ADB-08-15 Staff Report.pdf
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
STAFF REPORT
May 7, 2008 Meeting
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO: The Architectural Design Board
FROM: __________________________________
Mike Clugston, AICP
Planner
DATE: April 30, 2007
Application by Ralph Allen of Grace Architects, representing Gregg Production
ADB-2008-15
Associates, Inc. for revisions to the Old Milltown Phase I & II.
A. Property Owner Applicants
Property OwnerApplicants
Gregg Production Associates Bob Gregg Ed and Barbara Lee
51 Dayton St. 51 Dayton St. The Hotel Group
Suite 304 Suite 304 110 James St., Suite 102
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
B. Site Location
Site Location
th
201 5 Avenue South
C. Introduction
Introduction
The applicant is proposing several changes to the Old Milltown building that the ADB approved
through projects ADB-2007-02 and ADB-2007-67. The changes are outlined in the brief
narrative submitted by the applicant (Attachment 1). The attached renderings and elevation
visually describe the changes and show the existing building and proposed changes on the same
sheet for comparison (Attachments 2 5). Also attached are the verbatim transcripts from the
October 4, 2007 and November 7, 2007 meetings (Attachment 6).According to Chapter 20.12 of
the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC), the changes proposed would not normally
trigger design review by the Board. However, because the current requests include (1) items that
the ADB specifically asked to see in more detail, and (2) also include modifications to portions of
the project that were previously approved by the ADB, both the applicant and staff felt the ADB
should review the proposed changes to ensure they are in keeping with the ADBs previous
decisions on the project and with the Downtown Design Objectives discussed in the
Comprehensive Plan (Attachment 7).
(1) Previous changes to ADB-07-02 were first discussed at the November 7, 2007 meeting. The
applicant proposed changing the awnings from a translucent glass (Kalwall) material to fabric and
th
then replacing the street-level planters along both 5 Avenue and Dayton Street with hanging
baskets on the awning structures. Other changes involved the stone tile cladding on the façade
and the coping at the cornice. The Board approved the change from the stone tiles to two-tone
paint but wanted to see additional detail regarding the awnings and cornice. The applicant has
provided detail for the awnings and cornice with this application.
Staff Report for ADB-2008-15
Old Milltown Revisions
(2) This application also includes two new changes to project ADB-07-67, which was approved
by the Design Board on November 7, 2007. Two privacy screens are proposed to be added to the
rd
rooftop edge on the southern façade adjacent to the residential units on the 3 floor. The other
rd
change involves the addition of a skylight above the 3 floor interior lobby. Regarding the
skylight, the applicant is proposing to use a particular height exception for BD zones that is
described in ECDC 16.43.030.4(a). This is the first time that this particular exception has been
employed so it is important that the skylight be carefully reviewed it will help establish a record
on how this code provision is to be interpreted and applied.
D. Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance
Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance
The following is staffs analysis on the compliance of the proposed privacy screens and skylight
with the Edmonds Community Development Code. As always, all development standards will be
verified through building permit review.
1.ECDC 16.43 Downtown Business (BD-1) Zone
a.Privacy Screens
The maximum height allowed for the Old Milltown structure was previously determined
to be 30 feet (ECDC 16.43.030.C.2.b). The elevation drawing (Attachment 5) indicates
the maximum height of the building to be 97.74 (30 feet above the average original grade
of 67.74 feet) and the residential roof structure is below that level. From the rendering
provided (Attachment 2), the privacy screens appear to be below the height of the roof of
the adjacent residential unit. As a result, it appears that the privacy screens satisfy the
height requirement.
There are zero setbacks in the BD-1 zone, except when adjacent to residentially-zoned
property (ECDC 16.43.030). The privacy screens appear to be slightly set back from the
edge of the roof line (Attachment 2), interior to the planter at the residential level. As a
result, the privacy screens appear to satisfy the setback requirements for the zone since
this portion of the parcel is not adjacent to a residentially-zoned parcel.
b.Skylight
According to ECDC 16.43.030.C.4(a), there is an opportunity for 5 additional feet of
height for certain structures if the following criteria are satisfied:
4. Height Exceptions. In addition to the height exceptions listed in ECDC
21.40.030, the following architectural features are allowed to extend above the
height limits specified in this chapter.
a. A single decorative architectural element, such as a turret, tower, or clock
tower, may extend a maximum of five feet above the specified height limit if it
is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or facade of
the building. The decorative architectural element shall not cover more than
five percent of the roof area of the building.
While the word skylight is not specifically listed in ECDC 16.43.030.C.4(a) as a
decorative architectural element that could be subject to the height exception, neither is
it excluded from the comparison group. As a result, a skylight could be considered to be
a decorative architectural element which could project above the maximum height of the
structure, subject to the height and area requirements described in ECDC
16.43.030.C.4(a).
Page 2 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2008-15
Old Milltown Revisions
In this case, however, it does not readily appear that the proposed skylight is a
decorative architectural element that provides similar architectural weight as would a
turret, clock tower, or the like (Attachment 4). At the street level, it is unlikely that the
skylight would be visible and therefore it would not have the same impact as a clock
th
tower extending up from the corner of a building adjacent to the sidewalk on 5 Avenue,
for example. The proposed skylight seems to have been added on to the project later as
rd
something that the residents of the 3 floor would like to see included.
At the same time, the skylight would satisfy some Comprehensive Plan criteria (see
Section E.3). In addition, regarding its decorative and/or integral nature, the skylight
is neither purely ornamental nor so essential to the buildings structure that Old Milltown
would collapse if the skylight was not there. Rather, it is a functional element which
reasonably appears to fit within the lobby area and within the overall context of the roof.
If it were not proposed to be over height, the skylight would be an attractive addition to
the residential roof. In this case, however, the applicant must demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the ADB that the proposed skylight is worthy of the height exception.
If the ADB determines that the proposed skylight qualifies for the 5 height exemption of
ECDC 16.43.030.C.4(a), the elevation provided (Attachment 5) indicates that the
maximum allowable height of the structure is 97.74 feet (30 above average original
grade of 67.74). Using the additional 5 of height would yield a maximum of 102.74
for the skylight. As proposed, it appears that skylight would be slightly less than 100.74,
and it would therefore satisfy the height requirement of ECDC 16.43.030.C.4(a).
The code also identifies an area requirement that must be satisfied in order to use the
referenced height exception The decorative architectural element shall not cover more
than five percent of the roof area of the building. According to the applicant, the roof
area surrounding the proposed skylight is 806 square feet (Attachment 8). To satify the
area requirement for the feature (not more than 5%), the roof area for the building would
have to be in excess of 16,120 square feet. ECDC 21.85.070 indicates a roof means the
top covering of a building or structure. For Old Milltown, this would include the top of
rdnd
the 3 floor residences as well as the exposed portions of the top of the 2 floor.
According to the applicant, the total roof area is approximately 19,393 square feet. As a
result, it would appear that the skylight meets the area requirement of ECDC
16.43.030.C.4(a).
E. Comprehensive Plan Compliance
E. Comprehensive Plan Compliance
The following is staffs analysis on the projects compliance with the Citys Comprehensive Plan.
1.Location: The parcel is located within the Retail Core of the Downtown/Waterfront Activity
Center. This area is discussed in the Land Use Element (pages 35) and also in the Downtown
Design Objectives section (pages 38-42).
2.Design Objectives for Site Design: The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways
and landscaping features is an integral part of how a building acts with its site and its
surrounding environment. Good design and site planning improves access by pedestrians,
bicycles and automobiles, minimizes potential negative impacts to adjacent development,
reinforces the character and activities within a district and builds a more cohesive physical
environment.
The awnings are an important feature providing weather protection for the sidewalk
environment. Whether Kalwall or fabric, each has specific maintenance requirements that
will need to be addressed; however, within the context of the downtown environment, either
material would appear to be appropriate. The applicant has provided additional information
Page 3 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2008-15
Old Milltown Revisions
relating to the awnings (Attachment 3) which clarifies their construction and appearance.
The replacement of the sidewalk planters with hanging baskets will allow greater use of the
sidewalk and create a more functional, usable space.
3.Design Objectives for Building Form: Building height and modulation guidelines are
essential to create diversity in building forms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon
the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance with policies in the citys Comprehensive
Plan. Protecting views from public parks and building entries as well as street views to the
mountains and Puget Sound are an important part of Edmonds character and urban form.
The proposed skylight would further modulate the roof structure of the building (Attachments
4 and 5). The Comprehensive Plan outlines five criteria and indicates the desire for such
modulation (page 41):
a.Use combinations of roof types and decorative elements such as parapets or
architectural detailing to break up the overall massing of the roof and add interest
to its shape and form.
b.Create and reinforce the human scale of the building.
c.Use roof forms to identify different programs of functional areas within the
building.
d.Provide ways for additional light to enter the building.
e.Encourage alternate roof treatments that improve and add interest to building
design. Features such as roof gardens, terraces, and interesting or unique
architectural forms can be used to improve the view of building from above as well
as from the streetscape.
The applicant has indicated the skylight will be made of Kalwall. While not uplit
(Attachment 1), the material would probably appear to glow somewhat at night when the
rd
lobby area is lit. If the skylight is included, the ADB may want to add a condition that the 3
floor lobby area must be lit with motion-sensors or dimmers to minimize the duration and
intensity of the skylights glow.
4.Design Objectives for Building Façade: Building Façade objectives ensure that the
exterior of a building the portion of a building that defines the character and visual
appearance of a place is of high quality and demonstrates the strong sense of place and
integrity valued by the residents of the City of Edmonds.
The materials and appearance of the privacy screens, coping and awnings are subject to
Board review and approval relative to the Downtown Design Objectives in the
Comprehensive Plan (Attachments 2 and 3).
F. Public Comments
F. Public Comments
Several written comments were received from the public.
1.Lorna and Robert Masuo commented that the privacy screens appear to be somewhat
obtrusive and, if they are included, wish that they be set back from the edge of the roof.
Staff response: From the applicants narrative (Attachment 1), the screens will provide
privacy for the master suite windows of the southern residence and will integrate with the
railing system. The rendering provided (Attachment 2), indicates that the screens are indeed
set back somewhat from the edge of the roof. The ADB will determine if the design of the
screens is appropriate relative to the Design Objectives.
2.Finis Tupper inquired whether the current code allows a skylight to exceed the maximum
Page 4 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2008-15
Old Milltown Revisions
building height in the BD zone.
Staff Response: As described in Section D.1.b of this report, staff finds that a skylight could
meet the code requirements found in ECDC 16.43.030.C.4(a). A skylight is not necessarily
precluded from using the height exception. In addition, staff believes that while some of the
analysis provided by Mr. Tupper is helpful, some is overly restrictive and not supported by a
close reading of the code. In context, the skylight may be approved if it is an integral
architectural feature of the roof and/or façade. Integral has more than one narrow meaning.
One could argue that no architectural feature would ever meet the narrow standard proposed
th
by Mr. Tupper. According to Websters 10 edition, integral means essential to
completeness or formed as a unit with another part. The notion is that the feature should
form a design unit or whole, not something that is clearly an added or tacked-on element.
Staff feels that the more problematic aspect of the skylight relates to whether it is a
decorative architectural element, as noted in the staff analysis under D.1.b. Whether or not
this particular skylight qualifies for the exemption, however, is up to the ADB. If it does
qualify, staff has analyzed how it would meet the height and area requirements of the code.
As mentioned before, the skylight would be reviewed against the zoning requirements at
building permit submittal, as well, to ensure compliance.
3.Elizabeth Larman inquired about the changes to the coping and awnings as well as the
skylight.
Staff Response: The applicant will be better able to describe what the intended changes to
the copings and awnings are desired to achieve. The Board will determine whether those
changes are acceptable relative to the Comprehensive Plan. Relative to the skylight, the
applicant can also better describe why the structure was included now rather than previously
with ADB-07-67.
G.Technical Comments
G.Technical Comments
The Engineering Division and the Fire, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments
have reviewed this application. Engineering noted that the applicant will be required to obtain an
encroachment permit for projections into the City right-of-way and comply with the requirements
set forth in Chapter 18.70 ECDC. The Fire Department required that specifications for the
awnings are provided at building permit relative to their composition and combustibility and
stated that sprinklers may be required under the awnings.
H.Recommendation
H.Recommendation
Staff recommends the following motion for the Design Board:
The Architectural Design Board adopts the findings and conclusions of the staff report and
approves ADB-2008-15 as submitted and indicated on the attached drawings with the following
conditions:
1. Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes. It is the
responsibility of the applicant to apply for all necessary permits and demonstrate compliance
with all those codes and approvals.
2. The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed skylight constitutes a single decorative
architectural element that is designed as an integral architectural feature of the roof and/or
facade of the building. This modification is not approved.
The Board finds that with these conditions, the proposed changes meet the requirements of the
zoning ordinance and are consistent with the Downtown Design Objectives contained in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Page 5 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2008-15
Old Milltown Revisions
I.Attachments
I.Attachments
1.Applicants Narrative Statement of Design Revisions, dated March 10, 2008
2.Screen and Cornice Rendering
3.Sidewalk Rendering
4.Rooftop Rendering
5.Elevation View
6.Verbatim transcript of minutes from October 4 and November 7, 2007 ADB meetings
7.Downtown Design Objectives
8.Email from Grace Architects, dated April 29, 2008
9.Email comment from Lorna and Robert Masuo, dated April 19, 2008
10.Email comment from Finis Tupper, dated April 26, 2008
11.Email comment from Elisabeth Larman, dated April 27, 2008
J.Parties of Record
J.Parties of Record
Gregg Production Associates Ralph Allen Ed and Barbara Lee
51 Dayton St. Grace Architects, PLLC The Hotel Group
Suite 304 1927 Post Alley 110 James St., Suite 102
Edmonds, WA 98020 Seattle, WA 98101 Edmonds, WA 98020
Lorna & Robert Masuo Finis Tupper Elizabeth Larman
523 Maple St. #203 711 Daley St. 801 Walnut St.
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Page 6 of 6