Update from Design Review: 3210 California SW sent back for at least one more meeting

Full story to come later, but a quick bulletin from the Southwest Design Review Board‘s doubleheader meeting at the Senior Center of West Seattle – there will be at least one more review meeting for 3210 California SW, the 143-apartment, 168-parking-space building proposed for the site that was upzoned in a contentious process dating back to fall 2007. The board wants the three-part facade of the building to look even more like three different buildings, more detail of how the east side of the building will relate to the single-family neighborhood behind it on 42nd SW, and more retail than live-work on the street side. The review ran two hours, half an hour longer than scheduled, with more than 50 people in attendance, and the next one is also likely to be epic, with dozens of people here for 3078 SW Avalon Way, a 100-plus-apartment project that had its first meeting more than a year ago. We’ll update the results on that when its meeting is over – likely past 10.

Bill November 21, 2013 (10:46 pm)

Wow — when did California Ave get 4 times wider? — and all those ‘single family’ homes in the background that are all over 5 stories high —
A perfect example of the typical architectural BJ

Bill November 21, 2013 (10:53 pm)

Oh — just realized – re the CA Ave widening — it is from all the new bus lanes and bike lanes.

Jetcitygirl November 21, 2013 (11:22 pm)

The City of Seattle , the Mayor , and the council should not condone double header design reviews. Scheduling two densifying high impact projects back to back on the same night; this does not allow the Design Review Board adequate time to carefully construct thorough evaluation and craft their expert constructive comments for improvement. Our neighborhoods deserve more; we are vested and will be living here for the next 20 or 30 years. Our community deserves an improved process from DPD. Our SWDRB of volunteers is overburdened and taxed with heavily weighted responsibility and rushed. The Seattle City Council should take a closer look at the ‘ volunteer ‘ Design Review Board program and empower this team to do their best work in a more reasonable work environment . NO MORE DOUBLE HEADERS!!! Please impove this process for our neighborhoods!

old timer November 22, 2013 (12:36 am)

A second on that motion to limit reviews to one project per meeting. Nothing is well served except the administrative check ‘yes’ in a box on a form with a marathon session.

WSB November 22, 2013 (12:50 am)

In six-plus years of covering 90-95 percent of the Design Review meetings, more of which were two-project meetings than one-project meetings, I am fairly sure that was the longest. Most of the time, somehow, it would work out that one of the projects at a 2-project meeting was fairly “routine.” But this wasn’t the first meeting for either of these projects and if schedulers had looked to see how many public comments, how many attendees there were for each of these projects, they could have predicted the length – and possibly even the contentiousness of the second one. Just not fair to anyone involved, from neighbors to board members to DPD staffer to architects. On Twitter, I compared it at least once to the previous night’s School Board meeting, which was in its 8th hour by the time they took the official vote on new boundaries (among other things)! – Tracy

Diane November 22, 2013 (12:54 am)

I totally agree with Jetcitygirl and WSB

sam-c November 22, 2013 (8:47 am)

“The board wants the three-part facade of the building to look even more like three different buildings”

I hope it doesn’t end up looking like stoneway village, aka, Wallingford’s QFC pit or whatever it was called. that is an ugly building, though it DOES look like 3 separate buildings. it’s almost like they took every design material, style, shape, language, what have you, and put it on this building.

NeighborMom November 22, 2013 (9:14 am)

Ditto. This type of scenario is hard on everyone…

Anne November 22, 2013 (10:59 am)

We need well advertised public meetings like the ones last night but on the subject of zoning. Theline separating commercial from single family zones need better treatment.

Where are such mtgs, how do we find them?

Once property is sold and the big white board goes up, it is too late to comment on the Zone. The architect has been hired to design the largest box possible and the design review board can’t reduce the rights that come with the land, nor should they.

WSB November 22, 2013 (11:30 am)

The zoning decisions were made years ago, in most cases. In the case of this project, on a rezoned site, we first discovered the rezoning proposal while checking online records in November 2007; meetings followed until the final council decision in 2010; our coverage is archived, reverse-chronological, here. Rezoning requires City Council approval, so there are public meetings, but much development does not require public meetings, which is why right now, when a project goes to Design Review, it is so frustrating for people to learn that only encompasses part of what the project might involve or cause. Another part of the process that has recently come to light allows public hearings to be requested related to other issues, by petition of at least 50 people – that’s the type of meeting we covered back on Monday night related to another project. There are different types of rezoning – this site was a general rezoning without a project proposal at the time; there are also “contract rezones” relating to specific proposals, as happened in the case of the Admiral Safeway rebuild.

wetone November 22, 2013 (12:02 pm)

The board wants more retail ? more like the investment group wants more retail and maybe some minor zoning changes. Well how about more off street parking. I say get rid of the design review board. From past meetings I have gone to I see the volunteer design review board working with the investment groups people and do little for questions and concerns from the people of the community where the projects are being built. DPD in person should be holding these meetings, DPD are the ones in control and hold the final decision. DPD and city counsel members should be held accountable for their actions and impacts to the community. DPD along with City Council keep saying zoning allows all this building, well they made the zoning laws maybe they should change them to todays time instead of what they thought was best 15 years ago.

Diane November 22, 2013 (12:45 pm)

wetone, it was many of us in the public, nearby neighbors, who requested more retail (instead of live-work, which often turns into dead/dark space); I was one of several who requested more retail to replace the many live-work in this plan, because we want this very long block (400+ ft) activated by neighbors walking, hanging out at sidewalk cafes, meeting up in little stores, etc, and to create a walkable connection between Alaska junction and Admiral junction; currently there is too much dead space in that area, so almost no one ever walks through there; imagine this area livened up with neighbors shopping and visiting with each other; much better; I am grateful to the board for acknowledging this request from neighbors, and asking the project team to come back next time with a design that could create some wonderful retail along that very very very long sidewalk

Melly Mel November 22, 2013 (1:06 pm)

Thanks Mike Gain and Roger Cayce!
.
Perhaps our good neighbors would like to re-address how this general upzone they pursued and won is all playing into their intended "vision" for this property.

JetCitygirl November 23, 2013 (12:15 am)

We Love you West Seattle and WSB, keep it real. Do what you can. We can each play a part to preserve this: our character, our outstanding community, and our sense of place. Live it, contribute what you can and let it grow.

ANNE November 23, 2013 (1:16 pm)

REGARDING COMMENT #1
The rendering creates the impression that the proposed bldg is smaller than it’s actual size, relative to the environs. All those rows and rows of roofs in the FLAT neighborhood behind the proposed bldg. are too numerous and too large. You can’t see the roofs now (many single story), you won’t see them when the proposed bldg. is complete. I don’t mind they chose this aerial view to create a rendering – it does show the whole complex well – but the scale is off.

Some comments from the public at the mtg. indicated several significant dimensional & detail discrepancies in the drawing documents as well.
Maybe the Review Board is getting them resolved, and I hope the rendering too.

JWang November 24, 2013 (10:07 am)

The neighborhood request that the Review Board has not yet agreed with is regarding the height of this building. We think the building needs to be no more than 4-stories, as intended in an NC2-40 zone. If you agree, please help by signing our petition to DPD.