(EDITOR’S NOTE: Last Thursday night, in a four-and-a-half-hour meeting, the Southwest Design Review Board looked at two projects, and declined to recommend final approval for either one, meaning each needs at least one more review. We published short updates that night, promising full coverage to follow; this is the first of 2 long-form reports.)

By Tracy Record
West Seattle Blog editor

Following the third Southwest Design Review Board meeting for the mixed-use 3210 California SW project, with at least one more ahead, the site’s neighbors are gathering petition signatures to do what two other West Seattle neighborhoods have done this year – demand a separate city hearing on the project’s potential effects.

The petition at moveon.org was started after Thursday night’s meeting, which drew more than 50 people. (That is also the minimum number of signatures needed to request a hearing outside the Design Review process.)

3210 California SW in its current proposed form would bring ~140 apartments, ~170 parking spaces, and more than 3,000 square feet of retail to much of the east side of the block-plus on California upzoned by City Council approval in 2010, three years after the proposal to change its zoning to NC2-40 was initiated.

The neighbors, primarily on the single-family zoned block of 42nd SW east of the project site, have voiced multiple concerns, but the biggest one is, literally, the biggest one: Its height.

While you might assume a 40-foot zone means four stories, under the standard average of ten feet per story, this building is proposed for five stories, because of various calculations regarding the site’s slope/grade and city rules, all combining to raise questions. The development plan first came to light 10 months ago, and had been before the SWDRB twice before Thursday:

*First Early Design Guidance meeting last spring
*Second Early Design Guidance meeting, in summer

Here’s how the meeting played out Thursday night, before a board with member Laird Bennion filling in as chair and regular members Todd Bronk and Daniel Skaggs, along with two former members filling in for two absent members: Robin Murphy and Vlad Oustimovitch for chair Myer Harrell and T. Frick McNamara. Senior planner Michael Dorcy was there as the city’s rep.

Height is not something the volunteer board members currently have much, if any, say over. So, much of the architects’ presentation – see the full “packet” here – by Boyd Pickrell from Nicholson Kovalchick Architects and Andy Rasmussen from Weisman Design Group, involved explaining how the updated design proposal responded to critiques and requests from the final Early Design Guidance meeting.

The architects showed the three-part facade of the 440+-foot-long building. There is now a height difference between the three parts – the north and central building are about 4 feet lower than the south building (which has been pulled “out of the grade”), “to create a break in the roof elements that create the ‘brow’ of the building.” The east face of the building includes complementary design elements. Here’s a view of that side, looking west, so the south building is at left:

(Note that none of the planned landscaping is shown in that rendering – it was simply to show relative shape and size.)

Other sketches included one that they say shows how the top of the building will be visible from the east. On that side, 18’2″ is the average setback – more than the required 15′, Pickrell said – he said that active outdoor spaces on that side of the building will not be “immediately adjacent” to someone’s yard.

Another element of interest on the east, a redwood tree, is at the spot where the team created a break in the building – though the tree is not on the project site – and introduced “a very transparent bridge element so the tree can be experienced” from that side. The tree will thrive under what they have planned, he said, noting that they brought their consulting arborist to the meeting. Later, acting chair Bennion criticized the architects for not getting the arborist’s report to them sooner; getting one in the first place had been a point of concern at earlier meetings. Most of the roots are on neighbors’ property “because it’s their tree,” said landscape architect Weisman. “The development that we are proposing does not significantly impact the tree.”

Scott Baker of Tree Solutions was invited to come up and talk about the tree – “a coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens, not native to this area), been there a while … probably 60 to 80 years old,” but not considered a “heritage tree.” It is “aggressive” and will outgrow its site and has maybe 20 to 40 years left, he said. Its roots won’t be harmed by the construction work but it will have to be pruned, he said, and claimed “it will accept pruning very well” and that it would even grow back if pruned to the ground. It’s been “heavily pruned” before, he said. Overall, “I don’t think you need a gap in the building to keep the tree alive” but it will help, he said.

The tree figured into Weisman’s explanation of what the architects/designers had done toward the board’s request that the east side be a “quieter” space. “It could be a really great place to hang out, almost zen-like with this huge redwood tree …” he said.

Back on the California-fronting west side of the building, Pickrell explained changes they had made to answer concern about sightlines from the parking-garage ramp, especially as they related to the small apartment building on the corner north of the project site, adjacent to the garage entry on the north side of 3210 California:

Along the rest of the building’s California frontage, they also said they had “introduced a significant amount of true retail” on the north side (red, in the frame below) and would not have residential units on the ground floor.

There will be a retail courtyard two-thirds of the way into that north space, possibly with “café seating”:

Further down, the live/work area will have a courtyard as well. Painted-fiber cement siding and wood accents are part of the exterior materials they detailed.

During board questions, Weisman explained there will be more parallel parking along California SW in front of the building than there was before because they’re “getting rid of all those curb cuts” from the patchwork properties on the site now.

PUBLIC COMMENT: Deb Barker, a community advocate who is also a former SW Design Review Board chair, spoke first. She thought the “brow caps” could “be more substantial” but is glad they’re there as a “stronger” top line of the building. She thought “stronger reveals” for the fiber-cement components would help, along with a “creamier” color for the white on the “large building …you don’t want it to look like it’s a cartoon,” which she feels a “warmer” color would help. She thinks “the bridge seems like overkill.” But “the reduction of activity on the east facade is successful.”

JoEllen, one of the neighbors to the east, said she “really appreciates seeing the east elevation in your presentation.” She feels “the current proposal isn’t doing enough to protect the solar exposure to the single-family zone,” which she said seemed better in earlier versions, and now there is concern about the “eyebrow overhangs.” She also expressed concerns about conflicting information between this and what was submitted in the application for a permit. The gap might “break up the length of the building but doesn’t do anything for solar exposure.” She also reiterated concern for the privacy of people in her neighborhood, expressed previously in a suggestion of fewer windows, a component shown for the first time at this stage of Design Review. “If every unit has a large view window, that’s 60 windows for eight or nine houses” and that seems “overwhelm(ing),” she said, adding that the trees didn’t seem to be enough of a buffer.

Paul, also a neighbor, said he wanted to talk about height/bulk/scale, far beyond 40 feet – he said the average height calculations “keep changing.” He noted that the length of the building is almost 450 feet long, and he brought up FAR – floor-area ratio – “a way to make sure you don’t overbuild on the lot.” He said he would like to see the entire street-level floor retail, instead of some live-work. He thinks the views of the homes on the east are underplayed and wants to make sure the zoning reviewer considers every angle of the homes east of the site. He also said the setbacks from the east-side homes are less than they were earlier and that other changes in height/bulk/scale have “rolled back” since the first version. “I know the board can’t ask that the building be reduced to four floors but I feel this should be a four-floor structure.”

Another neighbor added to the concern about solar exposure and about new trees’ survival. He wondered who’s accountable for keeping the plantings alive, and if a fence could be required should the trees not survive.

Next, Bud wondered about the rent that would be charged and the size of the units. They range from studios to 2 bedrooms, with “a lot of 1 bedrooms,” said Pickrell, while saying the potential rents are out of his scope of commenting. Bud said that he worried there won’t be enough parking.

Neighbor Georgia countered the contention that the extra 4 feet added to the southernmost building wouldn’t affect the view. “The argument that the four feet doesn’t matter is not actually proven in the document.”

Dave said this “very tall building” doesn’t meet the “small community feel” of the neighborhood. He said a three-story building would have him “thrilled” but this “doesn’t meet what we intended.”

Dino, describing himself as a former resident of adjoining 42nd SW, asked about the rear view showing four stories – Pickrell explained it’s five stories in front but because of the grade (slope) showed four in the back. Dino also wondered who’s accountable for the trees’ height, if they wind up being higher than the building. “They’re going in at 10 feet height,” Weisman said, “40 or 50 years from now maybe (the height) is a concern.”

A man identifying himself as an Admiral resident said he is concerned about the retail space, particularly the live-work component, which he thought was not as desirable as more retail space.

And another neighbor said, “Our concern remains the size and height of the building, and you say you can’t (do anything about that), so what do we do about that? … Is it a done deal?” Planner Dorcy talked about the site’s zoning being changed several years ago. “I don’t think people understood it,” she said. Dorcy said, “It was a political act, and whether people understood it or not .. it’s the law.” Murphy jumped in, “The problem here is that we have a multifamily zone abutting the single-family zone … (there are some things that can) mitigate the issue. But it’s an extreme case in which we ask a developer not to build a story or two.”

Dorcy was asked about the SEPA meeting possibility that other neighbors have been exercising, and he said that they need to gather 50 signatures and get it to him. The questioner, Diane, expressed concern about the walkability of the zone and reiterated that more retail would help that, rather than some live-work.

BOARD DELIBERATIONS: “Once again the council has passed a bill that will need some fixing down the line,” Dorcy was saying as they began. Bennion expressed concern about the live-work units and the “departure” mentioned earlier – “We want these to be live-work … (previous projects) turned into live-live … really I’m concerned about the longterm viability of the live-works, particularly if one has a 10-foot ceiling. We either find some tenants who are extremely short, or that’s going to be a major impact.” It was noted that the project could have residential there instead, and the board recalled that the retail originally was on the south frontage but moved to the north by the board’s request. Bronk said there would be a way to have a “depressed retail space” there instead. He mentioned the “eight to ten small retail(ers)” who will be displaced by the project “and they’re going to want someplace to go.”

Murphy said he feels there’s a “huge opportunity being missed” regarding the redwood tree. “That bridge is not really a bridge … maybe this becomes three separate buildings …something needs to happen to have that portal through there, a specially unique thing which would solve the linearness of this project …it’s too long.” Someone else suggests it would be a hardship to the developer to add another elevator shaft, which would be required if it were three buildings. Oustimovitch said he believes “how these three buildings are differentiated” is indeed to him the key issue here. “Is it significantly differentiated to look like three buildings, or is it just one building that’s in and out a bit?” Bronk brings up a project in Ballard that he feels is “tragic” and “probably looked like this in Design Review.” A discussion of materials ensued.

Skaggs said he does not feel there’s enough breakup between the buildings. Bennion said the northernmost two looked to him like twins. “I think at best they should be cousins. … I don’t see the northernmost buildings being nearly separate enough to make it a (good) experience for passersby.” Murphy pointed out, “This area’s very low-density” and then expressed concern that the retail level is too “soft … doesn’t feel refined, feels like let’s just take a glass storefront and repeat it.”

“There’s conflicts,” said Bronk, between doors, awnings, plaza size, worrying the pedestrian and plaza spaces might not be big or functional enough. He also voiced concern about the “field of gray” that much of the building would seem to comprise and that “it’s going to look cheap, and in this neighborhood, it’s going to be an unfortunate installation.” Oustimovitch said the color highlights now feel more like a “musical pattern” on the gray. On another topic, he said some “simple things can be done” to get more light in. Murphy then wondered if the “substantial” retaining wall at the back of the property would create a “well” at the back of the property. Bronk wondered about terracing in the back and suggested that the tree selection for the east side should take into account the wind that West Seattle can get.

Skaggs asked for more detail. From behind the table, architect Pickrell said, “We can give you more detail, but give us direction.” Bronk pointed to some aspects of a packet from the recent 4435 35th SW design review and suggested it be looked at online. “Are we asking for varied materials between the three buildings, or better materials on all three?” asked Bennion. Bronk then mentioned that the retail needed some variety in its appearance. Bennion said, “In their defense, they were responding to our direction.” Skaggs said, “They’re about halfway there.”

Oustimovitch suggested that the courtyards between the buildings could be used more effectively for “entrances that are going to break things up.” They then discussed the challenges that could transpire if retail spaces are split into smaller storefronts at tenants’ request.

At this point, the meeting was running 20 minutes overtime, with another one looming behind it, and those waiting for that hearing milling in the hallway. The issue of windows on the east side came up, and again, the tree heights on the east side. Bennion summed his concerns to variation of materials between the three buildings and more transparency on the glass bridge, plus a study of how the east facade is going to interact with the neighbors re: “sill heights.” Oustimovitch said the general massing is OK, “it’s just a question of how they’re broken down architecturally.” Board members agreed some of the live-work units should be swapped for retail area.

They decided the project needs to come back. Among the board’s requests for the next revision: Fewer live-work units, lighting/signage renderings, and a more detailed plan regarding the back (east) side of the building and how it will relate to the adjacent neighborhood, whose residents have been so vigilant throughout the process so far, dating back to the first rezoning-related meeting six years ago this month.

SIDE NOTE – ABOUT THE HEIGHT: Planner Dorcy said he had “received 30 e-mails today alone” regarding the project’s height – how it could have 5 stories in a 40′ zone – and explained that extra feet were allowed in certain cases unless certain views were blocked – Mount Rainier, the Sound, Green Lake. “You get your height, but if you want your extra height, the building is not allowed to be infringing.” He says the zoning reviewer will look at this, in a Type 1 decision, regarding the extra height. “There will be a dialogue regarding that … the board has nothing to do with that and in a sense I have nothing to do with that .. but all your comments and questions about that will be directed to the zoning person.” Lucas DeHerrera – reachable at lucas.deherrera@seattle.gov – is the person who will be making that decision, Dorcy said.

NEXT STEPS: The city will set a date for the next design-review meeting; if enough petition signatures are received, they’ll set a date for the special public meeting neighbors are requesting.