(Preferred “massing” – just size and shape; details come later – for 3039 SW Avalon Way)

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

Alley or Avalon?

The city will have to decide how 3039 SW Avalon Way’s parking is accessed – if it has parking at all.

That’s one aspect of the ~70-apartment project that was discussed, but not settled, at its first Southwest Design Review Board meeting, during the second half of Thursday night’s SWDRB doubleheader.

The presentation was led by Steve Fischer and Peter Johnson from NK Architects. You can see the renderings in the “packet” by going here. As they were for the first meeting of the night, all five SWDRB members (bios here) were present for this one.

Because it’s in a “frequent-transit” zone, the project isn’t required to have parking, but currently is designed with 21 spaces. How they would be accessed is the heart of the aforementioned issue:

ARCHITECTS’ PRESENTATION: The 12,340-square-foot site, which currently holds a duplex, is about “midblock” between Yancy and Genesee along SW Avalon, as Fischer described it, in a midrise zone, same as adjacent parcels, including the “abandoned church” immediately to the north. It’s steeply sloped – a downward grade front to back – with 120′ of frontage along Avalon; it’s expected to have views toward downtown and Mount Rainier.

Fischer noted that the property has a “platted alley that doesn’t look like an alley” and a decision will have to be made about whether they’ll be required to use it to access the building’s parking, or whether they can get access from Avalon; in the project team’s view, the slope is one challenge to the alley’s usability, and the nearby Edge Apartments have parking partly cutting into it, which means that parking would be removed if they were to utilize the alley.

The site has a cluster of trees and “there isn’t anything … that’s close to exceptional,” according to Fischer, so they’re expecting to remove the trees, including the overgrown shrubbery along Avalon.

After that extensive discussion of the site, Johnson took over presentation of the three possible massing (size/shape) options, which are the centerpiece of Early Design Guidance meetings. Their preferred option, #3, would have access from Avalon Way to underground parking. One of the other options would have to include a 20-foot concrete wall to get to the alley.

The preferred option would have “two blocks of units” in a “coherent” arrangement with a “recessed base” making room for ground-level patios along Avalon. The streetscape currently has a very narrow sidewalk – 11 feet – Johnson pointed out, which would be a challenge for the first two possible options; with their third option, including Avalon access, they would be able to expand the setback to 22 feet.

Their landscape architect mentioned a plan for street trees “more compliant with SDOT” to work with “underground power lines,” and native landscaping on the back side, “in reference to the greenbelts nearby.”

The preferred scheme would call for three “departures” – zoning exceptions. One would require granting them permission for the Avalon access to the parking garage, and so would involve the driveway configuration’s “sight triangle.” They want to “allow the driveway to meet the street at the north property line without separation.” The other two departures call for loosening of the setback that’s required.

BOARD QUESTIONS … mostly focused on the “platted” alley space. A rockery wall there now would have to be removed, the project team said in response to a question. Board members also asked followups about the requested “departures.” Chair Todd Bronk asked about the breakdown of units – studios, “open 1 bedrooms,” with the average unit size around 600 square feet, said Johnson. In response to a question about whether some corner units could be combined for something larger, Fischer said the issue was keeping the units at a reasonable rent point.

PUBLIC COMMENT: One audience member wondered why zoning exceptions would be needed “if it’s just for the economics of the building.” Board member Matt Zinski said that obviously would be part of it but they’re also looking at trying to “make a well-designed facade” and the three-foot exception could help do that. The same attendee also wondered why the DPD changed its name.

Another attendee came up to the table and asked planner BreAnne McConkie how long it might be until the current building is demolished. One year, maybe 9 months to 2 years, she replied. He then revealed he wanted to know because he lives there.

BOARD DELIBERATIONS: Board member Don Caffrey said he agrees with the city’s general policies requiring alley access but … “This is a really crappy alley.” Yes, says Bronk, but “this is a really dangerous corner” on Avalon, “every day an accident waiting to happen … so when there’s an alley we have to consider it.” He says it’s unfortunate the Design Review Board has a share in this decision, which he thinks should be made by SDOT. McConkie said it’s a “Type 1” decision so it’s not just in the board’s hands, though their recommendation matters. Zinski said he supports using the alley. Bronk thinks they could use Option 3 and add on the alley. “The alley’s 28 feet down,” interjected architect Fischer. “Yes, it would be a more-expensive building” Bronk allows. “I think you can achieve massing and safety together – it’s just a cost point. … I wouldn’t want this board to look at it from the viewpoint of the adjacent property owners” or anyone else, but strictly weigh it on its own merits.

Caffrey at that point wondered about putting in a lift to get the trash (etc.) down to the alley.

One way around the issue, the architects pointed out: They could just scrap the parking altogether, since none is required, with the proximity of frequent transit.

Bronk said the neighborhood wants parking.

Regarding other details, board member T. Frick McNamara said she likes the street-front setbacks.

Zinski said the building mass seems simple and clear.

Bronk said he hopes the concrete base on this building won’t look like the one on Oregon 42, which he considers “grotesque.”

After a little more discussion on the alley vs. Avalon points – board members agreed that so far they’re inclined to grant the departures.

Running through the guidelines that apply to the project, here’s what they checked on the potential list:

-Height, bulk, scale, topography, sunlight, ventilation, energy use, street-level interaction, planning ahead for bicyclists, transit, vehicular access/circulation, services, scale/texture, lighting, trees/landscape, project lifespan

They agreed that Massing Option 3 – preferred by the project team – was their preference too. For the parking-entry ramp, they would want to see some pedestrian features, not just another concrete ramp meeting the street. Safety is the primary concern, before they make a final recommendation decision.

Their recommendation has to be made sooner rather than later, McConkie told them. So Caffrey tried to clarify, do they think it’s possible this can be made safe enough?

It’s a dilemma, Bronk noted, since this access is only related to parking, and they’re not required to provide it.

But if they DO provide parking, McConkie said – the board would have to recommend the access.

They’l have to do a traffic study, she noted.

Well, said Zinski, it doesn’t seem to be a high-parking-interested demo – it’s a transit-oriented development. They ticked off the demographic.

But we can’t speculate who’s going to live there, said McNamara. Maybe they’ll have to drive.

Bronk said, they don’t feel the driveway vs. alley would change the building’s massing, which they’re signing off on, and they want the director to make the decision about entrance vs. alley. Bronk said they need to make a decision

So – before they come back for ecommendation phase, the city will give them an indication of alley vs. driveway, and then the board can decide on the first departure if need be, McConkie thought. If it’s ultimately granted, pedestrian safety, the appearance of the concrete base, would be key considerations.

WHAT’S NEXT: At least one more meeting – the “recommendation” phase – will be required for the project; a date will be set and announced when the project team is ready. In the meantime, you can send comments to planner breanne.mcconkie@seattle.gov.