Loading...
2014-03-05 Architectural Design Board MinutesCITY OF EDMONDS ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD Minutes of Regular Meeting March 5, 2014 Chair Gootee called the meeting of the Architectural Design Board to order at 7:08 p.m., at the City Council Chambers, 250 - 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, Washington. Board Members Present Board Members Absent Staff Present Bryan Gootee, Chair Brian Borofka (excused) Jen Machuga, Associate Planner Cary Guenther, Vice Chair Lois Broadway (excused) Karin Noyes, Recorder Rick Schaefer Bruce O'Neill (excused) APPROVAL OF MINUTES VICE CHAIR GUENTHER MOVED THAT THE MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 5, 2014 BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved as presented. REQUESTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: No one in the audience indicated a desire to address the Board during this portion of the meeting. CONSENT AGENDA: There were no items on the consent agenda. MINOR PROJECTS: No minor projects were scheduled on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS - MAJOR PROJECTS: There were no public hearings scheduled on the agenda. CONSOLIDATED PERMIT APPLICATIONS (No Public Participation): Consolidated application by Prestige Care, Inc. for general design review of a proposed skilled nursing facility at 21008 — 76th Avenue West in the Multi -Family Residential (RM-2.4) zone (File Numbers PLN20130075 and PLN20130076) Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 5, 2014 Page 1 of 5 Ms. Machuga advised that the subject application is for a new Prestige Care skilled nursing facility to replace the existing facility at 21008 — 76 h Avenue West. The proposed facility will be approximately 48,000 square feet and located on a site that is zoned Multi -Family (RM-2.4). Surrounding development in the neighborhood includes single- family and multi -family residential development, small commercial businesses, and Edmonds-Woodway High School. The subject site is relatively flat, and there are no critical areas on or adjacent to the site. Ms. Machuga explained that the proposed use requires a conditional -use permit, which has been consolidated with the subject design review application. The ADB will make a recommendation on the design of the project to the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner will hold a public hearing and issue the final decision on the design of the project, together with the decision on the conditional -use permit. Ms. Machuga reminded the Board that the proposal is subject to the General Design Review Criteria of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.11, as well as the Urban Design Guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan. She referred the Board to the Staff Report, which includes a detailed analysis of the proposal's compliance with the applicable design standards and guidelines. She specifically noted the following: • The proposal provides a walking path that directly connects pedestrians to the building from the sidewalk along 76`h Avenue West. • The proposal includes two prominently -designed main building entries. • The proposal uses a wide variety of forms, materials, textures, colors and building patterns. This includes materials that are more common of Northwest architecture and residential development, such as gables, exposed wood, a stone veneer base with fiberboard siding, and vinyl windows. • The building will be a single story, which is compatible in scale with surrounding buildings. • The roofline will be varied and will include a parapet intended to screen rooftop -mounted mechanical equipment. • A variety of native trees, shrubs and groundcover will be provided around the building and within the parking area, which will soften the appearance of the building and other site improvements. Ms. Machuga advised that, when reviewing the project for compliance with the applicable design standards, staff s main concern was related to the screening of a transformer and hotbox that are shown on the east side of the site adjacent to the sidewalk at 76th Avenue. The applicant noted in a response letter to staff that the transformer and hotbox could be relocated and/or screened. Staff has included a recommended condition requiring these features to be moved, buried, or at least effectively screened or painted should the utility company require them to be in the locations shown on the site plan. Ms. Machuga commented that, based on staff's review, it appears the project will comply with the applicable site development standards of the RM-2.4 zone, as well as the on -site parking requirements. However, this will be verified at the time of the detailed building permit application. Ms. Machuga referred the Board to the Staff Report, which provides an analysis of the proposal's compliance with the applicable landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13. The proposal was found to comply with the required landscaping types with two exceptions: • The proposed Chanticleer trees adjacent to 76'i' Avenue West produce a small round fruit, which would not be desirable adjacent to the right-of-way. As such, a recommended condition of approval was added requiring the applicant to work with the Parks Department and Engineering Division to identify an appropriate tree to be planted in this location. • The proposal provides slightly under the minimum amount of Type V landscaping required within the parking area. However, staff feels that the proposed landscaping would still meet the intent of the Type V landscaping Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 5, 2014 Page 2 of 5 requirements. She reminded the Board that, pursuant to ECDC 20.13.000, they may interpret and modify the requirements of the landscape chapter to allow this slight reduction. Ms. Machuga reported that a State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Determination of Non -Significance (DNS) was issued on the proposal on February 11t', and no appeals were received. No public comments have been received to date regarding the subject proposal, aside from a letter from Snohomish County Public Utility District (PUD) stating that the district presently has sufficient electric system capacity to serve the proposed development, but the facilities may require some upgrades. In conclusion, Ms. Machuga recommended the Board recommend approval to the Hearing Examiner of the proposed Prestige Care skilled nursing facility with the three conditions outlined in the Staff Report to address the location of the transformer and hotbox and the appropriate type of street tree, as well as clarify that the applicant must apply for and obtain all necessary permits and meet the requirements outlined in the ECDC. Board Member Schaefer asked if the applicant is proposing any signs as part of the application. Ms. Machuga answered that no sign designs have been presented for this design review. A separate application would be required for any signs located on the site, and the signs would be subject to the Design Review Criteria and applicable sign code requirements. Board Member Schaefer asked if the applicant provided material and color samples. Ms. Machuga answered that no color or materials boards were provided, but Attachment 6b of the Staff Report illustrates the applicant's basic intent. Chair Gootee asked if staff has had any dialogue with the applicant regarding the need to relocate the hotbox and transformer. Ms. Machuga said Mr. Clugston spoke with the applicant about this concern, and the applicant submitted a letter indicating a willingness to meet the additional condition recommended by staff. Peter Carletti, Carletti Architects, P.S., Mount Vernon, WA, said he was present to represent the applicant. He explained that the delivery of skilled nursing care has changed significantly since the existing building was constructed. The existing building is 32,000 square feet and has 89 beds. The new facility will be roughly 48,000 square feet and provide 80 beds. He explained that more space is required per bed to meet the requirements set forth by the Department of Health for size of open space, dining areas, bathrooms, etc. In addition to the new size requirements, Prestige Care is also looking at how it can consolidate the building to perform better for future clients. They originally considered opportunities to remodel the existing facility, and they met with City staff to discuss ideas and options. After learning that significant changes would require the facility to be upgraded to meet all current City code requirements, including those for stormwater and utilities, it was determined that the best approach was to demolish the existing building and start over. Mr. Carletti observed that the existing building looks very dated and has outlived its useful life. The neighborhood is in transition, with new medical and commercial uses being created. However, there are also residential uses in the vicinity, and the proposal represents an attempt to pay particular attention to the residential character of the area. While the existing building is designed to be a long-term, skilled nursing facility, the new facility would be designed primarily for short-term stays for rehabilitation. Mr. Carletti displayed a colored rendering of the proposed project to illustrate the types of materials and colors the applicant is proposing to use. He advised that the applicant is proposing to use a composition shingle roof that is black with some grey and brown tones mixed in and vinyl windows. The proposal includes Hardi Plank siding and shingles that will be placed straight rather than staggered, and cedar trim at the corners and windows. There will be exposed wood trusses with bracketing at the primary entrances, as well as a wainscot veneer of cultured stone. A parapet cap would be used to screen all rooftop equipment from view. Mr. Carletti referred the Board to the preliminary landscape plan (Attachment 6g) and the inventory of existing trees. He advised that they have done their best to retain as many existing trees as possible. He also referred to the photometric Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 5, 2014 Page 3 of 5 plan (Attachment 6h), which meets or exceeds the City's code requirements and would result in very little impact to adjacent properties. Board Member Schaefer asked if the roof gables would extend out beyond the wall in all locations. Mr. Carletti answered that there would be at least a two -foot overhang all the way around the building. The Board expressed concern that the application does not specifically call out the colors that will be used on the new building. Mr. Carletti noted that this was not a requirement of the application, but he summarized that the applicant anticipates using standard Northwest earth tone colors (i.e. grey, beige and brown), with an accent of red similar to terracotta in color. They will avoid using white trim, which is difficult to maintain on cedar. He suggested that if the Board is concerned about color, they could require the applicant to submit sample materials and colors as a condition of final approval. Rather than requiring the applicant to come back to the ADB with color samples, Ms. Machuga suggested the Board add a condition that stipulates the colors should be Northwest earth tones of beige, and grays, with a red accent color. If the applicant's final submittal is inconsistent with these colors, additional ADB review would be required. Chair Gootee asked how the applicant plans to address staff s concerns about the hotbox and transformer. Mr. Carletti reported that in recent discussions with the applicant's electrical engineer, it was agreed that the transformer would be moved further back on the site and screened. Paul Rasmussen, Senior Project Manager, Prestige Care, Inc., Vancouver, WA, reported that he met with representatives from Snohomish County PUD earlier in the day. While they do not support putting the transformer in a vault, they agreed that it could be moved closer to the building and screened. They specifically discussed locating the transformer near the the northeast corner of the building. The generator would be located near the southeast corner and screened. Mr. Rasmussen acknowledged that the generator would create noise, but he pointed out that it would only be used as a back up during power outages. Monthly testing of the equipment could take place on weekdays during normal business hours to minimize impacts to adjacent properties. Vice Chair Guenther pointed out that landscaping and fencing could be used to muffle the noise. Board Member Schaefer pointed out that the south side of the subject property would be raised about two feet, which could have an impact on adjacent properties if car lights from the parking area shine in that direction. He suggested the applicant provide denser vegetation in this location to mitigate potential impacts. Ms. Machuga noted that the landscape plan (Attachment 6g) identifies more vegetation in this area than what is called out in the site plan. As proposed, the applicant would provide Type III landscaping in this location, which includes a combination of shrubs and trees. Board Member Schaefer agreed that would be adequate to address his concern. Board Member Schaefer said the applicant's description of the facility helps him understand why a larger number of parking spaces are needed. Mr. Carletti clarified that the new facility would be different than a standard nursing home that provides long-term care to clients. Because the new facility's clients would be short-term patients, it is anticipated that more visitors will come to the site. Board Member Schaefer asked how many of the parking spaces would be utilized by staff. Mr. Rasmussen answered that there would be approximately 25 employees per shift, but there will be some overlap during shift changes. He emphasized that adequate parking will be important for the type of clientele the new facility will serve. There will be 28 beds in private rooms and 46 beds in semi private rooms. There will also be three rooms (2 beds each) set up for bariatric care, which Edmonds Swedish Hospital has specifically requested. While the Board indicated support for the proposed project, they also expressed concern about the lack of clarity regarding the colors that would be used for the building materials. They liked the colors shown on Attachment 6b, but noted that the applicant has not made a final decision about what the colors would be. They agreed it would be appropriate to add a condition that provides guidance to staff to ensure the colors are consistent with the Board's intent without requiring additional Board review. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 5, 2014 Page 4 of 5 BOARD MEMBER SCHAEFER MOVED THAT THE ACHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD ADOPT THE FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND ANALYSIS OF THE STAFF REPORT AND FIND THAT THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, POLICIES OF ECDC 20.10.000, DESIGN CRITERIA OF ECDC 20.11.030, AND ZONING REGULATIONS AND RECOMMEND THAT THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVE THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PRESTIGE CARE SKILLED NURSING FACILITY WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE TRANSFORMER AND HOTBOX SHOWN AT THE STREET FRONT ALONG 76'H AVENUE WEST SHALL BE BURIED OR RELOCATED TO THE INTERIOR OF THE SITE AND SCREENED WITH VEGETATION. IF AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION CANNOT BE FOUND AND THE UTILITY COMPANY REQUIRES THE TRANSFORMER OR HOTBOX TO BE AT THE STREET, THE FEATURE SHALL BE SCREENED, PAINTED AND/OR CAMOUFLAGED IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE ITS VISUAL IMPACT. 2. THE APPLICANT SHALL WORK WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND ENGINEERING DIVISION TO IDENTIFY AN APPROPRIATE STREET TREE FOR THE TYPE IV LANDSCAPING ISLAND ADJACENT TO 76TH AVENUE WEST. 3. THE APPLICANT MUST APPLY FOR AND OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS. THIS APPLICATION IS SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE VARIOUS PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THESE ORDINANCES. 4. THE COLORS AND MATERIALS WILL BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THOSE SHOWN IN THE RENDERING PRESENTED AT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEETING (ATTACHMENT 6B OF THE STAFF REPORT). IF THEY ARE FOUND BY STAFF TO NOT BE GENERALLY CONSISTENT, THE MATERIALS WILL BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD FOR ADDITIONAL REVIEW. VICE CHAIR GUENTHER SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. PRESENTATION BY THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT AND RUNNING LAND USE HEARINGS This item was postponed to the Board's April 2" d meeting. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTSATEMS FOR DISCUSSION: Ms. Machuga announced that the Board would meet again on March 19th to conduct a public hearing on a proposal to expand Edmonds Swedish Hospital. The Board asked that staff send out confirmation to Board Members, via email, regarding the upcoming meeting dates. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS: None of the Board Members provided comments during this portion of the meeting. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Architectural Design Board Meeting Minutes of Regular Meeting March 5, 2014 Page 5 of 5