StaffReport_ADB-07-61.pdf
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
STAFF REPORT
September 19, 2007 Meeting
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO:
The Architectural Design Board
FROM:
__________________________________
Gina Coccia,Planner
DATE:
September 12, 2007
ADB-2007-61
Application by Michel Construction for three new four-unit multi-family
buildings located at 546 Paradise Lane in the Multiple Residential (RM-2.4)
zone.
A.
PropertyOwner:Applicant:
Property Owner:Applicant:
Michel Construction, Inc.
Scott Schlumberger / Dwight McGrew
th
7907 212 Street SW #102 Michel Construction, Inc.
th
Edmonds WA 98026 7907 212 Street SW #102
Edmonds WA 98026
B.:
SiteLocation 546 Paradise Lane, located in the Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) zone
Site Location
(Attachment 2).
C.
Introduction:
Introduction:
The applicant is proposing to construct three new buildings, each containing four dwelling units.
This site was recently rezoned from RS-6 to RM-2.4.
The following is staff’s analysis of the project.
D.
Overview:
Overview:
1.Zoning:
This parcel is located in the Multiple Residential (RM-2.4) zone (Attachment 2) and
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 applicant
turned in a project-specific Environmental (SEPA) Checklist with the rezone application, and
staff issued a SEPA Addendum on September 11, 2007 (Attachment 3) that takes into
account a reduction in grading and the configuration of the buildings (originally with the
rezone documents, the applicant had anticipated building one large twelve unit building with
about 5000 cubic yards of grading). A Mitigated Determination of Non Significance
(MDNS) was originally issued on February 24, 2007 and no comments or appeals were
received. 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 under file number CRA-2004-14.
Staff Report for ADB-2007-61
Michel Construction: 12 units at 546 Paradise Lane
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 (Design Review), ECDC 20.11 (General Design Review)
ECDC 20.13 (Landscaping), 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).
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 footprints shown
appear to be well under the maximum lot coverage; however, this will be confirmed
through building permit review, which requires the applicant to provide a breakdown of
lot coverage.
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.
d.
In the RM-2.4 zone, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 2,400 square feet. The
Snohomish County Assessor’s website indicates that this parcel is 0.91 acres, which is
approximately 39,639 square feet in area. This results in a maximum density of 16
dwelling units. This project proposes 12 dwelling units and meets the underlying density
for the zone.
e.
The table below shows the required setbacks for structures in the RM-2.4 zone.
StreetStreet
SideSide
RM-2.4
Paradise Lane Edmonds Way
(East)(South)
Zone
(North)(West)
Required
15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Setbacks
Proposed
15 feet 15.30 feet 29.5 feet ~ 27 feet
Setbacks
It appears that the project meets the minimum setback requirements for the zone.
Page 2 of 5
Staff Report for ADB-2007-61
Michel Construction: 12 units at 546 Paradise Lane
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 2-bedroom units and eight 3-bedroom units, which yields 23 (23.2)
parking spaces required.
c.
The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan is 24 (Attachment 7).
d.
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.
3.ECDC 20.13 (Landscaping Requirements):
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.” Automatic irrigation is required, and it will
be reviewed with the building permit.
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 Medium Density”
and it is located in the “Westgate Corridor.” 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.
The outdoor lighting chosen has a honey opalescence glass shade and the body is brass
(Attachment 6). Instead of one large twelve unit building as originally planned, the applicant
has broken up the site into three smaller buildings. Access will be taken from Paradise Lane
along three driveways. Attachments 4 and 5 discuss the tight turn-around and inadequate
drive aisle width for two-way traffic.
Page 3 of 5
Staff Report for ADB-2007-61
Michel Construction: 12 units at 546 Paradise Lane
Note:The ADB and the applicant may want to spend some time discussing some ways that
the project can achieve Engineering Division requirements and also provide landscaping to
meet the intent of ECDC 20.13.
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.
The decks, overhang, modulation, and variation of materials help break up the mass of each
building. There are a good amount of windows, enough to provide adequate natural lighting.
It appears that these buildings were oriented so that they can take advantage of westward
views towards the mountains and Puget Sound.
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. The roof is a 30-year black
composition. The siding is taupe and cedar shingles with a clear finish are applied.
G.
TechnicalReview
G.:
TechnicalReview:
The Engineering Division and the Fire, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments
have reviewed this application.
The Recycling Coordinator indicated that the trash enclosure will need to be widened to meet
code, and that there may be access issues for the trucks (tight curves for back-in).
The Fire Marshall submitted a memo (Attachment 4). The concern raised was adequate turn-
around area in relation to the landscaping provided. He reserved his technical comments for the
building permit review stage.
The Engineering Program Manager submitted a memo (Attachment 5). The concern raised was
that in a few places on the site plan (Attachment 7) the two-way drive aisles have been reduced to
less than 24 feet in width. She explains that the required drive aisle width for two-way traffic is
24 feet. She also noted that 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. This will be reviewed with the building permit submittal.
H.
PublicComment:
H.:
PublicComment
To date, no public comments have been received.
Page 4 of 5
Staff Report for ADB-2007-61
Michel Construction: 12 units at 546 Paradise Lane
I.
Recommendation:
I.:
Recommendation
APPROVE
Staff recommends that the Architectural Design Board the design of file number
ADB-2007-61
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.
The trash enclosure shall be constructed to meet the minimum dimensions required by the
code (see City of Edmonds handout #E37 for details).
3.
The applicant shall revise the site plan to meet the minimum 24-foot drive aisle width
dimension to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division and the Fire Department, which will
be reviewed with the building permit.
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 – Design Review, ECDC 20.11 – General Design Review, and ECDC Chapter 20.13
– 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.
SEPA Addendum
4.
Memos from the Fire Marshall
5.
Memo from the Engineering Program Manager
6.
Exterior Lighting
7.
Plot Plan (P1-P2)
8.
Landscape Plan (L1.1-L1.2)
9.
Elevations (A1.1, A1.2, A1.3, A1.4, A1.5, A1.6)
Page 5 of 5