Full Text
MEMORANDUM TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: CAMERON ZAPATA, PLANNER SUBJECT: LAND-2018-00566, Esterra Park Block 2 LOCATION: 15300 NE TURNING STREET Parcel # [PHONE REDACTED] DATE: January 3, 2018 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is for one multi-family building within the Esterra Park Master Planned area. The total site is 3.21 acres and the proposal consists of one eight-story multifamily building with 620 ---PAGE BREAK--- apartment units and below grade parking. Units will be a mix of studios, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units with four floors of underground parking. Site improvements, such as right-of-way improvements and landscaping are also proposed. The site has a steep topography with a grade change of approximately 40-feet from west to east. The site is north of the proposed park and hillclimb, and neighbors Esterra Park Block 1 (west), Esterra Park Block 3 (east), and the Overlake Terrace Retirement Community. The DRB las reviewed this project on November 16, 2018. Since then, the design and color palette have been modified to address some of staff and the Board’s feedback. The applicant has provided multiple studies to address rooftop modulation and color palette concerns. Staff is interested in hearing the Board’s response to these studies. The applicants preferred study to satisfy the roofline modulation requirement, would require a deviation in the roofline modulation requirement set forth in RZC 21.60.040.3.B.ii: ii. The width of any continuous flat roofline should not extend more than 100 feet without modulation. Modulation should consist of either one or a combination of the following treatments: A. For flat roofs or facades with a horizontal eave, fascia, or parapet with at least an eight- foot return, the minimum vertical dimension of roofline modulation is the greater of two feet or one-tenth multiplied by the wall height (finish grade to top of wall) if the segment is 50 feet or less, or at least four feet if the segment is more than 50 feet in length. B. A sloped or gabled roofline segment of at least 20 feet in width and no less than three feet vertical in 12 feet horizontal. The areas that would require the Administrative Design Flexibility is on the north, west, and east elevations of the building, as shown on page four of the Design Review Board Materials. Staff is interested to hear from the Board if the preferred roofline modulation study meets the requirement of the Administrative Design Flexibility RZC 21.76.070.C.8.a: a. Deviation from standards listed in subsection C.8.b below may be allowed if an applicant demonstrates that the deviations would result in a development that: i. Better meets the intent of the goals and policies for the zone in which the site is located; ii. Is superior in design in terms of architecture, building materials, site design, landscaping, and open space; and iii. Provides benefit in terms of desired use and activity. The first Alternative Roofline Modulation study shows the canted frame on the north elevation corners. This study would create a variable roofline throughout and creates a skyline that is visually interesting, which satisfies the roofline modulation requirement. An additional study has been provided which shows an eliminated band atop the top level of the building, which staff feels leaves the elevation to look incomplete. ---PAGE BREAK--- The applicant has also provided a study on color palette variation. The first study—1. Champagne- Vintage provides more contrast between strata colors, consistent colors in strata, and white framing around the windows compared with what was shown at the last DRB meeting. The second study—2. Champagne Zactique shows shifts in the color palette to show more contrast, and lightening the strata colors at the top. Staff is interested in hearing Board’s response to these two studies on rooflines and color palette. If the Board is in support of the preferred Roofline Modulation study, staff is interested if the Board is also in support of the Administrative Design Flexibility. Staff is also interested in hearing which color variation is suggested to the applicant. If the DRB is ready to approve the project, please include a separate recommendation of approval for the requested administrative design flexibility stating that it meets the requirements of and RZC 21.76.070.C.8 have been met and demonstrated by the applicant. In general, staff is pleased with the look and progress of the building. Staff is eager to hear the applicant’s presentation, and the Board’s comments and direction for the different rooflines and color palettes. Thank you to the DRB for your input and work, it is very much appreciated. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The City of Redmond Planning staff recommends approval of the colors, materials, landscaping, elevations with the following conditions: 1. Approval of materials and supported study on roofline modulation and color palette as presented at tonight’s January 3, 2018 meeting. 2. Presentation Material Inconsistencies a. Where inconsistencies between the floor plans and elevations are found after the Design Review Board has approved the project, the elevations approved by the Design Review Board at this meeting will prevail. If, after this Design Review Board approval, there are any inconsistencies found in the information provided for the elevations, floor plans, landscape plans, lighting plans, materials and color between the presentation boards and submitted drawings, the Design Review Board and Redmond Planning Staff will review and determine which design version will be followed for Administrative Modification and Building Permits.