AEGIS LIVING - Home · PDF file3 Ankrom Moisan Architects & Aegis Living EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE Project Team ARCHITECT Ankrom Moisan Architects, Inc. 117 South Main Street, Suite 400

A E G I S L I V I N G8511 15TH AVE NE

EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE PACKETMAY 11 2015

DPD #3018400

2 A n k r o m M o i s a n A r c h i t e c t s & A e g i s L i v i n g E A R L Y D E S I G N G U I D A N C E

INTRODUCTION

Table of Contents................................................................................................2

General Project Information.............................................................................3

CONTEXT ANALYSIS

Vicinity Map..........................................................................................................4

Context Axonometric.........................................................................................5

SITE ANALYSIS

Photomontages...................................................................................................6

Site Photos and Surrounding Zoning............................................................8

Topography + Structures and Tree Survey..................................................10

Site Access Opportunities ...............................................................................12

Sun/Shadow (Existing).....................................................................................13

MASSING OPTIONS

Proposed Site Plan............................................................................................14

Sun/Shadow (Proposed).................................................................................15

Detailed Zoning Analysis.................................................................................16

Design Guidelines............................................................................................ ..17

Massing Study & Plan Diagrams........................................................................

Massing Study A..............................................................................19

Massing Study B.............................................................................20

Massing Study C - Preferred........................................................21

Summary.............................................................................................22

Preferred Option Design Guideline Response..........................................23

Departures...........................................................................................................29

Ta b l e o f c o n t e n t s


Project Team

ARCHITECT

Ankrom Moisan Architects, Inc.117 South Main Street, Suite 400Seattle, WA 98104206.576.1600

Contact: JP [email protected]

OWNER/APPLICANT

Aegis Living17602 NE Union Hill RoadRedmond, WA 98052425.284.1624

Contact: Michael [email protected]

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

LA Studios LLC15200 52nd Ave S, Suite 210Seattle, WA 98188206.204.0717

Contact: Roby [email protected]

CONTRIBUTE TO THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THE SITETo the West, our site is located adjacent to the Maple Leaf Reservoir, which is an excellent urban park and a connector feature of the neighborhood. To the East, the so-called “Waldo Woods” is a protected tree easement appreciated by the neighborhood and the applicant. Our community will address and enhance the character of each of these features.

DEVELOP A SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY; MEET BUILT GREEN 4-STAR STANDARDOur community will be a lasting addition to the neighborhood, sustaining an older generation of residents for decades into the future. In order to ensure this lasting value, our development will meet the Built Green 4-Star standard through a variety of sustainable design features.

Our proposal is to construct a 3-story assisted living commu-nity that will be an exceptional feature of the neighborhood. The basic program includes:

62/18 assisted living units/memory care units

74,646 sfgross square footage

31 underground parking stalls

G E N E R A L I N F O R M A T I O N

Development Goals

Project Goals

site

site


Maple Leaf Reservoir

Maple Leaf Park

MAPLE LEAF RO

OSEV

ELT WA

Y N

E

LAKE CIT

Y WAY N

E

WEDGEWOOD

EN E

VA HT

02

15TH

AV

E N

E

NE 80TH ST

RAVENNA

SITE

RAVENN

A STREET

12TH

AV

E N

E

LAKE CITY WAY N

E

PRINCIPAL ARTERIAL ROADS

MINOR ARTERIAL ROADS

COLLECTOR ARTERIAL ROADS

LEGEND

15TH A

VE N

ENE 80TH ST

20TH

AV

E NE

C O N T E X T - V I C I N I T Y M A P


NE 88th StreetNE 89th Street

NE 84th Street

MAPLE LEAF RESERVOIR

MAPLE LEAF PARK

LEGEND

SITE

BUS STOPS

LOCAL BUSINESSES

SCHOOLS/INSTITUTIONS

N

PHARMACY

GARDEN STORE

CAFE

RESTAURANT

ST. CATHERINE OF SIENA

FAITH LUTHERAN

73

73, 77

73, 373309, 312

68

68

NE 85th Street

NE 86th Street

NE 88th Street

NE 85th StreetNE 86th Street

16th Avenue NE15th Avenue NE

14th Avenue NE

Brooklyn Avenue NE

12th Avenue NE

NE 82nd Street

SITE

C O N T E X T - A D J A C E N T F E A T U R E S


S T R E E T L E V E L P H O T O M O N T A G E

426.4’

411.4

’

424.8’

411.1’

SITE


S T R E E T L E V E L P H O T O M O N T A G E

421.5

’

410.6’

422.3’

410.6’

SITE


S I T E P H O T O S

7

2

6

5

1

4

3

1 SOUTHWEST VIEW OF SITE

5 EAST VIEW OF SITE

2 EAST VIEW OF SITE

4 VIEW OF MAPLE LEAF RESERVOIR

3 VIEW OF MAPLE LEAF RESERVOIR HOUSING

6 VIEW OF HOUSING 7 VIEW OF HOUSING


C1-40

NC2-40LR2

LR2

522 /

LAKE C

ITY W

AY NE

17TH

AV

E N

E

16TH

AV

E N

E

15TH

AV

E N

E

15TH

AV

E N

E

RO

OSE

VEL

T W

AY N

E N

E

17TH

AV

E N

E

17TH

PLA

CE N

E

85TH STREET NE

86TH STREET NE

88TH STREET NE

82TH STREET NE

88TH STREET NE

86TH STREET NE

85TH STREET NE

84TH STREET NE

83TH STREET NE

MAPLE LEAF PARK

RETAIL AND MIXED-USE CORRIDOR

RESIDENTIAL, MULTIFAMILY,

LOWRISE 2

COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR

PROJECT SITE

LR2

S U R R O U N D I N G Z O N I N G

1 0 A n k r o m M o i s a n A r c h i t e c t s & A e g i s L i v i n g E A R L Y D E S I G N G U I D A N C E

EXISTING 2-STORY BUILDING

(TO BE DEMOLISHED)

T O P O G R A P H Y + E X I S T I N G S T R U C T U R E S


1

23

45

6

7

August 13, 2014

Michael DerrAegis Retirement Communities17602 NE Union Hill RoadRedmond, WA 98052

Project site: maple Leaf site, 8511 85th Avenue Northeast, Seattle

Dear Michael,

Per your request I visually inspected trees located on the project site 8511 85th Avenue Northeast, Seattle Washington The visual evaluation was performed to determine size, species and overall health of seven on-site trees.

The visual condition of each tree is described in the report below.

Excellent - No defects or signs of natural decline;

Good - Limited, or minor, defects and no signs of natural decline, remove if impacted;

Fair - Significant defects and/or signs of natural decline, remove if impacted;

Poor - Major defects, obvious decline or dead. Remove regardless of impacts.

DBH = Diameter at Breast Height

Tree #

Botanical Name Common name DBH Visual Condition /Comments

1 Pinus monticola Western White Pine

28” Good / pruned to approx. 20’ ht.

2 Acer platanoides Norway Maple 11” Good

3 Betula pendula European White Birch

18.5 Good


15” Good


13” Good

6 Prunus cerasifera Flowering Plum 9” Good

7 Pinus sp. Pine 18” Poor / Dead

See attached sketch dated August 13, 2014 for corresponding numbers and surveyed locations

of trees.

None of these trees meet the threshold to be considered exceptional as defined in City of Seattle Directors Rule 16-2008.

Information regarding existing trees and potential development can be found at Seattle Municipal Code 25.11, directors rule 16-2008 and Client Assistance Memo 242 and 253.

If I can answer any questions or provide further service please let me know.

Regards

Margarett HarrisonCertified Arborist PN 502

August 13, 2014

Michael DerrAegis Retirement Communities17602 NE Union Hill RoadRedmond, WA 98052

Project site: maple Leaf site, 8511 85th Avenue Northeast, Seattle

Dear Michael,








Tree #






18.5 Good


15” Good


13” Good



Dear Michael,








Tree #






18.5 Good


15” Good


13” Good



E X I S T I N G T R E E S U R V E Y


AC

CES

S FR

OM

WES

T B

LOC

KED

BY

RES

ERV

IOR

ACCESS FROM NORTH BLOCKED BY EXISTING BUILDINGS

AC

CES

S FR

OM

15T

H A

VE

BLO

CK

ED

BY

CO

NSE

RVA

TIO

N E

ASE

MEN

T

DISTANCE FROM PROPERTY LINE ALONG 85TH STREET TO EASEMENT TOO NARROW FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS

AVAILABLE SITE ACCESS AREA

25’-

0”

S I T E A C C E S S O P P O R T U N I T I E S


March/September 21 - 10AM March/September 21 - NOON March/September 21 - 2PM

June 21 - 10AM June 21 - NOON June 21 - 2PM December 21 - 10AM December 21 - NOON December 21 - 2PM

S H A D O W S T U D I E S , E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S


PROPOSED 3-STORY BUILDING

P R O P O S E D S I T E P L A N1

A

NE 85TH ST

15TH

AVE

NE

L IN

E O

F CO

NSE

RVAT

ION

EAS

EMEN

T (E) TREE, TYP. TREES WITHINCONSERVATION EASEMENT TO REMAIN

(E) TREE, TYP. TREES WITHINCONSERVATION EASEMENT TO REMAIN

LINE OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT

(E) PATHWAY TO REMAIN

(E) CONC WALL TO REMAIN (E) ROCKERY TO REMAIN

6' - 6"

27' -

7" RE

AR S

ETBA

CK

15' -

0"

SIDE SETBACK

5' - 0"

15' -

0"

SIDE SETBACK

5' - 0"

2.1%

[No Slope]

5.0%10.0%

20.0%

10.0%5.0%

413' - 10"

414' - 1"

414' - 7"

424' - 7"

425' - 1"

425' - 4"

426.34

425' - 6"

SIDEWALK

TEMP PARKING

TEMP PARKING

TEMP PARKING

425' - 11"

EGRESS PATH

30' -

0"

17' - 0"

20' - 0"

5' - 0"5' - 0"

50' - 0"

5' - 0"

20' - 8 15/32"

8' -

0"8'

- 0"

8' -

0"

A3.02

2

A3.01 1

A3.01

2

A3.021


March/September 21 - 10AM March/September 21 - NOON March/September 21 - 2PM

June 21 - 10AM June 21 - NOON June 21 - 2PM December 21 - 10AM December 21 - NOON December 21 - 2PM

S H A D O W S T U D I E S , P R O P O S E D D E S I G N


L A N D U S E C O D E S U M M A R Y

ParcelAPN 510040024556,771 SF

ZoneLR2

FAR 1. Up to 1.3 if following LEED Silver or 4 Star Built Green, under the following: 2008 Multifamily or 2007 New Construction at election of applicant

2. FAR Bonus Standard for Parking: Must be totally enclosed within the structure.

3. Exemptions from FAR: All underground stories Portions of a story which extend no more than 4’ above existing or finish grade, measured to the ceiling, excluding access

Height 1. 30’-0” above average grade.

2. 4’-0” height exception for shed and butterfly roofs

3. See Exhibit A for 23.45.514

4. 10’-0” exception for 20% of roof area for the following Stair penthouses, mech equipment, play equipment, chimneys, communication equip ment.

Setbacks 1. Front 5’-0” 2. Rear 15’-0” (no alley) 3. Side Facades 40’-0 or longer – 5’-0” min, 7’-0” average.

Amenity Area 1. Requirements for amenity areas for apartments do not apply. 2. Amenity area must equal 5% of total unit floor area or 25% of lot area, whichever is less. 3. 400 square foot minimum outdoor area. Minimum dimension of 10 feet.

Maximum Structure Width 1. 90’-0” in any direction. 2. Portions within 15’-0” of any lot line which is not a rear, street, or alley line shall not exceed 65% of the lot length.

Street Facades 1. See Exhibit B for 23.45.529

Parking 1. AL units; 1 space per ea 2 sta� members at peak sta�ng, plus 1 barrier free loading and unloading space. Any tandem spaces provided count as 1.5 spaces. 62 units / 4 = 16 spaces 2. Peak Sta�ng = 30 / 2 = 15 spaces 3. Total Required = 31 spaces

Dwelling 23.42.048 1. Per 23.42.048 there are no ‘dwelling units’ in this development.


CS1 Natural Systems and Site Features

Use natural systems and features of the site and its surroundings as a starting point for project design.

PROJECT DESIGN RESPONSES• Project goal to be Built green 4 Star.• Retain existing tree easement to remain with improvements to the existing pathway.

CS2 Urban Pattern and Form

Strengthen the most desirable forms, characteristics, and patterns of the streets, block faces, and open spaces in the surrounding area.

PROJECT DESIGN RESPONSES• Main massing of the structure abuts the adjacent Lowrise 3 lot, pulled away from Single-family lots across the street.• Existing tree easement to bu�er building height from smaller neighboring buildings.• Existing tree easement to frame views of architecture.• Roof forms to match residential character of neighbor hood.

CS3 Architectural Context and Character

Contribute to the architectural character of the neighborhood.

PROJECT DESIGN RESPONSES• Historical tree easement and pathway used to connect to building.• Building to have a ‘residential’ street presence to match neighborhood context.

PL1 Connectivity

Complement and contribute to the network of open spaces around the site and the connections among them.

PROJECT DESIGN RESPONSES• Landscape improvements along NE 85th St public sidewalk lead towards reservoir.• Existing tree easement pathway improved for resident amenities.• Public landscape amenity space along 15th Ave NE.

D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S


-

PL2 Walkability

Create a safe and comfortable walking environment that is easy to navigate and well-connected to existing pedestrian walkways and features.

PROJECT DESIGN RESPONSES• Public sidewalk along NE 85th St connection to site entrance.• Accessibility for people of all abilities provided throughout site and entrance.

DC1 Project Uses and Activities

Optimize the arrangement of uses and activities on site.

PROJECT DESIGN RESPONSES• All parking provided below grade, temporary accessible spaces near entrance.• Exterior ‘sun patio’ and interior uses take advantage of views.• Separate pedestrian sidewalk leading to main entry.

DC2 Architectural Concept

Develop an architectural concept that will result in a unified and functional design that fits well on the site and within its surroundings.

PROJECT DESIGN RESPONSES• Concept reduces perceived mass through window patterning at upper levels and horizontal breaks in the facade materials.

DC3 Open Space Concept

Integrate open space design with the design of the building so that each complements each other.

PROJECT DESIGN RESPONSES• Connect building and residents to retained existing tree easement.• New landscaping along public sidewalks and within site used to blend building design with neighborhood character.• New landscaping used to create areas of interest for residents and bu�er them from the public tra�c.

D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S


Gross Area 69,056 sq. ft.

Number of Units 56/18

Parking Count 24

Stories 3

N

N

SOUTHEAST VIEW

SOUTHWEST VIEW

NSITE PLAN DIAGRAM UPPER LEVEL PLAN

DIAGRAM N

AREA SUMMARY

Exterior Amenity

Parking

Residential

Interior Amenity

COLOR LEGEND

NE 85TH ST

15TH

AV

E N

E

NE 86TH ST

PARKING/LOWER LEVEL PLAN DIAGRAM N

M A S S I N G S T U D Y A

PROS & CONS OF MASSING

Study A demonstrates a code compliant option with no departures. The building is the allowable 90’-0” width at the street and runs the full depth of the lot.

Cons• Massive street facing facade• Very deep residential units• Does not achieve 1.3 FAR• Does not respond to context• Does not follow design guidelines

Pros• No departures


N

N

SOUTHEAST VIEW

SOUTHWEST VIEW


DIAGRAM N



Parking Count 15

Stories 3

AREA SUMMARY

Exterior Amenity

Parking

Residential

Interior Amenity

COLOR LEGEND

NE 85TH ST

15TH

AV

E N

E

NE 86TH ST


M A S S I N G S T U D Y B


Study B creates an internal courtyard and provides a connection to the existing tree easement. It requires a departure for structure width.

Cons• Inefficient for elevators and stairs• Parking ramp faces SE corner of site• Insensitive to view from Reservoir• Large mass on 3 sides of site• Does not achieve 1.3 FAR

Pros• Ideal unit depth• Front of building faces street.


N

N

SOUTHEAST VIEW

SOUTHWEST VIEW


DIAGRAM N



Parking Count 31

Stories 3

AREA SUMMARY

Exterior Amenity

Parking

Residential

Interior Amenity

COLOR LEGEND

NE 85TH ST

15TH

AV

E N

E

NE 86TH ST


M A S S I N G S T U D Y C - P R E F E R R E D


Study C responds to the best features of the site and context. The views from the street and the park are relieved by the L-shaped massing. There is room for a generous entry court and memory care garden in the SW of the building.

Cons• Requires departure for building

width.

Pros• Good unit depth.• Extensive landscaping at street.• Good views from street and park.• Interacts with tree easement.• Best position relative to topography


M A S S I N G S T U D Y S U M M A R Y

massing study a massing study b preferred massing



Parking Count 24

Stories 3

AREA SUMMARY



Parking Count 15

Stories 3

AREA SUMMARY



Parking Count 31

Stories 3

AREA SUMMARY

PROS & CONS OF MASSING PROS & CONS OF MASSING PROS & CONS OF MASSING

Study A demonstrates a code compliant option with no departures. The building is the allowable 90’-0” width at the street and runs the full depth of the lot.

Cons• Massive street facing facade• Very deep residential units• Does not achieve 1.3 FAR• Does not respond to context• Does not follow design guidelines

Pros• No departures

Study B creates an internal courtyard and provides a connection to the existing tree easement. It requires a departure for structure width.

Cons• Inefficient for elevators and stairs• Parking ramp faces SE corner of site• Insensitive to view from Reservoir• Large mass on 3 sides of site• Does not achieve 1.3 FAR

Pros• Ideal unit depth• Front of building faces street.

Study C responds to the best features of the site and context. The views from the street and the park are relieved by the L-shaped massing. There is room for a generous entry court and memory care garden in the SW of the building.

Cons• Requires departure for building

width.

Pros• Good unit depth.• Extensive landscaping at street.• Good views from street and park.• Interacts with tree easement.• Best position relative to topography


S P E C I F I C R E S P O N S E S T O D E S I G N G U I D E L I N E S



COMMONAREA

VIEWS THROUGH

PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT

RESIDENTIAL

HISTORICAL PATH CONNECTION

PL2 Walkability

Create a safe and comfortable walking environment that is easy to navigate and well-connected to existing pedestrian walkways and features.

Response

DC1 Project Uses and Activities

Optimize the arrangement of uses and activities on site.

Response



A B A B A

MASSING

A

B

B

VERTICAL BAYS

HORIZONTAL BAYS CONCEPT DESIGN

DC2 Architectural Concept


Response

CS3 Architectural Context and CharacterDevelop an architectural concept that will result in a unified and functional design that fits well on the site and within its surroundings.

Response



PROP

ERTY

15’ 27’ AVG.24’

REQU

IRED

SET

BACK

CS2 Urban Pattern and Form


Response



Response





Response

CS1 Natural systems and Site Features


Response

PL1 Connectivity


Response





Response

CS1 Natural systems and Site Features


Response

PL1 Connectivity


ResponseNew landscape planting at the main corner on 15th Ave and along NE 85th will help to draw people along the sidewalk towards the Maple Leaf Reservoir park.


D E P A R T U R E S

Maximum Structure Width23.45.527

Apartments in the LR2 Zone may not exceed 90’ in structure width.

89’ 60’15’

62’

126’

PROPOSED BUILDING

AVAILABLE WIDTH NOT USED

DEPARTABLE AREA USED

10’5’


D E P A R T U R E S

Setbacks23.45.518

5’ side and 15’ rear setbacks required for apartments in the LR2 Zone. 15’

15’+/-10’

164’ 20’

PROPOSED BUILDING

AVAILABLE AREA NOT USED



D E P A R T U R E S

89’ 60’15’

62’

126’

PROPOSED BUILDING

AVAILABLE AREA NOT USED


15’

15’+/-10’

164’ 20’

P O R T L A N D O F F I C E6720 MACADAMS U I T E 1 0 0PORTLAND, OR9 7 2 1 95 0 3 . 24 5 . 7 1 0 0

S E A T T L E O F F I C E1 17 S . MAINS U I T E 4 0 0SEATTLE, WA9 8 1 0 42 0 6 . 576 . 1 6 0 0

A N K R O M M O I S A N . C O M

AEGIS LIVING - Home · PDF file3 Ankrom Moisan Architects & Aegis Living EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE Project Team ARCHITECT Ankrom Moisan Architects, Inc. 117 South Main Street, Suite 400

Documents