Loading...
StaffReport_ADB-06-22.doc ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD STAFF REPORT July 12, 2006 Meeting PLANNING DIVISION ADVISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO: The Architectural Design Board FROM: __________________________________ Gina Coccia, Project Planner DATE: July 5, 2006 ADB-2006-22 Application by WR & RW, LLC to add a 1,500 square foot second story office th addition (approximate) over an existing office building at 8311 212 Street SW in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. A. Property Owner/Applicant:Contact Person/Agent: Property Owner/Applicant:Contact Person/Agent: WR & RW, LLC Wendell Reed thth 8311 212 Street SW 8311 212 Street SW Edmonds WA 98026 Edmonds WA 98026 th B. : 8311 212Street SW (Attachment 1). Site Location Site Location C. Introduction: Introduction: The applicant is proposing to construct a second story office addition over an existing office th building at 8311 212 Street SW, and has already applied for the required building permit which is in review. The existing structure is a 1,867 square foot single story office building with a 378 square foot basement (used for storage) that was built in 1953 and later annexed into the City of Edmonds in 1958. The addition of 1,513 square feet would be comprised of six offices, a work room, a reception area, a deck, and a bathroom (Attachment 3). The property is located in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone and has a Comprehensive Plan designation of Neighborhood Commercial - and is located specifically in the Five Corners neighborhood. The site is approximately 9,750 square feet in area. D. Overview: Overview: 1. Zoning: Neighborhood Business (BN). 2. Environmental Review: The project is under the threshold that would require review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); therefore, both the City and the applicant have complied with the SEPA requirements for this project. Page 1 of 5 Staff Report for ADB-2006-22 WR & RW, LLC Second Story Office Addition 3. Issues: The applicant has addressed the City’s site development standards and requirements with their proposal. Setbacks and height will be confirmed through building permit review. 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 and 20.12 and also with the City’s Urban Design Guidelines. E. : Development Code & Comprehensive Plan Compliance Development Code & Comprehensive Plan Compliance The following is staff’s analysis on the project’s compliance with the Edmonds Community Development code (ECDC) and the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 1. ECDC 16.45 (BN Zone): a. Offices are a permitted primary use in the Neighborhood Business (BN) zone. b. The proposed use is for additional office space. c. The required setbacks for structures in the BN zone are shown in the table below. The proposed setbacks indicate that the building appears to meet this code requirement. South North East West th (212 (side) (side) BN RM-2.4 Street) Required Setbacks 0 feet 15 feet 20 feet 0 feet 0 feet Proposed Setbacks N/C 35.83 feet 43 feet 3.17 feet 27 feet d. The parcel adjacent to this site to the east and partially to the north is designated both BN and RM-2.4 (Residential Multi-Family). Pursuant to ECDC 16.45.020.A, a 15-foot setback is required from properties with a residential zoning designation. The site plan (Attachment 3) shows that the north property line is adjacent to both of these zones, and shows that the building addition is approximately 35.83 feet from the north property line, which meets the minimum setback requirements. e. ECDC 16.45.020.A states that the maximum floor area is 3 square feet per square feet of lot area. The lot area of this site is 9,750 square feet (Attachment 3). The maximum floor area for this site is 29,250 square feet. This project proposes a floor area of 3,758, which meets the floor area requirement. f. Pursuant to ECDC 16.45.020.A, the height limit of buildings in the BN zone is 25 feet. The height calculations submitted (Attachment 3) show that the building will be 24.75 feet. It appears that the proposed addition meets the height requirements; however, this will be confirmed with the building permit review. 2. ECDC 17.50 (Parking): a. The required number of parking spaces for offices is stated in ECDC 17.50.020.B.5: “Business and professional offices with on-site customer service: one space per 400 square feet.” b. The required number of parking spaces for offices not providing customer service is stated in ECDC 17.50.020.B.6: “Offices not providing on-site customer service: one space per 800 square feet.” Page 2 of 5 Staff Report for ADB-2006-22 WR & RW, LLC Second Story Office Addition c. The table below is an analysis of the parking on-site: Parking Tenant Use Required Parking Ratio Area Existing Office (first story) 1/400 1867 4.67 Office Addition (second 1/400 1513 3.78 story) Existing Basement (storage) 1/800 378 0.47 9 (8.92) Spaces Total Parking Required: 9 Spaces Shown Total Parking Provided: d. The project appears to meet the parking requirements. 3. Comprehensive Plan: a. The existing Comprehensive Plan designation is “Neighborhood Commercial” and is located in the Five Corners neighborhood. b. As the Urban Design Guidelines are an adopted element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the scope of the Architectural Design Board’s responsibility for ensuring compliance of a project with the Comprehensive Plan is to ensure compliance of the proposed project with the Urban Design Guidelines. c. Staff has reviewed the Urban Design Guidelines and documented their findings in the section below. F. Staff Analysis of Design Criteria & Urban Design Guidelines: F. Staff Analysis of Design Criteria & Urban Design Guidelines: 1. Location: The site is considered “Neighborhood Oriented Commercial” in the Urban Design th Guidelines. This site fronts on 212 Street SW, which is designated a “Minor Arterial.” It is a street with 4 or fewer lanes and is not located within one of the special design districts. The Five Corners neighborhood consists of several office and retail establishments. 2. Building Design: a. General – The building has been designed to fit into the context of the surrounding area. The colors chosen for the addition are non-garish and will match the color of the existing structure. b. Materials – The materials and colors are neutral and compliment what is used in the neighborhood. They consist of horizontal lap siding and a composition shingle roof. The new materials will match the existing materials and also be painted to match (off-white with a reddish stain for trim), as shown on the elevations (Sheets 4 and 5 of Attachment 3), and the proposed addition appears to be a good fit with the design of the existing building. c. Shapes and Forms – The proposal has a design theme carried throughout its shapes and forms. There is a belly-band that wraps around the entire building, and the walls are for the most part, broken up by the location of the windows (Attachment 3). The building itself is relatively small, so staff feels that there does not appear to be a need to further break up the look of the building. Page 3 of 5 Staff Report for ADB-2006-22 WR & RW, LLC Second Story Office Addition d. Details and Fenestration – The proposal has a clear entry expression on the south elevation (Attachment 3). The decks shown on the west and north elevations break up the appearance of the walls and adds interest to these elevations. The project includes several new windows, which further enhance the design of the building. e. Size, Height, and Bulk –The proposal makes use of a 5/12 pitched roof which will somewhat reduce the bulk of the structure. The height of the new addition appears to remain under the 25-foot height limit, which will be confirmed through building permit review. f. Context with Surrounding Development – Even though the zone allows for a 0-foot side setback from both the east and west property lines, the proposal will remain approximately 3.17-feet from the east property line and 27-feet from the west property line. To the west, there is a commercial complex that was constructed in 1992. To the east, there is a condominium complex that was constructed in 1979. To the south, there is the St. Matthew’s Lutheran Church that was constructed in 1962. Staff feels that this new addition is an appropriate fit in the neighborhood. g. Transitions – No transitional elements are included or required with the proposal because it is not adjacent to single-family development. 3. Site Design: a. Site Organization – The site is designed so that the majority of the parking is behind and next to the building. b. Parking – The existing parking spaces are shown, for the most part, on the side of the property, between this building and the building to the west. There are six parking spaces up front and three in the rear. c. Landscaping –There is existing landscaping shown on the site plan along the south property line adjacent to the street and at the rear of the lot. d. Screening – There is new A/C equipment shown on the site plan. It is in the rear of the building and it appears that it will be screened from public view. e. Trash & Recycling Enclosures - No trash/recycling enclosure is shown on the site plan, and no new enclosure is required. Steve Fisher, Edmonds Recycling Coordinator, has reviewed the plans and did not have comments. f. Context – The proposed project is similar to other office development in the area. Staff finds this proposal an appropriate fit in this neighborhood. g. Streetscape – There are no changes to the streetscape proposed with this project. th However, the designated street tree for 212 Street SW is the Pyrus calleryana ‘Glens Form’ from downtown through Five Corners to Route 99. The site plan indicates two existing planting areas along the south property line – the west of which may be an appropriate location for a street tree. The Architectural Design Board may want to consider the addition of a street tree in this location. h. Transitions – This site is not adjacent to single-family zoning, so no transitional element is needed. 4. Transportation Orientation: Pedestrians can enter/exit from the existing south elevation entry. Parking is located in both the sides and the rear of the property, where space exists. There is a striped access crosswalk shown on the site plan, which directs pedestrians to the building entry. Staff feels that this design element has been met. Page 4 of 5 Staff Report for ADB-2006-22 WR & RW, LLC Second Story Office Addition 5. Signage: There is existing signage provided onsite and there are no changes to the sign plan included in this project. 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 have been received (other than noting that the applicant shall meet all building permit requirements). H. Recommendation: H. Recommendation: APPROVE Staff recommends that the Architectural Design Board the design of file number ADB-2006-22 , with the following conditions: 1. Individual elements of this project are required to meet all applicable city codes. 2. It is the responsibility of the applicant to apply for and obtain all necessary permits. 3. One Pyrus calleryana ‘Glens Form’ street tree shall be added to the existing southwest planting area. 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. I. Attachments: I. Attachments: 1. Zoning/Vicinity Map 2. Land Use Application 3. Site Plan & Elevations Page 5 of 5