StaffReport_ADB-07-27.pdf
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
STAFF REPORT
July 18, 2007 Meeting
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO:
The Architectural Design Board
FROM:
__________________________________
Gina Coccia,Planner
DATE:
July 11, 2007
ADB-2007-27
Application by Michel Construction for a four (or five) unit multi-family
building located in the Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) zone. A rezone for this
site to RM-1.5 is also under review (PLN-2007-15) so it is unknown at this time
whether the maximum density will allow four or five units. The exterior of the
building and site will remain as proposed under this application whether the
rezone application is ultimately approved or denied.
A.
PropertyOwner:ContactPerson/Applicant:
Property Owner:Contact Person/Applicant:
Michel Construction, Inc. Dwight McGrew of Michel Construction, Inc
thth
7907 212 Street SW #102 7907 212 Street SW #102
Edmonds WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98026
nd
:
B. 125 (AKA 119) 2 Avenue North in the Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) zone. A
SiteLocation
Site Location
rezone application to change the existing zoning to RM-1.5 is currently pending (Attachment 2).
C.
Introduction:
Introduction:
The applicant is proposing to construct either four or five dwelling units in a multi-family
building. The existing site contains an eight-unit apartment building that was constructed in 1955
(photo right). The pending rezone from RM-2.4 to RM-1.5 will determine if four or five units are
constructed. Either way, the bulk of the building will
not change. At this time, the intent is for the new units
to be condominiums.
Attachment 1 is the land use application for this
project. Attachment 2 is the zoning and vicinity map.
Attachment 3 is the site plan, which shows the location
of the building on the site compared with other
features. Attachment 4 is the landscape plan, which
shows the proposed landscaping for the project.
Attachment 5 is the elevations, which depict the design
Existing Building
of the building. The colors proposed are taupe and
light taupe with cedar shingles and are shown on the
elevation view. No signage is proposed with this application. Exterior lighting is shown in
Attachment 6.
The following is staff’s analysis of the project.
Staff Report for ADB-2007-27
Michel Construction Four (or Five) Unit Condo
D.
Overview:
Overview:
1.Zoning:
This parcel is currently located in the Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) zone
(Attachment 2). Even if the pending rezone is approved (to RM-1.5) the only aspect that
would change is the underlying density. Setbacks, lot coverage, and height would remain the
same. In any event, this property is subject to the requirements of ECDC 16.30 (Multiple
Residential).
2.Environmental Review:
Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is
required if the proposed project will contain five or more dwelling units. The new building
will contain either four or five dwelling units. Incase the proposed rezone is approved (PLN-
2007-15), and in the event that five or more dwelling units will be proposed, the applicant has
submitted an Environmental Checklist, which was reviewed by staff with the rezone
application. The SEPA review was for both a site-specific rezone and also for the anticipated
construction of a new five-unit building. A Determination of Non Significance (DNS) was
issued on April 11, 2007 and no comments or appeals were received. Therefore, both the
City and the applicant have complied with SEPA requirements.
Also, no critical areas were found to be on or adjacent to this property, therefore a “waiver”
from critical areas report requirements was issued on January 22, 2007 under file number
CRA-2007-11.
3.Issues:
For this project, the Architectural Design Board reviews the design of the proposal
and makes the final decision on whether the proposal is consistent with the design review
criteria found in ECDC 20.10 (this project is vested under the old code), ECDC 20.12, and
with the Urban Design (General Objectives) found in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
E.
EdmondsCommunityDevelopmentCodeCompliance:
Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance
The following is staff’s analysis on the project’s compliance with the Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC).
1.ECDC 16.30 (Multiple Residential) Zones
a.
The improvements are proposed on property with a multiple residential zoning
designation (RM-2.4). If a rezone is approved (file PLN-2007-15), then the property
would be zoned RM-1.5.
b.
The maximum lot coverage in multiple residential zones is 45% of the total lot area.
Pursuant to ECDC 21.15.110, “coverage means the total ground coverage of all
buildings or structures on a site measured from the outside of external walls or
supporting members or from a point two and one-half feet in from the outside edge of a
cantilevered roof, whichever covers the greatest area.” The building footprint shown
appears to be approximately 5,100 square feet (however this is a slight over-estimate
based on a 68’x75’ building footprint). Using this figure, the lot coverage appears to be
47%; however, this will be confirmed through building permit review, which requires the
applicant to provide a breakdown of lot coverage.
Note: The ADB may want to ask the applicant if they have more precise lot coverage
calculations available to ensure that they remain under the 45% threshold.
c.
Sample height calculations were provided on the site plan and on the elevations. It
appears that the applicant has attempted to stay just at or under the maximum height (25
feet plus a potential 5 foot bonus for a 4/12 pitched roof), however this will be confirmed
with the building permit.
Page 2 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2007-27
Michel Construction Four (or Five) Unit Condo
One aspect of the plans that does not appear to meet the height limit is the modulated
dark brown decorative element above the long windows on the east and west elevations.
The code is clear about the height and ECDC 16.30.030.A (footnote 1) states: “Roof only
may extend five feet above the stated height limit if all portions of the roof above the
stated height limit have a slope of four inches in 12 inches or greater.” Although this is
a decorative feature, it is not exempt from the height limit.
Note: Because this element is not at a 4/12 (or greater) pitch, it is not eligible to go over
the standard 25-foot height limit. Staff is recommending a condition that calls this
element to attention and requires that it remains under the height limit. The ADB may
want to discuss design alternatives with the applicant.
d.
In the RM-2.4 zone, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 2,400 square feet. This
parcel is 10,800 square feet in area. This results in a maximum density of four (4.5)
dwelling units. In the RM-1.5 zone, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 1,500
square feet. If the rezone to RM-1.5 is approved, this would result in a maximum density
of seven (7.2) dwelling units. There are eight existing dwelling units. The applicant is
requesting either four or five dwelling units. Even if the proposed rezone is approved,
the end result would be a decrease in density and the proposed project would meet the
underlying density for the zone.
e.
The table below shows the required setbacks for structures in the RM-2.4 zone. The
setbacks are identical for properties in the RM-1.5 zone.
Street
RearSideSide
RM-2.4 &
nd
2 Avenue North
RM-1.5(West)(North)(South)
(East)
Zone
Required
15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Setbacks
Proposed
15 feet 30 feet 12 feet 10 feet
Setbacks
It appears that the project meets the minimum setback requirements for the zone.
2.ECDC 17.50 (Parking):
a.
Multifamily parking requirements is based upon the number of dwelling units and the
number of bedrooms per dwelling unit, pursuant to ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b and the table
below:
Type of multiple Required parking spaces
dwelling unit per dwelling unit
Studio1.2
1 bedroom 1.5
2 bedrooms 1.8
3 or more bedrooms 2.0
b.
No floor plans have been submitted for this project, however the site plan indicates that
there will be four 3-bedroom units, which would yield eight parking spaces required.
c.
If there were five 3-bedroom units, then ten parking spaces would be required.
d.
The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan is 10, and most of these spaces are
proposed in the garage (Attachment 3).
Page 3 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2007-27
Michel Construction Four (or Five) Unit Condo
e.
It appears that the applicant will meet the minimum parking requirements (even if five
dwelling units were proposed), however this will be confirmed through the building
permit process as it is up to the Engineering Division to make sure that the parking spaces
shown meet the minimum parking standards.
3.ECDC 20.12 (Landscaping Requirements):
a.
Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020.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.” Automatic irrigation is required, and it
will be reviewed with the building permit.
nd
b.
The Edmonds Streetscape Plan has a specific street tree intended for 2 Avenue North:
“Red Sunset Maple” (Acer Rubrum ‘Red Sunset’). The Landscape Plan (Attachment 4)
shows Summit Ash.
Note: Staff recommends a condition that the Landscape Plan shall be revised to reflect
nd
the designated street tree, “Red Sunset Maple” (Acer Rubrum ‘Red Sunset’) along 2
Avenue North.
F.
ComprehensivePlanCompliance:
F.
Comprehensive Plan Compliance:
The following is staff’s analysis on the project’s compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
1.Location:
The existing Comprehensive Plan designation is “Multi-Family High Density” and
it is located in the “Downtown and Waterfront Activity Center.” These areas are discussed in
the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Element and also in the Urban Design (General
Objectives) section (pages 73-81), which is located in the Community Culture and Urban
Design Element of the Comprehensive Plan. It is the Architectural Design Board’s
responsibility for ensuring compliance of a project with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has
reviewed the pertinent sections of the Comprehensive Plan and documented their findings in
the section below.
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.” In the following ways, this project appears to meet the design objectives for
site design.
nd
Access will be taken from both the alley and there is a new driveway proposed off of 2
Avenue North. This driveway is shown at 19.5’ in length and will need to be a little bit
longer in order to meet the requirements of the Engineering Division. In any event, the cars
nd
will be located in the garages and will not be visible from 2 Avenue North (unless/when the
tenants park in the driveway). The alley access will allow cars to pull into the garages and
there are two surface parallel parking spaces provided in the back. Pedestrians will access the
building along an eastern walkway, which connects to the sidewalk. Landscaping along all
sides of the property is proposed, and it is especially abundant along the north and south sides
with some added emphasis in the front. Each tenant will subscribe to individual trash service,
so no dumpster is shown on the site plan. The outdoor lighting chosen has a honey
opalescence glass shade and the body is brass (Attachment 6) – however, it is unclear where
on the elevations these lights will be installed.
Note: The ADB may want to ask the applicant if they could point out where these outdoor
lights are proposed (are they proposed around the entry and/or elsewhere).
Page 4 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2007-27
Michel Construction Four (or Five) Unit Condo
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 city’s 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.”
In the following ways, this project appears to meet the design objectives for building form.
It is assumed that the proposal utilizes a 4/12 pitched roof which will help minimize impacts
to views of Puget Sound and the mountains to the west (although the pitch of the roof will be
confirmed with building permit review). The decks help break up the mass of the building
along the east and west elevations. This building has many windows, which makes it seem
less imposing. The front entry appears to be recessed into the building a bit, which would
provide some shelter for tenants as they enter/exit the building.
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.” In the following ways, this project
appears to meet the design objectives for building façade.
The applicant has chosen several building façade materials, which are liberally applied to
each elevation, giving it a full finish. The roof is a 30-year black composition. The siding is
light taupe and the fascia is taupe. The shingles are cedar and have a clear finish. Also, stone
(Eldorado Stone – Stack Stone China Mountain) was chosen to enhance the lower portion of
the building along the eastern elevation (see note below).
Note: On the east and west elevations, it appears that the two middle windiws are not fully
trimmed. In addition, it appears that there is a small brick or stone façade towards the lower
middle portion of the building. The ADB may want to ask the applicant if this is intentional
or if it was supposed to match the north and south elevations, which shows light taupe bevel
siding. Is the brick/stone supposed to wrap around the entire length of the eastern elevation
or just on the southeast portion?
G.
TechnicalReview:
G.
TechnicalReview:
The Engineering Division and the Fire, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments
have reviewed this application.
The Fire Department noted that the addressing for this project has been inconsistent.
The Public Works Department noted that no trash enclosure will be required, because tenants will
be subscribing to individual services.
The Engineering Division noted that the applicant will be required to meet all Engineering
requirements as outlined during the building permit review. They also noted that this project
contains over 5,000 square feet of impervious surface area, which requires that the storm
detention system will need to be designed and stamped by a licensed engineer. In addition, the
applicant will need to confirm the minimum driveway distance with the Engineering Division –
the figure 19.50 feet may not meet their code requirements (this will need to be resolved with the
Building Permit review).
H.
PublicComment:
H.
PublicComment:
To date, no public comments have been received.
Page 5 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2007-27
Michel Construction Four (or Five) Unit Condo
I.
Recommendation:
I.:
Recommendation
APPROVE
Staff recommends that the Architectural Design Board the design of file number
ADB-2007-27
with the following conditions:
1.
Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes.
a.
Specifically, that the front driveway length needs to meet the requirements of the
Engineering Division, which could be achieved by shifting the building west slightly or
shortening the length of the building; and
b.
Specifically, that all elements of this project remain under the height limit, pursuant to
ECDC 16.30.030.A (footnote 1); and
c.
Specifically, that the project needs to remain under the maximum 45% lot coverage
permitted for multiple-residential zones.
2.
The Landscape Plan shall be revised to reflect the designated street tree, “Red Sunset Maple”
nd
(Acer Rubrum ‘Red Sunset’), along 2 Avenue North.
3.
Because the project contains over 5,000 square feet of impervious area, the Engineering
Division requires that the storm detention system will need to be designed and stamped by a
licensed engineer.
4.
It is the responsibility of the applicant to apply for and obtain all necessary permits.
The board finds that with these conditions the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
and other adopted city policies, and the proposal satisfies the criteria and purposes of ECDC
Chapter 20.10 - ADB Criteria and ECDC Chapter 20.12 – Landscaping, and staff has found the
proposal meets the requirements of the zoning ordinance.
J.
Attachments:
J.
Attachments:
1.
Land Use Application
2.
Vicinity/Zoning Map
3.
Site Plan (P1)
4.
Landscape Plan (L1)
5.
Elevations (A1.1 & A1.2)
6.
Exterior Lighting
Page 6 of 6