StaffReport_ADB-07-64.pdf
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
STAFF REPORT
January 2, 2008 Meeting
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO:
The Architectural Design Board
FROM:
__________________________________
Gina Coccia, Planner
DATE:
December 26,2007
ADB-2007-64
Application by Joe Molina of Taylor Gregory Butterfield Architects, representing
Vincent Borcich, for a new three unit multi-family building (including over 500 cubic
yards of excavation) located at 527 Maple Street in the Multiple Residential (RM-1.5)
zone.
A.
PropertyOwner:Applicant:
Property Owner:Applicant:
Vincent Borcich Joe Molina / Taylor Gregory Butterfield Architects
th
PO Box 1403 21911 76 Avenue West – Suite 210
Edmonds WA 98020 Edmonds WA 98026
B.:
SiteLocation 527 Maple Street, located in the Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) zone (Exhibit 2).
Site Location
C.
Introduction:
Introduction:
The applicant is proposing to construct three new dwelling units on a
5,500 square foot site. The applicant proposes a new driveway off of
Maple Street which will accommodate three parking spaces, and the
current alley access will also be used for the remaining three parking
spaces. The property is currently developed with one single-family
house that was built in 1907 according to the Snohomish County
Assessor’s records. The following is staff’s analysis on the project.
Existing
D.
Overview:
Overview:
1.Zoning:
This parcel is located in the Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) zone (Exhibit 2) and subject to the
requirements of ECDC 16.30 (Multiple Residential).
Environmental Review:
Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is required if the
grading is anticipated to exceed 500 cubic yards of either cut or fill. The project proposes to cut
approximately 1,000 cubic yards of material. The applicant turned in an Environmental (SEPA)
Checklist and staff issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on December 7, 2007 (Exhibit
5). No comments or appeals were received. Both the City and the applicant have complied with SEPA
requirements.
No critical areas were found on or adjacent to the subject site (file CRA-2007-0110). Therefore, a
“waiver” from critical area report requirements (ECDC 23.40) was issued.
2.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
20.11 (General Design Review) ECDC 20.13 (Landscaping), and with the Urban Design (General
Objectives) found in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Exhibit 1
ADB-07-64
Staff Report for ADB-2007-64
Borcich: 527 Maple Street
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.
Density:
The improvements are proposed on property with a multiple residential zoning
designation (RM-1.5). The size of the property is 5,500 square feet, which yields a maximum
density of three (3.6) dwelling units.
b.
Coverage:
The maximum lot coverage in multiple residential zones is 45% of the total lot area.
The site plan and floor plan shows the building footprint at around 2295 square feet, which is
about 42% lot coverage.
c.
Height:
Preliminary height calculations and a height rectangle were not provided on the site plan,
however, it appears that the applicant has attempted to stay at or just under the maximum height
limit by utilizing a 4/12 pitched roof to obtain an additional five feet above the stated height limit
(Exhibit 11). The existing site plan (Exhibit 7) shows the original grade contours, and the site
section (Exhibit 9) shows that the applicant is aware of height limit. Height calculations are
required with the building permit application. The applicant must demonstrate that the project
.
remains under the height limit based upon the (average) original grade. ECDC2140.030.C.3
explains that, “Elevator penthouses, not to exceed 72 square feet in horizontal section, or three feet
in height, for that portion above the height limit” are permitted to extend above the height limit.
The approximate size of the elevator penthouse is 71.25 square feet (9.5 x 7.5).
d.
Setbacks:
The table below shows the required setbacks for structures in the RM-1.5 zone.
Street
RM-1.5
RearSideSide
Maple Street
Zone
(North) (East)(West)
(South)
Required
15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Setbacks
Proposed
18 feet 18 feet 10.25 feet 10.16 feet
Setbacks
1
It appears that the project intends to meet the minimum setback requirements for the zone. This
is best expressed on not only the site plan (Exhibit 8) but also the site section (Exhibit 9)
2.ECDC 17.50 (Parking):
Multifamily parking requirements are based upon the
Type of multiple Required parking spaces
number of dwelling units and the number of bedrooms
dwelling unit per dwelling unit
per dwelling unit, pursuant to ECDC 17.50.020.A.1.b
Studio1.2
(see table inset at right). The plans indicate that there
will be one two-bedroom unit and two three-bedroom
1 bedroom 1.5
units, which yields six (5.8) required parking spaces.
2 bedrooms 1.8
The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan is
six, which meets the minimum parking requirements. 3 or more bedrooms 2.0
3.ECDC 20.11 (General Design Review):
This application is subject to General Design Review under ECDC 20.11. All adjacent properties
have the same multiple-residential zoning designation. Properties further north and west have a
“Downtown Business” (BD1) zoning designation (Exhibit 2). The block is developed with a mix of
multi-family houses, with a church up the street to the east and commercial down the street to the
west.
1
30 inches of eaves are shown to project into the east and west setbacks, which is allowed under ECDC 16.30.040.C.1.
Page 2 of 5
Staff Report for ADB-2007-64
Borcich: 527 Maple Street
4.ECDC 20.13 (Landscaping Requirements):
The landscaping provided seems to be minimal for this site in bulk and scale with grasses and ferns,
a few ornamental Japanese maple trees, and a new hydroseeded lawn. A few cedar trees (8-12”)
and a hawthorne tree (12”) were removed and replaced with a few ornamental trees. The existing
landscaping is consistent with a typical single-family home. In the general design standards,
ECDC 20.13.020.P states, “species approved within a landscape plan shall have a growth pattern
in scale with the development and be consistent with the preservation of significant views and
height limit for the zoning district.” The landscaping shown is low growing and should preserve
any significant views. The City’s Streetscape Plan does not indicate a street tree for Maple Street.
Note:The ADB may want to discuss ways to enhance the landscaping along the east and west
sides of the property; however, it is clear that there is only about ten feet available on each side.
Note:The applicant may want to provide some information on the proposed trash enclosure –
what fencing materials are proposed? Would it be a six-foot cedar fence which would match the
rest of the site?
Note:The landscape plan (Exhibit 10) shows a “water feature” – the applicant may want to
provide some information on this item.
F.
ComprehensivePlanCompliance:
F.
Comprehensive Plan Compliance:
The following is staff’s analysis on the project’s compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
1.General Comprehensive Plan Goals:
B.1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural
lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community
identity and desirability. (Comprehensive Plan, page 53)
The architectural lines in the neighborhood are quite varied, because the structures were built over the
last 100 years.
C.2.c.i. The nonstructural elements of the building (such as desks, lights, rails, doors, windows and
window easements, materials, textures and colors) should be coordinated to carry out a
unified design concept. (Comprehensive Plan, page 55)
The project appears to maintain a unified design concept.
2.Location:
The Comprehensive Plan designation is “Multifamily – High Density” and “Downtown
Waterfront Activity Center.” This area is discussed in the Comprehensive Plan’s Land Use Element’s
downtown design objectives (pages 38-42) 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.
3.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.”
Access will be taken from both the alley to the north and they are proposing a new curb cut for new
access off of Maple Street. The site is zoned for multi-family use (3 units maximum density) and the
applicant has designed a project to both try to meet the development standards in ECDC 16.30 and the
design objectives in the Comprehensive Plan. Pedestrians will be able to access the site from Maple
Street and walk along the eastern property line to gain access to the building via a stairwell (there is
also an elevator for the residents). Pedestrians will be walking in the setback area, but will have 30
inches of eaves overhead, which will offer some weather protection. The site section (Exhibit 9) and
Page 3 of 5
Staff Report for ADB-2007-64
Borcich: 527 Maple Street
the color renderings (Exhibit 14) show a retaining wall and a change of elevation separating this
walkway from the property to the east, which should minimize impacts caused by the residents and
their guests.
4.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.”
This building is cut into the slope, which should minimize any encroachment on views while still being
able to develop building envelope to comply with the development standards in ECDC 16.30.
5.
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 project makes use of many interesting building materials, including exposed timbers, metal panels,
and vertical cedar siding. The applicant has stated that the color scheme has a “fall/winter appeal.”
Goal E.1.e (page 78) states, “create individual identity of buildings,” and this building is unique and
most certainly has its own identity. The building materials chosen help create the building’s style.
The least interesting building façade is the north elevation.
G.
TechnicalReview:
G.
Technical Review:
The Engineering Division and the Fire, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments have
reviewed this application.
The Fire Marshal submitted a letter (Exhibit 4) reminding the applicant that a new fire hydrant will be
required.
The Engineering Program Manager requested a preliminary storm drainage plan. The applicant submitted
said documentation (Exhibit 6), which will be reviewed with the building permit application by the
Engineering Division for code compliance.
H.
PublicComment:
H.
Public Comment:
No public comments have been received to date.
I.
Recommendation:
I.
Recommendation:
APPROVE
Staff recommends that the Architectural Design Board the design of file number
ADB-2007-64
with the following conditions:
1.
Increase the landscaping materials along the east and western property lines.
2.
The project shall provide a new fire hydrant as required by the Fire Marshal.
3.
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.
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 20.11 – General
Design Review, and ECDC Chapter 20.13 – Landscaping, and staff has found the proposal meets the
requirements of the zoning ordinance.
Page 4 of 5
Staff Report for ADB-2007-64
Borcich: 527 Maple Street
J.
J.Exhibits:
Exhibits:
1.
Staff Report
2.
Vicinity/Zoning Map
3.
Land Use Application
4.
Memo from the Fire Marshal
5.
SEPA Determination
6.
Preliminary Drainage Report
7.
Existing Site Plan
8.
Proposed Site Plan
9.
Site Section
10.
Landscape Plan
11.
Elevations
12.
Floor Plans
13.
Electrical Fixture Schedule
14.
Color Perspectives
Page 5 of 5