DESIGN COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA

Transcription

1 City of Mercer Island March 14, 2012 DESIGN COMMISSIONERS Colin Brandt DESIGN COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Susanne Foster Bert Loosmore Emmett Maloof Lucia Pirzio-Biroli Tami Szerlip Hui Tian COUNCIL LIAISON Bruce Bassett 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER & ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes from February 8, :05 PM AGENDA ITEM #1 CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC MEETING AND OPEN RECORD HEARING: Island Crest Way Apartments Six unit multifamily development at 3210 Island Crest Way A public meeting and open record hearing for preliminary and final design review of a proposal submitted by Tor-Jan Ronhovde of Ronhovde Architects for Mercer Island Co- Investment, L.L.C. for a six unit multi-family building on 81st Place SE adjacent to Island Crest Way. Staff Contact: Shana Crick, Planner 7:45 PM OTHER BUSINESS Council Liaison Report Staff Comments Commissioner Comments Scheduled Absence of Commissioners Next Regular Meeting: March 28, :00 PM ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MERCER ISLAND CITY HALL PHONE: WEB: SE 36TH STREET MERCER ISLAND, WA 98040

2 DESIGN COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Chair Maloof called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM in the Council Chambers, 9611 SE 36th Street, Mercer Island, Washington. ROLL CALL: Chair Maloof and Commissioners Colin Brandt, Susanne Foster, Bert Loosmore, Lucia Pirzio- Biroli, and Hui Tian were present. STAFF PRESENT: Don Cole, Building Official; Shana Crick, Planner; and George Steirer, Principal Planner; were present. MEETING MINUTES APPROVAL: The minutes from the November 9, 2011 meeting were approved by consent. REGULAR BUSINESS: AGENDA ITEM #1 Public Meeting: Island Crest Way Apartments Prior to beginning the public meeting, Chair Maloof asked if anyone had a conflict of interest or an appearance of fairness issue. Commissioner Hui Tian stated that there may be a possibility of an appearance of fairness concern, as she is a neighbor of the applicant, Tom Gallagher. Commissioner Tian confirmed that she felt she could be impartial in her review of the proposal. Chair Maloof asked if anyone had an objection to Commissioner Tian participating in the design review process. No one opposed her participation. Shana Crick, Planner, gave the staff presentation, which included introducing the Island Crest Way Apartments proposal, and responding to questions from the Design Commission. Don Cole, Building Official, answered questions from the Commissioners. Tor-Jan Ronhovde (14900 Interurban Avenue S, Ste. 138, Tukwila, WA 98168) of Ronhovde Architects provided an applicant presentation and answered questions from the Design Commission. Mr. Ronhovde confirmed that the optional raised roof element will be constructed and should be included within the design review of the project. Tom Gallagher (4243 Shoreclub Drive, Mercer Island, WA 98040) of Mercer Island Co- Investment, L.L.C. also addressed the Commission and responded to questions. The Commission deliberated the application and identified specific sections of the Mercer Island City Code that they felt the applicant still needed to address, which include but are not limited to: MICC (B)(1)(a), MICC (B)(3)(e), MICC (B)(3)(a), MICC (B)(4), MICC (B)(5), MICC (B)(7)(a, b, and c), MICC (B)(1), MICC (B)(8)(b), MICC (B)(2), and MICC (B)(4). Commissioner Pirzio-Biroli motioned to put on hold the application for the 3210 Island Crest Way Apartments until the March 14, 2012 Design Commission meeting with the understanding that the Design Commission will attempt to grant both preliminary and final design approval with February 8, 2012 Design Commission Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 2

3 conditions at the March 14, 2012 meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brandt and passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS: Councilmember Cero has been appointed to the Design Commission as liaison. There are no scheduled Commissioner absences. The next regularly scheduled meeting is March 14, ADJOURNMENT: Chair Maloof adjourned the meeting at 10:38 PM. Respectfully submitted, Shana Crick, Planner February 8, 2012 Design Commission Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 2

4 CITY OF MERCER ISLAND DESIGN COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item: 1 March 14, 2012 Project: Description: Applicant: Island Crest Way Apartments A request for preliminary and final design review and approval of a new six unit apartment building to be constructed outside of the Town Center. Tor-Jan Ronhovde of the Ronhovde Architects for Mercer Island Co- Investment, L.L.C. Site Address: 3210 Island Crest Way; Identified by King County Tax Parcel # Zoning District: Exhibits: MF-2 1. Plan set prepared by the Ronhovde Architects, L.L.C. including sheets A0.1 Site Plan, Vicinity Map, and Project Statistics; A1.1 Garage Level Floor Plan; A-1.2 Floor Plan; A1.1L Walkway and Garage Level Lighting Plan; A1.2L Upper Levels Lighting Plans; A-4.1 Exterior Elevations (West and North); A-4.2 Exterior Elevations (East and South); L1 Landscape Schematic Design; TR Tree Retention Plan; A-R Massing Model Rendering; and A-P Photometric Plan dated received by the City of Mercer Island Development Services Group on March 6, from Tor-Jan Ronhovde of the Ronhovde Architects, L.L.C. to Shana Crick dated received by the City of Mercer Island Development Services Group on March 6, Comment letter from Harold and Penelope Coe, Jeffrey and Debe Meder, Richard Tait, and John and Sarah Weinberg dated received by the City of Mercer Island Development Services Group on January 25, Comment letter from James Parsons, dated received by the City of Mercer Island Development Services Group on January 20, Photos of existing site conditions (labeled A through P) received by the City of Mercer Island Development Services Group on January 4, Corrections requested by the Design Commission of the applicant at the February 8, 2012 Design Commission Public Meeting I. SUMMARY The applicant, Tom Gallagher of Mercer Island Co-Investment, L.L.C., is seeking preliminary and final Design Commission approval of a new six unit apartment building to be constructed just outside of the Town Center at 3210 Island Crest Way. The existing use of the site, which is zoned MF-2, is a parking lot for the Ridgewood Condominiums, a multifamily residential development adjacent to the north. The site is accessed via 81 st Place SE, which is off of Island Crest Way and is bordered to the north and south by multifamily residential structures, the 81 st Place SE and Island Crest Way rightsof-way to the west, and single family residential properties to the east. A study session was held on November 9, 2011 to allow for the Design Commission to provide guidance and direction to the applicant. No formal action was taken during the study session. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 1 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

5 Public Notice of the Application, Public Meeting, and SEPA Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) Likely was published in the City s Weekly Permit Bulletin, mailed to parties within 300 feet of the subject site, and posted on the subject property on January 17, A 14-day public comment period that extended from January 17, 2012 through January 31, 2012 was provided with the Notice of Application. Two comment letters were received during the 14-day public comment period: a. A letter from James Parsons of th Avenue SE, #3 (Exhibit 4) expressed concern with the size and level of detail of the map included on the Notice of Application stating that the map is too small and should be printed on a separate page. Staff Analysis: The City Code does not require a site plan within the Notice of Application for the project, only the location of the project [MICC (D)(2)]. However, a site plan is often provided within the Notice of Application as a courtesy to the recipients of the notice. Every effort is made to create notices that do not exceed one sheet of paper to minimize costs and environmental impacts. As stated on the Notice of Application, the file (including a full-sized plan set) is available for public review at Mercer Island City Hall. A contact name, phone number, and address is also included with the Notice of Application. Staff attempted to locate Mr. Parson s address and/or phone number to no avail. Consequently, staff mailed a paper copy of the plans to Mr. Parsons. b. A comment letter (Exhibit 3) from Harold and Penelope Coe ( st Place SE), Jeffrey and Debe Meder ( st Place SE), Richard Tait ( st Place S E), and John and Sarah Weinberg ( st Place SE) expressed the following concerns: 1. From the materials we have seen, we do not have a clear idea of the scale and location of the proposed building in conjunction with our existing building. We request that the owner of the property be required to provide that to us and to the Commission. Of particular concern is the height of the structure. The drawings indicate a maximum of 36 feet. But the drawings made available to us do not indicate from what point the 36 feet is measured. There is also an indication of an "optional" higher roof, without further explanation. Staff Analysis: The applicant has submitted scaled plans to the City for the purpose of design review (Exhibit 1). Staff reviewed the site plan and discussed certain concerns in the letter with Sarah Weinberg prior to submittal of the comments in Exhibit 3. The site plan (Sheet A0.1 of Exhibit 1) provides a plan superimposed on a topographic survey that extends at least 12 feet beyond the southern property boundary. This is commensurate with what is required by the code and of other applicants. The comment letter also expressed concern that there was not a point of reference from which maximum height is measured. Per MICC (B), building height is measured from the average building elevation to the topmost part of the roof. MICC (E)(2) allows for buildings within the MF-2 zone to have a maximum height of 36 feet or three stories in height, whichever is less, except appurtenances [such as chimneys] may extend to a maximum of five feet above the height allowed for the main structure. The elevations provided by the applicant (Sheets A-4.1 and A-4.2 of Exhibit 1) indicate an average building elevation (ABE) of Therefore, the maximum height of the building is 36 feet above the ABE or feet. The highest point of the proposed structure is feet, which is the Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 2 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

6 maximum height. The building will not exceed three stories. The applicant noted certain sections of the roof as optional raised roof elements because they can be lowered if determined to exceed the maximum allowed height. However, as shown on the plans, the roof with the optional raised roof elements appear to meet the maximum height allowance, based on the information provided by the applicant. Confirmation of the ABE and building height will be confirmed with the building permit submittal and inspections. 2. There is a steep slope east of both properties. The proposed construction would cut into the slope, particularly at the southeast corner of their property, which immediately adjoins the northeast corner of our property. They also have planned a Tenant Plaza Area at the northeast corner, from the new building up to or into the hillside. We need assurance that the construction work and the presence and use of the new building will cause no sloperelated hazards. Perhaps the steep slope ordinance has some relevance to this concern, and imposes some restrictions on the planned construction. Staff Analysis: The slope along the eastern property line appears to meet the City s definition of a steep slope. However, the only area that appears to encroach onto the steep slope area is the southernmost portion of the proposed stairs. While the City does not prohibit construction on steep slopes, construction may be subject to the direction of a geotechnical report, and reviewed by the Building Code Official when a building permit is submitted. 3. Related to the previous item, we presently experience to a small degree water runoff from the slope behind (east of) us. We are concerned that the proposed construction will exacerbate this problem. We suggest the City require the owners to arrange for a professional study of this issue for the Commission and for us to review; and that an extensive drainage system be required as part of the project, to remove water from the hill and to direct it into a storm sewer system and away from our property. Staff Analysis: The property to the south is slightly higher than the subject property. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that runoff from the subject property will affect the town homes to the south. However, the Engineering division conducts a stormwater review at the time of building permit submittal and determines which type of stormwater management system is required for the site. This does not occur at the design review phase of the process. 4. The only access to the subject property, and to our property, is 81st Place SE, which is a private road (the owners' listing of the address of their property as "Island Crest Way" is somewhat deceiving in this respect). The relatively recent construction work on the Ridgewood Apartments, immediately north of the subject property, tore up the private road. The owner promised to fix it, but this was not done. As a condition to any approval of construction on the subject site, we suggest the City require a bond from the owner which can be used to repair any damage to the street. Staff Analysis: The subject property was addressed off of Island Crest Way previously by either the City or the county, and this is reflected in King County records. However, it is likely that the address of the property will change to 81 st Place SE when the applicant applies for building permits. The City cannot require a bond on a private road. The maintenance of the private road is a private, civil, issue. The City suggests that the applicant contact a mediator or an attorney about possible remedies. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 3 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

7 5. Further relating to the road, we are concerned as to the increased traffic load imposed by the proposed additional units. 81st Place SE serves not only the Ridgewood Apartments, and our four town houses, but a group of homes further south of us. There are also significant issues relating to 81st Place SE during the period of construction. It cannot be obstructed, even for relatively short periods, by construction equipment or by trucks bringing that equipment to the site. Not only does this road provide the only means of ingress and egress for owners south of the site. It also is the only means of access for emergency vehicles, if needed. Parking is also at a premium in the area, and we do not know whether there is any plan for parking by workers during the construction period. In fact, the construction might wipe out parking currently being used by residents of the Ridgewood Apartments. We intend to enforce fully our rights to continue to utilize available parking on the road directly below our town homes. Staff Analysis: As 81 st Place SE is a private road, it is subject to the easement agreement that created it as well as any subsequent modifications to said agreement. The City has the ability to cite someone for leaving less than 8 feet of a private road free for the movement of vehicular traffic [MICC (A)]. Additionally, MICC (B) prohibits someone from parking in such a way as to block an adjoining driveway or entrance to an abutting property. However, parking restrictions in the Mercer Island City Code (including those pertaining to oversize vehicles) apply solely to City streets and highways. Therefore, they are not applicable to private streets and easements. If there is a violation of the easement agreement, concerned parties should contact a mediator or an attorney. 6. There are some large trees on or near the proposed site of construction. Some of these have already been damaged. The City should require an agreement to repair or replace those trees, and the owner's obligation to do so should be covered by a bond. Staff Analysis: The City code requires the applicant to use reasonable best efforts for the health of trees on the subject property, as delineated by the landscaping plan (Exhibit 1, Sheet L1). As is standard practice, the City is proposing the requirement of a landscaping bond as a condition of design review approval. Additional review of the reasonable best efforts will be performed at the time of building permit submittal, and any improvements for utilities. 7. We have a hedge along the most of the north line of our property, providing some visual screening between our property and the subject site. We would like assurances that this hedge will not be damaged by the construction, and will not be damaged by loss of light after the building is completed. Staff Analysis: The applicant is not proposing to alter the referenced hedge, which is located to the south of an existing retaining wall (Exhibit 1, Sheet A0.1) on the southern property placing the hedge entirely on the neighbor s property. Any damage from loss of light would be a civil issue to be resolved between the applicant and the owners of the townhomes to the south. 8. The new building will markedly affect the view from our north-facing windows, particularly in our most northerly unit. Some of the specific issues relating to the effect on view include the following. There will be a Walla Walla Wall less than 20 feet from our dining Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 4 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

8 room window. There is a southward bulge from that wall, bringing a portion of it even closer to our town home. The purpose of that bulge is not clear; nor is there any explanation as to whether it complies with the setback requirements. The plans suggest a raised roof "option" on the top of the third floor of the proposed structure, which would further obstruct the view. There is a "deck" indicated in the southeast corner of the building, over part of the carport. This will be directly outside our kitchen window. There is no indication what this will be, or who will be responsible for caring for it. Staff Analysis: The proposed building would comply with required setbacks for the zone (10 feet along the southern property boundary). The small bulge shown on the plan set is a small, uncovered turnaround in the parking garage that is essentially pavement that projects out from the building. The building above the parking lot is 10 feet from the southern property line and does not follow this bulge. The raised roof option mentioned in the comment letter is shown on the plans. Therefore, the plan set already illustrates a worst-case scenario (highest roof option) for view impacts. According to a conversation with the applicant, the deck indicated in the southeast corner is not actually a deck, but the outside staircase, which is to be maintained by the owner of the apartments. However, the stairs are not above any part of the parking garage. Therefore, this reference may pertain to the decks on the southwest corner of the building, which must also be maintained by the owners of the apartment building. The City code does have a maximum height allowance for the zone. A staff analysis of the regulation regarding view opportunities is provided on page 7 of this staff report. The Design Commission may or may not find the section of code applicable. 9. There is a gravel walking path from the top northeast corner of our property down almost to 81st Place SE. This path was built as part of our original construction, and includes wooden side retainers and some steps. We would like assurance that the proposed construction will improve this path, or at least will not adversely affect it. We also raise the issue of how the presence of this path affects the setback requirement for the new construction. Staff Analysis: The landscaping plan submitted by the applicant (Sheet L1 of Exhibit 1) indicates that the existing gravel path is to remain. The path does not impact setback requirements on the subject property, as gravel paths are allowed within setbacks. 10. The subject property, like our property to the south and the Ridgewood Apartment property to the north, includes and is responsible for the strip of land below 81st Place SE and down to Island Crest Way. The area below the subject site is an unsightly blackberry jungle, in which scrap paper, plastic bags and other garbage are entangled. When the Ridgewood Apartments were built, the strip below it was in much the same condition. The City required that the area be landscaped, as part of that project. The plans for the subject site, however, indicates existing plantings to remain in this lower strip. The City should impose a similar requirement for landscaping. Staff Analysis: Exhibit 4 provides photographs of the existing conditions. Construction by Ridgewood has removed the blackberry bushes. Within the General Construction Notes on Sheet L1 of Exhibit 1, note #2 states that the applicant will clean subgrade by removing all undesirable vegetation including grasses, weeds, blackberries, scotch broom and poplar Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 5 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

9 seedlings including roots. Leave subgrade in landscape areas minimum 6" below paving. Remove all debris from site. The applicant is already proposing the remove blackberries and debris on site. The Design Commission may choose to make this a condition of approval. A State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Threshold Determination of Non-Significance (DNS) was issued by the City of Mercer Island on February 6, 2012 (file no. SEP11-018). Additionally, the City issued a Notice of Open Record Public Hearing on February 6, 2012, which set March 14, 2012 as the hearing date. The Notice of Open Record Public Hearing was published in the City s Weekly Permit Bulletin, mailed to parties within 300 feet of the subject site, and posted on the subject property on February 6, On February 8, 2012, the Design Commission held a public meeting to conduct preliminary design review. During the meeting, the applicant was provided with a list of corrections from the Design Commission, preliminary approval was not granted, and the application was placed on hold. On February 24, 2012, the requested revisions were submitted by the applicant. Planning staff conducted a review of the submitted materials and ed a list of corrections to the applicant on March 5, 2012 (Exhibit 5). The applicant submitted additional revisions on March 6, II. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW AND STAFF ANALYSIS Pursuant to MICC (F)(1)(b) and (E) major new construction outside of the Town Center is subject to review by the Design Commission. The sections in italics are applicable design criteria followed by staff findings of the criteria in bold. Sections of MICC applicable to the proposed design revisions: The following sections in italics are what the Design Commission must use to approve, condition, or deny the proposal: MICC (B). General Design Vision 1. Site and Context. Non-Town Center areas are largely characterized by residential settings that are heavily vegetated, topographically diverse and enhanced with short and long-range views that are often territorial in nature. The design of new and remodeled structures should respond to this strong environmental context. Site design should maintain the natural character of the island and preserve vegetation concentrations, topography and the view opportunities that make Mercer Island special. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 6 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

10 The proposal is a for six unit multifamily residential building to be located on a property that is presently used for parking. The applicant has proposed to generally integrate the structure into the surrounding residential neighborhood with a design aesthetic that resembles nearby multifamily structures. The proposal preserves the topography and vegetation on site by locating the building on the flattest portion of the lot, which is presently developed as a parking lot. As provided in Exhibit 1, the applicant is not proposing to exceed the allowed height in the MF-2 zone. The lot slopes from the east side down to the west. The eastern property boundary currently contains trees and vegetation which limits the view for neighboring properties. View opportunities benefitting an existing multi-family unit to the south may be obstructed, but not completely lost. The existing townhome to the south appears to have one window facing north, and one window facing east. 2. Building Design. Development of new and remodeled structures should conserve Mercer Island s special environmental characteristics, such as steep slopes, watercourses, and large concentrations of mature trees. Buildings shall be designed to be architecturally compatible with other structures in the neighborhood with respect to human scale, form and massing, and relationship to natural site features. High quality and durable materials, complementary colors, texture, and architectural detail should be incorporated into the design. Use of materials such as natural wood and stone, and design elements such as large building overhangs and window exposure to natural light, are encouraged. The proposal is designed to preserve existing steep slopes and trees on site (Exhibit 1, Sheet A-0.1). The structure is designed to be architecturally compatible with other structures in the neighborhood, due to color, height (three stories), architectural details (such as façade stepping) and will not appear massive or out of scale with other developments due to the proportionate size and height. The applicant is proposing earth tones for the color palette, and the materials that will likely be used appear to be high quality and durable and include wood veneer siding. 3. Landscaping and Amenities. Landscaping should reflect the natural wooded character of Mercer Island and provide visual separation between different land uses. Amenities such as street trees, plantings, and other landscape design elements, including fountains or water features, and art features should be integrated into new and remodeled structures and their sites. As specified in the King County Native Plant List, Washington Native Plant Society, the Washington State University Pacific Northwest Plants Guide, and/or the Sunset Western Garden Book, the applicant s landscaping plan (Exhibit 1, Sheet L1) utilizes native and northwest-adapted plantings to enhance the natural wooded character of Mercer Island. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 7 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

11 MICC (B). Site Design and Context. 1. Site Features. a. Landforms. Design and layout of the site should incorporate natural landforms such as trees, topography and water courses into proposed developments. Cut and fill should be minimized and preservation of mature trees should be maximized, particularly adjacent to project boundaries and steep slopes. Natural contours should be respected and retained where feasible. The existing site has a flat area in the center of the lot and is bounded by substantial slopes on the east and west edges of the property. The applicant will be concentrating development on the flat area of the site, which is presently developed as a parking lot. The applicant is proposing to remove three trees from the footprint area, but will plant more than three replacement trees as mitigation (Exhibit 1, Sheet TR). 2. Sloped or Hillside Development. a. Building development should generally occur on the least steep portions of the site in order to conserve the more fragile areas for landscaping or general open space. As demonstrated by Exhibit 1, the proposed building will be located on the least steep portion of the site. b. Structures built on substantial slopes or hillsides should be designed to minimize their visual impact on surrounding areas. Ridgelines of major slopes should not be broken by structures or loss of vegetative cover. Acceptable methods to integrate structures into the hillside include, but are not limited to, height control, stepped construction, muted earth tone colors, and tree preservation. The proposal is on a sloped site. However, the proposed construction will be located on the flat portion of the site. The proposed structure will conform to the maximum allowed height for the zone (36 feet or 3 stories in height, whichever is less). The building will not be placed on the steeper portion of the undeveloped slope according to Exhibit 1. Horizontally stepped construction is proposed so that the proposed building parallels the face of the slope. The applicant is proposing a color palette comprised of tans and browns, which are muted earth tone colors. c. Building Orientation. Buildings should respond in design to a prominent feature, such as a corner location, a street or the lake. Buildings and site design should provide inviting entry orientation. Buildings should not turn their backs to the street. The proposed structure is oriented towards both 81 st Place SE and Island Crest Way (Exhibit 1). The main entrance is accessed via a driveway on the north side of the building. However, the building fronts onto the adjacent streets. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 8 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

12 3. Relationship of Buildings to Site. a. Site Design. Site design and architectural style shall be pedestrian in scale and address interface with public rights-of-way, vehicular and pedestrian circulation. Walkways along the perimeter of the building contribute to the pedestrian scale of the building. The building fronts onto a private street, which parallels a public right-of-way, thus interfacing with vehicular circulation. b. Architectural Context. New development should reflect important design elements of existing structures in the neighborhood, including but not limited to, roof forms, materials and colors. There are no important design elements in the existing neighborhood. All surrounding structures are either single family residences or multifamily structures. c. Multiple Structures. Variable siting of individual buildings, heights of buildings, and building modulation should be used in order to provide variety in site and specific building design. Only one structure is proposed on site. d. Transitions to Neighborhoods. Proposed developments should transition with and not overpower adjoining permitted land uses through modulation of building facades, use of established setbacks, and installation of landscape buffers. Building designs should step down to lower heights adjacent to surrounding buildings. The subject property is located on a parcel adjacent to multifamily structures to the north and south. The property adjacent to the east is zoned for single-family development (R-9.6). The proposal site is bounded to the west by both the 81 st Place SE and the Island Crest Way rights-of-way. The slopes along the eastern edge of the subject property function as a natural boundary between the single family residences and the multifamily structures in the neighborhood. There is existing vegetation between the single-family zone to the east and the subject site. e. Decorative Landmarks. Imaginative exterior features that complement and are integrated into the building design and create visual focal points that give identity to an area, such as special paving in pedestrian areas, art features, decorative clocks, or water features should be provided. The applicant is proposing decorative paving to identify the entrance to the building. MICC (B). Building Design and Visual Interest. 1. Scale, Form and Mass. Scale, form, massing, building proportions, spacing of windows and doorways, roof silhouette, facade orientations, and style of architecture shall have a unified character and, as to commercial, regulated residential and regulated public facilities, recognize pedestrian needs. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 9 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

13 a. Scale. Building scale should be proportional to other adjacent buildings, the street edge and, as to commercial, regulated residential and regulated public facilities, to the pedestrian environment. The proposed apartment building will cover less than 35% of the total lot area, which is conforming to MICC (H). Additionally, the scale of the proposed building is similar to the other multifamily residential buildings in the vicinity. b. Form and Mass. Building forms should not present visual mass or bulk impacts that are out of proportion to adjacent structures, or that appear from the public way or surrounding properties as having unmodulated visual bulk. The proposed building does not present visual mass or bulk impacts out of proportion to the adjacent multifamily structures. 2. Building Facades Visual Interest. a. Facade Modulation. Building facade modulation shall break up the overall bulk and mass of the exterior of buildings and structures. Such modulation should always be addressed on the horizontal plane and the vertical plane. Large or massive buildings should integrate features along their facades that are visible from the public right-of-way, pedestrian routes and nearby structures to reduce the apparent building mass and achieve an architectural scale consonant with other nearby structures. The applicant has proposed façade modulation with the incorporation of façade indentations and extrusions as well as roofline variation. When viewed from the public right of way, the structure presents a façade of windows and balconies that are stepped back to provide visual interest and break up the overall bulk and mass. b. Modulation Guidelines. i. Horizontal building facade modulation should occur at no less than every 50 feet of wall length. Forms of both vertical and horizontal building modulation may include, but are not limited to: facade indentations and extrusions; actual building separation; connecting atriums, courtyards and plazas; variable roof forms and overhangs; and decks and balconies. Horizontal façade modulation is present on this structure in the form of indentations and extrusions, which occur at a maximum interval of 13 feet. Exterior decks and balconies have also been proposed. ii. Building facades visible from public ways and public spaces should be stepped back or projected forward at intervals to provide a minimum of 40 percent overall facade modulation. When viewed from the public right of way, the applicant has provided more than the required 40 percent façade modulation. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 10 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

14 c. Ground Level Facades. Blank walls at the ground level that may be visible from a public view should be avoided. Ground level facades should create visual interest by utilizing features such as windows, wall articulation, arcades, trellises or other plant features. All sides of the proposed structure incorporate modulation, windows and other structural elements that provide visual interest. The ground level façade visible from the street is creating visual interest through the use of six foot high planted green screens. No blank walls are proposed. d. Fenestration. Fenestration should be integrated in the overall building design and should provide variety in facade treatment. Fenestration (window design and placement) is included in the overall building design. A variety of windows both large and small are proposed on all sides of the structure. e. Horizontal Variation and Emphasis. Building facades should be made more visually interesting through the use of reveals, medallions, belt courses, decorative tile work, clerestory windows, or other design features. The scale of the detail should reflect the scale of the building. The architectural design of the structure provides horizontal variation and emphasis through the use of modulation and window placement. Clerestory windows are used to enhance visual interest. Belt courses are also employed beneath the clerestory windows. 3. Building Articulation. Design shall articulate building facades by use of variations of color, materials or patterns, or arrangement of facade elements that are proportional to the scale of the building. Architectural details that are used to articulate the structure may include reveals, battens, and other three dimensional details that create shadow lines and break up the flat surfaces of the facade. a. Tripartite Articulation. Tripartite building articulation (building top, middle, and base) should be used to create human scale and architectural interest. The structure has a defined roofline with raised elements. The midsection of the structure is defined by fenestration along with façade modulation and balconies. The base of the structure consists of an open parking structure screened by six foot high planted green screens. b. Fenestration. Fenestration should be used in facades visible from public ways and public spaces visible from public ways for architectural interest and human scale. Windows should be articulated with treatments such as mullions or recesses and complementary articulation around doorways and balconies should be used. The façade facing the public right of way has significant fenestration. The proposed windows will be articulated with mullions. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 11 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

15 c. Architectural Elements. The mass of long or large scale buildings should be made more visually interesting by incorporating architectural elements, such as arcades, balconies, bay windows, dormers, and/or columns. The proposed building is approximately 70 feet wide (measured from north to south) and approximately 70 feet long (measured from east to west). Balconies and clerestory windows are proposed. d. Upper Story Setback. Upper stories should be set back to reduce the apparent bulk of a building and promote human scale. When buildings are adjacent to single-family residential dwellings, upper story setbacks shall be provided from property lines. The proposed building does not provide for a single upper story setback. However, the building is stepped back horizontally in sections minimizing the apparent bulk. The feel of human scale is present. The upper stories meet the required setbacks from property lines. 4. Materials and Color. a. Durable Building Exteriors. Building exteriors should be constructed from high quality and durable materials that will weather well and need minimal maintenance. The applicant has noted in Exhibit 1 that the building exterior will be comprised of either cedar veneer or Hardi panels and siding. Both materials will weather well and require minimal maintenance. b. Consistency and Continuity of Design. Materials and colors generally should be used with consistency on all sides of a building. The applicant is proposing consistent materials throughout the proposed structure. The color palette is comprised of earth tones and is also consistent on all sides of the proposed building. c. Material and Color Variation. Color and materials should highlight architectural elements such as doors, windows, fascias, cornices, lintels, sills and changes in building planes. Variations in materials and colors should generally be limited to what is required for contrast or to accentuate architectural features. The colors are materials proposed are used to highlight architectural features proposed. Variations in materials and colors are used to accent windows, decks, and the horizontal modulation of the building (Exhibit 1). d. Concrete Walls. Concrete walls should be architecturally treated. The enhancement may include textured concrete such as exposed aggregate, sand blasting, stamping or color coating. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 12 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

16 The applicant is proposing concrete walls around a portion of the base (parking level) of the building. The concrete walls will be painted or sealed and treated with accent reveals. e. Bright Colors. Bright colors should be used only for trim and accents. Bright colors may be approved if the use is consistent with the building design and other design requirements. Fluorescent colors are prohibited. The applicant is proposing to use earth tones with an emphasis on tans and browns. Bright colors are not proposed for the project. 5. Building Entrances. a. Architectural Features and Design. Special design attention should be given to the primary building entrance(s). A primary entrance should be consistent with overall building design, but made visually distinct from the rest of the building facade through architectural features. Examples include recessed entrances, entrances which roof forms that protrude from the building facade, and decorative awnings, canopies, porte-cocheres, and covered walkways. The main building entrance will be accessed by way of an external stairwell which is reached either through building s parking area or via pedestrian walkways along the north, west, and east sides of the building (Exhibit 1). Entrances to the individual apartments are found along the eastern façade of the building. Decorative paving within the northern walkway is used to render the entrance visually distinct from the rest of the building façade. b. Entrance Connections. The primary entrance to a building should be easy to recognize and should be visible from the public way and/or physically connected to the public way with walkways. Landscaping should reinforce the importance of the entrance as a gathering place and create visual and physical connections to other portions of the site and to vehicular and pedestrian access points. The entrance to the multifamily structure is at the end of a private easement, which is accessible from the public right-of-way. Additional access to the public way is provided via a walkway with decorative paving that is distinct and visually prominent from the public right of way. 6. Rooflines. a. Roofline Variation, Interest, and Detail. Roofline variation, interest, and detail shall be used to reduce perceived building height and mass and increase compatibility with smaller scale and/or residential development. Roofline variation, interest and detail may be achieved through use of roofline features such as dormers, stepped roofs, and gables that reinforce a modulation or articulation interval, incorporation of a variety of vertical dimensions, such as multiplaned and intersecting rooflines, or flat-roofed designs that include architectural details such as cornices and decorative facings. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 13 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

17 The applicant is proposing a roof that steps back and creates horizontal variation. Clerestory windows are used to achieve vertical variation. The proposed multiplaned rooflines provide visual modulation, thus reducing perceived building height and mass. b. Roofline Variation, Numeric Standard. Roof line variation shall occur on all multifamily structures with roof lines which exceed 50 feet in length, and on all commercial, office or public structures which exceed 70 feet in length. Roof line variation shall be achieved using one or more of the following methods: i. Vertical off-set ridge or cornice line; ii. Horizontal off-set ridge or cornice line; iii. Variations of roof pitch between 5:12 and 12:12; or iv. Any other approved technique which achieves the intent of this section. The applicant has provided significant horizontal and vertical roofline variation. There is both vertical and horizontal off-set at the cornice line. Additionally, there is variation in the roof pitch. 7. Additional Standards for Buildings Containing Residential Units. Buildings containing residential units should incorporate the following additional design elements to make them residential in character: a. Bay windows, dormers, patios or decks; b. Base articulation such as plinths; or c. Other techniques approved by the design commission which make the building residential in character. The application incorporates decks and raised roof elements. The proposed structure generally has a residential character. 8. Corporate Design. Building and site design for chain or franchise businesses should use customized components consistent with the objectives and standards of this chapter. Specific icons or trademarks of a company may be used, but the overall design of the building and site must represent a development compatible with the neighborhood including its colors, materials, textures and treatment of design. This standard does not apply. 9. All-Weather Features. All-weather features at the sidewalk, courtyard or public gathering space areas of commercial and regulated public facilities, such as awnings, canopies, covered walkways, trellises, or covered patios, should be provided to make spending time outdoors feasible in all seasons. This section does not apply as this is not a commercial or public facility. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 14 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

18 MICC (B). Landscape Design and Outdoor Spaces. Standards. Any quantitative standards contained in MICC (B) that specify types of plant material, quantities, spacing, and planting area widths are not intended to dictate a rigid and formal landscape. The applicant should incorporate the quantitative standards into a quality landscape and planting design that meets the stated objectives and standards of this section. 1. Landscape Area. Landscape design shall address all areas of a site not covered by structures or used by automobiles. Landscape areas include open space, plantings, patios, plazas, pedestrian ways, trails, and other outdoor spaces. Surface parking lot planting and screening are required as set forth in MICC (B)(7), (8) and (9). Design review, however, shall be primarily concerned with: (a) areas of a site that require landscaping in order to address the impact of development on adjoining properties or public ways; and (b) parts of the development that are visible from adjoining properties or public ways. All areas on site not covered by structures or used by automobiles are proposed to have landscaping comprised of a combination of plantings, open space, a plaza, and an existing pedestrian trail. The parking area will be screened from the public right-of-way with planted green screens. 2. Outdoor Spaces. Outdoor spaces should be designed at a human scale and include hardscape spaces, spaces created by plant materials and combinations of the two. a. Strategically placed and useable pedestrian areas such as courtyards, plazas, outdoor seating or other gathering places should be provided for commercial, regulated residential and public facilities. b. On-site recreation areas appropriate to the users should be provided for residential and public projects. c. The design of outdoor spaces should combine necessary site functions, such as storm water detention, with open space and visual interest areas. The applicant is proposing a tenant plaza on the north east portion of the property (Exhibit 1, Sheets A0.1 and L1) comprised of a combination of a hardscape picnic area and spaces landscaped with plant materials. 3. Architectural Features. The design of landscape architectural features should be in scale with and complement the architecture of site structures and the visual character of the neighborhood. a. Use of architectural screens, arbors, trelliswork, art features, fountains and paving treatments such as wood, brick, stone, gravel and/or other similar methods and materials should be used in conjunction with native plant materials or in place of plant materials where planting opportunities are limited. b. Fences should be made of ornamental metal or wood, masonry, or some combination of the three. The use of razor wire, barbed wire, chain link, plastic or wire fencing is prohibited if it will be visible from a public way or adjacent properties, unless there are security requirements which cannot feasibly be addressed by other means. c. Fences should not create the effect of walled compounds that are isolated from adjacent developments and public ways. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 15 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

19 The applicant s landscaping plan (Exhibit 1, Sheet L1) illustrates the use of planted green screens to complement the proposed site structure. The green screens with vines provide a visual barrier between the parking area and the public right-of-way. The applicant is not proposing the installation of fences with the exception of fence sections to be used as arbors for the green screens. 4. Minimum Landscape Area Requirements. a. Total Landscaped Area. The following minimum areas shall be landscaped: i. Single-Family Residential (SF). For nonresidential uses in single-family residential zones (SF), a minimum of 35 percent of the gross lot area of shall be landscaped. ii. Multifamily Residential (MF). In multifamily residential zones (MF-2, MF-2L, MF-3), a minimum of 40 percent of the gross lot area shall be landscaped. iii. Planned Business Zone (PBZ). In the planned business zone (PBZ) landscape area requirements shall be as set forth in MICC iv. Commercial Office (CO). In commercial office (CO) zones, a minimum of 40 percent of the gross lot area shall be landscaped. v. Business (B). In business (B) zones, a minimum of 25 percent of the gross lot area shall be landscaped; provided, for fuel stations, a minimum of 10 percent of the gross lot area shall be landscaped. The subject property is zoned Multifamily Residential (MF-2), and is therefore required to have a minimum of 40 percent of the gross lot area landscaped. The applicant is proposing landscaping coverage of 50.3% per Exhibit 1, Sheets A-0.1 and L1. b. Impervious Surfaces. For all zones, area landscaped by impervious surfaces should constitute no more than 25 percent of the total required landscape area; provided, for multifamily residential zones, area landscaped by impervious surfaces should constitute no more than 10 percent of the total required landscape area. The applicant is proposing approximately 100 square feet of impervious coverage within landscaped areas for the proposed tenant plaza. This is approximately 0.5% of the total lot area and 1.3% of the total required landscaping (7,921 square feet). 5. Entrance Landscaping. For commercial and regulated public facilities, landscaping at entrances should frame an outdoor space near the entrance and reinforce this important building feature as a gathering place. This standard is not applicable, as the proposed development is neither a commercial building nor a regulated public facility. 6. Planting Material, Types and Design. The following planting types should be used: a. Native or northwest-adapted plants should be used for all open space and buffer locations and drought tolerant plantings should be used in a majority of plantings. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 16 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

20 According to the King County Native Plant List, Washington Native Plant Society, the Washington State University Pacific Northwest Plants Guide, and/or the Sunset Western Garden Book, all proposed plants (Exhibit 1, Sheet L1) appear to be either native to the northwest or northwest-adapted. Most are also as drought tolerant. b. New plantings should complement existing species native to the Pacific Northwest. As discussed above, all plants proposed appear to be native to the northwest or northwestadapted, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. c. Ground cover should be used to ensure planting areas are attractive, minimize maintenance and the potential for encroachment of invasive plant material. Ground cover should be planted and spaced to achieve total coverage within three years after installation. The applicant is proposing native ground covers to minimize maintenance and deter the encroachment of invasive plant material. Staff is suggesting that a bond be required as a condition of approval to ensure that landscaping achieve total coverage within three years after installation, consistent with MICC C Perimeter Screen Types and Widths by Use and Location. a. Required Screen Types and Widths. The following screen types and widths should be used: Use Adjacent to Screen Type and Width Full Partial Filtered Institutional Use or Public Facility Public Way 20 feet 1, 2 Utility Development Public Way 10 feet Commercial or Multifamily outside of C-O Zone Public Way 10 feet All uses inside of C-O Zone Public Way 20 feet Commercial, Institutional, Utility or Public Facility Residential (Single or Multifamily) Institutional, Commercial, Utility, Public Facility 20 feet 1 10 feet Public Park 20 feet Multifamily Development Single-Family Residential 20 feet Multifamily Residential Institutional, Commercial, Utility, or Public Facility 10 feet 10 feet Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 17 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

21 Public Park 20 feet All other private uses Public Park 20 feet 1 2 Breaks in full or partial screen planting may be allowed for institutional and public facilities to create focal points, preserve views, and highlight the prominence of important buildings. Perimeter landscape requirements may be modified if necessary to enable an existing public facility to make safety-related improvements to a legally nonconforming parking lot. b. Perimeter Width Averaging. Averaging of screen widths may be allowed, if the objectives of this section, the minimum landscape area requirements set forth in MICC (B)(4) and the following criteria are met: i. Plant material is clustered to more effectively screen parking areas and structures; and ii. Significant trees are retained. The subject site is located adjacent to single family zoning to the east. Per the above table, a partial 20 foot screen should be used. Existing trees and native understory are to remain, per Exhibit 1, Sheet L1, providing a minimum 20 foot wide screen. The subject property also borders multifamily residential properties to the north and south, thus requiring a 10 foot partial screen. The north side of the property would provide a 10 foot wide screen for areas not used by vehicles. The southern side of the property would also provide a 10 wide screen for areas not used by vehicles or the existing gravel trail (which is requested to be maintained or improved by neighbors per Exhibit 3). The site is bounded on the west by the Island Crest Way right-of-way, which necessitates a 10 foot filtered screen. A minimum 23 foot wide screen is proposed, per Exhibit 1, Sheet L1. As discussed further below, perimeter width averaging will not be necessary. 8. Perimeter Landscape Screens. Perimeter landscape screens should be consistent with the following definitions of screen types. Where existing undergrowth will be retained, the shrub and ground cover requirements for all screen types may be adjusted, provided the objectives of this section are met. a. Full Screen. A full screen provides a dense vegetated separation between dissimilar uses on adjacent properties. A full screen should block views from adjacent properties as seen at the pedestrian eye level in all seasons within three years of installation. The number of trees provided shall be proportionate to one tree for every 10 feet of landscape perimeter length. This section does not apply to this proposal, as a full screen is not required. b. Partial Screen. A partial screen provides a moderate vegetated separation between uses on adjacent properties and intermittent views to adjacent properties. A partial screen shall provide the desired screening function as seen at the pedestrian eye level in all seasons within three years of installation. The number of trees provided shall be proportionate to one tree for every 20 feet of landscape perimeter length. A 10 foot partial screen is required along the northern and southern property boundaries. Additionally, a 20 foot partial screen is required along the eastern property line. The applicant Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 18 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

22 is proposing a 20 foot partial landscaping screen across the rear (eastern) property boundary. MICC (B)(1) stipulates that landscape design shall address all areas of a site not covered by structures or used by automobiles. The applicant is proposing a 10 foot wide partial landscaping screen along the northern and southern property boundaries in areas not used by automobiles. The applicant is required to have a partial landscaping screen along approximately 531 feet of the lot perimeter. Therefore, the applicant must have at least 27 trees on site. Exhibit 1, Sheet L1 proposes to plant or retain at least 27 trees, thus meeting this requirement. c. Filtered Screen. A filtered screen should provide in all seasons and within three years of installation a lightly vegetated visual separation between uses on adjacent properties and allow visual access to adjacent properties. When compared to the other screen types, a filtered screen should be characterized by more open spaces, light filtration and transparency through the plant material forming the screen. A 10 foot filtered screen is required along the western property boundary. The applicant is proposing a 10 foot wide filtered screen along the entire length of the western property boundary. 9. Surface Parking Lot Planting. Surface parking lot planting is required in addition to required perimeter landscape screens. The requirements for surface parking lot planting for new parking lots with fewer than 20 spaces and for additions or remodels may be waived or modified if the applicant can demonstrate that these standards would reduce the amount of parking below the minimum required for the site. a. Standards by Location. Surface parking lots not located adjacent to public rights-of-way should provide one tree for every six parking stalls. Surface parking lots located in the front of buildings or adjacent to public rights-of-way should provide one tree for every four parking stalls. Trees should be at least six feet high at the time of planting. All lots should have planting areas at the end of parking aisles. 12 parking spaces are proposed. Therefore, three trees would be required. Sheet L1 of Exhibit 1 shows a minimum of three non-perimeter trees between the Island Crest Way right-of-way and the parking stalls. b. Common Standards for Surface Parking Lot Planting. The following standards apply to all surface parking lot planting: i. Shrubs. Shrubs should be maintained at a maximum three feet height within surface parking lots so views between vehicles and pedestrians will not be blocked. Irregular spacing and clustering is encouraged; however, the minimum number of shrubs shall be determined by assuming shrubs are planted on three foot centers throughout the entire planting area. Where vehicle headlights may project onto neighboring properties, shrubs shall be spaced to provide a continuous planting buffer. Exhibit 1, Sheet L1 proposes the planting of Evergreen Huckleberry and Coast Leucothoe between the parking spaces and the right of way. Online resources indicate that the plants typically grow four to six feet height. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 19 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

23 ii. Planting Islands or Strips. Planting islands or strips should have an area of at least 80 square feet and a narrow dimension of not less than five feet if wheel stops are provided to prevent vehicle overhang. A narrow dimension of not less than eight feet may be provided if the vehicle overhang area is included in the planting area. A planted green screen is proposed to obscure the parking area and prevent vehicular intrusion into landscape areas. iii. Tree Location. In parking lots, trees should be planted no closer than four feet from pavement edges where vehicles overhang planted areas. Curb stops may be used to proportionally decrease this distance. Trees are not proposed to be planted within the parking lot. Trees adjacent to the parking lot will be planted no closer than 4 feet from pavement edges (Exhibit 1, Sheet L1). Proposed green screens will function as curb stops. iv. Narrow Planting Strips and Parking Spaces. Narrow parking lot islands or peninsulas and planting strips shall not be planted in sod. Location of wider parking spaces adjacent to islands is suggested to reduce damage to plant materials. The application indicates no planting strips within the parking area are proposed. Therefore, neither grass nor sod will be used. v. Clustering of New Plant Material. Clustering of new plant material within surface parking lots may be approved if the objectives of this section are met. The application indicates evenly spaced plantings. The Design Commission may request clustering of the new plant material in order to meet the objective of this section. 10. Landscape Grading Standards. a. Slopes in Planting Areas. Graded slopes in planting areas should not exceed a 3(Horizontal): 1(Vertical) slope, in order to decrease erosion potential and to facilitate maintenance. Graded slopes planted with grass should not exceed a 4(H): 1(V) slope. b. Erosion Control. On ungraded slopes equal to or greater than 2(H): 1(V), erosion control netting or alternative procedures shall be used to prevent erosion. c. Guidelines. The obligation to install plants, shrubs and ground cover includes the obligation to utilize soil, planting practices and irrigation equipment that maximize the likelihood of their long-term survival. A landscaped area immediately adjacent to the west of the proposed building presently exceeds a 3 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) slope. The applicant is proposing to raise an existing retaining wall to ensure that the slope of the planting area does not exceed 3(H):1(V). Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 20 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

24 11. General Planting, Irrigation and Maintenance Standards. The following standards apply to the planting requirements set forth above: a. Coverage. Planting areas should be completely covered with trees, shrubs, flowers, mulched areas, and/or ground covers. The applicant has identified several planting areas, each of which will be completely covered with trees, shrubs, flowers, mulched areas, and/or ground covers as shown by General Construction Notes 3 and 4 on Sheet L1 of Exhibit 1. b. Berms and Landforms. Earth berms and landforms in combination with shrubs and trees may be used to achieve the initial planting height requirement. No berms are proposed. c. Minimum Width. All planting areas should be a minimum of five feet in width. Planting areas should be wider wherever possible. All planting areas appear to be 5 feet or greater in width. d. Sight Clearance. At intersections, plantings shall not create sight obstructions that may compromise pedestrian or traffic safety. This standard is not applicable, as there are no intersections on the subject property. e. Planting Coverage. All required planting areas should extend to the ditch slope, curb line, street edge, or area of sidewalk. The landscaping proposed extends to curb line, the building footprint, or to the toe of the slope along the eastern property boundary. f. Curbs Required. Permanent curbs or structural barriers/dividers should enclose planting areas in vehicle use areas except when draining runoff from pavement to planting areas functioning as rain gardens or other low impact development facilities. Wheel stops should also be used to protect planting areas from damage due to cars overhanging the curb. Plantings will not be placed within the vehicle use area, which is located beneath the proposed apartment building. g. Plantings Near Utilities. Trees shall not be planted within eight feet of a water or sewer pipeline. Shrubs shall be at least four feet from hydrants. A full screen will be required to screen above-ground utilities from adjacent uses and public rights-of-way. Perimeter plantings shall be clustered in areas to screen structures, utility structures, loading areas, trash enclosures, storage areas and mechanical equipment. This paragraph shall not apply to Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 21 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

25 utilities, structures, loading areas, enclosures or equipment unless the utility, structure, loading area, enclosure or equipment is being added as part of the regulated improvement being reviewed. Upon submittal of a building permit application, plans will be reviewed to ensure that trees are not planted within eight feet of water or sewer pipe lines and that shrubs are at least four feet from fire hydrants. If this requirement substantially alters the landscaping plan, the applicant shall bring the modified landscaping plan in front of the Design Commission for additional review. The applicant is not proposing a loading area, trash enclosure, external storage area, or mechanical equipment. All utilities will be placed in recessed vaults. Any above-ground utilities shall be screened as required. h. Drainage. Planting areas shall be provided with adequate drainage. Adequate drainage for planting areas will be required. i. Maintenance Requirements. All required landscaping shall be maintained in good condition. Plant material should be cared for in a way that allows their natural form to be maintained, even when the plant reaches maturity. Performance guarantees to ensure maintenance or required landscaping may be required pursuant to MICC The City is requiring a maintenance bond as a condition of approval to ensure that all landscaping be maintained in good condition. MICC (B). Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation 1. Vehicular Circulation Characteristics. a. Parking Lot Design. Parking areas should be designed for efficient and safe ingress and egress by vehicles and should not inhibit safe pedestrian movement or circulation. Parking lot design should be subordinate to the overall site design and should be located behind new buildings when appropriate and physically feasible. Below grade parking is also encouraged. Planting strips should be incorporated between parking aisles in new and expanded parking lots where space permits. Parking lot development standards, such as stall and aisle dimensions, are contained in Appendix A. The applicant is proposing a parking area that is underneath the apartment building but above grade. Planting strips should not be necessary since the parking will be located within a structure. The proposed parking lot meets or exceeds the dimensional standards in Appendix A. b. Loading Docks. Proposed development of features such as loading docks, and other features designed to support activities with a substantial likelihood of generating significant noise should be designed with noise attenuation walls and sited in a manner to limit impacts to adjacent properties and pedestrian areas. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 22 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

26 The applicant is not proposing a loading dock. 2. Pedestrian Circulation Characteristics. a. Pedestrian Improvements. All developments shall provide for pedestrian access including pedestrian walkways, sidewalks, and/or paths. Areas for sitting and gathering should be provided as an integral part of regulated public facilities, regulated residential and commercial building design. Pedestrian improvements should be separated from vehicular areas by physical barriers such as curbs or landscaping. This requirement for new parking lots with fewer than 20 spaces and for additions or remodels may be waived or modified where the applicant can demonstrate that these standards would reduce the amount of parking below what would be required for the site. The applicant is proposing pedestrian walkways that will be separated from vehicular areas by physical barriers such as walls and the building itself. An area for sitting and gathering is proposed on the eastern side of the property. MICC (B). Screening of Service and Mechanical Areas. 1. Accessory Buildings. Ground level outdoor storage buildings, mechanical equipment and utility vaults shall be screened from adjacent public ways. The applicant is not proposing any outdoor storage buildings or external mechanical equipment (Exhibit 5). Furthermore, utility vaults will be recessed, and therefore not visible from adjacent public ways. 2. Rooftop Mechanical Equipment and Appurtenances. All rooftop mechanical equipment shall not be visible and shall be enclosed, hidden or screened from adjacent properties, public ways and parks. Rooftop appurtenances are allowed if there is a functional need for the appurtenance and that functional need cannot be met with an appurtenance of a lesser height. This provision shall not be construed to allow building height in excess of the maximum limit. Rooftop appurtenances should be located at least 10 feet from the exterior edge of any building, and shall not cover more than 20 percent of the rooftop area. Appurtenances shall not be located on the roof of a structure unless they are hidden or camouflaged by building elements that were designed for that purpose as an integral part of the building design. All appurtenances located on the roof should be grouped together and incorporated into the roof design and thoroughly screened. The screening should be sight-obscuring, located at least 10 feet from the exterior edge of any building; and effective in obscuring the view of the appurtenances from public streets or sidewalks or residential areas surrounding the building. The applicant is not proposing any rooftop mechanical equipment (Exhibit 5). 3. Meters and Mechanical Units. Water meters, gas meters, electric meters, ground-mounted mechanical units and any other similar structures should be hidden from public view or screened. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 23 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

27 According to Exhibit 5, the applicant is not proposing an external, visible meters or mechanical units. 4. On-Site Service Areas. All on-site service areas, loading zones, outdoor storage areas, garbage collection and recycling areas and similar activities should be located in an area not visible from public ways. Service areas should accommodate loading, trash bins, recycling facilities, storage areas, utility cabinets, utility meters, transformers, etc. Service areas should be located and designed for easy access by service vehicles and for convenient access by all tenants. Loading activities should generally be concentrated and located where they will not create a nuisance for adjacent uses. Loading docks shall meet the standards identified in MICC (B)(1)(b). Sheet A1.1 of Exhibit 1 shows that proposed storage, trash, and recycling areas will be located inside of the apartment building. No loading dock is proposed. 5. Garbage, Recycling Collection and Utility Areas. Garbage, recycling collection and utility areas shall be enclosed and screened around their perimeter by a wall or fence at least seven feet high, concealed on the top and must have self-closing doors. If the area is adjacent to a public way or pedestrian alley, a landscaped planting strip, minimum three feet wide, shall be located on three sides of such facility. Sheet A1.1 of Exhibit 2 indicates that the garbage and recycling areas are proposed to be located inside the main structure, thus eliminating the need for screening. 6. Fence, Trellis and Arbor Standards. Fences, trelliswork and arbors shall meet the standards identified in MICC (B)(3). The applicant is not proposing any fencing, arbors, or trellises. 7. Noise, Vapor, Heat or Fumes. With respect to all aspects of the development referred to above in this section, emissions of noise, vapor, heat or fumes should be mitigated. Noise, vapor, heat and/or fumes emissions shall be mitigated as necessary. MICC (B). Lighting. 1. Architectural Elements. Lighting should be designed as an integral architectural element of the building and site. 2. Function and Security. On-site lighting shall be sufficient for pedestrian, bicyclist, and vehicular safety. Building entrances should be well lit to provide inviting access and safety. Buildingmounted lights and window lights should contribute to lighting of walkways in pedestrian areas. 3. Lighting Height. Freestanding, parking area and building-mounted light fixtures shall not exceed 16 feet in height, including any standard or base. 4. Shielding. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be shielded or located to confine light spread within the site boundaries. Full cut-off fixtures should be used. The use of unshielded incandescent Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 24 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

28 lighting fixtures less than 160 watts and any unshielded lighting less than 50 watts may be allowed. Parking area light fixtures shall be designed to confine emitted light to the parking area. 5. Uplighting of Structures and Signs. a. Residential Zones. Structures in residential zones shall not be illuminated by uplighting. Limited uplighting of signs and plantings in residential zones may be approved provided there is no glare or spillover lighting off the site boundaries. b. Nonresidential Zones. Structures, signs, and plantings in nonresidential zones may be illuminated by uplighting, provided there is no glare or spillover lighting off the site boundaries. 6. Light Type. Lighting should use low wattage color-corrected sodium light sources, which give more natural light. Metal halide, quartz, neon and mercury vapor lighting are prohibited in residential zones. High pressure sodium lights may only be used as street lights and must be fully shielded. 1. The proposed lighting (Sheets A1.1L and A1.2L of Exhibit 2) is an integral architectural element of the building and site as it incorporates the lighting into the overall development by using fixtures that are modest and unobtrusive. Additionally, the proposed lighting will be used to accent the façade of the proposed building that fronts onto the public right-ofway. 2. On site lighting is concentrated in parking and pedestrian areas, which are well lit to enhance security. 3. No freestanding lights are proposed. 4. Sheet A-1.1L of Exhibit 1 shows that the proposed lighting will be shielded (recessed walk/wall sconce lights) or be focused downward (garage lights). The parking area light fixtures are designed to confine emitted light to the parking area (Exhibit 1, Sheet A-P). 5. Signage is not proposed. 6. The applicant is not proposing metal halide, quartz, neon, mercury vapor lighting, or high pressure sodium lights. MICC (B). Signs. 1. Freestanding Ground Signs Outside Residential Zones. a. Number. An individual building or a building complex outside residential zones may display one ground sign on each street frontage. b. Design. The sign shall be architecturally compatible with the style, materials, colors and details of the building or complex. Use of symbols is encouraged. c. Size. All signs shall be: i. Proportionate. Proportionate to the street frontage of the use they identify; and ii. Maximum Size. In no case shall a freestanding ground sign be larger than: (A) Twenty-Five Square Feet. Twenty-five square feet for single-tenant building ground signs and complex identification ground signs. Such signs may be allowed in front or side yard setbacks; or (B) Forty Square Feet. Forty square feet for joint tenant ground signs (identifying more than one facility or establishment within a building or building complex) with six square feet maximum for any one establishment included in a building or building complex; provided, joint tenant ground signs shall be restricted to a maximum of 25 square feet if located within front or side yard setbacks. d. Maximum Height. The maximum height of any sign within 10 feet from any property line facing a street shall be 42 inches. All other ground signs shall be no higher than six feet. Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 25 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

29 e. Backs of Signs. Exposed areas of backs of signs should be finished with appropriate color, material or texture to present an attractive appearance relative to the building material, color and texture. With the exception of street numbers, which are required, signage is not proposed. A signage plan will not be required. However, any signage proposed subsequent to completion of design review will be subject to additional design review by either the Code Official or the Design Commission as required by MICC III. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis and findings included herein, staff recommends to the Planning Commission the following: Recommended Motion: Move to grant Mercer Island Co-Investment, L.L.C. preliminary and final design approval for a proposed six unit multifamily development to be located at 3210 Island Crest Way as demonstrated in Exhibit 1 and as conditioned by the March 14, 2012 staff report to the Design Commission. First Alternative Motion: Move to grant Mercer Island Co-Investment, L.L.C. preliminary and final design approval for a proposed six unit multifamily development to be located at 3210 Island Crest Way as demonstrated in Exhibit 1 and as conditioned by the March 14, 2012 staff report to the Design Commission, provided that Exhibit 1 shall be modified as follows: [describe modifications]. Second Alternative Motion: Move to grant Mercer Island Co-Investment, L.L.C. preliminary design approval for a proposed six unit multifamily development to be located at 3210 Island Crest Way as demonstrated in Exhibit 1 and as conditioned by the March 14, 2012 staff report to the Design Commission. Third Alternative Motion: Move to grant Mercer Island Co-Investment, L.L.C. preliminary design approval for a proposed six unit multifamily development to be located at 3210 Island Crest Way as demonstrated in Exhibit 1 and as conditioned by the March 14, 2012 staff report to the Design Commission, provided that Exhibit 1 shall be modified as follows: [describe modifications]. IV. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. If the applicant has not submitted a complete application for a building permit within two years from the date of the notice of the final design review decision, or within two years from the decision on appeal from the final design review decision, design review approval shall expire. The design commission or code official may grant an extension for no longer than 12 months, for good cause shown, if a written request is submitted at least 30 days prior to the expiration date. The applicant is responsible for knowledge of the expiration date. 2. All landscaping depicted in Sheet L1 of Exhibit 1 shall be maintained in good condition. Maintenance shall include regular watering, mowing, pruning, clearance of debris and weeds, removal and replacement of dead plants and the repair and replacement of irrigation systems. A landscaping bond is required prior to any Certificate of Occupancy for the proposed building to ensure that the approved landscape plan will achieve total coverage within three years after installation. The bond amount shall be set by City staff based on the approved landscape plan, and cost for labor and materials. 3. Any signage proposed subsequent to completion of design review of file number DSR will be subject to additional design review by either the Code Official or the Design Commission as required by MICC Design Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 1 Page 26 of 26, March 14, 2012 S:\DSG\Planning\Planning Permits\Design Review\2011\DSR Mercer Island Co-Investment LLC\DSR MI Co- Invest-Prelimand FinalDCStaffRpt doc

30 EXHIBIT 1 Project No.: DSR Project Name: M.I. Co-Investment, L.L.C. Six Unit Multifamily Development 3210 Island Crest Way

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41 From: Sent: To: Subject: EXHIBIT 2 Project No.: DSR Torjan Ronhovde [torjan@ronhovdearchitects.com] Project Name: M.I. Co-Investment, L.L.C. Tuesday, March 06, :55 PM Six Unit Multifamily Development Shana Crick RE: Design Commission materials 3210 Island Crest Way Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Shana Crick Shana, below are the written items that should be added into the design commission packet as requested. 1. A plan showing the proposed locations of all roof and/or ground mounted mechanical units, utility vaults, utility cabinets, transformers, water meters, gas meters, and electric meters. See MICC (B)(1) through (4).We are not proposing any roof or ground mounted HVAC units. There will not be gas meters as we will be using electric heat and HWT. The electric meters will be located inside the trash/storage room. These are read remotely. (We commonly do this for larger apartment buildings.) Water meters will be recessed in the ground in a location undetermined at this time. The electrical transformer will be in a recessed vault as well. The electrical vault location is determined by PSE and will be located once they are under contact for the design and construction of the unit. It is too early in the process to get PSE under contract to provide that design. We can show a probable location that will be our best guess. 2. How do pedestrians get down to Island Crest Way? The pedestrian path shown does not connect to existing pedestrian walkways as required by MICC (B)(1) and (B)(2)(a). Architect Comment: My notes indicate that they decided that a striped path to private road 81st Place would satisfy this requirement since the slope adjacent to Island Crest Way is too steep for stairs and would not be accessible in any event and a striped path to the driveway for Ridgewood Condos would have to go across their property. Please advise. Owner Comment: Thanks Shana. I just don t see this as being feasible or practical. As a resident of Mercer Island I wouldn t want a bunch of ship ladder stairs winding down to island crest way, and I don t see others in the neighborhood having to do so. We are going to do our best to appease most off the design commissions requests however on this one I think I m going to stand pat. Thanks for your help. Tom Shana, My notes show that we explained that the hill was too steep to safely install the stairs. We explained that people could walk down 81st and use the Ridgewood stairs. My notes show that there was no opposition to this. I don t believe that there is a code provision requiring direct access to bus stops. Can we talk this morning so that we are on the same page going into the meeting? Thanks Tom 1

42 3. Show the new garbage and recycling collection area (as well as utility areas see #1 above) on the project plans and demonstrate that these areas are functional. Requested by the Design Commission per MICC (B)(4) and (5). Architect Comment: A door from the north side was added to the previous plan to allow access to the garbage room door next to stalls 10, 11, 12. I confirmed with Allied waste that this is acceptable for them to access this space and take the bins out to the truck on pick up day. The tenants will not be required to take their own bins out. Allied said they do this typically for condo projects. This way no one but the tenants ever see the bins. 2

43 EXHIBIT 3 Project No.: DSR Project Name: M.I. Co-Investment, L.L.C. Six Unit Multifamily Development 3210 Island Crest Way

44

45

46 EXHIBIT 4 Project No.: DSR Project Name: M.I. Co-Investment, L.L.C. Six Unit Multifamily Development 3210 Island Crest Way

47

48 EXHIBIT 5 Project No.: DSR Project Name: M.I. Co-Investment, L.L.C. Six Unit Multifamily Development 3210 Island Crest Way A. 81st Place SE and Island Crest Way C. 81st Place SE south of Ridgewood B. 81st Place SE south of Ridgewood D. 81st Place SE looking at the building pad area

49 E. 81st Place SE looking southeast A. 81st Place SE south of Ridgewood G. 81st Place SE looking southeast F. 81st Place SE looking south

50 H. 81st Place SE looking northeast J. Looking southeast towards the building I. 81st Place SE looking southwest K. Northern property boundary looking east

51 L. Southern property line looking east M. Looking northeast towards slope and Ridgewood N. Slope on eastern property line O. Gravel pathway along southern property line