ADB-11-63 Request for Additional Info - 2nd Review.pdf/12 C. i. s() )O
November 9, 2011
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
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 2140172"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 20'1', 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. Signage: 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 20'x', 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