City of Seattle
Gregory J. Nickels, Mayor
Department of Planning and Development
D. M. Sugimura, Director
August 3, 2007
Chris Snell
2324 1st Ave #112
Seattle, WA 98121
RE: Design Review Recommendations for Application #3006103
Dear Mr. Snell:
Attached you will find the Northeast Design Review Board’s recommendations and report by the Department for the proposed project at 8606 35th Ave NE.
Click here to read the entire letter from DPD.
This document encapsulates the recommendations for approval of the Northeast Design Review Board. The recommendations below are required to comply with the Design Review component of your project. These recommendations may become conditions of approval of the MUP or Building Permit.
If you have any questions about the recommendations or any other aspect of the Design Review process, feel free to contact me at 206.615.0724.
Sincerely,
Lucas DeHerrera
Land Use Planner
Enclosure: Design Recommendation Priorities
I:\DeherrL\doc\LucasWrittenDecisions\Design.Review\3006103.EDG.Mixed-Use\DR.Recommendations.3006103.doc
FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE NORTHEAST DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
Held July 16, 2007
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Project Number 3006103
Address 8606 35th Ave NE
Applicant Chris Snell of Snell Partnership for Wade Metz of Murray Franklin.
Board Members Present Craig Parsons
Shawna Sherman
Sue Jensen (Chair)
Tom Nelson
Absent Tricia Reisenauer
DPD Planner Lucas DeHerrera
BACKGROUND INFORMATION –
SITE AND VICINITY
The approximately 32,407 square foot rectangular site is located in the northeast area of Seattle. The block end property is currently developed with a one story commercial structure. The site is bound by three streets, NE 87th St to the north, 35th Ave NE to the west and NE 86th St to the south. The site is zoned Neighborhood Commercial Two (NC2-40) with a forty foot height limit. The site is located on the east side of 35th Ave NE, an arterial street in the north and south directions. The property is located in a small scale commercial node spanning approximately 3 blocks north/south and 1 block on each side of 35th Ave NE.
Zoning in the area is comprised of four zones centered around the intersection of 35th Ave NE and NE 85th St, NC2-40 to the north and south. North of the commercial zoning there is a small amount of Lowrise Three zoning (L3). South of the NC2-40 zone is a small Lowrise Two Residential Commercial zone (L2-RC) and L2 zoning located further south. Large areas of Single Family 5000 (SF 5000) zoning is found on all sides of the above described area.
The site is adjacent to commercially zoned properties to the north, south and west. Directly northeast of the site is L3 zoning. Abutting the site along the east property line is Single Family 5000 zoned and developed properties. There is no alley abutting the site. A Rite-Aide store is directly south of the site and a US Bank is located directly north. Small scale retail structures and spaces (laundromat, hair salon, coffee shop, insurance agency, CPA) exist across 35th Ave NE from the development. A QFC is located at the southeast corner of 35th Ave NE and NE 85th St. A Bank of America is located at the southwest corner of 35th Ave NE and NE 85th St. There are some multifamily structures located on either side of 35th Ave NE between 87th and 88th St.
The site has an approximately 10 to 12’ down slope from the west to east property lines and to the Single Family zoning.
PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to remove the existing commercial structure (formerly The Stroum Jewish Community Center) and construct a four-story mixed-use development with approximately 86 multifamily units and 5,560 sq. ft. of commercial area.
ARCHITECT’S PRESENTATION AND PROPOSAL 1st EDG MEETING (1.22.07)
The architect presented the neighborhood context noting zoning, existing structures and uses surrounding the site. Photos were provided in various directions to and from the site within one to two blocks of the site. The context photos provided showed both the commercial and residential feel of the area.
The architect stated that one of the main goals of the development is to develop a traditional mixed use building with a commercial base and multifamily units above while providing smaller scale retail spaces to match the neighborhood character. The architect presented a maximum envelope massing diagram and three axonometric drawings showing alternatives for the site, which included a site plan view for each. All schemes proposed vehicle access from the south via NE 86th St, with scheme 1 having the access point further east than schemes 2 and 3.
Scheme 1 depicted the majority of the mass at the 35th Ave NE (west) side of the site with a large recess at the midpoint of the east façade, creating a right angled “C” shaped building. This scheme provided three large landscaped decks facing eastward.
Scheme 2 is similar to scheme 1’s massing except less relief is proposed along the east façade facing the Single Family zone; the parking access is moved further west.
Scheme 3 (applicant’s preferred) re-orients the residential courtyard to open facing 35th Ave NE. This design pushes more of the mass towards the east portion of the site. This design proposes a smaller scale landscaped deck above floor 1 along the entire eastern face.
ARCHITECT’S PRESENTATION AND PROPOSAL 2nd EDG MEETING (3.19.07)
The proponent presented a substantially updated design from the originally proposed massing. A mixed-use traditional development is still the program with ground floor retail and three floors of residential above. Massing of the preferred design now has the structure pushed to 35th Ave NE, as opposed to initial preferred design that bulked the mass along the east property line and single family zone. Layering of the building occurs moving east to west. Floors 1-3 (residential) are located 15’ at the closest dimension from the east property line with some additional modulations provided in the façade. Floor 4, on the southeastern portion of the structure, is setback from 45’-6” at its greatest dimension, to 24’ at its smallest dimension from the east property line. In the center of the east façade a 39’-6” wide by approximately 80’ recessed notch that spans floors 1-3 separating the north and south wings of the building. On the northeast corner of the building a recessed chamfered 4th floor provides relief from the northeast area of the site. The preliminary architecture facing east shows pitched roofs to better relate to the single family zoning.
The design now steps down heading east from 35th eastward to better respond to the sloping nature of the site. The design breaks floor plates to accomplish this. The west façade sets back from the 35th Ave NE property line 1’ while the façade is proposed with two accentuating bay windows that span floors 2-4, painted siding, brick, and shingles. Heavy modulation further breaks up the façade on 35th Ave NE.
Vehicle access was altered to have two access points one along NE 86th St and one NE 87th St. The Board requested that a two access point scheme be explored. The southern access door was shifted westward, 45’-6” from the eastern property line and single family zone. The northern access on NE 87th St locates along the east property line.
ARCHITECT’S PRESENTATION (Recommendation – 7.20.07)
Surrounding context zoning and topography was described to reacquaint the Board and public with the site. Changes from the design presented at the 2nd EDG meeting were highlighted. Vehicle access to parking is now proposed from solely from NE 86th St an access on 87th exists but will be limited to emergencies only and waste reception.
A summary of the design’s current progression was outlined showing significant efforts to respond to the abutting Single Family zone to the east.
* Structure mass has been oriented towards 35th Ave NE.
* The plate of the structure was broke to step down with the grade moving east.
* A chamfer of the fourth floor on the northeast portion of structure was implemented.
* Two relief decks were added at floor 3 on the east façade of the projecting northeast and southeast wings to further break up the façade.
* Ground level setbacks along 35th Ave NE ranging from 3’ – 9’.
* King County’s Built Green standard will be sought with the building.
* Building materials were presented:
* Veneer brick
* Horizontal painted cement board siding
* Pre-cast concrete
* Painted cement board
* Metal roofing
* Asphalt shingles
* Painted metal guardrails
* Decorative metal trellises
* Metal commercial storefront windows and for the residential, vinyl windows
The departure requests are changed and now include removal of one request and introduction of a new departure. Departures requests are as follows:
1. Residential Lot Coverage above 13’ – 64% required – 75.8 % requested for floors 1-3 and 64.6% for floor 4 (SMC 23.47.008-D).
2. First floor Height – 13’ required – 12’ requested at the northeast corner and 12’4” at the southeast corner (SMC 23.47.008-C.2).
3. Projections Into Rear Setback – 18” required – 3’ requested for shed and gable roof features on east facade (SMC 23.47.014-E.2).
BOARD CLARIFYING QUESTIONS
► Was stepping of the top floor along 35th Ave NE explored?
o The applicant stated that modulation, differing materials, landscaping, canopies and architectural features are used to break up the 35th Ave façade.
► What are the proposed materials at the base?
° Cast in place concrete (kick plate), metal storefront windows, some metal roofs, and metal decks
► Is application of special paving for the street ground level setback planned?
° The applicant is exploring this element of the design.
► How adequate is the area and exposure for the planting trellis screens on the north and east facades of the project?
o With proper maintenance they should perform.
► The Board questioned the two gable features that are applied to the east façade.
o Reasoning involved responding to the single family zoning and character as well as further breaking up the east façade as a whole.
► The use of the shed roofs features along 35th Ave NE was questioned.
o Centering of the building and providing variety on the west façade were responses by the proponent.
Public Comment
There were approximately 25 public attendees and 16 gave comments at the recommendation meeting. Comments were related to the following:
► Parking quantity concerns, another level of parking should be provided.
► The mass of the structure is appalling and too much for the area, deferral of the project should be considered until design guidelines can be developed for Wedgwood and the project.
► The zoning is inappropriate, traffic is a concern and notice of the project was inadequate.
► Proposed gables are not desirable.
► Landscaping along east property line was questioned, infrastructure improvements were a concern and questions regarding the types of commercial uses that will be at the site.
► Wedgwood is not ready for this development, Height Bulk and Scale is still an issue, use of Built Green is a plus, and the proposed chamfered corners at the street and large sidewalks are supported.
► Shading of neighboring properties is a concern, as well as property values for abutting and adjacent parcels.
► The project could help the community and be a positive contribution.
► Access is a concern because of many children in the area and the overall design is not supported.
► Roof top gardens could have impacts because of falling objects and privacy of adjacent residents.
► Four stories is too many, three would help.
► Questions about the access were raised, the applicant stated that the curbcut and access on NE 87th St is strictly for emergency exiting and waste pick-up.
► The departure for projections into the rear setback is not supported.
► Questions were posed about the size of the trees to be planted in the right-of-way.
Board and DPD Recommendations
After visiting the site, reviewing the applicant’s updated design, considering the public comment and analyzing the surrounding development the Northeast Board recommended approval of the proposed design, meeting the following recommendations/conditions listed by design guideline below.
The presented project did not address all design issues to the Board’s satisfaction. Changes are required in order to meet the Board’s final approval.
Departures were analyzed by the Board and the table below provides the Board’s action on the departures.
Requested Departure Table
Development Standard Requirement Proposed Staff Notes/ Applicant’s Rationale Design Review Board Comment
Residential Lot Coverage:
Above 13’ – 64% required or 20,740 sq. ft.
SMC 23.47.008-D
Total allowable sq. ft. 94,960 (above grade)
75.8 % requested for floors 1-3 and 64.6% for floor 4. Allows mass of the building to be shifted away from the single-family neighborhood to the east, to mitigate the impact of the building’s height, bulk and scale. Allows for setback on the east side of floor 4 to reduce shadow and sightline impacts on the east properties. Allows for setback from the east property line at grade, for preservation of existing trees and for creation of additional landscape buffer to improve the privacy of the neighboring residents The Board unanimously (4 of 4) approved this departure as long as the recommendations/conditions are satisfied relating reduction of the structure. Also the maximum sq. ft. that is obtainable by a code compliant scheme shall not be exceeded. As a result of the Board conditions, the total sq. ft. of the building will be less than a code compliant scheme.
(A5, B1)
First floor Height: 13’
SMC 23.47.008-C.2
12’ requested at the northeast corner and 12’4” at the southeast corner. This reduction allows the retails space to remain at sidewalk level, creating a more attractive street front. This also allows the upper floors to have larger floor to floor heights. Reducing floor heights is compatible with existing small scale existing retail in the vicinity. The Board unanimously approved (4 of 4) this departure as long as the recommendations are satisfied and the storefronts are all provided and accessed at sidewalk grade.
(A3, A4, C1, C3)
Projections Into Rear Setback: 18”
SMC 23.47.014-E.2
3’ for shed and gable roof features (6) on east façade. These features contribute to the residential character of the façade in response to the easterly single family zoning. Relief and shadows are added to the façade with these features. The Board unanimously approved (4 of 4) this departure, contingent upon a design change to remove the gables facing the single family zone, in favor of an alternate design feature of the applicants choosing to be reviewed and approved by DPD.
(C2, C3, C4)
Final Design Review Board Recommendations
Recommendations are noted by bullets below.
A-4 Human Activity
New development should be sited and designed to encourage human activity on the street.
• Keep commercial floor levels and entries at sidewalk grades.
A-5 Respect for Adjacent Sites
Buildings should respect adjacent properties by being located on their sites to minimize disruption of the privacy and outdoor activities of residents in adjacent buildings.
&
E-1 Landscaping to Reinforce Design Continuity with Adjacent Sites
Where possible, and where there is not another overriding concern, landscaping should reinforce the character of neighboring properties and abutting streetscape.
• Add large scale trees and shrubs (large size at installation) along the retaining wall at grade along the eastern property line in the conditioned setback detailed in the second bullet under B-1 below.
B-1 Height, Bulk and Scale Compatibility
Projects should be compatible with the scale of development anticipated by the applicable Land Use Policies for the surrounding area and should be sited and designed to provide a sensitive transition to near-by, less-intensive zones. Projects on zone edges should be developed in a manner that creates a step in perceived height, bulk and scale between the anticipated development potential of the adjacent zones.
• To reduce Height Bulk and Scale, erode the 4th floor chamfer by removing 9’ -10’ from the easternmost portion parallel to the eastern property line on the northeastern wing of the project. This will push the 4th floor chamfer to a 33’ or 34’ setback from the east property line.
• To reduce Height Bulk and Scale and to allow planting of large scale trees, setback the northeastern portion of the retaining wall at grade along the eastern property line 5’ to create an 8’ setback. The existing setback is setback 3’. This 8’ setback may terminate in alignment with the north wall of the internal courtyard.
• Setback railings and parapets from all 4th floor roof edges to reduce the scale and apparent height of the structure, this will also help in respecting adjacent sites. This is most important at all corners and the sides facing the residential property owners. Also continue to use the open railings/parapets shown at the meeting.
C-2 Architectural Concept and Consistency
Building design elements, details and massing should create a well-proportioned and unified building form and exhibit an overall architectural context.
• Reduce the apparent scale by using a less continuous cornice line and minimize its appearance by using a lighter colored roof band. The cornices can still vary, but should be diminished in locations were they are of most detriment. Modify the architectural vocabulary so that the 4th floor reads in a way that will be treated separately from the rest of the building and diminished in its overall appearance.
• The proponent must provide a different architectural feature of their choosing to replace the gables facing the single family zone to the east. These new features are to be reviewed and approved by DPD.
C-4 Exterior Finish Materials
Building exteriors should be constructed of durable and maintainable materials that are attractive even when viewed up close. Materials that have texture, pattern, or lend themselves to a high quality of detailing are encouraged.
• The Board encouraged use of alternate scored and or colored paving for the recessed pedestrian entries off 35th Ave NE.
Note to Applicant
Please update the MUP drawings to comply with these recommendations and the requested zoning corrections and re-submit for review. Please feel free to contact the Land Use Planner to discuss these recommendations.
