Loading...
11-0815 and 11-0816 Review 1.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS • 121 5" AVENUE NORTH ^ EDMONDS, WA 98020 PHONE: 425.771.0220 • FAx: 425.771.0221 • WEB: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING ^ ENGINEERING • BUILDING November 10, 2011 Mr. Jim Wieben DDG Architects Email: jimw@ddgarchitects.com RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS FOR PLAN CHECKS BLD20110815 & BLD20110816 PREMIER ORTHOPEDIC GROUP, LOCATED AT 21401— 72ND AVE. W Dear Mr. Wieben: I have reviewed the above building permit applications for the Planning Division, and it was found that the following information, corrections, or clarifications will need to be addressed before review can continue: 1. Height Calculations: Please respond to the following items regarding the height calculations: a. Change the style of the height rectangle as shown on the site plan (A-101) in order to avoid confusion with the other line styles utilized for the building outlines. A dashed or dotted line utilized for the height rectangle would be easier to distinguish from the other line styles utilized for the building. b. Correct the location of the height rectangle to reflect the definition of height contained within ECDC 21.40.030 which states, "average level shall be determined by averaging elevations of the downward projections of the four corners of the smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the building, excluding a maximum of 30 inches of eaves. If a corner falls off the site, its elevation shall be the average elevation of the two points projected downward where the two sides of the rectangle cross the property line." As such, the height rectangle needs to be revised to show where the southeastern corner of the height rectangle falls off site. Additionally, the elevation of the southeastern corner of the height rectangle must be based on the average of the two points where the rectangle crosses the property lines. c. Update the average grade and maximum allowed height based on the revised elevation of the southeastern corner of the height rectangle as discussed above. When updating the height calculations, note that the elevations of the average grade and maximum allowed height cannot be rounded up. d. The elevation of the proposed building height was provided on the plans, but please also include the elevation of the highest point of the mechanical equipment. 2. Setbacks: The CG2 zone requires a minimum four -foot street setback. Although the plans indicate that the face of the main entrance to the building will be a minimum of four feet from the western property line, several of the plan sheets (including A-101, A-116, A-130, and A-301) indicate that the gold decorative strip on the wall of windows as well as the building overhang, particularly over the main entrance, project into the minimum required four -foot setback area. Unfortunately, there are no exceptions in the General Commercial site development standards for any portions of the structure to project into the four -foot street setback. Additionally, the PUD vault located at the northwestern corner of the site cannot be located within the street setback unless it is less than three feet in height. Please revise the plans to indicate that all portions of the structure as well as the PUD vault will comply with the minimum required four -foot street setback. 3. Mechanical Equipment: Documentation has been provided as part of the associated design review application showing that the mechanical equipment is not anticipated to be visible from street view. Please note that the permit will be conditioned such that if the mechanical equipment is visible from street view, it will need to be painted to match the building or otherwise screened in a manner acceptable to the Planning Division. 4. Design Review: Design review for the subject proposal is being conducted concurrently with the building permit applications under File No. PLN20110063. Comments regarding the design review application were sent to Scott Shanks and Dale Pinney on November 9, 2011 (see enclosed). Please note that following response to these items and following design review approval, the building permit application plans, including the landscaping plan, may need to be revised to reflect the plans approved through the design review process as well as any conditions of design review approval. Landscaping Estimate: Several comments related to the landscape plan were included in the enclosed letter regarding the design review application. Once the requested changes have been made to the landscape plan, please provide a cost estimate for all labor and materials for installation of the landscaping. This estimate will be utilized for calculation of the required landscape maintenance bond. The maintenance bond itself, however, does not need to be submitted until the landscaping has been installed. The maintenance bond will be requested at the time of the Planning Division's inspection of the project. All submittals should be made to a Development Services Permit Coordinator, Monday through Friday, between 8:00 am and 4:30 pm. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at (425) 771-0220, ext. 1224. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division Jen Machuga Associate Planner Enclosure: Letter Regarding File No. PLN20110063 dated November 9, 2011 Cc: Scott Shanks via email to scoff@fwdsinc.com cr. F EDMONDS MIKE COOPER MAYOR 121 5th AVENUE NORTH ® EDMONDS, WA 98020 0 (425) 771-0220 o FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT /12 C. i. s() )O November 9, 2011 Mr. Scott Shanks and Mr. Dale Pinney First Western Development Services 8129 Lake Ballinger Way, Suite 104 Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Request for Additional Inffornation for Your Land Use Application For Design Review of the Premier Orthopedic Building at 21401 72"d Ave. W File No. PLN20110063 Dear Mr. Shanks and Mr. Pinney: Staff has reviewed your resubmittal materials for your design review application for the proposed Premier Orthopedic building located at 21401 72"d Avenue West. Thank you for revising your plans to address most of our concerns related to the design of the building. There are just a few items remaining that need to be addressed before design review can be completed. Please respond to the following items at your earliest convenience so that staff s review of your application can continue: 1. Windows: It was noted that the windows near the center of the eastern fagade were made shorter by placing a narrow concrete panel at the base of these windows. It appears that these windows are located within the "prov. bullpen" room. Is there a reason why these windows are smaller causing an interruption in the solid row of windows along the third floor? If not, it would look more uniform for all of these windows along the third floor to be of the same height. 2. PUD Vault: An electrical vault is shown at the northwestern corner of the site. Please note that the vault may not be located within the minimum required four foot street setback from the western property line if the vault exceeds three feet in height. Is this the only possible location for the vault? Would it be possible to put the vault underground or to move it to a less visible location? If the northwest corner is the only possible location for the vault, could it be moved a few feet further to the east so that it is as far back from the western property line as possible in order to provide enough space for screening vegetation? 3. Setbacks: The site plan (sheet A-101) indicates that the main entrance to the building will be 4.04 feet from the western property line, but this plan shows the gold decorative strip on the northern side of the wall of windows as well as the building overhang at the main entrance projecting into the minimum required 4-foot street setback. Unfortunately, there are no exceptions in the CG site development standards for any portions of the structure to project into the 4-foot street setback. This can be added as a condition of design review approval; however, please note that the plans for the building permit application will need to be revised so that all portions of the structure will comply with the 4-foot street setback. Additionally, the PUD vault discussed above will also need to be shown to comply with the street setback requirements. 4. Parapet: It was noted that the parapet on the northern side of the building is taller than the parapets on the other sides of the building, creating a step in the parapets at the northeastern and northwester corners of the building. Is there a particular reason that the tops of the parapets do not line up in these locations? Would it be possible to raise or lower the heights of the parapets so that they line up at all corners of the building? 1nd°°«rpm rrted ALuqust 1.1, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan 5. Parking Garage Screening: During our meeting on September 20t1', it was indicated that you would look into the feasibility of providing a low screening wall on the first floor of the parking garage. Screening of parking is necessary pursuant to ECDC 16.60.030.A.2.b. It is understood that there are minimum opening requirements for ventilation of the parking garage since this is proposed to be an open parking garage. However, based on the Building Division's calculations, it appears that there is more than enough opening area for the first floor of the garage. As such, a screen similar in style to the guardrail on the second floor of the parking garage could be utilized to assist with screening the cars on the first floor of the parking garage. Although the landscaping will assist in partially screening cars on the first floor of the garage, a more permanent method for screening the cars is desired. This is partially due to the fact that typically grasses must be cut back significantly or even cut to the ground during the winter, and even if they are not cut back, they will be more sparse in the winter. This would greatly reduce any screening provided by the landscaping and causes the need for more permanent screening of the cars. Of particular concern are the western and southern building fagades, which can be seen from 72nd Ave. W. Please revise the plans to include a low screening wall (a minimum of 3.5 feet tall) on at least the western and southern fagades of the first floor of the parking garage similar in style to that on the second floor of the garage. In addition to helping bring the proposal into compliance with ECDC 16.60.030.A.2.b, this will also bring the proposal into compliance with the landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13.030.C.3.c by utilizing a combination of opaque "fences" and shrubs to produce a visual barrier of at least 3.5 feet in height to screen the parking area. 6. Lighting: Staff s letter sent on September 19, 2011 requested additional information related to proposed lighting. It does not appear, however, that this item was responded to with your resubmittal. Please indicate the style and materials of any proposed exterior lighting fixtures. 7. Si_gnag_e: The elevation views that were part of your resubmittal indicate future signage. Please note that signage will be reviewed for code compliance at the time of submittal of a sign permit application. However, I wanted to refer you to our sign code requirements of ECDC 20.60 and to bring a few items related to the signage indicated on the design review plans to your attention at this time. ECDC 20.60.025.A limits the maximum number of permanent signs to three per site, or three per physically enclosed business space on commercial sites with multiple business tenants. This code section also limits the total maximum permanent sign area for the site to one square foot per lineal foot of the building frontage along 72" d Ave. W. Additionally, it should be noted that a freestanding sign located within the four -foot street setback cannot exceed three feet in height. These comments regarding signage do not need to be responded to at this time, but please note that they will need to be addressed as well as any additional applicable sign code requirements of ECDC 20.60 upon submittal of a sign permit application. 8. Landscaping: Note that the following landscaping comments are based on the landscape plan submitted on October 12, 2011. Although landscaping is shown on the elevation views, it does not entirely match what is indicated on the landscape plan. Landscaping is not required to be shown on the elevation views, so any changes being made to the landscape plan do not need to be reflected on the elevation views. Please respond to the following regarding the landscape plan: a. Within the plant schedule, update the minimum sizes at installation as follows in order to reflect the requirements of ECDC 20.13.015.B: Japanese maple should be minimum of 8 feet in height; arborvitae should be a minimum of 6 feet in height; photinia and viburnum should both be a minimum of 18 inches in height. b. The cross -hatching near the southeastern corner of the site surrounding the existing trees to be retained is not indicated in the plant schedule. Please indicate what this cross -hatching represents. c. If it is not possible to put the PUD vault underground or to move it to a less prominent location (see related comment above), please revise the landscape plan to indicate sufficient screening of the vault from view from the north, west, and south. It is suggested that the vault be moved to further the east (it must be a minimum of four feet from the western property line if over three feet in height) in order to provide sufficient space for screening landscaping. Instead of screening it Page 2 of 3 with grasses, it is suggested that the vault be screened with taller evergreen shrubs that will grow to be higher than the height of the vault itself. d. The landscape plan indicates six fastigiate white pine trees along the western side of the site. Although this species starts out as a columnar tree, as it ages, it can mature at up to 60 feet tall and 15 to 20 feet wide. This is of concern on the western side of the site where there is only approximately 10 feet between the building and the western property line, which could cause the need for major pruning or even removal of these trees in the future. It is suggested that you consider a smaller evergreen that is more suitably sized for the western side of the site, such as a columnar Norway spruce (Picea abies eupressina), which grows to approximately 30 to 40 feet in height and 8 to '10 feet in width. e. Landscaping along all four sides of the site is required to comply with the Type III landscaping requirements. Please describe how each side of the site is in compliance with the Type III requirements of ECDC 20.13.030.C. f. During our meeting on September 20t", it was suggested that a combination of a taller species, such as arborvitae, be utilized in combination with a smaller shrub along the northern side of the property in order to help break up the northern fagade and to achieve Type III landscaping. Would it be possible to establish arborvitae or another taller species at a minimum of 30 foot intervals along the northern side of the site adjacent to the walkway? g. It is suggested that evergreen shrubs, such as the compact strawberry tree or Fraser's photinia that are utilized on the eastern side of the site, be established amongst the grasses on the western and southern sides of the site in order to add some height to the landscaping adjacent to the open bays of the parking garage and to provide denser, year-round vegetation in these areas of the site. h. Please provide written acknowledgement from the property owner that they understand that if the existing trees that are proposed to be retained near the southeastern corner of the site and/or the existing trees that are to be transplanted near the southern side of the site do not survive during the construction project, a landscape plan revision may be required and new trees may be necessary near these locations. 9. Engineering Division Review: It should be noted that the Engineering Division has approved the subject design review application and issued the attached memo on November 8, 2011. Any remaining comments from the Engineering Division, including comments on the proposed civil plans, will be provided during their review of the associated building permit applications. Please note that your application will be placed on hold until a response is received regarding the above items. Pursuant to ECDC Section 20.02.003.1), you must submit the above information within 90 days. Thus, your application will expire if the requested information is not received by February 7, 2012. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220, extension 1224. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division 410"�',. Jen Machuga Associate Planner Enclosure: Memorandum from Jeanie McConnell dated November 8, 2011 Cc: File No. PLN20110063 Page 3 of 3 Date: To: From: Subject: U 1 NO Lei_ 1111041 November 8, 2011 Jen Machuga, Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager PLN20110063 21401-72nd Ave W — Kruger Orthopedic Clinic Engineering has reviewed and approved the subject design review application with the following comments noted to be noted in the staff report. 1) Compliance with Engineering codes and construction standards will be reviewed with the building permit application for development of the site. 2) Approval of the design review phase of the project does not constitute approval of the improvements as shown on the submitted plans. 3) Applicant is encouraged, wherever feasible, to incorporate pervious pavements, rain gardens and/or other low impact development techniques into the project design. Thank you. City of Edmonds