(Click image for larger view)
Next time the Southwest Design Review Board meets, on June 27th, its second round of “Early Design Guidance” for 3210 California SW will be on the agenda (as noted here last month). That’s the proposed South Admiral building with a face longer than a city block, the first development proposed for the area upzoned in 2010. Taking into account the feedback from members of the board and the public at the first meeting two months ago (WSB coverage here; official city report here), they’ve come up with a new plan that, along with other changes, breaks the building into three parts rather than two – as seen in the new “massing” image above (the colors are NOT representative of any final look – they are just used in the rendering as highlights). We talked about the new proposal with Lis Soldano from Intracorp, the project’s Seattle-based developer:

The major changes:

-The building is now in three parts instead of two
-The commercial space (4,700 square feet) has been moved to the north end, to be closer to South Admiral’s busiest area
-No more residential units at street level
-The live-work units (totaling 3,400 square feet) have been moved to the south end, in space that could be converted to “true commercial.”

Here’s the new ground-floor plan:

(Click image for larger view)

None of this changes the baselines on the project – it still will have 140 to 160 apartments and about 170 parking spaces, according to Soldano. But Intracorp believes the new massing will make for a better “pedestrian experience,” as the commercial space will all be at street level, rather than elevated as the grade changes.

Between the second and third buildings, there will be a landscaped courtyard, visible from the street, and the much-discussed big tree on a property behind the project will be visible through a skybridge area.

Soldano says the plan maintains “lots of landscaping at the street level,” too. Here’s one of the new sketches, including the landscaping plan:

(Click image for larger view)
The plan now includes two rooftop gardens, rather than a central one as originally proposed – one is shared by the first two buildings, and the other one is atop the third building.

We asked what, if anything, is changing on the side that will face the residents of the single-family neighborhood to the east. The two breaks in the building are the major change for that side, Soldano says, and the landscape buffer remains; otherwise, they have “pushed and pulled the modulation a bit” so the same number of apartments will fit, despite adding a break between buildings.

In April, board members also asked them to reconsider the steepness of driveways into and out of the building, so, she says, they have done that – “we flattened out the driveway approach as much as we could so it’s safer,” especially regarding pedestrian visibility, but those changes are all within the garage.

The presentation on June 27th will also show other developments “on longer sites,” as requested by the board. One that they plan to show, while not their own project, is Curve in the U-District, another example of what they are aiming for – the “flow of architecture between the buildings.”

There will also be a small “step in building height between the southern and northern buildings, about two feet.”

We asked about current plans for amenities in the building; they’re planning a bicycle lounge “that directly accesses the street,” as well as bike parking in the garage, and likely a dog wash there too, which is something they’ve been providing in their projects.

While it’s too soon for commercial leasing, they hope the spaces will appeal to local businesses, particularly established businesses that might want to move up to new space. Some of their other projects in the region have included local coffee shops such as Uptown Espresso and Cherry Street.

If the review process proceeds without a major hangup from here, Soldano says, they expect to break ground in summer 2014. The site purchase is not yet completed. Meantime, as we have previously reported, Intracorp is looking at two other possibilities in the area – apartments across the street, and townhouses at the former Charlestown Café site – but both are in a very preliminary exploratory stage, and Intracorp’s West Seattle focus right now is the 3210 California project.

HOW TO HAVE A SAY: The Design Review Board meeting is at 6:30 pm Thursday, June 27th, at the Senior Center of West Seattle (California/Oregon in The Junction). The official notice is here. You can send comments to the city planner, about design or any other aspect of the project, at any time – michael.dorcy@seattle.gov.

Since we first told you back on Tuesday that demolition was beginning at the ex-Petco site in The Junction, where the 90-unit mixed-use project now has an official name – 4730 California (a slight tweak from its working title 4724 California) – crews have been working off the alley. We went by early today to photograph it in full morning sunlight (above). We checked in during the week with the development team, which shared this new rendering of how the building will look along California SW at night:

The project concluded the Design Review process last November (WSB coverage here). Demolition work, by the way, continued today – compare our top photo with this one taken at mid-afternoon by WSB contributor Jason Grotelueschen, showing a truck and crew on site:

The project team plans to have a website soon at 4730california.com (just a “parking page” now) and project information on the fence out front by West Seattle Summer Fest (for which the project is a co-sponsor).

10:20 PM: Additional image from Dwight – who noticed, early this morning, that the backlit windows had a stained-glass look:

*4435 35th SW passed its second round of Early Design Guidance, 3 1/2 years after its first one. (See the design renderings here.)

*3829 California SW passed the final “recommendations” stage on the second try, two months after the first try. (See the design renderings here.)

Ahead, meeting toplines, and what happens next:

4435 35TH SW: About 15 people were in the audience for what “isn’t your usual Early Design Guidance meeting,” as city planner Tamara Garrett said, explaining that this mixed-use building in The Triangle went through EDG in 2009 (WSB coverage here), then applied for a Master Use Permit – and now, after being stalled and sold and redesigned, is back in EDG. GGLO is the architect now; Trinsic is the new owner. The architect pointed out that this site is “on the edge” of many changes, meant to bring more commercial and housing opportunities “in an area where not many exist right now.”

The new proposal is 5 floors residential over 1 of commercial, as was the old proposal; the zoning is NC3-65. The site is 115′ wide by 275′ long, rectangular; the alley is only 16 feet wide, which means the property has to dedicate land to widen it to standards. They are also planning on a six-foot setback so the sidewalk can be 14 feet wide. That fits in with their attempt to enhance pedestrian access around and through the site, so a “hillclimb” is part of their proposal, and they’re also hoping for pedestrian connections in the alleyway, which they say is too steep to make truly vehicle-friendly. But they’re proposing to move a curb cut toward the south end, with a few parking spots for commercial use, while the residential parking access would be to the north, by the alley. They’re also trying to be cognizant of how visible the site will be from multiple busy directions – including what its north end would look like, keeping in mind that the KFC site will redevelop sometime (potentially up to 65 feet), covering up whatever they do.

Toplines for the revised “preferred option”:
Units: 158
Parking: 164 spaces
Retail/commercial: 16,510
4 ‘departures’ from zoning code are requested:
-Parking access (dual access is the real “departure,” it was clarified later)
-(which “begets another departure,” said the architect – technically some parking would be next to right-of-way)
-West side of building, on which some residences would front, requesting an exemption (as did the previous proposal) for a turnaround on the northern part of the property
-A steeper ramp, 20 percent instead of 15 percent

To make the hillclimb/pedestrian passthrough work would require some improvements, including up on SW Oregon, though, as was noted during board questions.

Public questions/comments included:

West Seattleite Diane Vincent asked for more clarity on where the southbound 35th bus stop will move to; the architects said the fare machine would keep its current spot but they want to move the shelters a little further south. So what will happen during construction, with this very heavily used bus stop in front of an active site? she asked – no answer, yet.

Josh Sutton from the nearby West Seattle Y (WSB sponsor) said, “I really like this plan lots more than the last plan,” adding that he strongly supports the hill-climb idea with a pedestrian connection up to the area where the Y and other Triangle businesses are – “that would be a huge, huge public benefit.”

The board had no major problems with the proposal and expressed support in particular for the “hillclimb” concept; it now heads on to the “recommendations” stage of Design Review, with a meeting date to come later.

COMMENTS? E-mail tami.garrett@seattle.gov – whether it’s a design comment or some other aspect of the project.

**********

3829 CALIFORNIA SW: This is a three-story, 30-unit apartment building planned for the west side of California south of Charlestown. This was the second “final” meeting for the project; some concerns voiced at the first “final” (recommendations) meeting were addressed in the revisions, from terracing the landscape to removing a second-story rooftop deck that nearby residents said was too close to their homes. Architects say the materials haven’t changed; they added “Juliet” balconies as requested in the previous review.

Public comment included:

West Seattle resident and former SWDRB chair Deb Barker, who said she also had commented at the first recommendations meeting back in April, thought it was “exciting” to see the changes. She was glad to see more windows added, though wanted to be sure a particular one wasn’t just an afterthought. And she wanted to be sure that the landscaping on the eastern side of the property would involve more plants in the ground “for longtime survivability” than just planters.

Board members declared the design “much better” than the last go-round. Chair Myer Harrell wondered about the parapet height on the west side. That gave way to a discussion of the multiple colors proposed for the project, and a suggestion that changing the color for the parapet to red might fix some concerns. That would change the material, too, the architects noted. That moved the discussion to how the scale would be perceived by neighbors. The discussion boiled down to “reinforcing architectural consistency” by reducing the mass on the west side of the building, where it was particularly visible to neighbors.

A lot of discussion centered on the streetfront planter – and as board member Laird Bennion put it, a lot of people walking down the street will judge the project on its quality.

With no major issues, the board gave the project their approval to move out of Design Review. But if you have comments, whether on its design or other issues, you can e-mail beth.hartwick@seattle.gov.

The crane is going up at 3922 SW Alaska, almost a year since we uncovered the new name and plan for “The Hole,” which stalled in fall 2008 under previous ownership, followed by a court fight and a foreclosure auction. Though the new owners of what’s now called Spruce have been mum on the project – except for what was said/shown at the Design Commission meeting we covered in December – construction equipment showed up five weeks ago and, as noted here, work resumed. Wondering what it’ll look like? Here’s one of the images shown at the aforementioned December meeting:

If you’re just tuning in, Spruce will include apartments and an L.A. Fitness health club.

4730 CALIFORNIA: Thanks to Heidi for the tip that a fence was up and the awning was coming down at the site of 4730 California, the 88-apartment project formerly known as 4724 California, aka “the former Petco site.” We’d noticed the re-branding recently when sponsor logos (including ours) went up on the West Seattle Summer Fest website. This project’s website’s not up yet – you can find a mention here – and we’re working to get more information about the demolition schedule.

CHARLESTOWN CAFE SITE FOLLOWUP: Since we first reported one week ago on a development proposal for the former Charlestown Café site, we’ve finally heard back from a rep for the prospective developer, Intracorp. Right now, the rep tells us, the proposal for six 5-unit townhouse buildings is in spec mode – the site has not been purchased and no official application to the city has been made. Intracorp is focused right now, we’re told, on getting its biggest West Seattle proposal, 3210 California SW, through Design Review; its second round of Early Design Guidance is scheduled for 6:30 pm June 27th on the second floor of the Senior Center of West Seattle at California/Oregon.

SPEAKING OF DESIGN REVIEW: Before that meeting, two projects are on the Southwest Design Review Board agenda for this Thursday night (June 13th), and the “packets” are available online for both. The 6:30 pm meeting is for 4435 35th SW, the re-activated proposal for the site that currently includes a vacant lot and the building that’s home to The Bridge (which, as reported here last month, is already preparing its new home at the former Chuck and Sally’s Tavern site in Morgan Junction). The project has changed since its first Design Review meeting in 2009, so it’s going back through Early Design Guidance. The current version proposes a six-story building with 170 apartments and 187 parking spaces; see the “packet” here. The 8 pm meeting is the second “recommendations” session – in other words, possibly the final meeting – for 3829 California SW, 29 apartments with 30 parking spaces; see its “packet” here. Both meetings are open to the public and will be held on the second floor of the Senior Center of West Seattle at California/Oregon.

ROWHOUSES IN FAIRMOUNT SPRINGS: The newly popular form of townhouses known as “rowhouses” are popping up in neighborhoods all over. One of the newest applications proposes a 5-unit rowhouse building, with attached garages, for 5457 Fauntleroy Way SW in Fairmount Springs, on the site of a 103-year-old home sold in April.

While “microhousing” – residential buildings with up to 8 individually rentable sleeping units sharing each kitchen – is old news for some neighborhoods in Seattle, it’s still somewhat new here in West Seattle, with several projects in the works but none yet completed. Today, two bits of news – first, a proposed microhousing building has revised its plan, triggering an official notice from the city today; second, we have toplines from Department of Planning and Development director Diane Sugimura‘s appearance at the Southwest District Council meeting last night.

First, the revised project at 3050 SW Avalon Way, currently the overgrown lot shown above: The revision notice says it is now proposed as a seven-story, 102-bedroom, no-parking building. It was proposed for four stories when we last mentioned it in March. The revision triggers a new comment period, through June 19th; here’s the form you can use to comment.

Ahead, what DPD director Sugimura told the district council last night – and the meeting attendee whose group is opposed to more regulation:

Some at the meeting were unsure what “microhousing” meant, so Sugimura started with something of a primer, explaining that the city allows up to eight people per housing “unit,” so developers started creating projects with one common kitchen for multiple units. She added, “I believe they are affordable housing that is being provided by the private sector rather than using levy money and all that … they tend to rent between $500-$700/bedroom, you don’t get a lot of space and it’s not for everybody, but if you only have (that much) for housing and you don’t want a roommate or to share a house or apartment or move further out and have transportation expenses, there are a number of people who find these serve a purpose for a time in their life.”

The city’s been dealing with concerns including that these projects were hard to detect because the plans were being filed with only a mention of how many “units” – each kitchen area counting for one unit, even if it was serving up to eight individually rentable sleeping rooms – they had, while developers were applying for tax exemptions (documents that are harder for the public to access) listing the total number of sleeping units. So for example, the newly revised Avalon Way project mentioned above is on the books as “14 units” with “102 bedrooms.”

Last week, three City Councilmembers issued a memo voicing their concerns about microhousing and what they would like to see DPD do; Sugimura says, “most of these were things we were working on.” Read the memo here.

SWDC co-chair Karl de Jong expressed concern about the concept in general, saying it sounded somewhat like “tenement housing.” Sugimura disagreed with that characterization, but in the end, said that challenging the existence of this classification of housing would be a political matter to take up with the council.

Her department’s new proposed rules, she said, will be proposed for a special meeting of the council’s Planning, Land Use, Sustainability Committee on June 28th.

But projects in the pipeline now – including the most recent proposal reported here, at 59xx California SW – will be reviewed under current rules, not the upcoming proposals. (Other West Seattle microhousing-to-be of which we’re aware includes under-construction buildings on Avalon by the 35th/Avalon 7-11 and on Delridge.)

The microhousing discussion veered off into the issue of whether developers should be paying impact fees to make sure infrastructure such as parks and transportation is adequate for the new residents that come to live in their projects. That, too, is a political issue, not anything that Sugimura can directly control.

Before the meeting ended, Roger Valdez, representing the advocacy group Smart Growth Seattle – previously heard from on the issue of small-lot development (which came up earlier in the meeting) – tried to take the floor to talk about their reaction to the councilmembers’ microhousing proposals. Co-chair de Jong did not allow Valdez to speak, as he was not officially on the agenda, but he did drop off printouts of his group’s response to the councilmembers’ memo; you can read it on the Smart Growth Seattle website.

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

If you have been hoping to hear about another restaurant taking over the two-years-closed Charlestown Café – you’re likely out of luck.

While the first post-closure proposal for the site has long since been scrapped, a new one is in play – and it is primarily residential.

City records show that Intracorp – the same developers behind the 3210 California proposal a few blocks north, as well as another proposal across the street from that – is pursuing a plan for six 5-unit townhouse buildings “around a central drive aisle” on the ex-café site.

We’re working to talk with the developers to find out more about the plan and the property’s status – it was posted as available “for lease” about a year after it closed – but for now, here’s what we have found out:

The project will require Design Review – no date set yet. The site plan filed with the city by West Seattle-founded Nicholson-Kovalchick Architects shows the townhouses in two 3-building rows – one facing California, one directly behind (parallel to an alley and the single-family homes east of it), with live-work units on the street at the California/Charlestown corner, and residential units everywhere else. The curb cuts (driveways) on California would be removed, with one proposed off SW Bradford on the south side of the site.

Intracorp, as noted earlier, is the developer for the ~155-apartment project at 3210 California SW, which goes back to the SW Design Review Board for a second round of Early Design Guidance on June 27 (as noted here last month), and also is listed as developer for a proposal across the street at 3211 California, described in documents as a 65-unit apartment building to replace three houses.

The Charlestown Café closed in April 2011, after facing various challenges in its final few years – less than three years before that final shutdown, it reopened after a five-month shutdown caused by a February 2008 fire. That fire, in turn, came just days after the café ownership got word of the demise of a year-and-a-half-old development proposal that threatened to close the restaurant.

The west edge of the heart of The Junction is suddenly a hot spot. Less than a block from the 40-unit project at 4535 44th SW that passed Early Design Guidance earlier this month, a similar-size apartment building is proposed at the corner of 44th/Glenn Way/SW Alaska. This project at 4400 SW Alaska (map) would replace the 72-year-old brick multiplex in the top photo, along with an adjacent duplex. The city website shows it is proposed as a five-story building with 33 “residential units” above four live-work units, and six parking spaces. City records show the project is being designed by West Seattleite-owned Nicholson-Kovalchick Architects, as is 4535 44th SW, though the ownership is different. The developer for 4400 SW Alaska, according to documents filed with the city last week, is Isola Homes, which is completing the nearby Junction 5 “rowhouse” development at Glenn/Oregon. The newly proposed building at 4400 SW Alaska will require Southwest Design Review Board approval, and the first meeting has just been scheduled for 8 pm June 27th (Senior Center of West Seattle, California/Oregon).

The Southwest Design Review Board got its first look tonight at the 150~-apartment project proposed for 4745 40th SW – and asked the development team to take a second pass at Early Design Guidance. Bottom line: This means the project will be reviewed at least two more times.

As summarized toward the end of the two-hour meeting, with more than two dozen people in attendance, board members were particularly concerned with its ground floor and how its live-work units and lobby will relate to the new city park that’ll be on the north side of the site, among other factors. Most of those who commented on the project tonight identified themselves as residents of a condo building facing the sharply upward-sloped west edge of this project’s site; one noted that the parcel, part of which now holds a two-story office building, was zoned for four stories until a few years ago. (Now it’s partly zoned for six stories, partly for eight.)

Board members want the developers, Encore Architects and purchasers Alliance Residential, to also reconsider the massing options and the project’s relationship with the alley from which its parking garage will be entered, among other aspects. (It was also mentioned tonight that the project plans .7-.8 of a parking space per unit, though its location near the RapidRide bus line means it is not required to offer any parking.)

The project’s early-design “packet” was revised before the meeting, making changes to what had been made available via the city website, and we’ve been provided with a new copy – see it here. If you couldn’t make the meeting, the city planner assigned to the project, Bruce Rips, continues to accept comments, on issues beyond design too; bruce.rips@seattle.gov.

Tomorrow (Thursday) night, the Southwest Design Review Board takes its first look at 4745 40th SW, an apartment complex planned right across the street from the Masonic Temple and the southwest edge of the 4755 Fauntleroy Way megaproject.

Its design packet for the meeting is available online – you can see it here. We spoke recently with Suzi Morris from Phoenix-headquartered Alliance Residential, which is buying the property and developing the site, to find out more about the project in advance of the Early Design Guidance meeting.

The site is “split-zoned,” which means the two buildings comprising the project will be different heights:

Six (south building) and seven (north building) stories are what’s currently planned. Depending on how design review goes, they are expecting it to have 145 to 150 units, ranging from 400 square feet to 1000 square feet. Parking will be in the range that most recent projects have planned – .8 or .9 per unit. Encore Architects, a new firm formed by veteran local architects, is working on the project.

Another current trend that includes this project – planning “live-work” space rather than outright commercial. Morris says they feel that will suit 40th SW well.

Alliance has three other Seattle projects right now – one in Ballard, 166 units, completed this past February and 50 percent leased; the other two are in Capitol Hill, one with 105 units and the other with 248 units, breaking ground this July.

Morris stresses that they “try to build to the context of the neighborhood and who’s living in it.” Some of the units will have decks facing out to the forthcoming city park in the center of that block on 40th.

This is considered a “great location” and the 150-unit building size, “a great size.” Alliance has “had West Seattle on our list for a while” and in fact almost bought a different building site here last year but “that didn’t work out” – they’re not disclosing what site it was, though.

Alliance manages its own properties, and expects this building to have amenities including a second-story courtyard, outdoor entertainment area, roof deck, two entertainment spaces, community events to connect residents, plus bicycle storage.

If the process moves at the pace they’re hoping for, they hope to break ground for the project next spring, and like most projects of this size, it should take about a year and a half to be built. There are no alley or street vacations involved in this project, which will have an alley entrance for the garage. The two-story office building on the site now, though only 24 years old, will be torn down – it’s “not the highest and best use of the site,” is how Morris put it. The project is not yet named, though you will see “Broadstone” on the design packet – that’s a brand of sorts for Alliance, it was explained.

They believe “the market is still strong; the vacancy rate (in the city) is still low. From a national perspective, Seattle is still one of the strongest cities to invest in. The job growth here is stronger than most markets.”

Tomorrow night’s Design Review meeting is at 6:30 pm upstairs at the Senior Center of West Seattle (California/Oregon). As always, public comment is welcome.

(WSB photo of proposed rowhouse site, April 2013)
“Rowhouses” are a hot development trend right now, under construction and/or on the drawing boards for at least half a dozen West Seattle sites. Three weeks ago, we reported on a petition drive launched by neighbors of a proposal for four three-story rowhouses at 2414 55th SW in Alki. They had learned that, although the project did not hit the threshold for a mandatory public meeting of any kind (such as Design Review), if they gathered at least 50 signatures requesting one, the city would consider it. Neighbor Marie McKinsey says she heard back from the city Monday afternoon:

This is from Tami Garrett, the DPD planner in charge of this project: “DPD will facilitate a public meeting. The purpose of this meeting will be for Staff to provide an overview of the proposed project and for the public to provide comments about the proposal in person. The meeting date, location and time hasn’t been confirmed yet. It’s my understanding that the parties of record will be sent written notice of the date, time and location. Neighbors within close proximity of the proposal site, petition signers, and public commenters are considered part of this group.

McKinsey says Garrett also indicated it could take a month or more to schedule that meeting. (The neighbors’ reasons for requesting one were detailed in our previous story.)

1:43 PM: We are downtown for the third review of the 4755 Fauntleroy Way (Whole Foods/apartments) megaproject before the Seattle Design Commission – and it’s another crowded room, more than 50 people this time, including golden-shirted members of UFCW Local 21, which has expressed consistent opposition to the project, and others including members of the project team, Parks and SDOT reps and, among community members, Steve Huling, former owner of most of the land on which the project will be built, and Nancy Woodland, from the board of the West Seattle Chamber of Commerce. The commission’s role in this is to review its “urban design merit” and the “public benefit” the developers plan to offer in exchange for the city granting an alley vacation. Highlights as they happen.

Lance Sherwood of Weingarten, the retail developer on the project, starts with three big announcements:

*There is no longer a drugstore drive-through in the project

*The developers will pay to improve the Masonic Temple’s nearby parking lot

*The developers will contribute money ($25,000) toward public outreach regarding the design of the park that the city plans to create on land it’s purchased across 40th from the project’s west side.

The presentation then is taken over by Bill Fuller of Fuller Sears Architects. He explains that the Masons’ parking lot will be graded to be at a single level (it’s on two now), with one entrance. He also notes that part of 40th SW will become the first true “Seattle Green Street” under their plan. Removing drugstore drive-through traffic and Masons’ entry from the project’s “midblock connection” will resolve many of the persistent concerns about it, he says.

He also shows the “iconic corner” at Fauntleroy/Alaska (northeast corner), which now will have glass and lighting.

Next, landscape architect Andy Rasmussen, a West Seattleite who works for Weisman Design Group, is talking about the corners of the project as part of its public benefit. An artist named Troy is here and is involved with the project, Rasmussen says.

The art will involve corten/rusted metal and will be inspired by maritime West Seattle – he shows anchors and pilings as “inspiration.”

He says the connection on 40th to the future park has been “strengthened” in the latest design. Also – more street trees, fewer curb cuts (4 total – compared to 15 on the site now), and overhead weather protection for pedestrians all around the project, he says.

2:02 PM: The discussion of the art, in particular at the Fauntleroy/Alaska SW corner, continues. Some of the forms also will be evocative of the mountains, Rasmussen explains; others, of waves. They also are continuing to work with SDOT, as mentioned previously, on a crosswalk across Alaska at that corner (where Spruce – which just started construction – will be). He says the “water-like” elements will continue down 40th south from Alaska, into the raingarden area that’s streetside on the site there:

Back to the midblock connector that will cut between the project’s two buildings, from Fauntleroy to 40th, it will still have a raised crosswalk midway through. One area on the Fauntleroy edges will also have some extra public space, north of the connector. It’ll carry on the nautical theme with “oar-like forms.”

On the Fauntleroy/Edmunds corner, it will be a more “pier-like/dock-like space,” Rasmussen continues. The major residential entry is there, as is bike parking. Fuller picks up the presentation after that, summarizing the points they believe comprise the public benefit – what’s mentioned above, and more.

OUR AS-IT-HAPPENED COVERAGE CONTINUES BELOW:

2:16 PM: Beverly Barnett, who handles alley/street vacations for SDOT, says she believes the project has now advanced the “public benefit” in a big way. “What we look at are physical and tangible elements of the project that enhance the pedestrian and street environment for the general public,” not just residents and shoppers, she explains. But, she says, she hasn’t seen the chart that Fuller just went over, and some elements the developers listed (improving drainage, for example) would not necessarily be seen as “public benefit.”

A Parks and Rec rep speaks next, noting that it’s great to have open space in the area and acknowledging that the $25,000 contribution to outreach will get the park-design process started sooner than it would have otherwise.

And then – public comment. Woodland speaks first. She says some of the mentioned features have family appeal, and she likes the fact that the utilities will be undergrounded along Fauntleroy and Alaska. She also appreciates that the lighting fixtures along the street are going to be installed to match those in The Junction, to help this site retain its connection, and the future park.

Huling is next, introducing himself as the “previous owner of the Chevrolet store” on the site, which he says he still drives past the site four or five times a day. He says the alley improvements that will result are big progress, for safety too – fire trucks couldn’t even get through before, he notes – and he says that the entire project unifying the site’s purpose represent “a dream.”

Jose Vasquez of a South Park business group speaks next, saying that his concern is how projects like this will affect small business, and hoping that will be kept in mind.

Next – a neighbor who is glad the site will no longer be an eyesore; she is followed by a Whole Foods rep who says his company “likes to engage the street,” so in his view the architects “have done a great job.”

After him, a woman who says she has canvassed small business owners nearby in The Junction, and while most of them, she says, agree the area needs to be developed, “they do not want to see big-box stores, multi-national corporations … many feel they are going to be suffocated and they are very very concerned.”

A representative of UFCW 21 says she submitted a letter and would like more time to respond to what was unveiled today, since they did not get a chance to review it in advance. “We don’t think public benefits can be considered adequate as long as the midblock connector is such a hazard,” she says. “We just hope you put a lot of time into looking at what we submitted and what they submitted.” She is followed by Cheryl Sutton of the UW, who says she contributed to the UFCW’s comments, and is against this because she believes it harms the small-town character in the area. She goes on to talk about a project reviewed elsewhere last night, on the Pike-Pine auto block, with the developer to restore the facades, in exchange for an extra story above. Here, “if I look at this project, what I see is nice landscaping paid for by (cheaper materials in the project).”

Deb Barker, a retired land-use planner and community leader from Morgan Junction, speaks next. “In my opinion, the project has fundamental design issues that have never been involved.” She points out that the footprint of the north building has not changed all along, which she believes indicates some concerns haven’t been taken seriously.

Tracie Chapman with UFCW 21 is next. She is elaborating on a traffic study (we have it and will link it here later) that she did outside a Whole Foods store elsewhere in the city, and says she counted 57 delivery trucks there in a single day – much more than is estimated for this project.

Next speaker, an Alki resident, says she is concerned about whether those who work at this site will be able to live there. She is followed by a man who says that he believes this project “far exceeds” what was envisioned for the area in the Triangle Plan. He contends the developers have “done a wonderful and masterful job” in implementing the vision for the area.

Then a member of the UFCW contingent brings up Tatsuo “Matthew” Nakata and the 47th/Admiral crash that killed him, with safety concerns remaining in that area to this day. “All I would ask is that when you consider the concerns for pedestrian safety in this area, if they are not addressed before this is built,” when will they be? He is the last commenter before the commission begins its discussion.

2:54 PM: The board is continuing to ask ‘clarifying questions’ about a variety of issues, before members start offering opinions prior to taking a vote on whether to recommend approval of the alley vacation. One concern is that the materials presented are not necessarily clear on what the team is doing beyond what’s required, and what they are doing because it’s required. As some of those questions proceed, the developers were asked about whether the project has requested the city’s MFTE (Multi-Family Tax Exemption, given in exchange for promising some units will be kept at certain lower rates) – they confirmed they have.

Asked about the contention that truck traffic will exceed what’s been suggestion, the development team says they expect 30-40 trucks a day, beyond “one large semi,” for the market. The delivery hours will be 5 am-10 pm – no deliveries between 10 pm and 5 am.

Also in response to a question: The project is NOT pursuing LEED certification. And another: The $25,000 contribution to Parks is the estimated cost of three public meetings and getting the project to the brink of the main design process. Speaking of the park, one commissioner said she’s concerned that pedestrian traffic is being directed toward 40th and the future park – without a crosswalk there. The development team says they have asked SDOT many times – and been told no, they can’t have a crosswalk there.

3:28 PM: One commissioner says he’s not sure all the elements work well together, and would like to see “another pass.” Another thinks the streetside plaza configuration could be better – maybe get rid of some of the smaller ones, combine a few and make it a big “dedicated place that really adds value.” Yet another thinks the small-business spaces in this project belong on 40th SW – not really the purview of their review, but voiced just the same – rather than facing on Fauntleroy. “Good point,” murmur others. Yet another commissioner, as the meeting enters hour 3: The art feels “disjointed,” too many types/themes. And – “Where you have the corten near the sidewalk, corten rusts – how is that being dealt with?” (Another commissioner then says he doesn’t have a problem with rust on the sidewalk.)

4 PM: A vote is drawing near. As the commission’s sentiments are summarized, the plaza configuration is mentioned again. They are proposing a vote that would include conditions for a followup review including the artwork. (As they point out, the City Council has final say.)

4:09 PM: But the vote is no- so there will be a fourth review, by a vote of 5 for sending it back, 3 for approving it now.

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

We learned a lot more about the “Lofts at the Junction” project last night during its first Southwest Design Review Board meeting, which ended with the board giving it clearance to move to the next phase of the process.

For one, while it does include about 40 apartments on a lot of less than 4,000 square feet at 4535 44th SW, it does not have all the attributes of so-called “microhousing” – each of its units will include a private kitchen and bath.

For two, the Nicholson Kovalchick Architects-designed project is now envisioned with an “industrial loft” type of look, and a brick facade, as shown in the “character sketches” (above is the 44th SW view) – completely different from what was shown in the design “packet” prepared for the meeting and shown here two weeks ago.

The Design Review process has drawn more consistent public interest lately, and this meeting brought another full house of about 40 in the upstairs meeting hall at the Senior Center of West Seattle.

Boyd Pickrell from NK Architects led the presentation, which was weighted toward context for the site and an overview of the project’s goals:

Pickrell listed some of the characteristics toward which they were aspiring: “Reasonably priced housing” in a convenient area. “Units that live large with large windows, natural light … timeless, simple forms with quality materials”… the theme of a “brick warehouse that’s been converted into lofts.” He noted that the site is a “through-lot” fronting on two streets – 44th and Glenn Way – with NC-40 zoning, but just a block from where there’s zoning of 65′ to 85′.

He talked about the wide variety of uses in the area – even a company that “develops software for video games about bowling.”

As is customary at this stage, three design options were presented, and one was described as the preferred option. Its residential lobby would front Glenn Way and includes “ample live/work facing 44th, which is where I think it belongs.” Most of the units would face west for a better view. Here’s that side of the building in another character sketch:

He described it as “cohesive, simple massing.” The floor-to-floor height is higher to enhance the “loft” feel. And they’re proposing a mural on the south-facing side. The top floor would have some clerestory windows but would not be visible from the street because of a parapet, he said (an update from the design packet – he showed a character sketch that had evolved from the packet’s storm-topped scenario, too).

In the second section of the meeting, the one reserved for the board to ask “clarifying questions” about the project, one of the board’s two newest members, T. Frick MacNamara, called him out on the “lush” but misleading appearance of landscaping shown in the sketches. Pickrell acknowledged that “lush landscaping” was not their intent.

Public comment:

The first one was a question – clarifying the live/work units’ purpose. They can function as live OR work, he clarified, not both.

Next, Deb Barker, a retired city planner by trade who also happens to be a former Design Review Board member, asked a question too. She asked about the east side of the design – where a staircase runs. It emerges to a private door on the street. She told the board she feels stairways should be integrated into the project, “feel as if it’s part of the building” or maybe even with the loft motif, “have a fire-escape quality.” The mural proposal for the exterior of the building – she said it seemed unusual to blank out a south-facing wall, which could offer some opportunities for light and air instead. Plus, the mural will be “covered by the building that goes up next door,” she pointed out. She also asked for a clarification on the number of units, which had not yet been mentioned.

The next person wondered about some technical points, eventually drawing the architect’s comment that they are offering live/work units rather than strictly commercial – though l/w counts as commercial in the mixed-use realm – “because it feels like the right thing to do.”

Then came the issue that has attracted the most discussion in previous WSB discussions about – the building’s lack of parking. That’s what the next person wanted to talk about too. “We’re in a high-density parking area because people park on these streets to come and take transit. You have 39 (units) – where are those cars going to go? A good number of the people are going to have vehicles. We’re concerned.”

“Ditto,” echoed at least half a dozen people in the audience.

Then came an attendee who voiced appreciation for the project: “The goals they presented in the beginning are right on … simple forms, trying to emulate the brick buildings in the Junction. .. A nice simple brick building is what this neighborhood needs.” He also expressed admiration for the architects taking a floor out to make the ceilings higher.

A neighbor was next, Sonja of the Community Acupuncture of West Seattle building next door, who has expressed concern in venues such as the WSB Forums, wanted to know about the overhang of the property line and how much separation. There’s no overhang or encroachment planned on the south side (next to the CAWS building), replied Pickrell.

Another person who wanted to bring up parking was told that Tamara Garrett, the city planner working on this project, is the person to share your concerns with – and she explained that the proximity to frequent transit is why parking is not required for the residential part of the building. She started to explain the City Council’s recent change in zoning – “Oh, so we can take the monorail – no wait,” the attendee joked. “Or light rail …”

The zoning inspired another question, and Garrett said she would be happy to have a followup conversation.

Cindi Barker thought there should be clarification of the live/work units’ future – whether they were expected to be residential or business- but was told by acting chair Daniel Skaggs (chair Myer Harrell could not attend) that she is basically just commenting on vacant space, whatever the owners decide to do with it, either way.

The next attendee to offer a comment wanted to clarify the heights – of this future building and those next to it. And that’s when he reintroduced the no-parking issue, saying that he “takes care of about 200 units in West Seattle” and only about 20 of them have no car – so he wants the city to think hard about the implications of housing like this without parking.

(Cindi Barker pointed out the city’s ongoing microhousing zoning discussions at that point and urged people to get involved.)

As more discussion ensued, Sonia spoke up again and said she learned that there would not be a meeting to talk about the points people wanted to discuss – unless 50 people wanted to talk about it and signed a petition. She suggested people follow up with her afterward; Deb Barker said a lot of people would like to hear about that process.

The board’s discussion ensued. No huge objections were voiced, though MacNamara thought the facades might do better reversed – the flat front on 44th instead of Glenn Way.

Laird Bennion said the new drawing was much better than what was in the packet – he was ‘pleasantly surprised.” Overall, the brick-facade idea drew rave reviews, as did the design’s “simplicity.”

One point of discussion: Which side of the project would SDOT think to be better for street trees, 44th or Glenn Way?

Another one: The board wasn’t unanimous on the concept of a mural on the south side, but agreed that face of the building would need something.

They agreed the “preferred option” is the best of the 3.

And at the two-hour mark, they recommended that DPD give the developers permission to apply for their Master Use Permit, and bring the project back for what might be only one more meeting (date TBA).

After that, those interested in the concept of a separate meeting about issues such as parking gathered around planner Garrett, who reiterated that they needed to get at least 50 people to petition DPD for a meeting on SEPA – State Environmental Policy Act – issues, by e-mailing her (tami.garrett@seattle.gov) as soon as possible.