Few projects have gone before the Southwest Design Review Board in the past few years, as large-scale development has slowed down dramatically in West Seattle since the boom years a decade ago. But the board does occasionally get a project to review. This past Thursday night, for the first time in five months, the SWDRB met online, for the second Early Design Guidance meeting for 1116 Alki Avenue SW, a proposed ~60-unit residential building replacing a group of old houses on Duwamish Head.
The board’s newest chair Gavin Schaefer led the meeting. Also present: members Brenda Baxter and Alan Grainger, plus fill-in member Gina Gage, as well as the project’s assigned city planner, Theresa Neylon. She reminded everyone that since this project is still in Early Design Guidance, the graphics in the design packet (see it here) are “conceptual.” Here are toplines from the meeting, which followed the standard four-part format:
ARCHITECT’S PRESENTATION: Architect Peter Sherrill from MZA explained they are requesting one “departure” (zoning exception) for the “preferred option.” 61 1/2 feet is the maximum allowable height for this site; parking would be underground – the preferred option proposes 99 spaces, 27 of them mechanically assisted (nine stacks of three):
The site is roughly 120 x 196. There are two notable trees on the site and they’re proposing removing them and planting four replacements in two “corner gardens” and behind the building.
They believe the gardens will benefit adjacent properties too, and overall, they hope the project will “seamlessly blend in” with other newer buildings in the neighborhood.
BOARD QUESTIONS: Among the questions – Baxter wondered if it was possible to raise ground-level units to be a little above street level but the project team pointed out that the building is already very close to the maximum height, so there’s not really room to budge.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: SDCI received two comments pre-meeting – one saying the design was too massive and better suited to a different location; there also was concern about removal of the trees, and that the non-preferred options 1 and 2 were not as fully developed for this discussion as was 3. Also a window study was requested, and a request for a better location for the replacement trees. SDCI also received “non-design-related comments,” which Neylon is tasked with taking into account during her review of the project. One person asked to speak during the meeting. He said he lives in an adjacent building whose residents have provided a “detailed memo about our concerns.” First – too many units without waterfront views – also, the use of mechanical-assisted parking, which they contend doesn’t meet the requirement, and doesn’t live up to what board members said at the first meeting, that removing the two trees would be OK if there was a better parking option.
BOARD COMMENTS: Grainger expressed interest in a “friendlier” main entrance. Baxter said the space between the two buildings in Options 1 and 2 didn’t offer any benefit. Gage said that Option 3 did indeed seem to be the one offering the most respect for adjacent buildings’ privacy. Regarding landscaping, members addressed a public comment that the height of the new trees should be “limited.” The project team said they’re considering Pacific Fire vine maple, shorter, deciduous trees that would “do well in this situation.” The corner gardens might also include “bike parking for public use.” Another public comment addressed: Roof landscaping and whether it might lead to a noise problem; Schaefer noted that the project team had pushed it back and that should address the concerns. They agreed 1 and 2 weren’t as well-developed but that didn’t change their support for Option 3.
Gage said her concern about the ground-floor units had to do with planters out front that might be blocking the view. Schaefer wondered if safety and security were conflicting with views. The project team thought both were possible. Gage also pointed out the entry gates and thought they should be closer to the sidewalk, enabling a little more space for the residents.
For the “departure,” allowing the building to be 178 feet wide in the back rather than 150, all board members supported it.
In the summary of their guidance, board members said the project team should continue to include window studies as the design progresses; they also voiced support for landscaping using a deciduous tree that’s considerate of adjacent views, and they included the request for ground-level gates closer to the sidewalk. All four voted to let the project proceed to the second and final level of Design Review.
WHAT’S NEXT: Clearing Early Design Guidance means a developer can apply for the project’s Master Use Permit. One more review will be required; a date for that will be set when both the project team and city are ready. (The board’s calendar is currently wide open into fall.) If you have comments about the project, design-related or otherwise, email theresa.neylon@seattle.gov to reach the project planner.
| 30 COMMENTS