Architect says Silverview can meet Silverdale design standard by placing parking under buildings

At the Kitsap County Silverview appeals hearing on June 3, architect John Adams testified that the project can accommodate structured, under-building parking and that venue-specific design alternatives were not fully explored by the applicant's team. Adams, the principal of a Seattle architecture firm, told the examiner the site's gentle grades and the Silverdale Waterfront design standards favor structured parking "where feasible," and that a properly engineered podium garage would meet the district's design goals.

Adams' testimony and why it matters

Adams said the waterfront design standards use firm language preferring parking under buildings and that developers should plan and budget accordingly. He described a range of typical engineering and architectural responses that developers use on similarly constrained sites: podium slabs, post-tension slabs, denser column grids to reduce beam depth, and locating elevator pits and mains so that the project does not require exceptional deeper excavation below groundwater. "It's very common to construct buildings on podiums," Adams said; "the site is, as I've testified before, is extremely flat...it lends itself very well to structured parking."

The issue is central because how parking is provided affects the site layout, number of surface stalls and impervious surface, building massing, stormwater and drainage design, and — according to the developer's filings — project pro forma and financing. The applicant has argued under-building parking is not feasible and gave per-stall cost estimates that the architect and one third-party cost reference (WGI national/multi-region data cited in testimony) suggested were well above typical benchmarks.

Key testimony and technical points

- John Adams (architect) said design alternatives were not fully explored by the applicant and that standard podium approaches could deliver 40—6+ stalls beneath the buildings depending on layout. He provided site sketches and photo examples of nearby podium buildings to show the approach is common in built-up areas.

- Adams said elevator pits and sprinkler infrastructure do not necessarily add the multi-foot downward excavation the applicant described; elevator pits are commonly 4—5 feet and manufacturers will engineer shallower pits if needed. He said piping and sprinkler mains can be routed so they do not force deeper excavations under critical aquifer elevations.

- Adams criticized the applicant's cross-sections as not reflecting realistic structural options (for example, post-tension slabs or more frequent columns yielding shallower beams) and said their exhibit overstates required excavation and building height changes.

- Cost: Adams reviewed a third-party structured-parking cost reference (WGI) and concluded the applicant's per-stall estimates were unusually high; he also noted that any valid feasibility review must deduct the cost of the surface parking the project would eliminate (as-site surface parking would not be needed if parking is below-grade or in a podium).

- Egress and code issues: Adams said the applicant's cited exit-distance constraint (single egress) is an exception the developer had invoked, and that simple design solutions (such as short communicating balconies between stair towers) remove the single-egress limitation and thus relax travel-distance constraints.

What that means for Silverview design standards

Adams framed his testimony against the Silverdale Waterfront design standards, which state parking "will" be under buildings where feasible. He told the examiner the language is intended to require structured parking on suitable sites and that cost alone is not a valid, site-specific safety-valve against the requirement; the applicant must demonstrate feasibility with engineering and cost detail.

Practical next steps discussed

At the hearing parties debated scheduling for remaining witnesses and the applicant and county discussed potential conditions, additional engineering studies and the possibility of a more fully documented feasibility analysis from the developer (including stamped structural and geotechnical designs) before a final decision. Adams recommended a more complete engineering schematic and cost-estimate if the parties wish to demonstrate infeasibility.

Ending

Adams' evidence was a practical, design-oriented challenge to the applicant's infeasibility claims. He recommended the applicant develop engineered alternative designs (podium, post-tension slabs, elevator siting, end-entry garages) and an itemized cost estimate that accounts for surface parking costs that would be eliminated. The hearing continued with additional testimony and scheduling to be set by the examiner.