r es crrZs�a° Garbage and recycling enclosures are required for
multi family properties, In some circumstances, the recycling coordinator may work with
an applicant and their service provider to see if an alternative solution can be reached.
Hoi,vei,vi-, in this lVhere gtirbage bins tinct additional bins
Ar l0 units residling in ar? ,ivht!refiiiia 15 20bins alongside, 228',
will not be considered as an alternate solution.
Stormwater Design:
Page 7 of 10
13. The subject property falls within the Edmonds Way Direct Discharge Basin. This
property is eligible for a waiver from flow control requirements if a project meets the
requirements for Direct Discharge Basins. Please review ECDC 18.060.D.5.b.iv.b for
more information.
5111/1] jn !icant"s Res,,) Anse.- N rc `N: ` l 5,30,060. D.5.b.iv, 8S Levi OVed, and.. tiol weH
understood. : t appears that water quality must be provided,infiltration and other
��!� B 11P's be used to the exte�at praitls able, the �a dis urge fives values may e used
per this ordinance. The stor water is managed per 2012-2014 DOC and achieves total
water quality on-site, and also achieves % infiltration on-site. DOE 's have been
used to the extent practicable and no discharge to the City system is expected.
2411 ", �,�a��"neerir R�� mts : A professional in the stcrmwatcr field could provide
understanding of this crude section.
14. A complete infiltration report is required at this stage of the project. The final infiltration
rates determine the size and location of the bmp which can have a significant effect on
determining the feasibility of a project. The GeoTest report states that in-situ tests be
performed to verify the actual infiltration rate. Please review the City's infiltration rate
handout E72D (not updated for 2017 but still includes the correct information) for report
requirements.
5/L 1 /J1 7. wA1?pticai'r " R nse GeoTest has provided additional information, attached, as
to infiltration rates and methodology, recommending an infiltration rate not to exceed
2"/
2l�lr�gg ". � ; m rt, ° � Please see the response to the Variance criteria at the
beginning of the Engineering comments.
Please see the Stormwater Engineer's comments below,
Stormwater review - 2
Date of Review: May 18, 2017
File/Address: PLN201600061 / 9511 Edmonds Way
Reviewer: Robert C. Edwards, PE, Stormwater Engineer, City of Edmonds
Background
This is classified as a Category 2 Small Site because it is a 15,270 SF of impervious area therefore
exceeding 5,000 SF.
Category 2 Small Site Projects 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
Page 8of10
Comments:
None, based on limited site plan provided.
Minimum Requirement #2 — Construction Stormwater Pollution Plan
Comments:
Minimum Requirement #3 — Source Control of Pollution
Comments: None based on the limited information submitted
Minimum Requirement #4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems
Comments: None based on the limited information submitted
Minimum Requirement #5 — Onsite Stormwater Management
Comments: The following are significant in determining the feasibility of the proposed design.
1. WWHM needs to use Puget East 36 rainfall. This comment was not addressed. A request for City
of Edmonds code citation was made instead. The citation is the 2010 City of Edmonds
Stormwater Supplement, page 21.
2. The Geotest Geotechnical Engineering Investigation dated June 10, 2016, page 12 recommends
Pilot Infiltration Tests. The Geotest response letter dated April 14, 2017 contradicts the
Geotechnical Engineering Investigation stating that Pilot Infiltration Testing is not required.
Minimum Requirement # 6 — Runoff Treatment
Comments: None at this time.
Minimum Requirement #7 — Flow Control
Comments: LID specified
Minimum Requirement #8 — Wetland Protection
Comments: None
Minimum Requirement #9 — Operation and Maintenance
Comments: None.
Minimum Requirement # 10 — Offsite Analysis and Mitigation
Comments: None
Minimum Requirement #11— Financial Liability
Comments: None
According to ECDC 20.02.003.13, the above requested information must be submitted within 90
days (or by August 24, 2017) or the application will expire.
Page 9 of 10
If you have any questions of me, please contact me at 425-771-0220 or via email at
kernen � I i en.(aj-, ednion.ds.wa.,gov.
Sincerely,
�errien Lien�e �rr I VC1, I
Senior Planner
Page 10 of 10