Loading...
StaffReport-2 ADB-07-67.pdf ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD STAFF REPORT November 7, 2007 Meeting PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS “PUBLIC HEARING: PHASE II” TO: The Architectural Design Board FROM: __________________________________ Mike Clugston, Planner DATE: October 31, 2007 Application by Ralph Allen of Grace Architects, representing Bob Gregg and ADB-2007-67 th Ed and Barbara Lee, for “Phase II” of Old Milltown located at 201 5 Avenue South. The project is located in the Downtown Retail Core (BD1) zone. This is considered “Phase II” of the public hearing. A. Property Owner: Applicants: Property Owner:Applicants: Gregg Production Associates Bob Gregg Ed and Barbara Lee 51 Dayton St. 51 Dayton St. The Hotel Group Suite 304 Suite 304 110 James St., Suite 102 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 B. Site Location: Site Location th 201 5 Avenue South (ID: 00434212100100). On the site sits the redeveloped Old Milltown th building on the southeast corner of 5 Avenue South and Dayton Street (Attachment 1). C. Introduction: Introduction: This proposal is described as “Phase II” of the Old Milltown project. The project calls for the addition of a partial third floor for the Old Milltown building at Fifth and Dayton consisting of three residential units comprising approximately 11,500 square feet as well as landscaping and an outdoor sitting area. The three existing storefronts to the east of the main building on Dayton Street will also be renovated. Six parking spaces are proposed. The first phase of Old Milltown was reviewed and approved by the Architectural Design Board earlier in 2007 (ADB20070002). Phase I consisted of ground-floor retail space and second floor office space. That portion of the project has received building permits and construction is underway. The subject site is in the Downtown Retail Core (BD1) zone, which requires District Based Design Review. Because the project triggers the SEPA threshold, it is reviewed as part of a two- phase public hearing process before the Architectural Design Board. The ADB held Phase I of th the public hearing on October 3, 2007 and continued the public hearing to November 7 to allow the applicant to revise and resubmit their plans. The ADB will review the design of the project and at the conclusion of Phase II of the public hearing, make the final decision. If/when approved by the ADB, the applicant would later submit a building permit application for the project and development standards (such as height) would again be reviewed by staff at that point. The following is staff’s analysis of the project. Staff Report for ADB-2007-67 (Public Hearing – “Phase II”) Old Milltown Phase II D. Overview: Overview: 1.Zoning: This parcel is located in the Downtown Retail Core (BD1) zone and is subject to the requirements of ECDC 16.43 (Downtown Business). Prior to January 16, 2007, the subject parcel was zoned Community Business (BC). The first and second floor renovation of Old rd Milltown was reviewed and approved using the BC requirements. The proposed 3 floor addition and renovation of the Upper Dayton storefronts are reviewed entirely using BD1 criteria. 2.view: Review of the project under the State Environmental Policy Act Environmental Re (SEPA) was required. The applicant submitted an Environmental Checklist and staff will issue a determination at the same time the ADB recommendations are published in synopsis form. 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 ZONING ORDINANCE; that the proposal meets the relevant district-specific DESIGN OBJECTIVES contained in the Comprehensive Plan; and, that the proposal satisfies the specific DESIGN CRITERIA identified in the Design Guidelines Checklist by the ADB during Phase I of the public hearing (Attachments 11 & 2). 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). Development standards are again reviewed and confirmed with the building permit application. 1.ECDC 16.43 (Downtown Business) Zones a.Site Development Standards (ECDC 16.43.030.A). The improvements are proposed on property within the Downtown Retail Core (BD1) zone. The minimum height of the ground floor in the BD1 zone is 15 feet. “Minimum height of ground floor” means the vertical distance from top to top of the successive finished floor surfaces; and, if the ground floor is the only floor above street grade, from the top of the floor finish to the top of the ceiling joists or, where there is not a ceiling, to the top of the roof rafters. “Floor finish” is the exposed floor surface, including coverings applied over a finished floor, and includes, but is not limited to, wood, vinyl flooring, wall-to-wall carpet, and concrete as illustrated in Figure 16.43- 1. It appears that the applicant has taken this into consideration as the first Figure 16.43-1: Ground Floor Height floor of Phase I of the Old Milltown Measurement renovation is 15.125 feet (Attachment 9); however, this will be verified with the building permit review. th b.Ground Floor (16.43.030.B). The ground floor of the main structure at 5 and Dayton was previously approved for redevelopment under the BC zoning requirements. However, BD1 ground floor requirements do apply to the shops on the Upper Dayton Page 2 of 7 Staff Report for ADB-2007-67 (Public Hearing – “Phase II”) Old Milltown Phase II portion of the redevelopment. Per ECDC 16.43.030.B.3, first floor uses in the BD1 zone must be commercial. Entry must be directly from the sidewalk and the elevation of the ground floor and associated entry shall be within seven inches of the grade level of the adjoining sidewalk. Ground floor windows must also transparent and allow unobstructed view of the interior from the sidewalk. It appears that the applicant has taken this into consideration (Attachments 8-9); however, this will be verified with the building permit review. c.Building Height Regulations (16.43.030.C). Section 16.43.030.C.2.b states: “Within the BD1 zone, building height may be a maximum of 30 feet in order to provide for a minimum height of 15 for the ground floor. The allowable building height is measured from the “average level” as defined in ECDC 21.40.030. Certain architectural features are allowed to extend above the height limits. For example, according to ECDC 21.40.030.C, chimneys may exceed the height limit so long as they are no more than three feet above maximum height and not more than nine square feet in horizontal section. It appears that the applicant has taken these limits into consideration (Attachment 9); however, these measurements will be verified with the building permit review. d.Off-Street Parking and Access Requirements (16.43.030.D). No new parking spaces are required for the redevelopment of the commercial shops on Upper Dayton. However, the three residential dwellings proposed for the third floor do require additional parking per ECDC Chapter 17.50. Section 17.50.020.C.1 indicates that residential uses in a mixed use building in the Downtown Business Area shall only be required to provide parking at one stall per dwelling unit. The applicant has proposed six enclosed parking stalls, one of which is handicapped (Attachment 5). This requirement will be verified with the building permit review. e.Open Space Requirements (16.43.030.E). Per ECDC 16.43.030.E.1, open space shall not be required for additions to existing buildings that do not increase the building footprint by more than 10 percent. The addition of the third floor to Old Milltown does not increase the overall footprint of the building so the open space requirement is not applicable. f.Historic Buildings (16.43.030.F). The Old Milltown building is not listed on the Edmonds register of historic buildings, therefore this section is not applicable. g.Density (16.43.030.G). Three dwelling units are proposed on this site. Per ECDC 16.43.030.G, there is no maximum density for permitted multiple dwelling units. h.Screening (16.43.030.H). Pursuant to 16.43.030.A, the setbacks for parcels in the BD1 zone are zero. At the same time, the setback for buildings and structures located at or above grade in BD1 shall be 15 feet from the lot line adjacent to residentially zoned property. There is a multifamily parcel to the southeast of the subject parcel. However, the parcels are not adjacent; an alley separates the subject parcel from the multifamily parcel. As a result, the project meets the setback requirements and does not require further screening as described in this section. i.Signs, Parking and Design Review (16.43.030.I). No signs were part of this ADB application. Any proposed signage must meet the requirements in ECDC 20.60 for the BC zone. j.Satellite Television Antennas (16.43.030.J). No satellite television antennas were proposed with this project. Page 3 of 7 Staff Report for ADB-2007-67 (Public Hearing – “Phase II”) Old Milltown Phase II 2.ECDC 20.12 (District Based Design Review): The applicant has submitted the required materials for review for both phases of the public hearing process. Staff concludes that the project is consistent with ECDC 20.12. F.Comprehensive Plan Compliance: F.Comprehensive Plan Compliance: The following is staff’s analysis of the project’s compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 1.Location: The subject parcel is located within the Retail Core of the Downtown/Waterfront Activity Center. This area is discussed in the Land Use Element (pages 35) and also in the Downtown Design Objectives section (pages 38-42). It is the Architectural Design Board’s responsibility for ensuring compliance of the project with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has reviewed the pertinent sections of the Comprehensive Plan and documented findings below. Attachments 3 through 10 show the proposed details of the development and are referenced in the discussion that follows. 2.Goals for the Downtown Retail Core: “The area immediately surrounding the fountain at th 5 and Main and extending along Main Street and Firth Avenue is considered the historic center of Edmonds and building heights shall be pedestrian in scale and compatible with the historic character of this area. To encourage a vibrant downtown, first floor spaces should be designed with adequate ceiling height to accommodate a range of retail and commercial use and the entry situated at street level. Uses are encouraged to be retail-compatible (i.e. retail or compatible service – e.g. art galleries, restaurants real estate sale offices and similar uses that provide storefront window and items for safe to the public that can be viewed from the street). The street front façades of buildings must provide a high percentage of transparent window area and pedestrian weather protection along public sidewalks. Design guidelines should provide for pedestrian-scale design features, differentiating the lower, commercial floor from the upper floors of the building. Buildings situated around the fountain square must be orientated to the fountain and its associated pedestrian area.” (page 35). The Upper Dayton storefronts will continue to be first floor retail-compatible with street accessibility. The street level commercial is differentiated from the upper level residential by using varied materials and other treatments. The windows proposed would appear to offer similar ‘window shopping’ opportunities as what currently exists for the storefronts. 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” (page 38). Ten different objectives for site design are discussed in the Comprehensive Plan. Not every objective necessarily applies to every project at this stage of review. And, some objectives may be more important than others for a particular project. For example, no signage is proposed as part of this application. However, if signage is proposed in the future, it will be reviewed against the applicable design criteria with the building permit application. a.Vehicular Access and Parking. Six parking spaces in an enclosed parking garage will be provided for the residents of the three condominiums. Access to the garage will be gained from the existing alley above the southern portion of the Old Milltown site. No new curb cuts are proposed (Attachment 5). b.Pedestrian Access and Connections. Existing street-level access to the Upper Dayton Page 4 of 7 Staff Report for ADB-2007-67 (Public Hearing – “Phase II”) Old Milltown Phase II storefronts will be maintained. Existing sidewalks connect the Old Milltown area to the rest of downtown. There is an existing bus stop on Dayton Street adjacent to the building (Attachment 3). c.Building Entry Location. The existing entry to the storefronts on Dayton will be renovated and will be maintained at sidewalk grade. The entry to the condominiums is proposed to be from the south side of the building and is relatively less emphasized due to its private nature (Attachments 8-9). d.Building Setbacks. The BD1 zone allows for zero setbacks. However, the applicant has rd proposed to maintain the existing setback of the storefronts on Upper Dayton. The 3 floor condominiums also indicate varied setbacks (Attachment 6). rd e.Building/Site Identity. The proposed design of the 3 floor and renovated storefronts appears to avoid repetitive forms and massing while maintaining a pedestrian scale and referencing existing elements of Downtown (Attachments 8 & 10). Reusing the concrete columns and reapplying the timbers that were formerly on the interior of the building to the outside of the structure references the former uses of the building. f.Weather Protection. Two existing awnings will be removed from above the Upper Dayton storefronts. These will be replaced by two cornice structures over the windows and the overhanging bay window of the northeastern condominium residence above the storefront entrance (Attachments 3-6). As a result, pedestrians entering the building and ‘window shopping’ will still be protected from the elements. g.Lighting. Existing streetlights will continue to provide the bulk of lighting in the public spaces around Old Milltown. There are four small light fixtures above the existing storefront entrance and it is uncertain if they will be removed and, if so, how they will be replaced (Attachment 8). This information will be reviewed during the building permit application. h.Signage. None were proposed with this application. i.Site Utilities, Storage, Trash and Mechanical. As approved in Phase I of the Old Milltown project, the ramp between the buildings in the area located south of the curb cut on Dayton Street is the site of an enclosed mechanical equipment yard. This area is currently paved and is to be screened with a gate opening onto Dayton Street (Attachments 3-4). j.Art and Public Space. The existing street trees will be maintained in front of the Upper Dayton storefronts. The applicant is also proposing three new planter boxes in the streetscape adjacent to the storefronts. Planter boxes will also be used in the residential portion of the development (Attachments 4 & 8). 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” (page 40). Four objectives for building form are discussed in the Comprehensive Plan: rd a.Height. The proposed 3 floor does not appear to impact the generally two-story pedestrian-scale of the public streetscape, nor disrupt the street views of Puget Sound and mountain viewscape along Dayton Street (Attachments 8 & 10). Page 5 of 7 Staff Report for ADB-2007-67 (Public Hearing – “Phase II”) Old Milltown Phase II rd b.Massing. The residences are not massed on the 3 floor so as to overwhelm the existing building or the streetscape. The condominiums are setback from the property line throughout yet are tied to the existing building and Upper Dayton storefronts using a variety of materials and treatments (Attachments 8 & 10). c.Roof Modulation. The proposed shed roof is nearly flat on top of the residences. rd However, because the condominiums do not cover the entire 3 floor, there is space available for the roof top terrace, planters, railings, the sitting area and fireplace. Several stone chimneys serve to break up the roof line as well (Attachments 7-9). d.Wall Modulation. The storefronts on Upper Dayton are currently modulated and will rd remain so after redevelopment. The 3 floor proposes no long, unbroken forms and seems to be designed to allow more light and air into the building (Attachment 8). 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” (page 41). Four objectives for building form are discussed in the Comprehensive Plan: a.Façade Requirements. The renovated storefronts will be set off from the upper residential floor by using different materials and treatments. The planters on the residential level break up the façade but also echo the vegetation on the street. The proposed trellises also reference those that exist throughout Downtown (Attachments 8- 9). b.Window Variety and Articulation. The storefront windows will continue to allow ‘window shopping’ opportunities. The windows for the residences are necessarily designed for privacy but also for passive solar gain (Attachments 8-9). c.Building Façade Materials. A variety of materials are proposed throughout the project which will contribute to maintaining pedestrian scale as well as referencing the Downtown area (Attachment 8). d.Accents/Colors/Trim. The proposed materials appear to attempt to balance compatibility with the surrounding environment (planters, railings, exposed wood, trellising) with providing visual interest and individuality of the project (shed roof, exterior fireplace, stone chimneys). G.Design Guideline Checklist Compliance: G.Design Guideline Checklist Compliance: The ADB reviewed the Design Guidelines Checklist during “Phase I” of the public hearing (Attachment 11) . The applicant responded to the guidance given by the ADB and resubmitted a narrative (Attachment 2) describing how they feel the updated design meets the ADB criteria in addition to new plans (Attachments 3-10). Staff feels that the applicant has attempted to address the concerns of the ADB by implementing suggestions made during the Phase I review of the Design Guidelines Checklist. H.TechnicalReview: H.TechnicalReview: The Engineering Division and the Fire, Public Works, and Parks and Recreation Departments have reviewed this application. No comments were received. I.Parties of Record: I.Parties of Record: Eighteen people attended Phase I of the public hearing on October 3 (Attachment 12) and nine people provided public testimony at that meeting (Attachment 11). In addition, three people Page 6 of 7 Staff Report for ADB-2007-67 (Public Hearing – “Phase II”) Old Milltown Phase II submitted written comments (Attachments 13-15). Barbara Chase Elisabeth Larman 1105 Daley Place 801 Walnut Street Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Alan J. Doman th 959 8 Avenue South Edmonds, WA 98020 J.Recommendation: J.Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Architectural Design Board APPROVE the design of file number ADB-2007-67 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. The board finds that with this condition, the proposal is consistent with the ZONING ORDINANCE; the proposal meets the relevant district-specific DESIGN OBJECTIVES contained in the Comprehensive Plan; and, the proposal satisfies the specific DESIGN CRITERIA identified in the Design Guidelines Checklist by the ADB during Phase I of the public hearing. K.Attachments: K.Attachments: 1.Vicinity Map 2.Applicant’s Response to ADB Checklist Items 3.Site Plan/Utility Plan st 4.1 Level Floor Plan nd 5.2 Level Floor Plan rd 6.3 Level Floor Plan 7.Roof Level Plan 8.Building Renderings 9.Building Elevations 10.Massing Study 11.ADB “Phase I” Meeting Minutes 10/3/07 12.ADB “Phase I” Meeting sign-in sheet 10/3/07 13.Email Comment from Barbara Chase, 10/3/07 14.Comment Letter from Elizabeth Larman, 10/3/07 15.Comment Letter from Alan Doman, 10/10/07 Page 7 of 7