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.

11:14 AM: West Seattle’s most notorious stalled-construction site, where ground was ceremonially broken almost five years ago for a project then called “Fauntleroy Place,” is now back in action. Multiple tipsters tell us crews are on site getting ready to work on what is now known as Spruce - the new name first reported here when we found the revised plans last July. The only commercial tenant planned for Spruce is an LA Fitness health club (the Whole Foods store it once was to hold is now destined for the future 4755 Fauntleroy project right across the street). We’re headed over for a look; more to come.

11:50 AM: Added two photos – the backhoe in the top image is visible at the site entrance off 39th SW, south of West Seattle Bowl; from the short alley off 40th SW, you can see a second one is onsite, too. Checking online files showing the site’s permits – many of which have long been approved and waiting, given the project’s history – the newest application is for onsite power, also a “getting started” sign.

After a long court fight that ensued when the project stalled after the site was excavated, Madison Development Group was the winning bidder for the site, $32 million, more than a year and a half ago. The only significant discussion of its plans since then – besides what we found in the files last summer – came at a Seattle Design Commission meeting last December (WSB coverage here), required before the project’s “alley vacation” could be finalized.

(Before then, the board will meet this Thursday [May 9th], also at 6:30 at the Senior Center, for its first look at 4535 44th SW, a 4-story, 35-apartment, 4-live-work-unit project first mentioned here in March.)

Also penciled in for that same date, same place, at 8 pm: A third meeting for the 30-apartment, 30-parking-space proposal at 3829 California SW; the official city report details the concerns that led the board not to recommend final approval at its April 13th meeting.

The purpose of the second meeting is to hear from neighborhood representatives who will give their views and recommendations on the micro-housing projects. Representatives of the developers who build micro-housing projects will be present to describe the projects and the market for this housing alternative and their response to concerns they are hearing from the community. …

Councilmember Tom Rasmussen stated: “A portion of the meeting will include an opportunity for the public to provide comments on what they have heard during the meeting and to provide recommendations on what, if any, regulations should be enacted for this unique type of housing.”

Many “microhousing” projects cluster multiple small living units around a common kitchen/laundry area, which the Department of Planning and Development has then counted as a single living unit, and the changes under discussion include ending that practice. In West Seattle, there is at least one such project, according to the citywide report on developments approved last year for the Multifamily Tax Exemption last year – “Avalon Studios,” with 56 studios (no address listed, so we haven’t yet found which of the Avalon Way “boarding house” projects it is).

Seattle city rules provide for hearings on certain types of developments – while other types only get internal reviews by planners. Then, there are situations in which hearings can be requested. That’s what’s happening with the Alki-area development site shown above, where four 3-story “rowhouses” containing 11 residential units are proposed for 2414 55th SW, a short distance inland from the beach, on a site that’s already gone through a “boundary adjustment.” Neighbor Marie McKinsey says that while she and other neighbors were doing research, they found out that the city MIGHT set a hearing if at least 50 people petition for it. So they’re collecting names right now – Alki residents interested in signing can contact her at marie.mckinsey@gmail.com. Ahead, the concerns she shared with the city:

From McKinsey’s letter to city planners:

1) First of all, this does not appear, by the Seattle DPD’s definition, to be a rowhouse project. seattle.gov/dpd/planning/multifamily_code_update/Overview/

According to the description on that website, “Each rowhouse directly faces the street with no other principal housing units behind the rowhouses.” This project DOES include principal housing units behind each of the so-called rowhouses. Playing games by rearranging the boundaries of the three lots doesn’t change what this development will look like when it is completed – which is that rowhouses on 55th Ave SW will have rowhouses on Wickstrom Place SW right behind them. Therefore, the project should be reevaluated. Is it a townhouse project? Apartments? Whatever it is, it should be subject to the appropriate zoning requirements for its proper category.

2) This development will be the equivalent of paving over three entire lots – there is no green space whatsoever shown on the plans. When it rains, all that runoff will end up in Puget Sound. If you’ve seen scuba diver Laura James’ video of storm outfall and all the pollutants it contains, you know that this project is just going to add to environmental problems. If you’ve not seen the video, which was shot right here off of Alki Beach, here’s the link vimeo.com/51456008 (You will see the plume begin at :56 and grow substantially from there.) This proposed development is 1/2 block from Alki Beach. It seems to me that in an environmentally sensitive area like this, the city should see that new development mitigates impacts like this, not add to them.

3) Eleven units mean 22 potential residents and 22 more cars, many of which will likely be competing for already scarce street parking. Developers say they will provide parking, but it is rarely adequate. Spaces are too few, too small and the turning radius to get a vehicle in or out is too short. So people park on the street. We already have that problem on 55th Ave SW, where other townhouse projects have been built in the past few years. Alki Beach is a popular destination, especially in the summer months, which makes parking a big problem already. This project will add to that problem, not to mention the unmitigated pollution resulting from having that many more cars parked here.

It is important for city officials to look up occasionally from the paperwork and minutiae these projects involve and see the bigger picture. Every project should be evaluated not just on the basis of rules, but also on how it fits into the overall fabric of a neighborhood. I am not opposed to new development. But what I want to see in my neighborhood is development that improves life for everyone concerned. This project, as it is currently proposed, does not do that.

Because of the permit-process timeline, McKinsey says their deadline for collecting signatures and requesting a hearing is May 6th – one week from tomorrow.

(“Character” rendering of 4535 44th SW proposal, by Nicholson Kovalchick Architects)>
With two weeks till the first Southwest Design Review Board meeting about 4535 44th SW, the project’s “design packet” is now online, for anyone who wants a preview (see the 27-page PDF here). When we first reported on the proposal in mid-March, the early online documentation referred to it as “micros” – a hot-button word citywide right now – and then a later version used the term “studios.” Now, the project bears the name Lofts at the Junction, with some other changes – the plan now calls for a 4-story building with around 27 studio apartments (depending on the final approved configuration) and six live-work units – three along the 44th SW facade, three along the Glenn Way facade. No on-site parking; none required under city code, because it’s near what’s considered rapid transit (on SW Alaska). The review is scheduled for 6:30 pm Thursday 5/9 at the Senior Center of West Seattle (here’s the official notice, which explains how to comment in advance, whether or not you plan to be at the meeting).

P.S. If you’re interested in the Design Review process in general, the City Council’s Planning, Land Use, and Sustainability Committee plans a public hearing at City Hall next Monday, 5:30 pm, on new guidelines regarding how it works and what it’s about – here’s the agenda.

1:43 PM: We’re at City Hall for the Seattle Design Commission‘s second review of the 4755 Fauntleroy Way megaproject – and there’s even a bigger crowd than there was for the 1st review in March. The Design Commission does not review the entire project – their scope is to decide if it has “urban design merit” and “public benefits” worthy of city approval for the “alley vacation” that is part of the project. The presentation is starting with architect Bill Fuller recapping some of the key points of the 372-apartment, 60,000-square-feet-of-retail, 70-foot-high project. Key commission concerns the first time included how the “mid-block connector” through the two-building project would be configured. Fuller also notes that the plan for the “iconic corner” at Fauntleroy/Alaska is “under construction” since there was so much feedback to incorporate from the Southwest Design Review Board.

1:55 PM: Fuller is showing the newest version of the mid-block connector, which will incorporate more of a “city sidewalk” design. The west side of it will be narrower, so there’s more room for planters. That side also will include bicycle parking. There’ll be a six-inch-high concrete curb along the sidewalk side of the mid-block connector for people walking between the west and east sides (Fauntleroy and 40th SW). Next to the Whole Foods loading dock, which is enclosed and behind doors, there’ll be a raised crosswalk that will be “one more speed bump” as Fuller put it. There remains a drive-through for the tenant-not-yet-announced drug store, and Fuller is explaining why that’s needed – using the example of a parent driving up with a screaming, sick child in the car, needing to pick up some medication, wanting a “more private” transaction with the pharmacy. The rendering includes the re-created mural from the existing site, on the side of the drugstore, on the lane leading up to the drive-through, as Fuller shows a more detailed look on how the drive-through’s traffic will work.

He says there’s no way that cars can or would drive fast at that spot.

*EDITOR’S NOTE, POST-MEETING – THE REST OF OUR AS-IT-HAPPENED NOTES FROM THE MEETING ARE AFTER THE JUMP*

2:05 PM: Dan Albert from Weisman Design Group, the landscape-design firm, is now discussing what he calls “the human scale” of the project. He says the “parks and plazas” along the project – at five of its corners – are important features. He also has mentioned something Fuller brought up – a new way to cross SW Alaska right at Fauntleroy, where there is no crossing now. The future Spruce project (“The Hole”) has been mentioned several times, though that’s owned by another company and there’s no hard-and-fast information right now about how soon work will start. Albert says the site has a “great potential for green stormwater infrastructure” such as bioswales/raingardens.

2:12 PM: Now, Albert details the character of the five “plaza” areas – except for the “iconic corner,” for which he says, they’re looking at “what it wants to be.” Some of what he’s showing: At Alaska and 40th, there are two areas meant for public use, one closer to the street with a wayfinding kiosk and some interpretive signage and benches, the other closer to the building, near the Whole Foods entry, but Albert says the entry and plazas will be separated so it’s clear which is which. Further south on 40th, some boulders might “create a more naturalistic” environment. That side will include raingardens as well as public-plaza space. A plant-covered “living wall” is being envisioned along part of the connector. Along Fauntleroy, there’s another plaza envisioned as an “oasis” along “600 feet of frontage.” Then at the southeast corner – Fauntleroy and Edmunds – some covered bike parking, a bench, and a retail area tucked away from the public usage area.

2:21 PM: Engineering reps from KPFF are talking about utility improvements that they joke “aren’t as sexy as the architectural features” but do represent major improvements. Among them: Undergrounding, a new switch for Seattle City Light, reduction in stormwater runoff.

They also note that they’ve been meeting frequently with SDOT “working through an abundance of issues,” including the “channelization issues” on the site – loading, separating trucks and other vehicles – and say they’ve achieved agreement on most of the issues and are now “working on minor design details.” Beverly Barnett, who is the SDOT point person on alley vacations, confirms this, reminding the commission that she had expressed concern over the design at the last meeting, and saying the meetings they’ve been having are more like “workshops.” She adds, “We do believe this proposal is fundamentally sound.”

2:30 PM: The board also is hearing from Bruce Rips, city planner on the project, who’s talking about the Southwest Design Review Board concerns shared at that group’s most recent review. Now, it’s public comment time, and at least five people plan to speak. Jeffrey Tosh from the Alki Masonic Temple, neighbor to the site, goes first; he says none of the drawings reflect the “grade change on the north south alley” and he is worried about trucks navigating that. He also is wondering if the estimated two-trucks-a-day delivery schedule for Whole Foods is accurate, in addition to other truck traffic for the drugstore and apartment move-ins/move-outs. He says their parking-lot traffic doesn’t seem to be addressed either. He also is still waiting for traffic-impact studies.

Next, Deb Barker, a former Design Review Board chair and veteran urban planner, who makes it clear that she is here as a private citizen, says “I do know big-box when I see it.” She says she’s concerned, still, about the safety of the mid-block connector, in reference to truck deliveries and the cars using the 598-space parking garage, with “five opportunities for pedestrians and vehicles to interact in the tunnel-like space.” She thinks the alley could be “back of the house, service” if some of the access functions were moved up to SW Alaska; “it’s not right” that the connector is set up the way it is only to benefit “a big-box store.” The Alaska crossing is “deeply flawed,” she notes, and she adds that the undergrounding is required.

Sharonn Meeks from the nearby Fairmount neighborhood is next. She says the mid-block connector is a “home run” because it has created “a gateway for pedestrians” that also includes a destination – the new park across 40th SW. The building’s size and scope still suggests a need for someplace to drop off seniors and disabled people, she says. She concludes by showing photos of the site.

Then, a representative of the United Food and Commercial Workers‘ union, which again has a significant presence of golden-shirted/jacketed members. He says the design is not pedestrian-oriented as it should be. He also takes issue with the description of the spaces near entries as “plazas.” He also is concerned about the shadowing of the connector and the traffic for the drive-through window.

A person identifying herself as living in a condo building southeast of the project site, says, “I like this project” and is “thrilled to see the pedestrian improvements” as someone who “will never drive (to it).”

Another West Seattle resident says, “I really like the changes you guys have made. I am looking for something that’s pedestrian-friendly. … I’m excited about having it in my neighborhood.”

Josh Sutton from the West Seattle YMCA (WSB sponsor) notes that he was on the Triangle Advisory Group and says this is the first project to meet the guidelines they came up with, and that it meets some of the goals, including breaking up that block. He thinks the development team “worked really hard to get this right” and expresses appreciation for the drug-store drive-up “as the son of a 90-year-old dad.”

A Whole Foods rep speaks next – first time we recall seeing one at one of this project’s reviews. He says they like the “amenities” on the site. “We’re looking forward to see it develop … and thank you for this process, I think it’s great.”

Then another resident who appreciates the drugstore drive-up. “You can get a burger at 10 o’clock at night,” so why not something like this with “accretive community benefit”? he asks. He expresses appreciation for the separation of pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the connector.

And a Whole Foods employee says “it looks like a great project” that she hopes to potentially work at, especially because of the “green spaces.”

Then another UFCW rep, who reiterates that they believe the truck traffic will be far more than represented, citing a study of Seattle grocery-store-truck traffic and saying that “these kind of specialty stores” actually have more traffic. A woman next to him says she sat outside the Roosevelt Whole Foods store and counted 57 trucks in a day: “It’s not safe for people when you have that much traffic coming in and out of the store.”

2:54 PM: Commissioners’ clarifying questions, now. They’re starting by asking architect Fuller to describe all the entrances into the site. Whole Foods’ entrance is basically at Alaska/40th, though you also will be able to enter from Fauntleroy/Alaska. There also are residential entrances midblock on 40th and at Fauntleroy/Edmunds.

Parking is revisited; besides the underground parking – currently described as 500 spaces – there are three spaces on the south side of the project for the leasing offices’ visitors, and some street parking along Fauntleroy for the small shops (the project is pulling back from the property line to make sure there’s room for that).

At this point, Lance Sherwood from Weingarten – one of the developers – says that they’ve been meeting with Masonic Temple reps to address the concerns that have been brought up about grade, access, and how all this relates to the Temple’s parking lot.

Site access comes up next. On 40th, it would be all directions; at the Fauntleroy entrance, you’ll be able to make a left turn in but not out, while right turns in/out will be allowed; on Edmunds, all directions. The site will generate about 500 trips in the “PM peak hours,” more than two-thirds of them “new.”

3:18 PM: They’re still asking followup questions. Now – about the truck traffic. The project team says 30 or so smaller trucks, 3 big trucks for the grocery and drug stores. That’s quick, and now they are getting ready to go through their recommendations and vote. Regarding “light and air,” commissioners say this proposal is better than what might happen if the current alley were kept and a standard building put up on this site.

Concerns are now voiced about the fact the 40th SW frontage is more a “back” of the building rather than a front. “I’m struggling with this project,” says one commissioner. “To one degree, they’re just moving the alley south, and from a massing standpoint, I don’t really see that much is changing.” Another commissioner disagrees, saying the project team seems to have gone “above and beyond” to work out the connector.

Other doubts surface, such as, where’s the proof that the developer is working with its neighbors (the Masons)? (Though the commissioner who brings that up says she’ll probably be OK with advancing the project from this stage, since it’ll have to come back to the SDC at least once more, for “public benefit” approval.)

Another commissioner says she thinks the project’s street level is “activated” enough with the retail on multiple sides, plus the park across 40th SW. And yet another wonders how people will be moving in and out of the apartments, especially if they don’t have a big moving truck. She’s told that moving with smaller vehicles like pickups and trucks will be possible through the parking garage. Other vehicle-movement concerns are brought up.

3:47 PM: Still discussing – this has gone over the two-hour window allotted for it, though there’s no official agenda item after it. One commissioner says the plazas don’t feel “special” yet. Another one says she finds the plans for 40th SW frontage “exciting” and wishes it could extend all the way down the Masons’ end of the block.

4:00 PM: And they’re now summarizing. Again, this is the first of two approvals the Design Commission will have to give for the 6,600-square-feet “alley vacation,” with an 11,000-square-foot private alley (the connector) to become part of the project. The commission’s official findings say the replacement will be “better” than required; when the project comes back for the next phase, they want to see how the parking and power issues for the Masons will be addressed, as well as how the project will connect to the park across the street.

The vote is 5 in favor of the project passing “urban design merit,” 3 against. The “no” voters get a chance to speak. Two are very concerned about the vehicle traffic. The third says there were so many concerns voiced for the project, he feels uncomfortable allowing the project to advance to the next stage and waiting to see them addressed in the “public benefit” phase. But advance it does; we’ll let you know when the next meeting’s date is set.

WHAT’S NEXT: Along with at least one more trip to the Design Commission, this project also has at least one more review ahead with the Southwest Design Review Board – no date set yet. Even before these parts of the process, the development team had told us they didn’t expect construction to start on the site until sometime next year.

(Photo by Christopher Boffoli for WSB)
The 166-apartment project proposed for 3210 California SW will be back for a second round of Early Design Guidance, as a result of its first try last night, before a crowd of around 50 people at the Senior Center of West Seattle. That means it will come before the Southwest Design Review Board at least two more times – once a project passes EDG, a more fleshed-out version must be brought back for final recommendations.

While first word of this project came just two months ago, you could say it’s been almost six years in the making, dating back to the 2007 emergence of a plan to upzone California between Hanford and Hinds for larger potential development – this is the first one to be proposed since then, and as noted during the meeting, it’s potentially a precedent-setting building in terms of its length:

(Proposed ‘preferred’ massing for the development; rendering courtesy Nicholson Kovalchick Architects)
Ahead, toplines from the meeting, covered for WSB by Christopher Boffoli:

Steve Fischer, project manager from Nicholson Kovalchick Architects, started the presentation. The site to be developed by Intracorp includes six parcels with current addresses from 3210 to 3240 California SW. It’s hoped, he said, that the project will be “a bridge” between the commercial areas in The Admiral District and The Junction.

As is required of project teams presenting for Early Design Guidance, they showed three potential options – you can see them in the official “packet” for the project. The third was the “preferred option,” in their view, and they pointed out that it is still below the project’s potential height limit; on its east side, abutting the single-family-home neighborhood whose residents are concerned about what it will mean for their quality of life, there would be an average 23’8″ setback, further than they would be required to.

Also on the east side of the project, buffer plantings and terraced landscaping are planned, according to landscape architect Andy Rasmussen from Weisman Design Group. Fischer explained that they are aiming for a calm backyard type of environment. Rasmussen also said the street trees will stay, and that parallel parking on the street will be enhanced because of the elimination of multiple curb cuts that exist now for driveways to the existing properties – 106 feet of curb cuts, to be precise.

As always, after the presentation, board members asked “clarifying questions.” They wanted to know about how steep the parking grade would be from the street – 15 percent, was the answer – as well as whether the project’s commercial space could have been at the north end instead of the south end; the site’s rise on the north side was the challenge, it was explained. (As noted in a previous WSB report on this project, the commercial space will start as “live-work” but could be converted to “full commercial” since they will have the required-for-that 13-foot ceilings – all depends on how the market goes, they said. Project reps stressed that they are hoping to avoid empty storefronts, as happens too often while new development space comes up to speed. Board members also wanted more detail on the patios and stoops that are envisioned at street level

More than a half-dozen members the public spoke – we will add details later, but the toplines included:
-Needs more visual interest and random massing, so it won’t look so much like a big glass box
-Should commit to true commercial spaces rather than live-work, which tends not to “activate” the street (multiple speakers suggested that)
-The spirit of the land-use code did not anticipate 450-foot-long parcels, so the scale of the building should be further broken down
-One of the community members who wrote the letter featured in our Wednesday story suggested the height be reduced from five to four stories and also noted that while the Admiral District’s neighborhood plan has room for 200 more residential units, this would take up most of that
-Parking concerns
-Not respectful of neighbors’ privacy or sunlight
-Dangerous for pedestrians, with two garage entrances on California
-Even from California SW street level, looking up at 61 feet of building will be too much
-The upzoning conversations never took into effect something this long and this heigh

Board deliberations included agreement with some of the points brought up by the public including the lack of variation in heights and massing, as well as a concern about the loss of “variety” along the street with one big project replacing six parcels. The issue of locating the commercial space on the north side came up again since that’s closer to West Seattle High School and would further facilitate student use. Also, board members thought the east side should have larger communal spaces rather than private patios. Regarding the building’s length, Link in The Triangle came up – but, it was pointed out, the neighborhood character is very different there – though it also was noted that while commercial spaces are activating the south end of Link, its west-side facade is relatively lifeless. The board also would like to see a review of other large projects like this elsewhere in the city, since the proposed building is longer than two blocks, and that might be the first time anything of its kind is proposed anywhere in the city. What, they wondered, if it were broken up into three different buildings?

With those and many other issues, it was clear the project needed to come back for another round of Early Design Guidance -while that is only a recommendation by the board, which is advisory in nature, Department of Planning and Development planner Michael Dorcy (who has worked on more than a few other major projects in West Seattle) confirmed to WSB this morning that DPD concurs. No date set for the second EDG meeting, but we’ll report it as soon as we get it.