Loading...
ADB-11-63 Request for Additional Info.pdfI I N (,-)f7 EDMONDS 121 5th AVENUE NORTH ® EDMONDS, WA 98020 ® (425) 771-0220 ® FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www dedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT September 19, 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 Information for Your Land Use Application For Design Review of the New Kruger Clinic Building at 2140172 nd Ave. W File No. PLN20110063 Dear Mr. Shanks and Mr. Pinney: MIKE COOPER MAYOR The City of Edmonds has reviewed your land use application for administrative design review for the proposed Kruger Orthopedic Clinic located at 21401 72 d Avenue West for completeness pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.02.002. Although your application automatically became complete on August 31, 2011, additional information is needed before review of the application can continue. Please respond to the following items at your earliest convenience so that staff's review of your application can continue: 1. Engineering and Public Works Comments: Refer to the enclosed memorandum dated September 14, 2011 from Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager. Please respond to the items requested in Jeanie's memo. If you have any questions on the requirements of this memo, you may contact Jeanie at (425) 771-0220. 2. Parkin4: Please respond to the following regarding the parking calculations for the project: a. Provide documentation of how you came up with the parking ratios for the project, as the city's parking regulations (ECDC 17.50) do not contain the specific ratios for the surgery and physical therapy areas that are stated on your parking calculation sheet. How will these two areas function? For example, will the doctors who are conducting the surgeries be going from an office or exam room to the surgery room causing an office or exam room to be vacant when the surgery is occurring? Will all of the surgery rooms and all of the bed spaces within the recovery area ever be in use at one given time? Please provide documentation of how the ratios utilized for the parking calculations are compliant with the parking regulations of ECDC 17.50 and provide further discussion of how the various spaces of the clinic will function in order for staff to verify compliance with the parking regulations. b. Sheet A-111 of your plans states that 8 accessible parking stalls and 107 standard parking stalls will be provided for a total of 115 stalls. However, based on the number of stalls indicated on the first and second floor plans (sheets A-111 and A-112), I counted a total of 117 parking stalls, but the number of stalls indicated on these plans add up to 116 parking stalls. Please correct this discrepancy of the total number of stalls provided. 3. North Elevation: Some of the design elements incorporated on the south, west, and east building elevations do not appear on the north elevation. In particular, the banding created by the high density stratified timber panels along the second floor is absent on the north elevation. Additionally, the exterior of the stairwell on the northern side of the building appears to be finished with concrete, but the other two stairwells are finished with the timber paneling. Since Prwr:or�pmated i, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan this stairwell is the one that provides access to the rooftop, it creates a large mass of concrete at the top of the building. It could be more effective for the stairwell on the southern side of the building to provide the rooftop access since this stairwell is finished with the timber paneling, and then the northern stairwell may not be as noticeable being finished with concrete if it is shorter. Or, is there an alternative material that the northern stairwell could be finished with that would help to set it apart from the building? Would there be any other ways to further break up the northern fagade and to incorporate some of the design features from the other sides of the building on this side too? 4. Parking Garage arage Screening: ECDC 16.60.030.A.2.b contains requirements for screening of parking located under a building. Please refer to this code section and revise the plans as necessary so that this requirement is met (see related comments regarding the landscaping). Although the timber paneling on the guardrail surrounding the second floor parking assists in partially screening the cars on the second floor, no permanent screening is provided on the first floor of the parking garage. Although the landscaping will assist in partially screening the cars, additional screening is necessary to further screen the cars on the lower floor of the parking garage. It appears that the best form of screening for the first floor of the parking garage would be a band of the timber paneling similar to that which surrounds the second floor of the parking garage of the same or a taller height. Not only would this assist in screening view of cars within the parking garage, but it would also assist with building security, as it would otherwise be difficult to secure the building after hours when there are so many openings into the parking garage. Additionally, the use of a small valence could assist with screening the ceiling of the first floor of the parking garage. 5. Mechanical Equipment: The rooftop mechanical equipment is required to be screened. Your cover sheet indicates that this equipment will be screened by distance, location on roof, and parapet, but this equipment is highly visible in the elevation views, so staff would like to ensure that this equipment will be adequately screened when the building is constructed. Even if the equipment will be entirely screened from street view, you may wish to provide additional screening to help block this equipment from neighboring properties and from inside neighboring buildings, particularly since the equipment is so large and since future buildings may be constructed in close proximity to this building. One possibility would be to utilize the same Nu - Wave corrugated metal siding that is utilized as a band around the top of the building and incorporate this material on the roof as a screen to help further block the equipment. 6. Generator and Transformer: A generator and transformer are indicated on the eastern side of the building. How will these be screened from view? Refer to comments regarding landscaping below. While increasing the landscaping on the eastern side of the building to comply with Type III landscaping requirements, screening of the generator and transformer might be able to be incorporated. Or, small fences or enclosures could be utilized to assist with additional screening. 7. Vertical Banding on Parapet: It was noted that two brown vertical bands are shown on the portion of the parapet treated with the corrugated metal siding on the west elevation and one brown and four gold bands are shown on the east elevation, but none of these bands are indicated on the north or south elevations. Are these bands intended to be repeated on the other elevations? Were they all intended to be of the same color? 8. Li htin : Indicate the style and materials of any proposed exterior lighting fixtures. 9. Landscaping: Please respond to the following regarding the landscape plan: a. Indicate the property lines more clearly on the landscape plan. b. As indicated in the enclosed comments from Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager, the three landscape bulbouts projecting into the 72"d Ave. W right-of-way will need to be removed from the plans due to sight -distance and traffic flow concerns. Page 2 of 4 c. If the location of the trash enclosure is moved and/or if the driveway access to the trash enclosure is eliminated, landscaping will be required within the minimum required four -foot street setback area where the driveway access to the trash enclosure was located. d. ECDC 16.60.030.A.2.b contains requirements for all parking located under the building to be completely screened from the public street. One possible method for screening the parking is with Type III landscaping. The landscaping indicated along the western side of the property is close to meeting the Type III requirements; however, it does not completely screen the parking. It appears that the project would be closer in compliance with these requirements if the following changes were made to the landscaping along the western side of the property: i. Place an additional tree on the north side of the driveway entrance to the trash enclosure and an additional tree towards the southern portion of the western side of the property so that a tree is located at least every 30 feet. Note that the Type III landscaping requirements specify that no more than 50 percent of the trees may be deciduous. Also, since clear sight distance is necessary for entering and exiting the parking garage, the Engineering Division may require that the trees are kept free of limbs below a certain height. ii. It was noted that a few of the proposed trees are located in close proximity to the main pedestrian entry way. Since this is such a strong architectural element for the building, it might help accentuate the main entry by shifting the trees slightly away from the entry. Shifting the trees slightly away from the main entry would move the trees to locations that would provide further screening of the openings to the parking garage as well. iii. Incorporating some taller shrubs into the landscaping could help to provide additional screening of the open bays of the parking garage. e. Landscaping along the northern, eastern, and southern elevations will need to comply with the Type III landscaping requirements wherever the building does not go directly up to the property line. Please revise the landscape plan so that the landscaping along these sides of the building complies with the Type III requirements. The use of small clusters of tall hedges within these landscape areas could also be helpful in breaking up the building fagades, particularly the northern fagade. f. The landscape plan indicates that the existing trees located directly adjacent to the southern property line will be removed for construction and then replanted. Please note that during building permit review, the owner(s) of any adjacent property(ies) that work is proposed on will need to sign authorization of such work. It appears that the adjacent properties to the east and south are currently under the same ownership as the subject site, but this should be noted in case ownership of the adjacent properties changes prior to permitting of the project. g. It is difficult to tell in the elevation views if some of the trees are not showing up against the bays of the parking garage or if the majority of the trees are located in front of the fagades. Would it be possible to locate some of the trees in front of the bays of the parking garage, or were the trees shifted to not be in front of the bays for a specific purpose? 10. Oversized Vehicles: It was noted that the height of the first floor of the parking garage will be less than 12 feet. It is suggested that you make sure that this will be adequate height for any emergency vehicles and/or delivery trucks that would be entering the parking garage. Or, is the intention that all oversized vehicles will park within the right-of-way? 11. Building; Code Compliance: The plans indicate that the southern portion of the eastern side of the building will be constructed very close to if not directly up to the eastern property line. The plans indicate four upper windows in this location. It is the Building Official's understanding that an easement will be provided on the adjacent property to accommodate for the windows in Page 3 of 4 this location. Please acknowledge that an easement will be necessary in this location for compliance with applicable Building Code requirements. If an easement is not established, these windows may need to be removed from the plans and an alternative design feature may be necessary to further break up this portion of the eastern fagade. Also, please note that the Building Division did not do a complete review of the project at this time, and additional comments will be provided by the Building Division at the time of building permit application review. 12. Easements: Please indicate all existing and proposed easements on the site plan. In particular, it is understood that an access easement is being proposed adjacent to the southern property line and that a light and ventilation easement is being proposed adjacent to the southern portion of the eastern property line. Please indicate these and any other easements on the site plan. Note that these easements are not required to be established until the building permit review, but it would be helpful at this time to see where they are proposed. 13. SEPA Review: Please respond to the following regarding SEPA review for the project: a. Your response to question #A.8 of the environmental checklist references a phase I environmental report that was performed on the site. Please provide a copy of this report. b. Your response to question #B.14.c was cut off, and no responses were provided to questions #13. 14.d, f, and g and #13.16.a. Please provide an updated environmental checklist with complete responses to these questions. 14. Traffic Study: Please note that the traffic impact analysis has been reviewed by Bertrand Hauss, Transportation Engineer, and all but the mitigation recommendations have been found acceptable. The traffic mitigation fee calculation does not use the correct trip rate for a medical office and therefore the proposed impact fee amount is incorrect. As the total impact fee amount is based upon building square footage, the traffic impact fee will not be adjusted and/or approved until the building permit phase of the project. Since the final amount of the traffic impact fee will be determined at the time of building permit review, this item is only being included as an FYI at this time. Please note, however, that the calculations for the traffic impact fee will need to be corrected for the building permit application submittal. Please note that your application will be placed on hold until a response is received regarding the above items. Pursuant to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 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 December 19, 2011. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220, extension 1224. Sincerely, Development Services Department - Planning Division w Jen Machuga Associate Planner Enclosure: Memorandum from Jeanie McConnell dated September 14, 2011 Cc: File No. PLN20110063 Page 4 of 4 Date: To: From: Subject: September 14, 2011 Jen Machuga, Planner Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager PLN20110063 21401 -72nd Ave W — Kruger Orthopedic Clinic The comments provided below are based upon review of the application and documents submitted for the design review for the new Kruger Orthopedic Clinic at 21401 -72nd Ave W. Additional information and/or clarification is requested from the applicant at this time. Please ask the applicant to respond to the following. 1) Please remove the landscape bulbouts shown to either side of the driveway approach. The curb shall be painted yellow to indicate no parking on either side of the driveway and in the area of the bus stop. 2) The width of the driveway approach should be a minimum of 24 -feet, but could be as wide as 30 -feet for a commercial property. A radius style driveway approach is recommended for commercial properties. Please refer to City standard detail E2.27.2. Please note, the detail shows the installation of truncated domes, which are not required for this development. 3) Drive aisles for 2 -way traffic shall be a minimum of 24 -feet in width. It appears as though the entrance to the garage will be less than 24 -feet. Please revise as appropriate. 4) For the reasons noted below we would like you to explore alternate options for the location of the trash enclosure. a. Currently there is access to the enclosure from within the garage as well as access on the exterior of the building via a roll up "garage" door. The trash hauler in the area of the subject development is a front -load truck. Regardless of whether the waste container is wheeled out from the interior of the garage or via the driveway provided on the exterior, the truck will have to park on 72nd Ave and will block the main entrance for a short period of time. b. The additional driveway eliminates potential on street parking, reduces landscaping and adds impervious surface area. c. In addition, please see comment number 5 below. City of Edmonds 5) Along the east side of the building there is a noted that states the trash disposal is to be relocated. Has the new location for this enclosure been determined? Would it be possible to locate the trash enclosure for the gas station and the subject development in close proximity to each other and possibly near the trash enclosure for the McDonalds site? 6) Please revise the hatching for surface material shown on the east side of the building. The paved area is shown as landscaping and vice versa. 7) Please clarify the intent of the striped area in the right-of-way as shown near the main entrance to the building. It appears as though there is a bus stop at this location and possibly it is related to that? In order to prevent parking in the area of the bus stop the curb should be painted yellow. 8) The storm system will not be approved as shown on the preliminary plans. All components of the stormwater management facility, including the control structure, shall be located on private property. The outfall of the stormwater management system shall run perpendicular to the property line and connect to a catch basin installed in the flow line. Due to the utility conflicts along the east side of 72nd Ave W it does not appear as though the storm main could be installed parallel to the curb and gutter. Therefore, an additional storm structure may need to be installed to allow connection to the storm main along the west side of 72"d Ave W. The details of this do not need to be sorted out at this time; I just wanted to make you aware of our thoughts based on the current submittal. 9) It is not clear how the existing ponding issue along the frontage of the subject development will be addressed by the current design. Please confirm that you are aware of this issue and will work to resolve this through the building permit process. 10) With regards to the drop off zone, as shown on the first floor parking plan, the following concerns have been noted: a. Pedestrian safety and convenience with the drop off parking area being located on the east side of the travel lane. The current garage design indicates one-way traffic flows which will force all vehicles to drive through the drop off zone. b. The parallel parking stalls as proposed will be difficult stalls to maneuver a vehicle in and out of. Typically, parallel parking stalls are 20 -feet in length with stalls on open ends reduced to a minimum of 18 -feet. With the proposed radius it would be difficult to fit vehicles in the stalls as proposed. Perhaps angled parking could work. Thank you.