StaffReport_ADB-07-79.pdf
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
STAFF REPORT
December 5, 2007 Meeting
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TO:
The Architectural Design Board
FROM:
__________________________________
Gina Coccia, Planner
DATE:
November 29, 2007
ADB-2007-79Application by Tony Shapiro, representing Jones Brothers, LLC, for a
th
new nine unit multi-family project located at 207 & 211 5 Avenue
North in the Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) zone.
A.
PropertyOwner:Applicant:
Property Owner:Applicant:
Richard Jones Tony Shapiro
Jones Brothers, LLC A.D. Shapiro Architects
nd
16907 72 Avenue NE 624 Edmonds Way
Kenmore WA 98028 Edmonds WA 98020
th
B.:
SiteLocation 207/211 5 Avenue North, located in the Multiple Residential (RM-1.5) zone (Exhibit 2).
Site Location
C.
Introduction:
Introduction:
The applicant is proposing to construct nine new dwelling units in two buildings on a site of approximately
14,397 square feet in area. Two of the units will be townhouse-style units, and seven will be flats. There
will be parking below for 18 stalls, with access to the garage from the alley to the west. The property,
th
Avenue North, is currently developed with two single-family homes that will be removed (built
207/211 5
in 1901 and 1947 according to the Snohomish County Assessor’s records).
The following is staff’s analysis on the project.
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).
2.Environmental Review:
Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is 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 November 15, 2007
(Exhibit 5). No appeals were received, however comments were received (Exhibits 9c, 9f, 9g, and 9h).
Staff made two points of clarification on the Environmental Checklist (Exhibit 5) – the remainder of a
partial file number was added, and the historic house in the neighborhood was noted. Staff upholds the
original environmental determination (that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts –
that the City of Edmonds codes governing traffic impacts, critical areas, aesthetic impacts, land use,
grading, drainage control, construction and improvements of City right-of-way, and building codes
will provide for substantial mitigation of possible impacts of this proposal). Both the City and the
applicant have complied with SEPA requirements.
Under files CRA-2003-33 and CRA-1995-237, no critical areas were found on or adjacent to the
subject site. Therefore, “waivers” from critical area report requirements (ECDC 23.40) were issued.
Exhibit 1
ADB-07-79
Staff Report for ADB-2007-79
th
Shapiro / Jones Brothers: 9 units at 207 & 211 5 Avenue North
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.
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.
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.”
A code interpretation (file 2007-1) was made on June 21, 2007 on the application of the term
“coverage” as it relates to underground structures (Exhibit 15). The building footprints shown
appear to remain right around 45%, but it is difficult to be certain without a lot coverage
breakdown. It appears, though, that the applicant is attempting to remain at or just under the
maximum lot coverage permitted; this will be confirmed through the building permit review
process.
Note: The applicant will need to submit lot coverage calculations, taking into consideration
interpretation file 2007-1 (Exhibit 15), with the building permit application, detailing how
the project remains at or under the 45% maximum.
c.
Sample height calculations were provided on the site plan (Exhibit 12). Height calculations will
be reviewed with the building permit application. The points submitted will need to be moved
*
(slightly) in order for the height rectangle to enclose all of the building. In any event, it appears
that the applicant has attempted to stay at or just under the maximum height limit, utilizing a 4/12
pitched roof to obtain an additional five feet above the stated height limit.
Note: It appears that there may be some area shown above the stated height limit that is not
“roof only” (Exhibit 11 and Exhibit 12). Approximately three feet or so above the 25-foot
height limit appears to be habitable space and not just roof area in some places. This may be
a scaling error on the roof massing sketch (Exhibit 11) but it looks like the West Elevation of
the 7-unit building (Exhibit 12, sheet A 3.1) shows the same information. This will need to be
addressed with the building permit to remain in compliance with ECDC 16.30.030.A
d.
The table below shows the required setbacks for structures in the RM-1.5 zone.
Street
RM-1.5
RearSideSide
th
Avenue N
5
Zone
(West) (North) (South)
(East)
Required
15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet
Setbacks
Proposed
15 feet 15 feet 10 feet 10 feet
†
Setbacks
*
ECDC 21.40.030.B – Average level shall be determined by averaging elevations of the downward projections of the four corners of the smallest rectangle which will enclose all of the
building,
excluding a maximum of 30 inches of eaves.
†
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.” The east patio may only project 4’ into the setback (11’ from the east property
line). The
south patio may only project 1/3 into the setback (6.67’ from the south property line).
Page 2 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2007-79
th
Shapiro / Jones Brothers: 9 units at 207 & 211 5 Avenue North
Note: Both the south and east patios project into the setback a little bit more than the code
allows at this time (Exhibit 12). These patios will need to be reduced in size to meet the above
code section. This will be reviewed with the building permit application.
It appears that the project intends to meet the minimum setback requirements for the zone (except
that the patios will need to be altered).
2.ECDC 17.50 (Parking):
a.
Multifamily parking requirements are based upon the
Type of multiple Required parking spaces
number of dwelling units and the number of
dwelling unit per dwelling unit
bedrooms per dwelling unit, pursuant to ECDC
Studio1.2
17.50.020.A.1.b and the table below:
1 bedroom 1.5
b.
Preliminary plans indicate that all nine units will have
2 bedrooms 1.8
two bedrooms, which yields 16 (16.2) parking spaces
required.
3 or more bedrooms 2.0
c.
The number of parking spaces shown on the site plan
is 18. With 18 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.
3.ECDC 20.11 (General Design Review):
This application is subject to General Design Review under ECDC 20.11. Properties to the north and
south have the same multiple-residential zoning designation, while properties across the alley to the
west are in the BD5 zone. Properties across the street to the east are in the Public (P) zone. The block
is developed with a mix of multi-family and single-family houses. This project appears to be a good
th
transition between the commercial developments on 5 Avenue North and the residential
developments to the north in this neighborhood.
ECDC 20.11.030.B.8 states “Exterior lighting shall be the minimum necessary for safety and security.
Excessive brightness shall be avoided. All lighting shall be low-rise and directed downward onto the
site. Lighting standards and patterns shall be compatible with the overall design theme.” The lighting
chosen for this project (Exhibit 10) appears to both provide for safety and is also compatible with the
overall design of the project.
4.ECDC 20.13 (Landscaping Requirements):
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, which meets the
above code requirement.
The landscaping shown in the SW corner of the site screens the trash enclosure. The landscaping
provided seems to be appropriate for this site in bulk and scale with a range of small-medium-large
plantings.
th
The City’s Streetscape Plan indicates that the designated street tree along 5 Avenue North is “Prunus
Sargenti Columnais” / Columnar Sargents Cherry. The street tree species shown on the Landscape
Plan (Exhibit 13) is “Stewartia Monadelphia” / Tall Stewartia.
Note: The landscape plan will need to be revised to reflect the street tree intended for this area.
Page 3 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2007-79
th
Shapiro / Jones Brothers: 9 units at 207 & 211 5 Avenue North
F.
F.ComprehensivePlanCompliance:
Comprehensive Plan Compliance:
The following is staff’s analysis on the project’s compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
1.Location:
The Comprehensive Plan designation is “Downtown Mixed Commercial” 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.
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.”
Access will be taken from the alley, and no new curb cuts are proposed. The site is zoned for multi-
family use (9 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. The
surrounding neighborhood is a varied mix of residential, multiple-residential, and commercially-zoned
th
property (BD5). Pedestrians can enter the eastern building from the sidewalk along 5 Avenue North,
just as they do now. Instead of building one large building, the applicant has chosen to break up the
mass over two buildings (best expressed in Exhibit 14, page 4).
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.”
Again, the applicant has taken into consideration potential views that exist in the neighborhood and has
designed a project with two buildings that step down in elevation towards the west. This is an attempt
to minimize any encroachment on views while still being able to develop building envelope to comply
with the development standards in ECDC 16.30. The use of different materials as siding gives the
effect of modulation.
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.”
The project makes use of many interesting building materials, including a metal roof, brick siding,
‡§
fibre cement panels, several 1 x 4 cedar rainscreens, and both vertical and horizontal siding.
‡
From the website www.homedesigndirectory.com defining fibre cement cladding: “Fibre cement is a composite material made of sand, cement and cellulose fibres. Fibre cladding comes in
various forms but is often seen in horizontal boards, imitating wooden clapboard and in sheet form. Other formats include imitation shingles. Fibre cement can be used to cover the exterior
of a
house and can also be used as a substitute for timber fascias and barge boards in high fire danger areas. It is also commonly applied as a tile underlay on decks and in bathrooms and
is also
easy to secure and maintain as a soffit/eave lining.”
§
From the website www.toolbase.org: “A successful method for deterring rainwater intrusion into walls is the rain screen approach. You have probably seen them before-even a rain fly
over a
tent is a simple example of rain screen. Rain screens shed most of the rain and manage the rest, preventing moisture intrusion and the resulting premature decay in homes.”
Page 4 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2007-79
th
Shapiro / Jones Brothers: 9 units at 207 & 211 5 Avenue North
G.
G.TechnicalReview:
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 (Exhibit 4) with one
comment. A preliminary storm drainage plan was requested with this design review application, because a
storm detention system will be required with the redevelopment of the property. The applicant submitted
said documentation (Exhibit 7), which will be reviewed with the building permit application by the
Engineering Division for code compliance.
H.
PublicComment:
H.
Public Comment:
The public comments that have been received are entered into the record as Exhibit 9 (a-h). Any additional
public comment letters received up to or at the public hearing shall be entered into the record as part of
Exhibit 9.
At the time this staff report was mailed, staff was unable to fully respond to all of the public comments
received, because the SEPA appeal/comment period ended on 11/29. The Engineering Division should
have some responses ready for the public hearing. It is important to note that staff upholds the original
environmental determination (that there are no significant adverse environmental impacts – that the City of
Edmonds codes governing traffic impacts, critical area, aesthetic impacts, land use, grading, drainage
control, construction and improvements of City right-of-way, and building codes will provide for
substantial mitigation of possible impacts of this proposal).
a.Mike Appleby
– Requested to become a party of record for this application.
b.Stephen Bernheim
– Staff requested an updated Adjacent Property Owner (APO) list from the
applicant when it was discovered that Mr. Bernheim was not included on the APO list. This letter is a
follow-up to our earlier conversation that discovered this. Mr. Bernheim stated that he lives and works
within 300 feet of the subject site and did not receive notification of the proposal via mail (note that
this letter was received on 11/14 and the mail-out date for the “Notice of Hearing” still went out on
time to the appropriate residents on 11/15 as scheduled). Through this process, we discovered that
when people are listed on a “do not solicit” list, some title companies do not distribute their address as
part of the APO list. The applicant’s explanation is included in Exhibit 9b. The APO list was updated
with the “do not solicit” customers and all mailing procedures were accurately followed.
th
c.Darrell Marmion
– Noted that the SEPA Checklist did not mention that the property at 216 4
Avenue North was on the “Edmonds Register of Historic Places” nor were the “impacts” addressed.
Staff revised the SEPA Checklist to include this fact, but does not feel that there are any significant
adverse environmental impacts that would require mitigation, so the SEPA determination stands.
d.Darrell Marmion
– Noted requested that the applicant show more information for the ground floor
units, and says they are shown on the site plan, page A 3.1 (Exhibit 12), but does not feel they are
adequately shown on the “ADB Submission” views (Exhibit 14).
e.Larry and Anne Temple
– (1) are concerned that their adjacent building may crack when site
excavation is taking place; (2) are concerned about potential sink holes in the area and the potential of
new sink holes; (3) is concerned about the possible expense of drain pipes; (4) are concerned with an
existing utility pole, the potential of moving it, and what that would do to their building’s view; (5) are
concerned with the present and proposed condition of the alley to the west, and would like the
developer to improve the entire length of the alley; (6) are concerned with the potential for an increase
of noise that would be generated by the new dwelling units, garage doors, and mechanical equipment –
and how can the project be designed to take this into consideration.
f.Darrell Marmion
– Submitted a SEPA Checklist comment letter (see Exhibit 9f). Item 8h was a typo
(I forgot to write out the full file number of the critical areas checklist) and has been updated
accordingly. He is concerned about drainage, long-term noise, light and glare, the historic significance
of a nearby property (see Exhibit 9c), and is concerned about the increased number of trips generated
by the new development and its impact on the condition of the alley.
g.J. David Smith
– Very similar to Exhibit 9f, but with an emphasis on ground water.
h.Steve Bernheim
– Very similar to Exhibit 9f, but with an emphasis on noise.
Page 5 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2007-79
th
Shapiro / Jones Brothers: 9 units at 207 & 211 5 Avenue North
I.
I.Recommendation:
Recommendation:
APPROVE
Staff recommends that the Architectural Design Board the design of file number
ADB-2007-79
with the following conditions:
1.
The site plan shall be revised so that the east patio will only project 4’ into the setback (11’ from the
east property line) and the south patio will only project 1/3 into the setback (6.67’ from the south
property line).
2.
The additional 5 feet above the stated 25-foot height limit shall consist of “roof only” pursuant to
ECDC 16.30.030.A.
3.
The applicant shall submit detailed lot coverage calculations detailing how the project remains at or
under the 45% maximum.
4.
The applicant shall make every attempt to locate (potentially noisy) mechanical equipment as far from
the property lines as possible in an effort to achieve the code requirements related to noise in ECDC
5.30 (Noise Abatement and Control).
5.
The landscape plan shall be revised to indicate the designated street tree “Prunus Sargenti Columnais”
/ Columnar Sargents Cherry.
6.
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.
Exhibits:
J.
Exhibits:
1.
Staff Report
2.
Vicinity/Zoning Map
3.
Land Use Application
4.
Memo from the Engineering Program Manager
5.
SEPA DNS and Environmental Checklist
6.
Traffic Impact Analysis
7.
Preliminary Drainage Report
8.
Public Notice Documentation: Notice of Development Application and Affidavit of Publication, and
Notice of Hearing and Affidavit of Publication
9.
Public Comment Letters
a.
Mike Appleby (received 10/29/2007)
b.
Stephen Bernheim (received 11/14/2007) and applicant’s response
c.
Darrell Marmion (received 11/21/2007)
d.
Darrell Marmion (received 11/28/2007)
e.
Larry and Anne Temple (received 11/28/2007)
f.
Darrell Marmion (received 11/29/2007)
g.
J David Smith (received 11/29/2007)
h.
Stephen Bernheim (received 11/29/2007)
10.
Exterior Lighting
11.
Roof/Massing Perspective
12.
Site Plan (A 1.1), Elevations (A 3.1)
13.
Landscape Plan (L1)
14.
Color ADB Submission Package: Landscape Plan (page 2), North and West Elevations (page 3), East
and South Elevations (page 4), and Perspectives (page 5)
15.
Lot Coverage Interpretation (2007-1)
Page 6 of 6