(Rendering from design packet by LDG Architects)
The first of tonight’s two Southwest Design Review Board meetings ended with an order for 7617 35th SW to make some changes and return for a second round of Early Design Guidance.
This first phase of Design Review is all about buildings’ size and shape, aka “massing,” and that’s what the big concern was here, along with placement of its entries. Board chair Patrick Cobb (Fauntleroy) led the meeting, with board members Alan Grainger (Fauntleroy), Johanna Lirman (North Admiral), and Gavin Schaefer (Camp Long area) in attendance. From the city Department of Construction and Inspections, David Sachs was filling in for the project’s assigned planner Joseph Hurley. Here’s how the meeting went, along the required four-section format:
ARCHITECT’S PRESENTATION: Architect Ed Linardic opened with some background on the site, including that it had grown since an earlier, smaller project went part of the way through Design Review four years ago. He described the commercial space as “6,000 square feet of office space” but did not elaborate. Using the design packet (which you can see here), he reviewed the site context, including the fact that it’s bordered by single-family homes to the west, and how it responds to stipulated city guidelines. The residential entry will be on the east side of the building (35th). He showed, as is required at Early Design Guidance meetings, three massing options. Scheme 3 steps the “wings” of the building – one would be four feet higher than the other:
BOARD’S CLARIFYING QUESTIONS: Grainger asked about the residential entries – noting the building would “basically fall in the middle of a signalized intersection” (35th/Holden/Ida) with no place for a vehicle to pull up, and wondering if Holden and/or Ida entries would be better. Linardic said the center entry would mean a shorter distance for residents. Grainger also noted that design schemes 2 and 3 don’t really differ from each other; Linardic said the site offers few options for divergence. Lirman wondered why an enclosed plaza was part of the “preferred” scheme; the architect said this would likely be less attractive to overnight camping, for example. Lirman also wondered about the variation between layout of floors, and Linardic replied that he was just “trying to create a little variation.” Schaefer wondered about the bike rooms’ placement. Cobb asked about the commercial space seeming to be at an elevation; the site is sloped, Linardic said, so they’re trying to get all the space on one level for maximum leasability.
PUBLIC COMMENT: One written comment received before the meeting suggested changing the parking entrance to 35th; non-design comments were received as well, Sachs said. He also noted comments received from Seattle Public Utilities and SDOT regarding aspects of the project over which they have jurisdiction. A written comment received during the meeting said they’re glad to see density but would like to hear about affordability; they also pointed out that the height is justified by using the nearby church tower but even one less floor for this project would better fit in with the neighborhood. They also wanted to see more setback, especially on SW Ida. Street level brick cladding would be a good echo of the neighboring church. Another person submitted a written comment expressing concern that more parking is needed and this is the time to build it beneath the building. Holden would be better for an entrance than Ida, the commenter said. They also expressed concern about the building’s height. Another attendee wanted to speak to present her comment, but the city’s WebEx setup wouldn’t allow them to unmute the attendee, who was subsequently asked to write their comments. That comment was read a few minutes into the “board deliberation” section. It voiced appreciation for more density but a request for more affordable units and a concern about the six-story height compared to nearby single-family homes and three- or four-story apartment buildings. This commenter too thought SW Holden would be more appropriate for the entrance.
BOARD DELIBERATION: Grainger again pointed out that the architect was not presenting three distinct massing schemes. He also said the south-to-north height differential should lend itself to the suggested entrance on SW Holden instead of SW Ida. Lirman offered a variety of comments including facade composition and an early look at finishes, saying she agreed that some brick would be good; Schaefer wondered about daylight to some of the interior-faces spaces, and also thinks the north side needs more attention for its visibility. And in relation to nearby zoning, “more attention needs to be paid to that.” He also thought the change in grade at the street level called for some landscaping attention, and he too said access from Holden would be better than Ida. He noted that the architect had said Holden is slated to become a bike lane, and Linardic spoke up to say that in early meetings with SDOT, they were told they needed the entrance to be on Ida. He also wanted to see the frontage on 35th broken up a bit. Grainger reiterated that he liked Scheme 1 best and remained disappointed it’s being basically taken off the table. Lirman said she, like Grainger, likes Option 3 the least and appreciates Option 1 breaking up the building into what looks like two smaller buildings. Cobb agreed on that aspect of Scheme 1, “we really like how the two buildings are broken down,” and he thinks that would “fix a lot of the issues we have with the project.” Then they talked about the ground-level commercial space. Grainger had concerns about “connectivity to the sidewalk,” and Cobb agreed, saying it “needs more work.”
By then they were running out of time in the meeting’s hour-and-a-half window, and Cobb summarized:
-Issues regarding scale and bulk of building; Option 1 would be preferred
-Need more thought into retail – for an example of a project that deals successfully with grade change, Schaefer suggested The Whittaker but Grainger disagreed
-More thought into residential entrances, locate them on residential streets rather than 35th
-More thought about concept, to reflect materials already seen in the neighborhoode
In the end, they voted 3-1 to have a second Early Design Guidance meeting (Schaefer was the lone vote to let the project move ahead). Watch for the date on that; in the meantime, you can send comments on any aspect of the project to joseph.hurley@seattle.gov.
P.S. A quick look at the city’s Bicycle Master Plan doesn’t show a bicycle lane on SW Holden near the project; we’ll be checking with SDOT, though, as the department has digressed from the plan at times.
| 35 COMMENTS