Loading...
21-104847-Site C_Response LU correction1_2022-04-01 April 1, 2022 Becky Chapin City of Federal Way Community Development Department 33325 8th Avenue South Federal Way, WA 98003-6325 Re: Redondo Height TOD (Site C) – 27614 Pacific Highway South, Federal Way Subject: File #20-104351-00-UP & 20-104353-SE; TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMENTS Ms. Chapin, I am writing to respond to the Technical Review Comments, dated March 22, 2022 as indicated below. Community Development – Planning Division Becky Chapin, (253) 835-2641, becky.chapin@cityoffederalway.com 1. Technical comments made about an item on one sheet may necessitate changes to other related sheets and related documents, and it is the applicant’s responsibility to determine any such necessary adjustments. Please ensure consistent information is communicated throughout the plan set and associated application materials. Revisions to address the comments below may result in further additional comments and may require further plan revision to meet applicable requirements. Applicant Response Acknowledged. 2. Retaining Wall – Sheet L. 1501 of the landscape plan depicts a retaining wall along Pacific Hwy South. It is hard to tell if that is within the right-of-way or on private property. If on private property, provide sections and details of proposed retaining walls that indicate material, and overall height. Refer to FWRC 19.120.120, retaining walls shall be set back a minimum of three feet from adjacent public rights-of-way and include a minimum of three feet of landscaped setback at the base. Per FWRC 19.120.120(6), if private agreements are reached with utility companies and written documentation is provided to the city, and a minimum three-foot wide planting buffer can be established and maintained to screen the wall from view, retaining walls can be located to the back of the right-of-way as determined by the community development services and public works directors. Applicant Response Acknowledged. Applicant intends to reach agreements with private utility companies to construct wall within existing easements. Written documentation shall be provided to the city. As shown on Detail 13 Sheet L1504c, a minimum 3’ wide landscape planter is proposed between the back of sidewalk and face of wall. Per FWRC 19.120.120(6), Applicant will request proposed wall be located at back of right-of-way pending approval by community development services and public works directors. Redondo Heights TOD – Responses to Technical Review Comments Page 2 of 5 3. Smoking Area – If smoking is prohibited within the units, designated smoking areas shall be provided for the proposed development. The smoking area shall not be visible from the public rights-of-way and must be clearly depicted on the site plan. Applicant Response Smoking is prohibited within the units and buildings. A designated smoking area is depicted on the site plan. See L1501c. 4. BLA Required – A boundary line adjustment (BLA) to consolidate multiple parcels and/or remove interior lot lines is required. Prior to issuing building permits, a BLA must reconfigure the existing lot lines, or remove the lot lines. The BLA application must be submitted, approved, and recorded prior to the issuance of any building permits. Applicant Response Acknowledged. BLA process is underway. Applicant understands no building permit will be issued until the BLA is submitted, approved, and recorded. 5. School Access Analysis – A school access analysis is required to be submitted to the city with the Process III application. The analysis will be routed to Federal Way Public Schools to determine whether off-site improvements are needed for safe walking routes, and/or to determine where an appropriate bus stop should be located within the development. Contact Jen Thomas with the Federal Way School District at 253-945-2071 or jthomas@fwps.org for information about the school access analysis requirements. Applicant Response A school access analysis has been completed for the proximate elementary school within less than 1 mile of the project. All other public school access would continue as currently provided via the existing school bus stop within the transit lane on SR 99 that serves the Silver Shadows Apartment complex. 6. Affordable Units – A covenant or other document with form and content to be approved by the City Attorney regarding affordable housing must be recorded prior to occupancy of any buildings as required by FWRC 19.110.010. Applicant Response Acknowledged. Documentation is underway. Applicant understands it must be recorded prior to Occupancy of any building. Public Works – Development Services Division Kevin Peterson, kevin.peterson@cityoffederalway.com 1. Given the scope of the project: 72 residential units, a 3,000 SF office, and 6,500 SF food bank, the solid waste and recycling (SWR) facility appears to be extremely inadequate. Refer to FWRC Section 19.125.150 for the SWR enclosure requirements. The applicant should provide some additional details on the plans that show the SWR area, and provide a narrative as to how all users will access the enclosure area as well as how the waste management company will collect the trash and recycling; Applicant Response Building 4 residential floors all have and a storage room for recycle storage (X25) and a trash chute (see room x22 on A2 series sheets) which deposits solid waste in the Solid Waste and Redondo Heights TOD – Responses to Technical Review Comments Page 3 of 5 recycle (SWR) storage area located on the below grade P1 parking level (see sheet A-2-P1). The Solid Waste and Recycle storage room includes a compactor for garbage, compacted solid waste containers, recycle containers, and food waste container. The total storage area exceeds FWRC 19.125.150 requirements. See sheet A0-2.1-4 for proposed waste/recycle storage area summary. On collection days, management staff move the containers from the P1 parking level with a motorized tug to the staging/pickup area, located east of building 4, on Site B. See site plan C1.0c. Enclosure and screening are provided per FWRC 19.125.150. See revised L1501c for screening and A4-2.2 for enclosure details. Solid waste from Building 5 Office is stored within Building 5 and also taken to the above Staging/pick up area for pick-up. Building 4 Retail (Food Bank) Food Waste is stored in the Food Bank cooler and sent back to the distribution center on the Food Bank owned Delivery Trucks for composting at the two farms owned by the food bank. Recycling is stored inside the Food Bank an also taken back to the distribution center on Food Bank owned delivery trucks. Due to Food Bank re-use processes, garbage is very limited, however a covered area adjacent to the truck load (see sheet L1501c) has room for 3 EA CY containers that, if needed, will be moved to the hatched staging area south of the load dock on for the food bank delivery truck to pick up. Site B waste/recycle storage is under a separate permit (with site A). 2. On the civil plans, provide the following areas: a. Total site area b. Total NEW impervious area c. Total existing impervious area to be replaced d. Total NEW + Replaced impervious area Applicant Response See revised sheet C1.00c for added total site areas and noted impervious areas under “Project Information.” Public Works – Traffic Division Soma Chattopadhyay, soma.chattopadhyay@cityoffederalway.com 1. The Super market tip generation is different from Food Bank. Food Bank will not generate any internal capture and will have less pass by trip than Super market. Super market peak hours and trip generations are different than Food bank. Please clarify how these two land use types are considered similar nature. Applicant Response The Limited Scope TIA has been updated to provide documentation of the differences between a typical supermarket use and the proposed food bank. The analysis is considered highly conservative as the foodbank would typical generate limited PM peak hour trips given its limited operating hours. 2. Please note that the city calculates traffic impact fee which depends on land-use and trip generation. ITE does not have trip generation for Food Bank. City will be using the same land-use which the applicant is submitting. Hence it may result in higher fees as a Super market compared Redondo Heights TOD – Responses to Technical Review Comments Page 4 of 5 to Food Bank. Applicant Response The Limited Scope TIA has been updated to provide documentation of the differences between a typical supermarket use and the proposed food bank. The analysis is considered highly conservative as the foodbank would typical generate limited PM peak hour trips given its limited operating hours. Payment of impact fees are not due until a building permit is issued. Further documentation to support the actual trip generation of proposed foodbank use will be provided by applicant. 3. A minimum driveway throat length of 40 feet is required as measured from the face of curb to the first conflicting drive or parking aisle. (Public Works Development Standards - 3.2.14 A Driveways- General 10). Adequate throat length is required to accommodate 95th percentile queue length. Please show that the proposed south driveway has at least 40 ft. throat length. Applicant Response The revised site plan provides minimum 40 feet driveway throat per Public Work standards. See dimensions on revised site plans C1.0c. The following comments regarding the parking assessment prepared by TENW, Inc. were provided via email on February 18, 2022. 1. It appears the selected many sites are multifamily housing without retail use. Also parking studies are very old. It is staff understanding that the proposed project is a mixed-use development and as such the selected study sites should be similar use in term of retail use, housing units, transit service (daily and hourly headway) within ¼ mile, available amenities, monthly rental, parking charge, etc. 2. The parking data should be collected for at least two days duration in order to account for any abnormally. Furthermore, the count should be collected outside of the holidays travel period to better reflect realistic parking demand. 3. Provide document how the peak period weekday between 8 p.m. – 9 p.m. and weekend peak period between 6:00 a.m. – 5:00 a.m. were selected for the study sites and also identify if weekday or weekend is the peak period for multifamily housing. Per ITE Parking Manual, the peak period parking demand for Multifamily Housing (LUC 221) is between 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. and according to Urban Land institute 7PM to 5PM. In order to capture each site peak demand, the counts of number of parked vehicles should be conducted once per hours over that period. All count data used to generate the report should be included in the back. 4. Provide average rate and 85th percentile rate for the study sites. Parking demand for the development should be calculated at the 85th percentile. 5. Parking inventory for each selected site should identify parking spaces allocated for visitors, office staff, handicapped, truck loading/unload parking spaces. These spaces should not be included in the total available tenant parking spaces. 6. Provide available off-site/on-street parking capacity for each site and identify how many are utilized for each site. The analysis should also identify any potential available off-street parking for the proposed development. 7. ITE parking data is based on the 85th percentile demand whereas the sampled sites utilized the average of peak period. Redondo Heights TOD – Responses to Technical Review Comments Page 5 of 5 8. Parking requirements for multifamily comparison from nearby jurisdictions should not be included in the parking analysis. The four comparable sites are adequate to establish reasonable parking demand for the development. Furthermore, Seattle, Issaquah, Mill Creek, Mukilteo and Lynwood would not be comparable to Federal Way in term of transit services, employment density, etc. Applicant Response See attached responses from TENW. Federal Way Police – Crime Prevention Lindsey Sperry, lindsey.sperry@cityoffederalway.com Preliminary Technical 1. The Police Department is always concerned about adequate parking, especially when there will be a daycare and food bank at the location. Although ‘parking studies’ often show what an adequate number of stalls is, we are finding that most of these complexes are not even close to having the actual amount of parking necessary for residents. Our concern is the lack of parking will increase illegal parking issues at the park and ride and neighboring businesses. Applicant Response Extensive analysis and thought have been given to this important subject. Per parking study provided by TENW, the parking stalls provided are more than sufficient for this development. Please see Parking Study, dated 3/23/2022. 2. Verify if this complex will have security camera’s around the property. We would suggest that they do. We would also like to see more plans for the security of the parking garage. Applicant Response Acknowledged. Security cameras will be provided around the development, including parking garage. 3. The Police Department will need to coordinate codes or key card access to the buildings in case of emergency’s (similar to the access Fire is provided). Applicant Response Acknowledged. Police Department access key and access to each building will be provided. Please contact me with any questions or comments. Sincerely, Mancong Lin, AIA Cc: Len Brannen, SRI Mark Simpson, Bumgardner Tom Jones, KPFF Alex Shkerich, Communita Atelier Michael Read, TENW Kevin Peterson, FW Public Works Soma Chattopadhyay, FW Traffic Lindsey Sperry, FW Police MEMORANDUM Public Works Department DATE: 1/25/2022 TO: Becky Chapin FROM: Soma Chattopadhyay, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: Redondo Heights TOD Site A PARKING ASSESSMENT - (21-104847) 27454 Pacific Highway S The Public Works Traffic Division has completed the review of the parking assessment prepared by TENW, Inc. submittal and provides the following technical comments: 1. It appears the selected many sites are multifamily housing without retail use. Also parking studies are very old. It is staff understanding that the proposed project is a mixed-use development and as such the selected study sites should be similar use in term of retail use, housing units, transit service (daily and hourly headway) within ¼ mile, available amenities, monthly rental, parking charge, etc. TENW RESPONSE: CONSISTENT WITH ITE PRACTICE, PARKING STUDIES OF INDIVIDUAL USES WERE INCLUDED OF LOCAL STUDIES. THESE STUDIES CONCLUDE A HIGHER PARKING DEMAND THAN THE CURRENT EDITION OF ITE RATES WHEN LIGHT RAIL WILL BE AVAILALBLE, AND AS SUCH, ARE CONSERVATIVE TO DEMONSTRATE ADEQUATE SUPPLY ON-SITE. 2. The parking data should be collected for at least two days duration in order to account for any abnormally. Furthermore, the count should be collected outside of the holidays travel period to better reflect realistic parking demand. TENW RESPONSE: CONSISTENT WITH ITE PRACTICE, PARKING STUDIES OF LOCAL SITES WERE PERFORMED ON TWO WEEKNIGHTS AND A WEEKEND. 3. Provide document how the peak period weekday between 8 p.m. – 9 p.m. and weekend peak period between 6:00 a.m. – 5:00 a.m. were selected for the study sites and also identify if weekday or weekend is the peak period for multifamily housing. Per ITE Parking Manual, the peak period parking demand for Multifamily Housing (LUC 221) is between 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. and according to Urban Land institute 7PM to 5PM. In order to capture each site peak demand, the counts of number of parked vehicles should be conducted once per hours over that period. All count data used to generate the report should be included in the back. TENW RESPONSE: ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS INCLUDED IN THE PARKING STUDY ON MULTIPLE PERIODS TENW SURVEYED TO DETERMINE PEAK PERIODS OCCURING IN THE EVENING (AFTER 8PM). THE 2 SURVEYS CITED BY ITE IN PARKING GENERAL MANUAL ARE TOO SMALL OF A SAMPLE TO DRAW ANY CONCLUSIONS AND NOT CONSISTENT WITH SHARED PARKING DATA PUBLISHED BY THE ULI. 4. Provide average rate and 85th percentile rate for the study sites. Parking demand for the development should be calculated at the 85th percentile. TENW RESPONSE: CONSISTENT WITH ITE PRACTICE, NO FURTHER ADJUSTMENTS TO THE AVERAGE RATE DEVELOPED ARE REQUIRED. FURTHERMORE, OUR SURVEYS ARE ADJUSTED HIGHER THAN OBSERVED RATES TO ACCOUNT FOR OCCUPANCY AND GARAGE STALLS THAT COULD NOT BE OBSERVED. 5. Parking inventory for each selected site should identify parking spaces allocated for visitors, office staff, handicapped, truck loading/unload parking spaces. These spaces should not be included in the total available tenant parking spaces. TENW RESPONSE: ALL SURVEYED STALLS WERE RESIDENT/GUEST ONLY CONSISTENT WITH ITE. 6. Provide available off-site/on-street parking capacity for each site and identify how many are utilized for each site. The analysis should also identify any potential available off-street parking for the proposed development. TENW RESPONSE: ADDITIONAL DATA ON AVAILABLE OFFSITE/STREET PARKING AND TRANSIT SERVICES ARE INCLUDED. 7. ITE parking data is based on the 85th percentile demand whereas the sampled sites utilized the average of peak period. TENW RESPONSE: SEE RESPONSE TO COMMENT 4 ABOVE. 8. Parking requirements for multifamily comparison from nearby jurisdictions should not be included in the parking analysis. The four comparable sites are adequate to establish reasonable parking demand for the development. Furthermore, Seattle, Issaquah, Mill Creek, Mukilteo and Lynwood would not be comparable to Federal Way in term of transit services, employment density, etc. TENW RESPONSE: SEVERAL OF OUR PREVIOUS SITES HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE LOCAL DATA TO REPRESENT CONSISTENT LAND USE MIX, DENSITY, AND TRANSIT SERVICES.