StaffReport_ADB-07-36.pdf
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
STAFF REPORT
August 1, 2007 Meeting
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO:
The Architectural Design Board
FROM:
__________________________________
Gina Coccia,Planner
DATE:
July 25, 2007
ADB-2007-36
Application by A.D. Shapiro Architects for 21 townhouse units (as the first
phase of a larger mixed-use project) located at 23110 Edmonds Way in the
Multiple Residential (RM-EW) zone.
A.
PropertyOwner:Applicant:
Property Owner:Applicant:
Hans Lammersdorf Tony Shapiro
Valhalla Partners, LLC A.D. Shapiro Architects
th
1501 N. 200 Street 624 Edmonds Way
Shoreline WA 98133 Edmonds WA 98020
nd
B.:
SiteLocation NW corner of 232 Street SW and Edmonds Way, which is located in the
Site Location
Multiple Residential (RM-EW) zone (Attachment 2).
C.
Introduction:
Introduction:
nd
Street
The applicant is proposing to develop a mixed-use project along the NW corner of 232
SW and Edmonds Way. This area recently obtained rezone approval to two new subdistricts of
the zoning code: RM-Edmonds Way (RM-EW) and BC-Edmonds Way (BC-EW). This project
has been broken down into two phases. “Phase I” includes 21 townhouse/condominium units and
will be located on a site in the Multiple Residential zone
(new “RM-EW” subdistrict). This is the proposal under
review at this time. “Phase II” which will be reviewed
by the ADB at a later date, and will include general
office space, specialty retail, and 40 apartment units
located on a site in the Community Business zone (new
“BC-EW” subdistrict). The entire project site covers
two zones, with “RM-EW” for “Phase I” along the
north and “BC-EW” for “Phase II” along the south
(Attachment 7).
“Phase I,” which is currently under review, proposes 21
townhouse/condominium units that will include two
stories of living space above a garage level in six separate buildings labeled buildings A-F on the
site plan (Attachment 7). The new Multiple Residential subdistrict “RM-EW” allows for an
increase in height if specific conditions are met (Attachment 4). The applicant has developed
these plans in an attempt to achieve additional height, however all development standards are
always confirmed through building permit review.
Staff Report for ADB-2007-36
Valhalla Townhomes: “Phase I” of Mixed Use Project
The entire project site contains five existing single-family homes (built in the 1950s and 1960s)
and some vacant land on a total of seven parcels. “Phase I” is the on the northern most four
parcels (RM-EW), while “Phase II” is on the southern most three parcels (BC-EW). All existing
buildings onsite are proposed to be removed. For now, the applicant would like the ADB to
review the site design, building design, and landscaping proposed for “Phase I” only.
Attachment 1 is the land use application for this project. Attachment 2 is the zoning and vicinity
map. Attachment 3 is a description of the project and also a description of the applicant’s
proposal for low impact development and green building strategies, which are encouraged in the
new RM-EW subdistrict. Attachment 4 is Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter
16.30: RM – Multiple Residential, which outlines all of the new language for the RM-EW
subdistrict. Review by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was required and a Migigated
Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was issued for the entire scope of work, and it is
included as Attachment 5 – also included is the comment letter received from the State
Department of Transportation regarding the proposed mitigation measure because Edmonds Way
is a State Route (SR-104). Attachment 6 is the exterior lighting plan. Attachment 7 is the Site
Plan, which shows the location of the buildings on the site compare with other features.
Attachment 8 are the Elevations for the proposal. Attachment 9 are some color renderings of the
proposal, along with a proposed color palate. Attachment 10 is the Landscape Plan, which shows
the proposed landscaping for the project (please be advised that the north arrow is not always
facing in the correct position on the plans).
The following is staff’s analysis of the project.
D.
Overview:
Overview:
1.Zoning:
This parcel is located in the Multiple Residential (RM-EW) zone (Attachment 2) and
is subject to the requirements of ECDC 16.30 – Multiple Residential (Attachment 4).
2.Environmental Review:
The six new buildings are proposed to contain 21 dwelling units,
and “Phase II” will include 40 dwelling units. For this reason, and also because of extensive
grading over the entire site, the project requires review under the State Environmental Policy
Act (SEPA). The applicant turned in the required Environmental Checklist, which was
reviewed by staff and covers both “Phase I” and “Phase II” of this project. A Mitigated
Determination of Non Significance (MDNS) was issued on July 11, 2007 and one comment
was received (Attachment 5). The mitigating measure, as proposed by Gibson Traffic
nd
Consultants, was to widen the eastbound approach lane of 232 at Edmonds Way to
accommodate an additional turn lane. Celine Vogler, Assistant Local Agency and
Development Services Manager for the State Department of Transportation, noted that they
will need to approve the channelization changes on SR-104. Both the City and the applicant
have complied with SEPA requirements (Attachment 5).
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, ECDC 20.12, and with the Urban Design (General Objectives)
found in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Note: This application is being reviewed under the old design review chapter (20.10) and
landscaping chapter (20.12) of the Edmonds Community Development Code.
Page 2 of 7
Staff Report for ADB-2007-36
Valhalla Townhomes: “Phase I” of Mixed Use Project
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). As always, all development standards will be verified through
building permit review.
1.ECDC 16.30 – Multiple Residential (RM) Zones
a.Density: The improvements are proposed on property with a multiple residential zoning
designation (RM-EW). This subdistrict has a minimum lot area per dwelling unit of
1,500 square feet. The property area in the RM-EW zone is approximately 1.14 acres or
49,658 square feet, which yields a maximum of 33 dwelling units. The applicant
proposes to construct 21 dwelling units, which meets the underlying density requirement
for the zone.
b.Lot Line Adjustment: The new buildings are proposed over several existing property
lines, because there are seven parcels total. The applicant is working on putting together
a Lot Line Adjustment application that would dissolve the interior property lines so that
the end result for the entire site (which would include both phases of development) is one
large parcel that is zoned RM-EW and one large parcel that is zoned BC-EW.
Note: A Lot Line Adjustment will need to be completed and recorded prior to building
permit issuance to dissolve the interior property lines. Because the applicant has already
applied for their building permits, staff encourages the applicant to submit the Lot Line
Adjustment application as quickly as possible so as not to risk hold up the building
permit process.
c.Lot Coverage: 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.” Staff estimates that the building
footprints are about 11,856 square feet, which is 23%. The project appears to meet the
lot coverage requirement.
d.Height: The maximum height in multiple residential zones is 25 feet. In the RM-EW
zone, there are footnotes to the stated height limit:
(6) The maximum base height of any building fronting on Edmonds Way may be
increased to 30 feet if the following apply to the site and proposed development:
(a) At least 50% of the parking for the subject building shall be enclosed inside a
building or buildings;
(b) The subject property is at least 5 feet lower at its lowest elevation than any
adjacent residentially (R) zoned property measured at its lowest elevation; and
(c) The proposed development integrates low impact development techniques where
reasonably feasible. For the purposes of this section, low impact development
techniques shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: the use of
bioswales, green roofs, and grasscrete. “Reasonably feasible” shall be
determined based upon the physical characteristics of the property and its
suitability for the technique; cost alone shall not make the use of the impact
development unreasonable or unfeasible.
Page 3 of 7
Staff Report for ADB-2007-36
Valhalla Townhomes: “Phase I” of Mixed Use Project
(7) In addition to any height bonus under note (6), the building may extend up to an
additional five feet if all portions of the roof above the height limit, (after adding the
height bonus under Note 6), provide a minimum 15% slope or pitch.
The applicant appears to have designed the buildings to remain just under 35 feet in
height (Attachment 8, sheet A3.2). The parking for the units is enclosed in the garages.
The site is at least 5 feet lower than the adjacent R-zoned property. And, the project will
make use of several low impact development (LID) techniques.
Specifically, the applicant states that there will be a ‘rain garden’ bio-filtration drainage
system to handle storm water runoff from the site. The project will have a system for
collection and reuse of rain water which can be used for on-site irrigation and other uses.
See Attachment 3 for all stated low impact development strategies.
e.Setbacks: The table below shows the required setbacks for all structures in the RM-EW
zone.
Edmonds Way RearSideSide
RM-EW
(East)(West)(North)(South)
Zone
Required
15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Setbacks
Proposed
15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Setbacks
It appears that the project meets setbacks (Attachment 7).
f.Landscaping: Pursuant to ECDC 16.30.030.D:
“In addition to the landscaping requirements set forth in Chapter 20.12, any development
in the RM-Edmonds Way zone shall retain at least 35% of the existing healthy significant
trees within the side and rear setbacks of the development site. The applicant shall retain
an arborist to determine the health of all significant trees within the side and rear
setbacks. For the purposes of this section, significant trees shall be defined as any tree
with a caliper greater than 6” measured at 4’ above grade. Where it is not reasonably
feasible for the applicant to retain 35% of the existing healthy significant trees within the
side and rear setbacks, the applicant may replace any significant trees below the 35%
threshold as follows: Each significant tree removed that reduces the percentage of
retained significantly healthy trees below 35% shall be replaced with three new trees,
each of no less than 3” caliper measured at 4’ above grade.”
An Arborist’s report was not submitted with this application, so the health of the trees is
unknown. Staff was unable to determine if the project was able to retain 35% of the
existing healthy significant trees.
Note: The ADB should discuss this specific code requirement with the applicant to help
determine if this tree retention requirement can be achieved.
g.Setback Encroachments: Pursuant to ECDC 16.30.040.D.3, “In the RM-Edmonds Way
zone, uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios and decks may occupy up to one-
half of the required street setback area along Edmonds Way; provided that these
structures or uses are located no more than 20 feet above the ground level at any point.”
The site plan shows several of the building entries located towards Edmonds Way, and
also in the setback area – however, it appears that these entries meet the above
development standard.
Page 4 of 7
Staff Report for ADB-2007-36
Valhalla Townhomes: “Phase I” of Mixed Use Project
2.ECDC 17.50 (Parking):
a.Multifamily parking requirements are based upon the number of dwelling units and the
number of bedrooms per dwelling unit, pursuant to ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b:
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.The plans indicate that there will be 9 one-bedroom dwelling units and 12 two-bedroom
dwelling units, which yields 35 (35.1) required parking spaces. The applicant proposes
40 parking spaces and these will be provided in each garage. It appears that the applicant
will meet the minimum parking requirements, 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.
c.ECDC 16.30.030.C states that no parking spaces may be located within the street setback.
No parking spaces are shown to be located within the street setback.
3.ECDC 20.12 (Landscaping):
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.” Because this project proposes 21
dwelling units, automatic irrigation is required. This will be reviewed with the building
permit.
b.The Landscape Plan shows a utility box that is screened with proposed vegetation, as
required by ECDC 20.12.020.O.
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 “Edmonds Way Corridor.” This
commercial area is discussed in the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Element (page 59) 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. The RM-EW
subdistrict is a compatible zone in the Edmonds Way Corridor plan designation. 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.
Page 5 of 7
Staff Report for ADB-2007-36
Valhalla Townhomes: “Phase I” of Mixed Use Project
Access will be taken from Edmonds Way like now (SR-104 is designated as a Principle
Arterial), but with two curb-cuts instead of the several that are shown on Attachment 7 sheet
A1.1 “Existing Conditions.” The cars will be parked in the garages. The site is adjacent to
R-zoned property – these neighbors would likely appreciated some buffering and screening
from this new adjacent development.
Note: Where are the pedestrian walkways? The ADB may want to discuss including
pedestrian walkways on the site plan (Attachment 7).
Note: Staff recommends that the ADB discuss ways to help buffer/screen this site from the
adjacent R-zoned properties up the hill. One suggestion would be requiring the applicant
place a 6-foot fence along the western property line. Increased plantings or increased size of
plantings along this property line could also achieve and additional buffer.
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.
No known views are present on or near this site. The mass of the buildings are broken up
through use of colors and materials, as well as articulation and modulation (Attachments 8 &
9). Because the site is sloped, the applicant is making use of the topography and the
buildings will be set into the hillside a bit, making them appear less massive.
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 building façades facing Edmonds Way each have several windows. Several materials are
proposed, including vertical metal siding in red/blue/green, a cream colored stucco finish, and
brown horizontal siding made from fiber cement or stained woods (Attachment 9). The
applicant submitted a comprehensive exterior lighting plan (Attachment 6). There will be
recessed overhead lights that will be mounted in overhangs over unit entries. There will be
entry door lights that will be mounted at approximately 5’ adjacent to unit entry doors. Step
lights are proposed to be mounted approximately 1’ above stair treads on every third stair.
And, the applicant proposes freestanding pole lights of approximately 15’ in height. All of
the proposed lighting will add interest to the building façade and site (see also Attachment 10
for the location of the pole lights).
Note: It appears that one of the freestanding pole lights may be located too close to the south
side setback line – the applicant may want to consider moving this light further away from
the south property line, or possibly dissolving this property line all together. In any event,
structures, including 15’ tall lights, must remain out of the setback area.
5.Streetscape:
The Edmonds Streetscape Study identifies SR-104 as an important key routes
through the City, and states that street trees could be planted along these corridors for
continuity. The Plan recommends the following large boulevard trees (page 123):
Liriodendron tulipifera / Tulip Tree
Cercidiphyllum japonicum / Katsura Tree
Quercus ruba / Red Oak
Page 6 of 7
Staff Report for ADB-2007-36
Valhalla Townhomes: “Phase I” of Mixed Use Project
It appears that the applicant has chosen 36 Acer Rubrum ‘Armstrong’ / Armstrong Red
Maple trees for their street tree (Attachment 10).
Note: Staff has added a condition that requires the street tree be one of the three varieties
listed in the Streetscape Plan (above).
G.
TechnicalReview:
G.
TechnicalReview:
The Engineering Division and the Fire, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments
have reviewed this application. No comments were received.
H.
PublicComment
H.:
PublicComment:
To date, no public comments have been received (with the exception of the SEPA comment
letter, Attachment 5).
I.
Recommendation
I.:
Recommendation:
APPROVE
Staff recommends that the Architectural Design Board the design of file number
ADB-2007-36
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 and obtain all necessary permits.
2.
A lot combination to dissolve the appropriate interior property lines is required.
3.
The applicant shall clearly prove that the tree retention standard outlined in ECDC
16.30.030.D is met.
4.
The applicant shall provide additional screening along the adjacent R-zoned properties (west)
by adding a 6’ fence along this property line and/or by increasing the size and/or number of
plantings provided on the Landscape Plan.
5.
The Landscape Plan shall be revised so that the street tree shall be one of the three varieties
listed in the Streetscape Plan.
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.
Project Description / LID Strategies
4.
ECDC 16.30: RM – Multiple Residential
5.
SEPA MDNS / Comment Letter from DOT
6.
Exterior Lighting Plan
7.
Site Plan (A1.1)
8.
Elevations (A3.1 – A3.3)
9.
Color Renderings
10.
Landscape Plan (L1)
Page 7 of 7