RequestForMoreInfo#2_PLN20160053.pdfMarch 3, 2017
CITY OF ED ONI S
121 5t" Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 • Fax: 425.771.0221 • Web: www.edinondswa.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT • PLANNING DIVISION
Roy Gursli
5909 — 164" St SW
Lynnwood, WA 98037
Subject: Request for Additional Information and Clarifications
Edmonds Vista Apartment Complex
Design Review Application PLN20160053
Dear Mr. Gursli,
The City of Edmonds has reviewed the January 26, 2017 resubmittal for the proposed 19 -unit
Edmonds Vista Apartment Complex located at 8509 — 244" Street SW. Additional information and
clarifications are needed for continued review of the application. Please respond to the following so
review of this application can proceed: New comments are in red.
Planning Division Comments:
1. Height:
a. Height Calculations: Addressed.
b. Elevation Views: Addressed.
c. Accessory Structure: Accessory structure removed from plans.
2. Landscaping:
a. Type I landscaping along eastern property boundary: Addressed.
b. Type III landscaping along western and southern property boundary: Addressed.
c. Type V Landscaping:
i. Total amount: Addressed.
ii. Minimum size of planting areas: Addressed.
d. Off-site landscaping: Addressed.
e. Deviation from landscaping standards: ECDC 20.13.000 allows the Architectural Design
Board to interpret and modify the landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13; provided the
modification is consistent with the purposes found in ECDC 20.10.000. If the project
proposes modifications of the landscaping requirements detailed in ECDC 20.13, please
identify the proposed modifications and demonstrate how the proposed modifications are
consistent with ECDC 20.10.000.
3. Parking:
Total Number of Spaces: Focusing on the unit make up (number of 1, 2, and 3
bedrooms) 33 spaces would be required (Note there is a discrepancy in the unit make up
between sheets DR -02 and DR -09. This does not impact required parking; however,
please verify proposed number of 1, 2, and 3 bedroom units). Sheet DR -02 also notes
there is a 350 square foot private office with bath. Please explain the intended use of this
"Auxillery Space." Depending on the intended use, an additional parking space may be
required for this office space.
b. Tandem: Addressed.
c. Compact Spaces: Not addressed. Ten of the proposed parking spaces are identified as
compact parking spaces. In order to use compact parking spaces, pursuant to ECDC
18.95.020.1.b(1) it must first be demonstrate that sufficient parking area is available to
provide all required parking spaces at the full width dimensions. Please provide a plan
demonstrating that the required parking can be provided at the full width dimensions as
noted in ECDC 18.95.020.1.b(2).
March 3, 2017 Comment: The resubmittal response letter noted that a parking study was
provided to show that full size parking can be accommodated at the site, however no
parking study was included with the resubmittal materials. Please provide a plan
demonstrating that the required parking can be provided at the full width dimensions as
noted in ECDC 18.95.020.1.(2).
4. Elevation view of garage: Garage has been removed from plans.
5. Stairs in setback: Addressed.
6. Lot coverage: Partially addressed. The lot coverage calculations on sheet DR -02 do not
include the parking garage. Please include the garage in the coverage calculations for the
site.
March 3, 2017 Comment: Wile the garage has been removed from the plans, no coverage
calculations were provided in the January 26, 2017 resubmittal. Please provide coverage
calculations with the next resubmittal.
7. SEPA Checklist: Addressed.
8. Consistency between plan sheets: Partially addressed. There are several inconsistencies
throughout the design review packet. For example, the unit make up on sheets DR -02 and
DR -09 do not match, the ground floor elevations on sheets DR -09, L1.1, and DR -15 do not
match, the buildings shapes and projects shown in the elevation views do not seem to match
the footprints shown on sheet DR -09, the stairs on the west side of Building 2 (DR -09) do not
match the stairs shown on DR -12 and DR -13. Please ensure all the plan sheets are consistent
and accurately depict the proposed project.
March 3, 2017 Comment: While the plan sheets in the January 26, 2017 resubmittal appear
to be consistent, not all of the previous sheets were updated and resubmitted. The resubmittal
did not contain any color elevations, massing renderings, or an updated project summary
Page 2 of 6
sheet. Please include the above related elements in the next resubmittal that accurately depict
and describe the proposal.
9. Lighting plan: Addressed.
10. Full Size Plans: Addressed.
11. Garbage Enclosure: The garbage enclosure walls are shown at 6' — 1". Please note that
garbage enclosures are treated as fences which can be no taller than 6 feet without a variance
according to ECDC 17.30.000.C.
En2ineerina Division Comments:
For design review the Engineering division reviews the preliminary civil plans for feasibility.
Engineering has reviewed the subject application and found the following information,
corrections, or clarifications are needed. Due to the difficulty in reading the plans due to
scale, and the number of revisions that will necessitate redesign, this review shall not be
considered a comprehensive review. Please ask the applicant to revise and resubmit plans
addressing each of the comments below.
1. The information on the submitted plans is largely unreadable due to scale. The plans
indicate a scale of 1:10 but have been submitted in a reduced format rendering them un -
scalable. Please submit full site and civil sheets drawn to a minimum scale of 1:20.
2. The plans shall include the access out to 244th. Partially addressed. This can be shown on
a separate sheet if necessary. Please include width, length, surface, stormwater
mitigation, type of easement, existing or proposed improvements at the connection to
244th, etc.
March 3, 2017 Comment: Access to 244th has been shown, but driveway surface
material, width and existing or proposed improvements at the connection to 244th have
not been shown. Response letter notes that access has been shown on sheet ALTA.
When responding to this comment, please update civil plan sheet C1.
3. All two way drives shall be a minimum of 24' in width. Clearly show that this
requirement can be met in all locations.
March 3, 2017 Comment: Two-way drive aisles through the parking lot are now shown to
be 24 -feet in width — thank you, Drive aisles providing access to the site (outside the
actual parking lot) shall meet a minimum width of 22 -feet. The plans currently show a
section of the drive aisle to be 20 -feet in width. Please note, the pedestrian walkway
adjacent to the drive aisle must fall outside the drive aisle.
4. Tandem parking is prohibited per Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
chapter 18.95.030. Please remove the two spaces at west end of parking lot. Addressed.
5. Please show that the end (west) parking spaces on either side will have adequate area to
back out and position vehicles to drive forward out of the parking area.
March 3, 2017 Comment: response letter notes that the parking has been redesigned.
While sufficient turn -around area has been shown for vehicles parked in the parking
stalls, there is not adequate turnaround for vehicles utilizing the garage spaces, In
addition, a third garage bay has been added on the north side, which further complicates
Page 3 of 6
maneuverability in this area. Clearly show how vehicles will be able to maneuver into
and out of and turn around when using any of these three of the parking garages.
6. Show that the parking requirements can be met in accordance to ECDC chapter
18.95.020. Clearly indicate the dimensions of the parking spaces and dimension the drive
aisle width between the parking rows. There is a note stating that garage size can be
adjusted to accommodate the parking spaces. Please make the necessary changes prior to
resubmission.
March 3, 2017 Comment: Response letter indicates this comment has been addressed,
however a response confirming compliance with full width and reduced width parking
has not been provided. ECDC 18.95.020 states that an applicant must first be able to
demonstrate that sufficient -rcarkin area is �A�
A
at full width dimensions of 8 Y2feet. If this condition is met, then the applicant can
provide up to 50% of the parking at a reduced width of 8 -feet.
7. Please provide a turnaround if stipulated by the Fire Marshal.
F1111 11111 11,11110151 1 �M
8. Show that there is sufficient area for the garbage and recycling trucks to maneuver in and
out of the dumpster area. There is no area for the trucks to turn around in the parking lot
so it is necessary that they be able to use that area to do so.
March 3, 2017 Comment: Trash enclosure review by Recycling Coordinator. No further
comments at this time.
9. Apartments buildings are required to have a minimum of one sewer clean out per
building. Condominiums are required to have one sewer clean out for each unit. Please
show on plans.
March 3, 2017 Comment: Project site falls within the Olympic View Water & Sewer
District (OVWSD). Final review of the sewer utility system to be completed by the
District prior to building permit approval. No further comments at this time.
10. Massing sheet pg #5 references terraced rockeries. Rockeries are prohibited per ECDC
chapter 18.40.020. Please review code section for more information. Retaining walls
may be approved if designed in accordance to ECDC chapter 18.40.010.
March 3, 2017 Comment: Response letter states rockeries have been deleted. For clarity
rockeries are not prohibited in all situations. If rockeries are desired, please review
ECDC 18.4 0.020 closely to understand when they are allowed vs. prohibited. No further
comments at this time.
11. The Massing sheets, pgs #4 through pg48 do not show the rain gardens, bioretention
swale, retaining walls or fenced yard areas as described on the Site Design plan pg #9.
Revised plan set addresses this comment.
12. Landscaping plan pg #14 does not show the same landscaped areas as the Site Plan pg #9.
Addressed.
13. March 3, 2017 Comment: Refer to comments from Fire Marshal. A fire hydrant will be
required and DCDA will be required. Coordination with Engineering, Fire Marshal's
Office, OVWSD and property owner to the east will be required prior to building permi)
submittal.
Page 4 of 6
StormNvat eats onjanil,Li a 2§ resubmittal:
Background
This is classified as a Category 2 all Site because it proposes impervious area exceeding 5,000 SR
Category 2 all Site Projects are subject to all Site Minimum Requirements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, and 11.
Infeasibility Analysis
1. An infeasibility analysis is required under the 2014 DOE manual.
2. LID will need to be considered. To consider LID, an infiltration rate investigation must be
performed per the City's code and addendum.
Minimum Requirement 01 — Preparation of for ter Site Plan
Comments:
1. Plans show limited hydraulic fall between the bioretention swale and the detention system.
Provide a backwater analysis of the system.
Minimum Requirement #2 — Construction Stormwater Pollution Plan
Comments: None
Minimum Requirement #3 — Source Control of Pollution
Comments: None
1,%Ainimum Requirement #4 — Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems
k-0
I . Per the Edmonds' code: "Natural drainage patterns shall be maintained, and discharges from
the project site shall occur at the natural location, to the maximum extent practicable. The
manner by which runoff is discharged from the project site must not cause a significant
adverse impact to downstream receiving waters and down gradient properties. The discharge
must have an identified overflow route that is safe and certain, and leads to the ultimate
outfall location (such as a receiving water or municipal drainage system)." The stormwater
plans and report indicate that runoff from the site will shift from the north to the east and will
increase significantly.
2. The proposed outfall from this project is located on an adjacent private property. An
easement will be required.
3. The existing runoff from the site is sheet flow. The proposed outfall is concentrated flow.
The discharge from the site must be properly dispersed or connected to a defined storm drain
channel or pipe.
Page 5 of 6
Comments: None
Minimum Requirement # 6 —
Runoff Treatment
Comments: None
Minimum Requirement #7 —
Flow Control
Comments: None
Minimum RequirementWetland
Protection
Comments: None
Minimum Requirement #9 —
Operation and Maintenance
Comments: None
Minimum Reyuirement # 10
— Offsite Anal-,,sis and Mitigation
Comments -
Page 5 of 6
1. Downstream Drainage Analysis, Page 3: This project will use the 2017 Stor water Code and
Addendum, not the 2010 Supplement.
Minimum e uire e t #11 — Financial Liability
Comments: None
Fire De partnnent Coninients on..
vault1. Sheet C2 It appears that a detention .
pointthe vault meets fire department weight requirements and oof 14 I lbs.
.r ,-
Coordinate with the EngineeringDivision,- property owner to the east, and
the Fire Marshal's Office for the vault and required DCVA for
radiusAdditional discussion is needed for the hydrant and fire department connection location.
3. Sheet C2 Fire access roads required to be a minimum of 20' wide with 1XV vertical
clearance. Ensure turning •, are outside
diameter.
4. Sheet C2 - Indicate on the plans the total distance of the fire access road from property
line entrance to furthest west end. The need for a required fire turn -around is still
5. Sheet L 1. 1 Ensure fire protection features are not obstructed with landscape now or
when fully grown.
According to ECDC 20.02.003.1), the above requested information must be submitted within 90 days
(or by June 1, 2017) or the application will expire.
Since the application has been determined to be procedurally complete, a notice of application will
be posted on the subject property and mailed to adjacent property owners within the next two weeks
consistent with ECDC 20.03.002.
If you have any questions of me, please contact me at 425-771-0220 or via email at
erncr1.1is n drgo� , w4 )y.
Kernen Lien
Senior Planner
Page 6 of 6