pln20140072-Salish Pavillion-CU-Design-E2.pdfDate:
To:
From:
Subject:
MEMORANDUM
March 4, 2015
Kernen Lien, Senior Planner
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
PLN20140072 — Conditional Use & Design Review
Salish Pavillion - 190 Sunset Ave S
The comments provided below are based upon review of the application and documents
submitted for the proposed Pavillion at 190 Sunset Ave S. Additional information is
requested from the applicant at this time. Please ask the applicant to respond to the following.
Comments 1 — January 12, 2015
Comments 2 — March 4, 2015
1) March 4, 2015 — A trip generation and mitigation analysis was provided. Please
address the following:
a. The analysis states 9300sf of shopping center was removed, however, the
demo permit on file with the City states 8200sf. Please confirm where the
additional "credit" in building area comes from.
b. An incorrect impact fee per unit rate was used for the coffee/donut shop. The
analysis states $6.02/sf when it should be $10.55/sE Please adjust.
c. An incorrect impact fee per unit rate was also used for the shopping center.
The analysis states $1.28/sf, however the 2004 rate table states 0.93/sf. Please
adjust.
d. Provide required drive through queue length.
1/12/2015 comment - Provide a traffic study consistent with the requirements of Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 18.82. The study shall include analysis
and determination of the required drive -through lane queue length.
2) March 4, 2015 — Comment partially addressed.
1/12/2015 comment - Traffic flow, drive -through lanes, and parking configuration in the
vicinity of the proposed pavilion building all need to be addressed. Please pay particular
attention to:
a. March 4, 2015 — As noted above, the traffic study was to provide the required
que length. As noted below, parking stalls shall not be blocked by drive -
through lane. Please revise plans as needed once queue length is determined.
City of Edmonds
1/12/2015 comment - Required queing for the drive -through lane - parking stalls
shall not be blocked.
b. March 4, 2015 — The plans indicate reconfiguration of the parking stalls so
they are perpendicular to the drive aisle, however, it appears as though the
drive aisle width has been reduced to 21-feet. Drive aisle widths for 2-way
traffic shall be 24-feet. If the drive aisle is itended to be one-way only, please
add signage to reflect such. In addition, please confirm parking stalls as
shown meet the minimum standard of 8 1/z' x 161/z'.
1/12/2015 comment - Parking adjacent to a 12-foot wide one-way drive aisle shall
be angled to allow for proper vehicle maneuverability. In addition, the parking
stalls on the north side of the parking lot are angled against the flow of traffic.
c. March 4, 2015 — Show the requirement for "Do Not Enter" signage at the east
end of the drive -through lanes where they meet up with north end of that
section of parking lot.
3) March 4, 2015 — Response letter states "This project is less than 2000sf and qualifies
as a minor project." In previous email correspondence with Jeff Oaklief dated
January 14, 2015, I was informed that the building would be constructed on pin piles
and a slab would be poured over the existing asphalt. If in fact this is the method of
construction and the existing asphalt is not removed down to bare soil and additional
impervious surface areas are not created, then this project may not trigger
stormwater regulations. The response letter does not speak to this, so it is unclear if
this is still the proposal. Please include reasoning in the response letter as to why you
believe stormwater regulations do not apply to this project.
1/12/2015 comment - Provide preliminary impervious surface area calculations and
stormwater site plan to indicate preliminary compliance with ECDC Chapter 18.30.
Thank you