StaffReport_ADB-07-65.pdf
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
STAFF REPORT
October 17, 2007 Meeting
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO:
The Architectural Design Board
FROM:
__________________________________
Gina Coccia,Planner
DATE:
October 10, 2007
ADB-2007-65
Application by Rick Anderson on behalf of Avaré Homes for the design review
of a new seven unit townhouse project (“Hanbury Square”) consisting of a
th
triplex and a fourplex at 8806 236 Street SW in the Multiple Residential (RM-
1.5) zone.
A.
PropertyOwner:Applicant:
Property Owner:Applicant:
Bruce Surber Rick Anderson, AIA
Avaré Homes 935 Daley Street
th
10900 NE 8 Street – Suite 900 Edmonds WA 98020
Bellevue WA 98004
th
B.:
8806 238 Street SW, located in the Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) zone
SiteLocation
Site Location
(Attachment 2).
C.
Introduction:
Introduction:
The applicant is proposing to construct seven dwelling units in two buildings, a triplex and a
fourplex. Later, the applicant would like to propose a “townhouse subdivision.” The following is
staff’s analysis of the project.
D.
Overview:
Overview:
Zoning:
1. This parcel is located in the Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) zone (Attachment 2) and
is subject to the requirements of ECDC 16.30 (Multiple Residential).
2.view:
Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is
Environmental Re
required if the proposed project will contain five or more dwelling units. The applicant
turned in an Environmental (SEPA) Checklist and staff issued a Determination of
Nonsignificance (DNS) on September 12, 2007 (Attachment 3). No comments or appeals
were received. Both the City and the applicant have complied with SEPA requirements.
According to file number CRA-2007-50, slopes exist on or adjacent to this property (a study
will be required). Slopes of 29-32% (erosion hazard) and slopes of 40-58% (landslide
hazard) were noted towards the southern portion of the property. For this project, ECDC
23.40 and ECDC 23.80 will require the Applicant to submit a geotechnical report with the
building permit. See sheet A1.2 (Attachment 5) for a representation of the slope.
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 20.11 (General Design Review) ECDC 20.13 (Landscaping), and
with the Urban Design (General Objectives) found in the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Staff Report for ADB-2007-65
th
Hanbury Square: 7 townhouse units at 8806 236 Street SW
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).
ECDC 16.30 (Multiple Residential) Zones
1.
a.
The improvements are proposed on property with a multiple residential zoning
designation (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 footprints shown
appear to be approximately 4,227 square feet, which is about 35%; 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 – refer to sheet A1.1. The roof
shows pitches of 4/12, 6/12, and even 12/12 in places. 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-1.5 zone, the minimum lot area per dwelling unit is 1,500 square feet. This
parcel is approximately 11,856 square feet in area. This results in a maximum density of
seven (7.9) dwelling units. This project proposes seven dwelling units and meets the
underlying density for the zone.
e.
The table below shows the required setbacks for structures in the RM-1.5 zone.
Street
RearSideSide
RM-1.5
th
236 Street SW
(South)(East)(West)
Zone
(North)
Required
15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Setbacks
Proposed
15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Setbacks
f.
ECDC 16.30.040.C.2 states “uncovered and unenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks
may project into a required setback not more than one-third of the required setback, or
four feet, whichever is less; provided that they are no more than 30 inches above the
ground level at any point.” All proposed porches and decks will need to meet the above
setback requirements, which will be confirmed with the building permit review.
It appears that the project intends to meet the minimum setback requirements for the
zone.
Page 2 of 5
Staff Report for ADB-2007-65
th
Hanbury Square: 7 townhouse units at 8806 236 Street SW
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 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.
Preliminary floor plans indicate that there will be seven 2-bedroom units, which yields 13
parking spaces required.
c.
The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan is 11 in the garage and three surface
(possibly guest parking?) spaces towards the rear of the site. With 14 spaces, this project
appears to 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.
d.
A memo from the Engineering Division (Attachment 4) notes that the three surface
parking spaces in the rear will likely have to be reconfigured to meet code due to the
onsite turnaround required; however, this will be reviewed with the building permit
application.
3.ECDC 20.11 (General Design Review):
Properties to the west and south have the same multiple residential zoning designations, and
the sites across the street to the north are located in unincorporated Snohomish County. The
properties to the east are zoned single-family residential (RS-8) – this project makes a good
th
transition between Edmonds Way (SR-104) and the single-family neighborhood up 236
Street SW for the following reasons: The walls are not blank, several windows of various
sizes are applied. Several building materials are used, including cedar shakes, cedar bands,
cedar trim, cedar corner boards, board & batton siding, and brick. The roofline is varied and
uses different pitches, which adds interest. Both single and double garage doors are used.
ECDC 20.13 (Landscaping Requirements):
4.
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 noted on the
landscape plan, and it will be reviewed with the building permit.
th
The City’s Streetscape Plan does not indicate any required street trees for this site (236
Street SW is not considered a “key route”).
5.ECDC 21.100.040 (Townhouse):
a.
The Edmonds Community Development Code provides the definition of townhouse. If
the applicant choose to apply for a “townhouse subdivision” in the future, it would be
necessary that the proposal met the definition of “townhouse” pursuant to ECDC
21.100.040.
Page 3 of 5
Staff Report for ADB-2007-65
th
Hanbury Square: 7 townhouse units at 8806 236 Street SW
b.
In the following ways, it appears that the proposal meets the definition of “townhouse: It
does not appear that any of the dwelling units overlap each other vertically; There are
common sidewalls joining the units; There are not more than six dwelling units in one
structure: The project consists of two buildings – one with four dwelling units and one
with three dwelling units; The project was designed so that it meets the 45% lot coverage
requirement for the zone; and the project was designed to meet the underlying density for
the zone.
c.
The building permit review will confirm that the proposal meets the definition of
townhouse.
d.
If the applicant wanted to subdivied the property in the future as a “townhouse
subdivision” they would make an applicatio to the Planning Division for a Formal Plat.
F.
ComprehensivePlanCompliance:
F.
Comprehensive Plan Compliance:
The following is staff’s analysis on the project’s compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Location:
1. The existing Comprehensive Plan designation is “Edmonds Way Corridor.” This
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. 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.Goals for the Edmonds Way Corridor:
F.4. Use design review to ensure that development provides a transition to adjacent
residential neighborhoods. For uses in transitional areas adjacent to single family
neighborhoods, use design techniques such as modulation of facades, pitches roofs,
stepped-down building heights, multiple buildings, and landscaping to provide
designs compatible with single-family development. Make use of natural topography
to buffer incompatible development whenever possible.
As mentioned earlier, this project provides a good transition between the adjacent residential
neighborhood and Edmonds Way to the west. Instead of building one building, the applicant
proposes breaking up the mass over two buildings. The Applicant has used varied roof pitch,
varied building materials, and modulation to further break up the mass of the proposal.
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.”
th
Vehicular access is taken from the north from 236 Street SW. The garages face each other
and the Landscape Plan (Attachment 8) proposes bamboo around the east and west sides
which should help screen the buildings from the adjacent properties. Each unit will have
individual garbage bins, so no dumpster is needed.
Page 4 of 5
Staff Report for ADB-2007-65
th
Hanbury Square: 7 townhouse units at 8806 236 Street SW
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.”
There are no known views in the vicinity. Height and modulation appear to be taken into
consideration. The elevations appear consistent with the surrounding development.
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.”
As mentioned earlier, the project makes use of many interesting building materials. Staff has
no recommendations on ways to enhance the proposed building façade.
G.
TechnicalReview:
G.
Technical Review:
The Engineering Division and the Fire, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments
have reviewed this application. The Engineering Program Manager submitted a memo with two
comments (Attachment 4). First, a Preliminary Drainage Plan was requested. However, this
request was not received in a timely manner, so t the Applicant has not turned in the plans. In any
event, a drainage plan will be required and reviewed with the building permit application. Also
noted, the three surface parking spaces in the rear may need to be altered in order to provide
adequate turnaround. Engineering will review this with the building permit application.
H.
PublicComment:
H.
Public Comment:
To date, no public comments have been received.
I.
Recommendation:
I.
Recommendation:
APPROVE
Staff recommends that the Architectural Design Board the design of file number
ADB-2007-65
with the following condition:
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.
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.
J.
Attachments:
J.
Attachments:
1.
Land Use Application
2.
Vicinity/Zoning Map
3.
SEPA DNS
4.
Memo from the Engineering Program Manager
5.
Site Plans (A0.1, A1.1 A1.2, A1.3)
6.
Floor Plans (A2.1, A2.2, A2.3, A2.4, A2.5, A2.6)
7.
Elevations and Site Section (color renderings, A3.1, A3.2, A3.3, A4.1)
8.
Landscape Plan (L1.1)
Page 5 of 5