StaffReport_ADB-2007-6.doc
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
STAFF REPORT
April 18, 2007 Special Meeting
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO:
The Architectural Design Board
FROM:
__________________________________
Gina Coccia, Planner
DATE:
April 11, 2007
ADB-2007-6 Architectural Design Board application by Architect Ronald D. Johnson
representing the Edmonds Open Bible for the construction of three additional
dwelling units (four total) located at 658 Daley Street in the Multiple
Residential (RM-1.5) zone.
A.
Property Owner:Contact Person/Applicant:
Property Owner:Contact Person/Applicant:
William Clemons Ronald D. Johnson
Edmonds Open Bible Ronal D. Johnson Architects
rd
657 Daley Street 19601 23 Avenue NW
Edmonds WA 98020 Shoreline WA 98177
B. :
658 Daley Street in the Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) zone (Attachment 2).
Site Location
Site Location
C.
Introduction:
Introduction:
The applicant is proposing to construct three new dwelling units on a site with one existing
dwelling unit (the result is two duplex buildings). The property is zoned Multiple Residential
(RM-1.5) and has one existing house that was built in 1928 according to the County’s records
(see photo below). Originally, this project was
intended to only encompass this single 60’ x 110’
6,600 square foot parcel. This would yield a
maximum of four dwelling units. However, it soon
became apparent that the new building was
proposed too close to the western property line.
The property to the west is an existing parking lot
that is owned and used by the Edmonds Open
Bible Church that is located across the street to the
north. The parking lot is a parcel that is 90’ x
110’. The applicant has stated that the preferred
Existing
solution to the setback problem is to file a “lot
combination” application with the City of Edmonds to combine the adjacent parking lot parcel
with this site. If the lot combination is not applied for and approved, then another solution would
be needed (either re-designing the project to meet the western setback requirement, or applying
for and obtaining approval for a setback variance). At this point, it is assumed that the lots will
be combined. This new lot would be 16,500 square feet (150’ x 110’) and the maximum number
of dwelling units would be eleven – however, only four dwelling units are requested.
Staff Report for ADB-2007-6
Edmonds Open Bible
It is clear that the applicant designed the proposal based on the development standards in place
for the existing 6,600 square foot parcel. If the lots are combined (as intended) then the parking
lot layout is not intended to change so no improvements to this area are proposed at this time.
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 both the corner parcel at 658 Daley Street and
also the adjacent parking lot to the west, which are to be eventually combined into one parcel.
Attachment 4 is the Landscape Plan, which shows the retention of some of the existing trees.
Attachment 5 depicts the elevation views, which show how the applicant has tried to achieve the
desired design elements. Attachment 6 is language from the Comprehensive Plan regarding
Design Objectives. Finally, attachment 7 shows the colors that the applicant proposes for this
project.
The following is staff’s analysis on the project.
D.
Overview:
Overview:
1. Zoning:
This site 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. Environmental Review:
The proposal is exempt from review under the Sate Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA). Therefore, both the City and the applicant have complied with the SEPA
requirements.
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 (Attachment 6).
E.
:
Edmonds Community Development Code Compliance
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-1.5). The site consists of two tax parcels, the site with the existing
house and the site with the adjacent parking lot that serves the church across the street,
but together they act as one whole site. In order for them to be considered one site and in
order to take advantage of the parking area, a lot combination would be required prior to
building permit issuance in order to dissolve the interior property line.
b. If the lots are combined, then the total lot area will be 16,500 square feet, which yields a
maximum of eleven dwelling units. If the lots are not combined, then the total lot area
will be 6,600 square feet, which yields a maximum of four dwelling units. In any event,
the applicant is proposing four dwelling units, which meets the underlying density for the
zone (RM-1.5).
c. The maximum lot coverage in multiple residential zones is 45% of the total lot area, and
this site has a lot area of 16,500 square feet. 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 2,858 square feet, which is
approximately 17% lot coverage, and would meet this development standard. If the lot is
not combined, then the lot coverage would be about 43% (still appears to meet code).
Page 2 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2007-6
Edmonds Open Bible
d. The maximum height in multiple residential zones is 25 feet, however, “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.” It appears that the
project will meet the additional 5’ height bonus, however it is unknown if any portion of
the roof over the 25’ limit is flat. No portion of the roof over the 25’ limit shall be flat,
unless a variance is first approved. The elevations (Attachment 5) show the new roof at
both a 12/8 and 12/5.5 pitch and it appears to be designed to meet the 30’ height limit
(although this will be confirmed through building permit review). The plans show that
the proposed buildings are 29.9’ and 30’ (although this will be confirmed through
building permit review).
e. The table below shows the required setbacks for structures in the RM-1.5 zone. This site
is considered a “corner lot” which means that it has two street setbacks and two side
setbacks.
th
Daley Street 7 Avenue North Side Side
RM-2.4
(North) (East) (West) (South)
Zone
Required
15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Setbacks
Proposed
15 feet 15 feet 92 feet* 20 feet
Setbacks
(to new)
*This is assuming that the lots will be ‘combined’ in the future, prior to building permit
issuance. If they are not combined, then the project is approximately 2’ from the west
property and the project would need to be redesigned to meet the minimum 10’ side
setback (or a variance would need to be approved).
2. ECDC 17.50 (Parking):
a. Multiple residential parking requirements are based upon the number of bedrooms per
dwelling unit, pursuant to ECDC 17.50.020.A.b (see table below):
Type of multiple dwelling unit Required parking spaces per dwelling unit
Studio 1.2
1 bedroom 1.5
2 bedrooms 1.8
3 or more bedrooms 2.0
b. The number of bedrooms per dwelling unit is unknown, so a conservative estimate would
be that for four dwelling units, eight parking spaces would be required.
c. The site plan (Attachment 3) shows that two 8.5’x19’ parking stalls within the garage are
provided for each dwelling unit (eight parking spaces total).
Page 3 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2007-6
Edmonds Open Bible
3. ECDC 20.12 (Landscaping Requirements):
a. There are several existing trees onsite that the applicant intends to keep (Attachment 4).
b. The designated street tree for Daley Street is Ginko biloba ‘Princeton Sentry’ / P.S.
th
Maidenhair Tree and the designated street tree for 7 Avenue North is Fraxinus
pennsylvanica ‘Urbanite’ / Urbanite Ash. Neither of these street trees are shown on the
Landscape Plan. Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020.K and L, street trees must be planted
according to the city’s street tree plan and should be installed within four feet of either
side of the property line.
The ADB may want to add a condition that requires the applicant to provide street trees
as required by the City’s Street Tree Plan.
c. Pursuant to ECDC 20.12.020.C, existing vegetation that contributes to the attractiveness
of the site is proposed to remain. However, the landscaping shown on the eastern side of
the property appears to be a bit sparse.
Taking into consideration that the applicant is making use of an existing older building,
the ADB may want to discuss landscaping options with the applicant. Some landscaping
is provided, but no large shrubs are provided. Is sufficient coverage going to be
achieved? The ADB may want to add a condition that the applicant provide additional
plantings of Fragrant Sweet Box / ‘Sarcococca Ruscifolia’ in the eastern planting areas
to provide better coverage.
d. Screening is desired between the adjacent parking lot and the new buildings. The
elevations show windows along the western side of the buildings, which are attractive,
but privacy may be an issue.
The ADB may want to add a condition that requires the applicant to provide some form
of screening (a fence or taller shrubs) in order to achieve screening between the
residential use and the parking lot use.
F. Comprehensive Plan Compliance:
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/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 (Attachment 6). 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 4 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2007-6
Edmonds Open Bible
Garages are provided, so cars are not dominating the streetscape. The visual impact of the
th
garages is reduced on “Building 2” by orienting it to the south so it is not visible from 7
Avenue North (Attachment 5). The landscaping is being maintained and some new
additional landscaping is proposed for this site. The site contains ample lawn area on the
south and west sides of the site, and in this space outdoor interactions by the residents could
easily occur. A bench is shown on the site plan, which also provides a place for the residents
and their guests to interact. Many of the significant trees are slated to remain, which will
enhance the site with some mature vegetation.
Design Objective C.14 (page 77 of Attachment 6) is to reduce the harsh visual impact of
parking lots and cars, and suggests creating a visual barrier between different uses (the
residential use and the adjacent church parking lot). The west elevations show a mix of
medium and small shrubs along the western property line between the parking lot use and the
residential use. The ADB may want to discuss if this area serves as an effective screen or if
there are other options for the applicant. Staff’s only concern is that there are windows
along the western side of the building and privacy may be an issue for future residents.
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 height and shape of the existing roof is maintained and worked into the design of the
project. There is some modulation along the walls, which serves to break up the mass of the
building. Also, because the applicant chose to design two separate buildings and not one
large four-plex structure, the buildings appear less intrusive as shown on the cross section
elevation (Attachment 5). The roof was designed with different pitches, which adds visual
interest.
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 materials chosen are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and add visual
interest to the building (compare the elevations to the photo on page 1 of this staff report).
The colors chosen are neutral and not harsh. The cedar shingle siding is brown. The trim,
fascia, gable ends, and the board and batton siding will be painted a light neutral “crème.”
The applicant proposes to add a cultured stone veneer called “Aspen Distressed Fieldstone”
which contributes to the dimension of the façade. The windows are double paned white
vinyl, and the roof is 30-year composition called charcoal “Timberline.” (Attachment 7).
G. Technical Review:
G. Technical Review:
The Engineering Division and the Fire, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments
have reviewed this application and no comments regarding the design of the proposal were
received.
H. Public Comment:
H. Public Comment:
To date, no public comments have been received.
Page 5 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2007-6
Edmonds Open Bible
I. Recommendation:
I. Recommendation:
APPROVE
Staff recommends that the Architectural Design Board of the design of file number
ADB-2007-6
with the following conditions:
1.
Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes.
Specifically, the project must be designed so that it clearly remains out of the 10-foot
west side setback or that a lot combination (or variance) would need to be approved
prior to building permit issuance.
The Landscape Plan shall show additional plantings of Fragrant Sweet Box /
‘Sarcococca Ruscifolia’ in the eastern planting areas in order to provide better coverage.
The Landscape Plan shall show some form of screening (a fence or taller shrubs) in
order to achieve screening between the residential use and the parking lot use.
Specifically, the designated street trees must be included on the Landscape Plan. The
designated street tree for Daley Street is Ginko biloba ‘Princeton Sentry’ / P.S.
th
Maidenhair Tree and the designated street tree for 7 Avenue North is Fraxinus
pennsylvanica ‘Urbanite’ / Urbanite Ash.
2.
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
4.
Landscape Plan
5.
Elevations
6.
Comprehensive Plan – Urban Design: General Objectives (pp. 73-81)
7.
Color Samples
Page 6 of 6