EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE OF

AT-LARGE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

OCTOBER 31, 2000

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Project Number: 2007096

Address: 1816 — 19th Ave

Applicant: Jeff Oaklief, Johnson Architects

Date of Meeting: October 17, 2000

Board members present: Loren Adams

Carol Tobin

Nancy Henderson (substitute for Robert Hall)

Board members absent: Robert Hall

 

DCLU staff present: Michael Jenkins

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant is proposing a 47 unit residential building comprised of three stories of residential space above a partially below grade parking garage for 63 automobiles.

PUBLIC COMMENT

8 members of the public attended this meeting. The following issues and concerns were raised during the meeting:

 

 

PRIORITIES

After visiting the site, considering the analysis of the site and context provided by proponents and hearing public comment, the Design Review Board members provided the following siting and design guidance, identifying by letter and number those siting and design guidelines found in the City of Seattle’s "Design Review: Guidelines for Multifamily and Commercial Buildings" that are of the highest priority to this project:

The Board felt this was a priority due to the slope of the property towards the east and the additional height the building will be allowed.

The Board felt this was a priority for the project. The Board indicated that the details provided for the building entrance would be critical to the project’s success.

 

The Board emphasized this guideline, indicating that the scale of the project should be brought down along the area of the 19th St courtyard/entrance area.

The Board prioritized this guideline due to the location of adjacent residential properties immediately to the north. The Board indicated it would look to how the project incorporated materials and modulation along the north and south portions of the building and how privacy was maintained.

 

The Board felt this guideline should be a priority, especially if there are residential units with direct access to the street or front area along 19th. One method recommended by the Board to address this issue is through variation in ground level elevation for these proposed units.

The Board had considerable discussion on this guideline, as it was the basis for the applicant’s requested design departure. The Board indicated that they were not convinced that the departure was essential to the project, as there was potential for roof top open space or to extend balconies to meet the minimum usable open space requirements. The Board did indicate that a departure would be considered if there were some public benefit incorporated into the project, such as street level art, decorative grating along the front and the alley or other features to justify the 20% reduction in required open space. The Board indicated that an interim meeting might be necessary, but that the applicant was instructed to address the issue further as part of the MUP submittal.

Board members felt that the project was a high priority due to the required alley dedication and improvements, how the alley currently functions for adjacent properties, the number of trips generated due to required access from the alley and the effect of the concrete garage wall along the alley.

The Board prioritized this guideline due to the height bulk and scale of the proposal in relation to the adjacent L-3 zone. Some of the Board’s suggestions to address this issue included modulation on the zone edges and treatment of the garage walls along the alley and side yards. The Board also voiced their support for the clerestory windows in their proposed configuration, which was setback from the edge of the building.

The Board noted the photographs of adjacent buildings that show extensive use of brick and masonry with metal as accent. The Board indicated that hardi-board would be an acceptable material. The Board specifically indicated that any use of materials should be used as an entire concept on all sides and not just on the street façade along 19th.

Board members again reiterated their support for the project, indicating that simple, well-proportioned solutions should be explored. The Board sited the older brick buildings in the area presented by the applicant to underline their reasoning.

 

The Board referred to previous discussion in support of this guideline.

Please see guidelines A-3 and A-4.

 

 

Please see guidelines A-4, A-6 and A-7.

 

 

The Board reiterated their previous discussions concerning blank walls for the garage along the alley and requested modulation, plantings or other design solutions to address the issue.

 

The Board indicated that applicant should address this issue, in regard to its location in relation to the alley

The Board was concerned about appropriate lighting and its potential effect on adjacent residences along the alley from the garage.

 

The Board indicated that solutions that provide softening of the garage should be explored, including planting in front of the garage and landscaping that would trail over the top of the garage from the proposed rear open space of the garage roof.

DEPARTURES FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS

As referenced, the applicant is seeking a design departure from the minimum open space requirements. As proposed, the building would need a minimum of 7,898 square feet of usable open space, under SMC 23.47.024. The applicant has proposed 6,170 square feet, for a total departure of 22% from the minimum requirement.