BLD-2010-0248 Administrative Design Review.pdf0V 4
Al CITY OF EDMONDS
T 121 51h Avenue North - Edmonds, WA 98020
. . . . . . . . . .
Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 - Web: www.ci.edrnands.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNINo DIVISION
LINI-ir.—I'oll"mlo)l)Dr�sj)Lli�ufli]LlI
TO: Ednionds Way Professional Center U.0 and Randy Munson
FROM- Jen Machuga, Planner
DATE: September 8, 2.010
FILE; BLD20100248
The applicant is proposing to remodel an existing single-family residence, change the use of the building
to a dayeare facility, and construct an addition of approximately 852 square feet on the north side of the
existing building. The proposal includes paving and striping of a new parking lot for fourteen cars on the
southern side of the site as well as a landscaping plan for the entire site.
Prol)erty Owner: Applicant:
Edmonds Way Professional Center LLC Randy Munson
23 632 Highway 99, Suite F — PMB 502 1930 — 6"' Ave. S, Suite #301
Edmonds, WA 98026 Seattle, WA 98134
Design Review Procays:
As part of the City's review of the building permit application referenced above, staff design review was
required per ECDC 20.1.0. The proposal is located within the Planned Business (BP) zone, which is not
an area of the City that is specifically designated for District -Based Design Review. Therefore, the
proposal is subject to the General Design Review requirements of ECDC 20.11. Projects that remain
under the SEPA threshold are reviewed by staff with the building permit, and the design review is
considered an administrative Staff Decision subject to the requirements of ECDC 20.11 (General Design
Review) and 20.01 (Type I Staff Decision — No Notice Required). Because the project is located in the
BP zone, the design standards in ECDC 20,11.030 apply in addition to the general design objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan. Staff design review with a building permit is considered aType I decision
subject to the requirements of ECDC 20.01,003. The project was determined to be exempt from the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Linder WAC 197-11-800(3). A critical areas checklist was submitted
in 2007 and a waiver from further study was granted (File No, CRA20070093).
Page I of 7
Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Complimice:
r11,111 IJIIII!I
The subject site is located within the Planned.
Business (BP) zone. The BP zone allows
daycare centers as a primary use requiring a
Conditional Use Permit. The applicant obtained
approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a.
dayeare center serving a maximum of 49 children
in September of 2009 under File No.
PL;N20090038. Thus, the proposed use is in
compliance with the Conditional Use Permit
requirements of the BP zone.
The maximum allowed height for the BP zone is
2.5 feet plus a potential 5 -foot bonus up to a
maximum of 30 feet if all portions of the roof
above the stated height limit have a slope of
inches in 12 inches or greater. The proposed roof
is flat; therefore, the subject application does not
qualify for the 5 -foot height bonus, and the
maximum allowed height is limited to 25 feet.
Height calculations were provided on the site
plan indicating that the building will be 22.5 feet
high.
i:"ire No. BLD20100248
"Grow With Us" Daycare
Administrative Design Review
The BP zone requires the following minimum setbacks
Street Side Side
(Southwest) (Northwest) (East)
Required Setbacks 15 feet None' None`
Proposed Setbacks 15 feet 0 feet 15
1 Fifteen feet from lot lines adjacent to R -zoned property.
The existing residence does not comply with the minimum required 15 -foot side setback from the
portion of the eastern property line adjacent to the RS -6 zone. According to Snohomish County
Assessor's records, the existing single-family residence was constructed in 1953, which is prior to
the annexation of this property into City limits in 1955.as well as prior to the City's first zoning
ordinance of 1956. Thus, the existing building is considered a nonconforming structure in respect
to the minimum required 15 -foot side setback from the portion of tile eastern property line
adjacent to the RS -6 zone and is subject to the nonconforming regulations of ECIC 17.40.020.
Pursuant to ECDC 17.40.020(B), a nonconforming structure may be maintained and continued,
but may not be changed or altered in any manner which increases the degree of nonconformity of
the building. The proposed addition complies with the lnirdinu n required 15 -foot side setback
from the portion of the eastern property line adjacent to the RS -6 zone. Thus, the proposal will.
not increase the degree of the nonconformity of the existing building in respect to the side
setback.
Pursuant to ECDC 1.6.53.020(C), the required setback from R -zoned property shall be landscaped
with trees and ground cover and continuously maintained by the owner of the BP lot.
Additionally, a six-foot minimum height fence, wall or dense, continuous hedge shall be
maintained in the setback. An RS -6 zoned property is located directly east of the subject site
Page 2 v f 7
File No. BLD20100248
"Grow With Us" Daycare
Administrative Design Review
adjacent to the approximate northern half of the eastern property line of the site. The landscape
plan indicates landscaping within the setback area from the adjacent RS -6 property (excluding the
existing nonconfonning portion of the building located within the setback area). Additionally,
the site plan indicates a 6 -foot fence along the entire eastern property line.
B. ECDC 17.50 (Off -Street Parking Regulations)
Pursuant to ECDC 17.50.020(C)(8), daycare centers are required to have a minimum of one
parking space per 300 square feet, or one per employee plus one per five students, whichever is
larger. The plans indicate a total of 2,296 square feet including the existing building and the
addition. This would result in a requirement of 7.65, rounded up to 8, parking stalls. The plans
indicate that there will be 4 employees and a maximum of 49 students, which would result in a
requirement of 13.8, rounded up to 14 parking stalls. Since 14 is the larger of these two numbers,
the applicant is required to provide a minimum of 14 on-site parking stalls. The proposed plans
indicate that 14 stalls will be provided.
C. ECDC 20.11 (General Design Review)
The proposal is subject to the General Design Review criteria of ECDC 20.11.030, which include
criteria for building design and site treatment. The proposal is consistent with the criteria
applicable to building design in that the design of the proposed addition will tie into the design of
the existing building, the covered porches and trellis provide a human scale to the building, the
parapet on the roof of the addition will assist in screening any future rooftop mechanical
equipment, and windows and changes to the width of the horizontal siding will assist in avoiding
a long, massive, unbroken or monotonous appearance. The proposal is consistent with the criteria
applicable to site treatment in that approximately nine of the existing evergreen trees will be
retained on the site, sufficient landscaping is provided around the front and all sides of the site to
assist in buffering the building from surrounding properties, the trash enclosure will adequately
screen the garbage receptacles, and curbing will be provided to protect the majority of the
landscaped areas. Further discussion on specific design elements of the proposal is provided
below in the discussion on compliance with the design objectives of the Comprehensive Plan.
D. ECDC 2013 (Landscaping Requirements)
The subject site contains several large existing evergreen trees. Many of these trees are located in
areas that cannot be protected during development due to the need to locate the parking area at
the front of the building. However, approximately nine existing trees are indicated on the plans
as to be retained. These existing trees will provide a good base to the proposed additional
landscaping.
The City's Street Tree Plan requires street trees adjacent to Edmonds Way. The landscape plan
indicates four Cercidiphyllum japonicum (Katsura) trees adjacent to the southwestern property
line. These trees are shown to comply with the minimum required size of 3" caliper and the
maximum allowed spacing of 40 to 60 feet on center.
ECDC 20.13.030 requires Type N landscaping along the southwestern side of the subject site in
order to provide a visual separation from the street where clear sight distance is required. The
proposed landscaping between the parking area and Edmonds Way includes the street trees
discussed above as well as vine maple trees near the center of this property line and a cluster of
existh-ig evergreens near the southern corner of the site. These trees are consistent with the Type
N landscaping requirement for trees to be planted 25 feet on center. Various shrubs including
viburnum davidii, warty barberry, and rhododendron are also indicated within the Type N
landscape area. These shrubs will need to be maintained at a maximum height of 3.5 feet where
clear sight distance is necessary. A condition to this effect has been added to the approval in
order to ensure proper maintenance of the Type N vegetation in order for clear sight distance to
be maintained.
Page 3 of 7
File No. BLD20100248
"Grow With Us" Daycare
Administrative Design Review
ECDC 20.13.030 requires Type V landscaping to provide visual relief and shade within parking
areas. If the parking area contains no more than 50 parking stalls, at least 17.5 square feet of
landscape development must be provided for each parking stall proposed. Thus, with a total of 14
parking stalls, the applicant is required to provide at least 245 square feet of Type V landscaping
within the parking area. The landscape plan indicates Type V landscaping within the landscape
areas surrounding the parking lot.
ECDC 20.13.030 requires Type 11 landscaping to be provided along the northwestern property
line. Type 1I landscaping is intended to create a visual separation between similar uses, and
includes the requirement for evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 30 percent being
deciduous, a minimum of six feet in height, and planted at intervals no greater than 20 feet on
center in addition to shrubs a minimum of 3.5 feet in height to cover the ground within three
years. The applicant has shown sufficient landscaping along the northwestern property line to
comply with this requirement. Although there are areas where the trees are slightly more than 20
feet apart, this is compensated for by the cluster of existing trees being retained near the
southwestern corner of the existing building.
ECDC 20.13.030 requires a combination of Types 1 and II landscaping along the portion of the
eastern property line adjacent to the residentially zoned property, as Type I landscaping is
intended to provide a very dense sight barrier between significantly separate uses and Type H is
intended to provide separation between similar uses. The daycare center and adjacent residential
property are not significantly separate uses, but they are not quite as similar as Type 11
landscaping calls for. Thus, the landscape plan was required to show a combination of deciduous
and evergreen trees planted at 20 feet on center as well as shrubs a minimum of 3.5 feet high to
provide sufficient coverage of the ground within three years. By retaining a few of the existing
trees along the eastern property line and proposing the planting of several new trees, the applicant
has shown compliance with the Type 1111 landscaping requirement for the eastern property line.
The six-foot fence along the eastern property line will also provide additional screening from the
adjacent R -zoned property.
Pursuant to ECDC 20.13.020.E, "automatic irrigation is required for all ADB -approved
landscaped areas for projects which have more than four dwelling units, 4 000 square feet of
building area or more than 20 parking spaces." Because the proposal does not trigger SEPA
review, automatic irrigation is not a requirement.
A condition of approval has been added requiring all tree and plant sizes and spacing to be
consistent with the minimum size and maximum spacing requirements of ECDC 20.13.0 15 and
the City's Street Tree Plan.
Comprehensive Plan:
The subject site is located within the "Planned Business/Neighborhood Business" designation of the
Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, the site is located within the "Westgate Corridor." The proposal is
subject to the applicable general objectives for urban design located on pages 90 through 98 of the
Comprehensive Plan.
1. Obiectives for Site Design. "The development of parking lots, pedestrian walkways and
landscaping features is an integral part of how a building interacts -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 and
coherentphysical environment. " (Comprehensive Plan p. 91)
Page 4 of 7
Pile No. BLD20100248
"Grow With Us" Daycare
Administrative Design Review
Fourteen different objectives for site design are discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. Not
every objective necessarily applies to every project; and, some objectives may be more
important than others for a particular project. For example, no signage is proposed as part of
this application. However, if signage is proposed in the future, it will be reviewed against the
applicable design criteria with the building permit application;.
a. Vehicular Access. The site will be accessed directly off Edmonds Way via a circular
drive with one-way traffic in and out. This is in keeping with the two existing curb cuts.
b. Location and Layout of Parking. Parking is proposed to be located on the southern
portion of the site in front of the building. Due to the location of the existing building on
the site, it would not be possible to locate parking behind or to the side of the building.
The applicant, however, has proposed sufficient landscaping adjacent to Edmonds Way
to help screen the parking area from the street.
c. Pedestrian Connections Offsite. Pedestrian access is available from the sidewalk along
Edmonds Way to the site via the two curb cuts being utilized for the circular access drive.
Pedestrian access should be safer since vehicular access will be via a one-way drive
instead of two-way drive.
d. Garage Entry/Door Location. No garage is proposed. Vehicular access to the site will be
via a one-way circular drive with curb cuts in the approximate location of the two
existing curb cuts.
e. Building Entry Location. There will be one main building entrance on the southern side
of the building. A small covered porch will be provided at this entrance to help designate
the location of the entrance on the building as well as to provide weather protection for
people entering and exiting the building.
f. Setbacks. The project will be required to comply with setback requirements. The
landscape plan indicates adequate landscaping at the front and around all sides of the site.
g. Open Space. No public open space is proposed as pail of the subject application. There
will be an open area at the rear of the daycare building where children can play in a
location away from the street and parking area.
h. Building/Site Identity. The proposed addition is consistent in style with the existing
building by utilizing a flat roof. The addition is broken up by windows and changes in
siding material, and architectural interest will be provided to the entire building through
the use of covered porches on three sides of the building and a trellis at the front of the
building.
i. Weather Protection. A covered porch will be provided at the main entrance to the
building as well as at the two side entrances.
j. Lighting. No exterior lighting is indicated on the plans.
k. Signage. No signage was proposed in this application. All signs must meet the
requirements found in ECDC 20.60.
1. Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical. No utility vaults, heating and cooling
equipment, or other exterior utility equipment are proposed at this time; however, the
addition will have a 30" parapet, which will assist in screening any future rooftop
equipment on the new portion of the building. The plans indicate a trash enclosure at the
northwestern corner of the site.
m. Significant Features. The site contains several existing evergreen trees. Although many
of the existing trees will need to be removed to fully develop the site, the applicant has
Page 5 of 7
File No. BLD20100248
"Grow With CJs" Daycare
Administrative Design Review
indicated plans to retain some of the existing trees located outside of the proposed
parking and access areas.
n. Landscape Buffers. The landscape plan indicates sufficient landscaping around the front
and all sides of the site. Refer to the landscaping discussion above for further discussion
on compliance with the landscaping requirements of ECDC 20.13.
2. 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 city's Comprehensive
Plan. Protecting views front 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. "
(Comprehensive Plan p. 95)
Four objectives for building form are discussed in the Comprehensive Plan:
a. Height. According to the site plan and elevation drawings provided, the proposed
addition is approximately 2.5 feet below the standard 25 -foot height limit. This is not out
of character with the other commercial structures in the immediate area.
b. Massing. The proposed covered porches and trellis provide a human scale to the
building. The majority of the building will be sided with horizontal lap siding with 12"
reveal, while the western side of the addition will include horizontal lap siding with 4"
reveal to provide interest to this fagade and to reduce the building's bulk and mass.
c. Roof Modulation. The existing building has a flat roof. In order for the design of the
addition to be consistent with the design of the existing building, the addition will also
have a flat roof.
d. Wall Modulation. Windows are utilized in three sides of the addition in order to help
break up the mass and scale of the building fagade. The entire building does not appear
as a simple box since it contains the existing single -story portion as well as the proposed
two-story addition. Since covered porches are provided at all three building entrances, a
human -scale is provided to the structure.
3. Design Objectives for Building Facade: "BuildingFagade 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. " (Comprehensive Plan p. 95-96)
Four objectives for building form are discussed in the Comprehensive Plan:
a. Facade Requirements. The covered main entrance as well as the two covered secondary
access points to the building add interest and afford some weather protection for
pedestrians. These entrances also provide a human -scale to the structure.
b. Window Variety and Articulation. The upper portion of the proposed addition contains
several windows on three of the four facades.
c. Building Fagade Materials. The main material to be utilized for the building fagade is
horizontal Iap siding. The western facade of the addition will be provided visual relief by
two different widths of horizontal lap siding. As proposed, the use of the materials helps
to break up the facades and provides interest to the building.
d. Accents/Colors/Trim. The applicant has provided a photograph of an existing dayeare
facility, which they plan to mimic the design of. This building has a dark grey facade
with white trim. The colors proposed are acceptable and provide for visual interest in the
building.
Page 6 of 7
File No. BLD20100248
"Grow with Us" Daycare
Administrative Design Ttoview
Fin(larr s & Couclaisions:
ha accordance with the requirements of ECDC 20.11.0)2.0) and 201.11.0301, the proposal has been found to
be in compliance with the design criteria of the Comprehensive Plan, the bulls and use requirements of the
zoning ordinance, and the building design and site treatment criteria applicable to general design review.
Detailed discussion on compliance with these requirements can be found in the sections above.
Technical Review.
The Engineering Division, Building Division, and Fire Department have reviewed the building permit
application (File No. BLD20100248) for this project. Any cornments from these departments will be
provided as part of their review of the building permit application.
Public "ontmeaatsa
Projects that remain under the SEPA threshold are reviewed by staff with the building permit, and the
design review is considered an administrative Staff Decision (Type 1) suhaject to the requirements of
ECDC 201.11 General Design Review) and 20.01 (Staff Decision —No Notice Requ ired). Therefore„ no
public notice was required for the subject application. The City has not received any comment letters for
this project.
Decision
Staff finds that with the conditions below, the proposal is consistent with design criteria in the
Comprehensive Plana as well as the Edmonds Community Development Code, specifically ECDC
20.11.030. Therefore, staff finds that the design of the building remodel and .addition under permit
BLD20100248 is APPROVE D with the following conditions:
1. Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes, and it is the
responsibility of the applicant to apply for and obtain all necessary permits.
2. Tree and plant sizes and spacing shall comply with minimum sizes and nnaximuna spacing of
ECDC 20.13.015 and the City's Street Tree Plan.
3. Trees within the Type IV landscaping area (adjacent to the southwestern property Line) shall be
free of branches below six feet in height, .and shrubs within this area shall be maintained at a
maximum height of 3.5 feet..
I have reviewed the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code.
Machuga,
Appeals
ber 8, 20101
Date
Design review decisions by staff are only appealable to the extent that the applicable building permit or
development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of the ECDC. Design review by
staff is not in itself an appealable decision.
Page 7 oj'7