Columbia Citizens

This week (Friday, February 15) neighbors have their first opportunity to interact with designers for a future development at Columbia Plaza.

Columbia Plaza encompasses the parking lot where the farmers market happens, the onetime Tradewell grocery store, and the parking lot facing Rainier. Last I heard, the Bank of America site isn't included. The property is zoned for six stories, and in June the P-I announced its sale to HAL.

The site is located in the landmark district, which means the public review of the design is administered entirely by the Columbia City Landmarks Review Committee subject to its guidelines. The Landmarks Preservation Board eventually makes the call on whether to approve the design.

The first briefing for this project is on Friday 2/15 at 4pm. Here's the next agenda.

At the Columbia City Community Council's public meeting on Monday 2/11, a few neighbors decided to meet informally at the site to discuss its relationship with what surrounds it. I think any development on this site faces design challenges on all sides. How to address the sidewalk on Rainier? Edmunds? The Park? Where to locate the service entries?

If you're interested, we'll be there at 6pm on Thursday the 14th to share ideas that might turn into helpful Citizen feedback for the committee.

These are my notes from the February 15 meeting of the Columbia City Landmarks Committee. The committee keeps no formal written notes, so I thought this might be a start to help keep neighbors informed about the status of this project. Several other neighbors attended, and I'm open to other people's suggestions for updates.

Quoted text is all paraphrased.

All this verbiage would make much more sense with some visuals to illustrate. Hopefully we can share some of that information soon.

Dana Behar of HAL Real Estate Investments gave a brief intro. He grew up in the south end, before there was a Southcenter, and he remembers shopping in Columbia City. He saw the neighborhood decline [and resurge], and he's been looking for the right place to develop in the neighborhood. He's talked with people about what they'd like to have here, and he's thinking along the lines of a small boutique grocery store. He said HAL develops only periodically, and when they do they take pride in their work. He spoke of the Braeburn, one of HAL's recent projects that he feels responds well to its context on Capitol Hill.

Mr Behar mentioned that he's served on the Landmarks Board, and this is the first time he's had the chance to present to the Board as an applicant.

Rebecca Frestedt explained that this meeting is about providing siting and massing alternatives, not about the architectural features. Future meetings will address the design in further detail.

Ed Weinstein of Weinstein A|U presented. He introduced Tim Myhr and Joel Severud of the design team. He referred to slides projected large.¹

• Mr Weinstein sees this as a conversation with the community and the Committee about the analysis they've undertaken so far. He thinks it's important to share their understanding of the neighborhood context, especially in this location, Columbia City. This is the first project of significant redevelopment in the historic heart of Columbia City. He feels it's important to design a building that is appropriate for our time and also that respects the existing fabric of the neighborhood.

• Most significantly, the site is really in the epicenter of the historic district.

• It's in a Neighborhood Commercial 3 zone with a 65-foot height limit. Mr. Weinstein gave a brief overview of the zoning in the vicinity. The site is in a 65' height envelope with 40' heights around it. It's intended to be a relatively significant mixed use structure. The site has ready access to light rail. It will be 5-6 stories with a retail base. "We're very aware of the challenge of the six-story scale."

• Slides documented the vicinity's topography, its existing bus routes, the network of local parks and open spaces. Mr Weinstein spoke about a tentative plan for Zion Prep to move to the Columbia School. He'd heard there might be some designation of Edmunds (and the school grounds?) to become a public marketplace. "We'd design to support that."

• Another slide showed all the nearby institutions, including schools, churches, the library, the cultural and community centers. Weinstein A|U are the architects for the combined Boys & Girls club at Rainier Vista.

• Mr. Weinstein read from the Columbia City Landmarks Committee's design guidelines verbatim. He noted that there are a few "contributing" structures across Columbia Park, as well as several "non-contributing" structures. The district has a "strong street-edge definition". The historic precedent is to build to the street.

Massing/Scale. Massing, or physical bulk and size, of all new buildings in the District must be consistent with the massing of existing historic buildings.

Commercial
Height. New developments exceeding the typical one to three story height of the District's historic buildings should honor the scale, massing, and proportion of the adjacent buildings.

"We understand that."

Residential
Height/Width. New construction that exceeds the height and width of adjacent buildings should be designed to be compatible by breaking up the mass of the building to conform to widths of residential historic buildings in the District.

"This will be topical, because we've been looking, and we can't find anything at this scale that's representative. We'll have to make that up together with you."

Form. The form, or overall shape, of new construction should relate to neighboring historic buildings and promote a visual sense of continuity. Unusual building and roof forms are discouraged.

"We agree with that."

• "A challenge is to design the residential portion. We have this problem, because we can't find representative examples. We want our proportions of windows to be distinct and different according to the Department of Interior's standards, not a riff on a historic theme. How can we do something that's of our time but respectful. We're aware of the standards, some may be in conflict, we want to work with you to come to an appropriate resolution."

• Mr Weinstein showed several examples of the firm's work, from a variety of Seattle neighborhoods.

• "We're looking to do authentic buildings that are appropriate for their sites and circumstances. That's our credo."

• A northern portion of the site currently provides parking and access to the Hasegawa's dental/medical building. HAL has ceded development rights for that portion of the property, which means that it will remain as parking and will not be developed, effectively serving as a building setback.

• Pete Lamb on the Committee asked about the site's western fringe, which is zoned residential lowrise. The development objective is to build to the zone line, but not across it.

• Mr. Weinstein identified a high pedestrian circulation on the site's south side (Edmunds), and noted that this pattern would be increased by light rail. Most walkers will be on the sunny north side of the street. The design team proposes auto access to a garage from Edmunds. Probably a main pedestrian entry to residential apartments a little more to the west.

• Large trees on Rainier. It's highly likely that the sites across Rainier will be redeveloped. Most of the historic fabric is to the south. The design intent is to have the structure come up to the property line on Rainier. "This building wants to engage the street."

• Mr Weinstein showed a series of alternative massing studies. One involved a double-loaded corridor circling around the site in a "C". Others seemed to ring the site and look in on a central courtyard. "We need to find ways to erode the building in such a way that it's purposeful. If there's no local example, then we'll need to collaboratively come up with a good sense of scale. What we're showing is a recognition that we'll modulate the building. Let's not start painting lots of different facades to have the appearance of lots of different structures."

• Some massing alternatives carved back at the corners. Others stepped back the upper levels from Rainier.

• Pete Lamb (Committee member) asked: "How does this relate to the business district? It sounds like it's an all-residential building."
  • Mr Weinstein identified continuous retail along Rainier, and retail or live-work along Edmunds. This would be "generous retail" with 13' floor heights. "We've not imagined that there would be any upper-story retail, especially if the neighbors are all single-level."

• Pete Lamb again:
  • "The park needs the enlivenment, and Rainier is relatively pedestrian-unfriendly. Maybe you shouldn't put your main pedestrian residential entry there. Maybe there should be retail on the park"
  • Weinstein: "We're envisioning townhouse-type units on the park. Not sure that neighbors would favor commercial on the park."
  • Lamb: "You have this prominent corner on the park. Columbia City lacks a public square. The closest thing we have is the park. If you build this, you can't even see it."
  • Weinstein: "That's an important observation. We could erode that corner to recognize the park.

• We're aware of the sensitivity of scale from the park and the houses. We have these ideas for how to provide relief on the park. He showed alternatives, one deeply modulated into three pronounced bays, and another with the top levels uniformly set back.

• Gary Oppenheimer (a Committee member): "What would make this area attractive for restaurant patrons walking the commercial district? It's not clear how deep your retail space is, but could you enter on one side and exit to the park? Maybe the corner provides some connection through its space, as a retail space."
  • Behar: "We're having conversations with a boutique grocer. They would offer the kind of inventory that would be desirable for pedestrians. A deep retail grocery probably wouldn't work.
  • Oppenheimer: "If there was one space that would be most appropriate for a restaurant, it would be on the corner of the park, with an outdoor terrace. Turning the corner might be a good place for an activated space. Some opportunity there that would be beneficial to the district.

• Gary Oppenheimer: "Would you maintain vehicle access through the Hasegawa driveway?"
  • Weinstein "We probably wouldn't use it. Elevation issues, we think we can satisfy requirements another way. We'd have better control with one vehicle entry (off Edmunds). We thought that over time the Rainier Pedestrian experience would be injured more by having more crossings there. With the sightlines ther we're more comfortable with it this way."
  • Oppenheimer: "Please look at that more closely."
  • Lamb: "DoT is considering a road diet there, so that might help you. Right now it's dangerous. With a road diet, that's a different issue."

In the final ten minutes, there were several comments from the public. Unfortunately I didn't jot them down, because I was busy putting my own thoughts together. But there were some really good ideas. Maybe it's best to let those folks pitch in with their own comments.

Scott,
Thank you very much for the notes.

And to .46.17, thanks for the link to The Stranger. There is quite a discussion going on in their "comments" section.

I hope this development will slow traffic on Rainier and encourage SDOT to try the "road diet" sooner rather than later. Rainier Avenue is the heart of our valley and I'd love to see it walkable and inviting rather than in its current scary state.
Diana

There's a new page about this project, just in time for Friday's meeting with the Columbia City Review Committee.

Any word on the Columbia City Review Committee meeting? How did it go?

This was the committee's second briefing about this project. You can read notes from the first meeting.

I've tried to group comments, so these notes aren't sequential.

It's difficult to accurately relay the information without the graphics to illustrate. Let's encourage the development team to share their materials here.

Rebecca Frestedt gave a brief recap of the project and site, and a summary of concerns raised at the last meeting.

Ed Weinstein presented the design updates.

• We've performed a transportation study that prefers parking access off Edmunds rather than off Rainier.
• We've conducted a study that demonstrates there is no historic significance to the Tradewell grocery store building, as expected.
• We're also working with local players on how to accommodate the farmers market on Edmunds St.
• We'd like some feedback about the design of the facades, about "relief elements" such as decks, about the streetscape, and about activating the southwest corner.

overall massing

• There are challenging issues related to massing and facade composition.
• We haven't found any direct Columbia City precedents in terms of compatibility and harmony for a large residential project such as ours.
• Our massing alternatives build out to the perimeter.
• Our preferred massing is a C-shaped configuration and a larger open space at the center.
• The design wraps the site periphery, but we've organized it into six "buildings".

site context

• We understand the fabric of the existing Columbia City retail. Most have a generous storefront level with clerestory or transom lights above that. Most are one or two story. We've sought an inventory of contextual residential buildings, but we just haven't found them.
• We're very aware of the importance of Columbia Park and the residential neighborhood on the other side.
• We've done our research and understand the retail character of Columbia City.
  • • There's a repetition of structures, individual storefronts with their own entries.
    • Transom windows.
    • Steel marquees and glass marqees.
    • Blade signs.

pedestrian entries

• Our main residential entry is toward the southwest off Edmunds. There's also a more minor pedestrian entry on the south side of the Rainier facade.

Rainier frontage

• We propose a continuous band of retail along Rainier, with a fitness room located behind the Rainier bldg.
• There will be a gated entry to a lower plaza — just for residents.
• We'd like to provide a boutique grocery on Rainier.
• The Rainier facade could be organized into relatively narrow and towerlike element — that fits with the idea of distinct buildings.
• A strongly expressed retail base in the pattern of Columbia City.
• Existing street trees to remain.
• Marquee and transom lights.

Edmunds frontage

• Commercial live/work spaces along the sidewalk. At the southwest corner we propose a commercial space — we'd be interested in providing a restaurant there.
• The main residential entry would be to the east of the restaurant.

Columbia Park frontage

• A restaurant level would rise up on a bit on a plinth.
• Along entire frontage would be a mews/terrace/sidewalk.
• There could be a broad marquee at the corner. We think the dining can continue around the corner and help activate the sidewalk.
• Next there would be a series of "townhouses" as the grade steps down. They respond to the scale of the single family houses across the park. We're also trying to reinforce the concept of six primary buildings on the site.
• "Townhouse" style units might be in a more contemporary architectural language.
• Further toward the library [at grade] would be tall flats, which could be accessed from the outside and from the inside.
• In front of the residential units, this wall would have a solid base with a grille above, enclosing individual courtyards for the residential entries into the park.

north side

• This side is really not seen this way — fronted by the Hasegawa building.
• We've notched it for light and circulation. This facade is set back from the property line enough to provide windows.

modulation

• It's our feeling that the more effective strategy is to have very deep and wide notches to break down the scale of the building [speaking of the park facade]. We'd step each modulation back 15 or 20 feet, to give a sense of individual structures.
• We think that the highest priority is to effect the primary modulation first, then the secondary modulation, then the patterning. It could be broken up in terms of expansion joints or construction joints.
• There can be different outcomes in patterning all predicated on the same modualtion strategy.

facade organization

• We're hoping that the facades will reflect the organization of the plans.
• An alternation of living rooms and bedrooms.
• This is where we start the conversation.
• One of the concerns with a traditional strategy in facade making — it starts to read as a very large volume.
• Our proposal is to figuratively dematerialize the facade, breaking out pieces and defining with glass. Four stories of residential windows, and then decks to define the top. The composition consists of the street level, the intermediate scale of the next four residential levels, and then something different at the top. These drawings are purely an investigation into how to break down and dematerialze the scale.
• We would follow the rules of Columbia City at the retail base, and then use rules that frankly are common throughout the city.
• Working our way around the building, there are these large openings around our central courtyard, bringing in a significant amount of light.

perspective drawings
Mr. Weinstein presented a series of perspective images — computer-generated views of the design set into photos of the site. I'll skip over many of those details, expecting that the development team will soon share these materials.

• Disclaimer of the perspectives: we're here to talk about the massing and scale, so we've resisted the temptation to embellish these images with architecture.
• The scale of the trees is quite tall. They effectively obscure the overall mass of the structure. If this were a summertime shot you wouldn't see the building at all. That's not an apology of the architecture, just a fact. We won't need to hide, but it's effectively screened.

comments by Committee members and staff

• Rebecca Frestedt, [referring to walls flanking the Bank of America site] — Are these built to the property line and that's why they're blank facades?
  • Weinstein — Yes, a challenge of urban development. We have a certain responsibility to pattern these extruded elevations, reconizing that you can't put windows in them, you can incise, but the rest has to be done with pattern.
• Frestedt — You've been very attentive and respectful in terms of the retail base. I'm very concerned about the overall massing and its reference to the existing neighborhood. In reading through the guidelines: it seems there's tremendous focus on this issue. I'm also concerned about the two ends as they relate to the bank. Blank facades are certainly discouraged.
  • Weinstein — I would like to comment on the extruded end, it's a problem everywhere. We didn't find a guideline about extruded ends. There should be an understanding that there's a unique challenge to the extruded ends. We're quite certain there will be an L-shaped building that will hold the property line. It's unreasonable for us to step our building back 10' in order to comply with the building code, so that when the Bank of America site gets built, all our units would be looking at another blank wall. I put it forward as a conceptual challenge, if you've got a recommendation we would love to understand it. Unless we can have an easement on the BOA site, we could paint it on, but we couldn't create a real opening there.
• Gary Oppenheimer — I do think the neighborhood has examples of residential above commercial, such as the Toby building and Rob Mohn's. Sure, those aren't the scale of what you're proposing.
• Oppenheimer — In proportion, in terms of height, how does your commercial layer relate to what's already in the district? It appears that the elevations you show are taller, more vertical than what you show in the sections.
  • Weinstein — the simple answer, all in the range of 15-16' and I'll show you that.
• Mark Hannum — Columbia City has wider storefronts, and it seems you propose a lot of narrow vertical bays.
  • Weinstein: There are larger storefronts, we're happy to eliminate divisions and just make it wider. If you look at the organization of some existing buildings, they're very similar to what we're proposing. There are examples of both.
  • Oppenheimer — That's the easiest for you to deal with.
  • Weinstein — That's right, that's low hanging fruit.
• Hannum — I'm concerned about materials. Columbia City's commercial core consists mostly of masonry structures, stucco, no concrete. Would you use materials to distingish between expressed structures?
  • Weinstein — we can't hang five stories of brick curtainwall on a wood frame struture. It would have to be steel frame. We don't mean to be argumentative, but it's an inherent conundrum.
  • Hannum — [Identifies a new building at Broadway and Pike as a successful example using brick.]
  • Frestedt — This discussion usually happens later. Let's defer comment.
• Frestedt — You propose a short wall on the park, with screening. That's something we'll need to revisit. The guidelines discourage fencing.
  • Weinstein — These are units at grade that access from the sidewalk. They're different from the ones across the park. On the other side of the park, there's a sense of where the public realm stops and the private starts. Our condition is different unless we set back 20 feet. If everyone has their shades drawn all the time — it's a real problem in the more dense neighborhoods. If we're to provide an adequate filtering device, it needs to allow for both privacy and availability. When the guideline precludes fences, it wasn't thinking about this so much. We aim for an appropriate level of obscurity and privacy, speculating that some level of enclosure with the plinth base and some transparent fencing would be appropriate.
  • Oppenheimer — Appropriate landscaping would make a better relationship.
• Anne Beeman — You should lighten up the top to reduce the apparent height. You've differentiated the tops. Is the middle building recessed?
  • Weinstein — yes.
  • Oppenheimer — A definite cornice and a more pronouced top — that's something you do see in the District.
  • Weinstein — We think there has to be some kind of a relationship between the plan and the organization of the elevations, we're willing to violate our own rules in order to get the richness of composition.
• Oppenheimer — This is a very modernist rendition of the window treatment. It's completely different from anything inside the district. I appreciate the small window/large window relationship you discussed, but It's very jarring to me to see this kind of vocabulary. On the park side, on the second image with the recede, it seemed like the articulation was more successful.
  • Weinstein — We should try to do something distinct that doesn't mirror the existing. The bays are low hanging fruit. The one thing we're fearful of is a flatter facade with the punched openings — that scares us most of all. The five stories writ large wouldn't work. I think you're saying it's a little too scary, too modern.
  • Oppenheimer — Having this across the street from the rest of the district, these proposed windows are difficult.
• Beeman — What about more differentiation along the horizontal? Maybe the vertical reads too strongly.
  • Weinstein — Good to hear: too vertical, too modern.
  • Beeman — I appreciate what this pattern does for the interior spaces. I'm not holding strongly to that position.
• Frestedt — [Referring to earlier comment about Dept of Interior's directive that new structures shouldn't mimic historic ones], this project is so far above and beyond anything in the district, there's no mistaking that this is not historic. The north side will have a strong relationship with the libray, it's important to recognize and pay attention to it. This library is a very special building. It should relate in some way.
  • Weinstein — [Draws Rebecca into conversation to clarify what she means.] The library is so ideosyncratic. The last thing we want to do is mimic the library with an apartment building. We don't want to distract attention.
• Hannum — The design should move more toward compatibility. It should look more traditional. We need a hybrid.
• Hannum — My big concern: the corner element next to the bank is extremely important.
  • Frestedt — It's not a foregone conclusion that the corner bank will go any higher than it currently is.
  • Weinstein — If you can demonstrate that, then maybe the owner can approach the neighbor and negotiate easements to provide for those openings. We're concerned about the "dumb end" of the building and its limitations.
  • [Architect] — we could possibly explore a green wall, to fit with the green factor requirement.

public input
The public had eight minutes to comment at the end of the meeting.

• Concerned that driveway access on Edmunds might limit opportunities to move the farmers market into the Edmunds St right of way.
• Are these apartments or condos?
• There should be enough parking provided.
• A very distinctive element of Columbia City is its small blocks. It's an unusual pattern. We have alleys and passageways. The nomination text for the district has a whole paragraph about it. It's important and should apply to this larger site. Jane Jacobs speaks of small blocks and the sense of expectation created by coming to corners. She also talks about how, using the exiting pattern of streets and blocks, new areas can be integrated into a neighborhood. In some ways you've done that, but the critical part is that they're not public passageways. We need passageways through the buildings to build on this distictive pattern.

The Committee determined that the applicant should come back to them with an updated set of renderings.

The development team came back to the Landmarks Committee on Friday 5/16. I think Rob Mohn and I were the only neighbors from the public. Steve Orser of Harbor Properties (St Gobain developer) was also in the audience.

The development team's goal was to resolve three basic questions:

• where should the driveways be?
• is the basic massing appropriate?
• what is acceptable treatment of blank party walls facing Bank of America?

A few people have asked about notes from the meeting. I kept some, but I haven't revisited them yet. I'll try to pull them together in the next week or so. Rebecca of the Department of Neighborhoods also keeps informal notes, which are available in the project file, and DoN will copy them for you if you ask. At this meeting, she also taped the conversation for her records.

The file also contains color copies of past presentations. I've asked the developer for electronic images to share, and in April it seemed like Dana Behar and Ed Weinstein were warming to the idea. But still no images of the overall concept.

In the meantime, Rebecca has shared some electronic files, including:

• The historic report: it's interesting background, and it basically says what you'd expect — that the existing building isn't something to preserve.
• Alternative treatments of the party-walls facing the Bank of America site, at Rainier & Edmunds. Of these, the committee favored alternative 4.
• A site plan showing a hypothetical driveway next to the existing one on Rainier. (The gaps at the park are passageways, not building separations.)
• A memo about vehicle access to the site.

The Landmarks Committee met on May 16, 2008. This was the committee's third briefing about this project. You can read notes from the first and the second meetings.

Text is all paraphrased

Rebecca Frestedt of the Department of Neighborhoods said she would honor a request from the public (mine) to insert public comment before Committee members gave their feedback to the applicants.

Gary Oppenheimer, Pete Lamb, and Mark Hannum were there for the committee. Anne Beeman was absent, but she sent some written comments. Leslie Bain and Joel Severud represented Weinstein A|U (the architects) and Dan McKinney Jr for the Transpo Group (traffic consultants). Rob Mohn and I attended from the public.

Ms. Bain briefly recapped project details.

• The site is zoned NC3-65 [Actually NC3P-65, as it includes a pedestrian overlay].
• Vehicular access currently proposed off S Edmunds.
• We're looking for Committee consensus on the massing and scale of the proposed development.
• This is a very large project, and we want to head in a direction that will result in approval.
• We're presenting three issues
  • The vehicular access. We'd like to come to conclusion on best location.
  • The overall massing
  • Treatment of blank walls at the property lines.

Dan McKinney of Transpo Group presented the vehicle access segment.

• In your packet, we tried to highlight where existing curbcuts are, showing existing turning movements.
• The library has an existing curbcut. The Hasegawa building has both a lower and an upper access. This ownership doesn't have rights to access from here.
  • Pete Lamb interjects: The owner gave away those rights. It isn't that the city doesn't allow it, the owner has given it away.
  • Dan: It's more complicated than that, the Hasegawas have been using this for years. They do have easements, we are able to use it, but the use will continue to be Hasegawa's parking.
• SDOT has brought up an issue that they don't want an access that's non-linear with Angeline. Our preferred would be on Edmunds, we're very aware that this needs to be a good street for pedestrians.

Rebecca Frestedt notes that she's taping the meeting for her own purposes.

• McKinney: We're tracking the traffic impacts for the SEPA process (environmental review). We've prepared a memorandum, after coordinating with SDOT [Seattle Department of Transportation] and DPD [Department of Planning and Development].
  • Pete Lamb interjects: You worked with SDOT, but the memo doesn't address SETS [SDOT's Southeast Transportation Study]. (McKinney appears unfamiliar with the study.) Traffic calming and a three-lane option are formally in the report.
  • I worked with Joel Prather, who deals with access management. Obviously we need to expand our study. We'll have a much thicker document about traffic issues in the broader area.
• I think most people know, Rainier is identified as the principal arterial, also a principal pedestrian route. Edmunds is a more secondary street, and it's a more minor street, typically you want the vehicle access to be there. An alley is preferred, especially when you're in downtown Seattle. With this particular site, there are lots of complications.
• An additional access along Rainier wouldn't align with Angeline. The ideal is to have roadways align, so you don't have conflicts or offsets. You want the same travel path where they'd be approaching each other. SDOT typically doesn't like driveways mixed in with intersections.
• The goal is to limit the number of access points, and to increase the spacing between them. Numerous studies have been done — the more access points the more accidents, the more delay. Drivers would have to look in different directions from all these places where accesses come in.
• Along Edmunds, there are probably 10 times fewer trips. It's significantly less traveled.
• Without a center left turn lane for refuge, people have a hard time finding gaps. With a roadway diet (we also design roadway diets), I imagine you'd be narrowing a four lane arterial down to three lanes including a center left turn lane.
• There would probably be conflicts with a center left turn lane, if they were to do a roadway diet. South Angeline would get the turn pockets. They would allow access for the roadway, but not for this driveway. It would be restricted to right in/right out only. (Something about U-turns at intersections).
• From the building's standpoint, I'm not sure that Rainier will work. We're concerned that it wouldn't work very well.
• Gary Oppenheimer: when's the peak?
  • 7:30 to 8:30, 4:30 TO 5:30. It can fluctuate in a two-hour timeframe, typically 4:30 to 5:30. We don't have a light rail system yet, our hope is to bring people close to transit stops. We hope that a lot of these folks will be walking down Edmunds during commute hours.
  • Oppenheimer: Make sure that the sightlines are good.
  • We can design it well & provide pedestrian amenities.

Leslie Bain discussed their remaining two issues.

• There has been a comment from the neighborhood that they'd like a walk through the site. Our client has warmed to that idea. We have the capacity to put gates here and here, if that makes sense, those gates could be open during daylight hours, then closed at night for safety's sake. It would provide a level of permeability.
  • There are terraces for each individual unit at grade, there will be eyes along here. We're looking at various amenities for the residents, there will be things going on there as well. With the gates, we'd have the ability to manage when people would be able to walk through.
• The third issue — and everything is related to everything else. These end elevations are quite important. They're party walls, and while the Bank of America is still there, these walls will be visible. We're weighing the level of effort that makes sense on these end elevations vis a vis the other facades.
  • One thing we think makes a lot of sense is to pull back a portion of the wall and have glazing at the end of the halls. It creates proportions that are a big improvement over the blockiness of the alternative.
  • From a building code perspective, we're not allowed to put windows against he property lines. If we started pulling facades back to get more windows, we'd cut into units.
  • We could wrap the ends with the base materials from the other elevations — they could be concrete or masonry. What we do at the base will turn the corner.
  • We're wondering how much effort we should place on these temporary facades.

• Gary Oppenheimer asks something about the rationale for the modulation and massing along elevations — I couldn't hear it.
  • It's probably more important on Edmunds. You do see the shape of the building.

• Rebecca Frestedt (DON): This is a prime example of how these issues do relate to each other. There's been discussion around how to plan hypothetically around a road diet. That relates to how to plan these elevations without knowing what's going to happen with the Bank of America. Best is to consider it in its current state. You can take future conditions into account, then that's knowledge the committee should have.
• I feel there's some real concern about the treatment of those facades, because the Bank of America might not be developed for 20 years. It's a very significant presence, very prominent coming from the south. I hope the committee takes the current condition into account.

Public comments:

• Ms. Frestedt reads written comments from Scott Barkan (he's welcome to post them here)
• Rob Mohn: I've thought about the issue of pedestrian access through the site. I really appreciate that the developer is amenable on that point. It'll help integrate into the neighborhood.
• (I made a series of points, focused mostly on questions of driveway access. I jotted them down somewhere — I'll find them and post later.)

Committee comments:

• Pete Lamb: I don't understand how a six story building along Edmunds meets our guidelines, this is a major viewpoint into the park, and it's right next to one- and two-story buildings.
• That's a very prominent corner [the Bank of America site]. I don't know that any developer could build six stories on the corner. We're just talking about the historic district guidelines.
• Ms. Frestedt clarifies relationship of zoning with the district guidelines.
• Mr Lamb says there has to be some stepping or something else to better relate to existing buildings. Obviously we care about the park — you've done some things there, but along Edmunds and right on Rainier, it's not clear how this design responds. We can't just assume there's going to be a six story building where the BOA is. We've got a guideline saying you've got to relate.
• [not sure who said this — Ms. Bain?] One recommendation may be to come with alternatives to show how you would adress the height on Edmunds. There's a strong street edge, continuous street wall with little setback, for lower buildings.
• Lamb: A setback might solve two problems. Our guidelines don't ask for setbacks on the lower floor. We mean the upper floors.
• Bain: When you look at historic buidings — maybe you can tell me some that you know of — a upper-level setback is a modern response to pretend you're an older buiding. The older buildings don't tend to do that. We've tried bays and other options to break the scale down.
• [some committee member (Mark Hannum?)] I agree that pulling back is apologetic.
• Lamb: They're not compatible — five bricks on a shoebox. There should be something to lower that mass.
• Oppenheimer: There should be a base, a midde and a top. Not a cornice, but a top. Look at another treatment, go further than the bacony and the projection. I'm not trying to dictate the design.
• Hannum: There's no precedent for a six-story building in Columbia City. You have to respond somehow.
  • Bain: It's hard to know what that honoring is.
  • (Hannum?) I know that if you pull it all back, the likelihood woud be that they're useless windows. You'll see this corner, I'll be very sensitive to that treatment.
  • Bain: The old buildings tend to have a raggedy end, they do turn the corner, and then they go to a lesser quality matieral.
• Oppenheimer: option four is going in a good direction (see elevations). There's a differentiation in scale, it's beginning to break down, you're beginning to express the base, perhaps that could be taken further. In terms of the access to parking, I'm interested in understanding what the additional impact of the bank is, and how much additional load is here, currently. Your peak outflow is 100 out in the morning. 104 per hour. That's what, every 40 seconds? 7:30 isn't a high pedestrian activity time. In the evening, your peak infow is 77. There are lots of buildings downtown that have much higher access rates. I'm not so opposed to it.
• Bain/McKinney: when we had our presubmittal conference [with DPD], SDOT didn't attend. Speaking to one of Scott's comments — SDoT probably wouldn't allow us to put in a traffic signal here, because the level of traffic wouldn't come close to warranting a signal. And the signal at Edmunds is too close.

• Rebecca Frestedt reads Anne Beeman's comments. Positive feedback about the east facade. Version 4 gets my vote. I strongly agree with the issue of general public access. The pedestrian pathway shoud be inviting. Interested in the potential for relocation of the farmers market.

• Rebecca Frestedt invited the design team back for another briefing. So much to cover.
• Bain: We value your feedback. See you again in June. Is there any recommendation for items you want to see for the June briefing?
• Committee member: We agree with what Rob brought up. It feels like a weak link, not sure how much larger it could be. I still have concerns about these street elevations.
  • The last thing is, given what we discussed about treatment of the upper floor, (points to drawings, I didn't catch it) this is more critical to me than this. The north elevation is downhill and isn't such a concern.
  • Oppenheimer: make the garage entry friendy.
  • You'd like some consensus on massing, height, scale. Focus on those key elements, work to refine them.

I went to the Historic Preservation Board review meeting last week to see what was happening with this, and was quite surprised to see how far along things are, and even more surprised that there’s been very little public discussion about this. I HIGHLY recommend that people take a look at what’s being proposed, and send your feedback to the Historic Preservation Board. The following is contact information:

Rebecca Frestedt, Board Coordinator
International Special Review District and
Columbia City Review Committee

Department of Neighborhoods
206-684-0226
http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/preservation/historic_districts.htm

**Tomorrow morning (6/27 at 8:30 a.m.) there’s an architectural review meeting downtown ( Seattle Municipal Tower, 700 5th Avenue, 40th Floor, Room 4070), and the recommendations from that meeting will pretty much set what happens to this development because the next step (if I understand all this) is for the developer to apply for the building permit with the City. There will be opportunities for more input, but the main # of buildings and size and overall configuration will pretty much be set. I realize this is short notice, but if you have time to take a look at what’s online (there are links through the Wiki discussion thread) submitting your feedback now is really important.

So far these review meetings have been held on weekdays, which is difficult for most residents to accommodate. Rebecca also had a great suggestion, that we invite representatives from HAL Development and their architects, Weinstein, to an evening meeting to present what they’re proposing.

This project, just like Harbor Properties’ site at Saint Gobain, will have a HUGE impact on the neighborhood, and will set a precedence for development to come. Now’s the time to let them know what we, as a community, want. Yes, there are rules and regulations in place that might preclude our ideal, but we should at least be engaging in conversation about it. And while you can’t please all the people all the time, there are probably more avenues of input than most of us realize.

Joanne Lauterjung Kelly