Post on 30-May-2018
City of Seattle Edward B. Murray, Mayor
Department of Construction and Inspections
Nathan Torgelson, Director
CITY OF SEATTLE
ANALYSIS AND DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF
THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS
Application Number: 3025501
Applicant Name: Scott Starr, SMR Architects
Address of Proposal: 937 N 96th St
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
Land Use Application to allow a 6-story apartment building containing 100 units. Parking for 3
vehicles to be provided. Existing structures to be demolished.
The following approvals are required:
Administrative Conditional Use (ACU) – to allow a residential use in a Commercial
2 (C2) zone (Seattle Municipal Code Section 23.44.022)
Design Review with Departures (Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 23.41)*
SEPA - Environmental Determination (Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.05)
* Departures are listed near the end of the Design Review Analysis in this document
SEPA DETERMINATION
Determination of Non-Significance (DNS)
No mitigating conditions of approval are imposed.
Pursuant to SEPA substantive authority provided in SMC 25.05.660, the proposal has
been conditioned to mitigate environmental impacts
Application No. 3025501
Page 2 of 24
SITE AND VICINITY
Site Description: The site is located in the Aurora-
Licton Springs Residential Urban
Village, one-half block to the west
of the Aurora Ave N/Highway 99
corridor. There is no adjacent
alley. The rectangular site is
approx. 16,200 SF, and relatively
flat.
Site Zone: Commercial 2-65 (C2-65)
Zoning Pattern: North: Lowrise 3 (LR3)
South: C2-65
West: LR3
East: C2-65
Environmental Critical Areas: There are no mapped Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs)
onsite.
PUBLIC COMMENT
The Notice of Application public comment period ended on March 27, 2017. In addition to the
comments received through the Design Review process, other comments were received and
carefully considered, to the extent that they raised issues within the scope of this review. These
areas of public comment related to parking and traffic, density, access to light and air,
environmental contamination, safety and security, and loss of available commercial land.
I. ANALSIS & DECISION – ADMINISTRATE CONDITIONAL USE
In accordance with Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) section 23.47A.006, a residential use may be
allowed in a Commercial 2 (C2) zone as an Administrative Conditional Use (ACU) when the
provisions of SMC 23.42.042 and SMC 23.47A.006.A.3 are met. The proposed development is
to establish a 100-unit residential building which would be allowed in a C2 zone with approval
as an ACU. The proposed development is subject to the following criteria, discussed below. The
Director has the authority to approve, condition or deny an ACU application.
DIRECTOR’S ANALYSIS
SMC 23.42.042 – CONDITIONAL USES
A. Administrative conditional uses and uses requiring Council approval as provided in the
respective zones of Subtitle III, Part 2, of this Land Use Code, and applicable provisions of
SMC Chapter 25.09, Regulations for Environmentally Critical Areas, may be authorized
according to the procedures set forth in Chapter 23.76, Procedures for Master Use Permits
and Council Land Use Decisions.
Application No. 3025501
Page 3 of 24
The procedural requirements of SMC 23.76 have been followed; therefore, this provision has
been met.
B. In authorizing a conditional use, the Director or City Council may impose conditions to
mitigate adverse impacts on the public interest and other properties in the zone or vicinity.
The proposed development is subject to the criteria listed in SMC 23.47A.006.A.3. Those criteria
are used to evaluate the proposal and, if necessary, the Director may impose conditions to
mitigate the adverse impacts on the public interest and other properties in the vicinity. City
Council approval is not required.
The review of the proposal in response to the pertinent criteria, as well as imposed conditions, is
documented in the following section. This provision has been met.
C. The Director may deny or recommend denial of a conditional use if the Director determines
that adverse impacts cannot be mitigated satisfactorily, or that the proposed use is
materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the zone or vicinity in
which the property is located.
The decision shall be based on whether the proposed use meets the criteria for establishing a
residential use in a C2 zone as described in SMC 23.47A.006.A.3. The criteria for establishing
the proposed residential use shall be evaluated, and the project shall be conditioned, as
necessary, to mitigate material detriment to the public welfare or injury to property in the
vicinity.
The review of the proposal in response to the pertinent criteria, as well as imposed conditions, is
documented in the following section. This provision has been met.
D. A use that was legally established but that is now permitted only as a conditional use is not
a nonconforming use and will be regulated as if a conditional use approval had earlier been
granted.
This criterion is not applicable.
E. Any authorized conditional use that has been discontinued may not be re-established or
recommenced except pursuant to a new conditional use permit. The following will constitute
conclusive evidence that the conditional use has been discontinued:
1. A permit to change the use of the lot has been issued and the new use has been
established; or
2. The lot has not been used for the purpose authorized by the conditional use for more
than 24 consecutive months. Lots that are vacant, or that are used only for storage of
materials or equipment, will not be considered as being used for the purpose authorized
by the conditional use. The expiration or revocation of business or other licenses
necessary for the conditional use will suffice as evidence that the lot is not being used
as authorized by the conditional use. A conditional use in a multifamily structure or a
multi-tenant commercial structure will not be considered discontinued unless all
portions of the structure are either vacant or committed to another use.
This criterion is not applicable.
Application No. 3025501
Page 4 of 24
SMC 23.47A.006.A.3 – RESIDENTIAL USES IN C2 ZONES
A. The following uses, where identified as administrative conditional uses on Table A
for23.47A.004, or other uses identified in this Section 23.47A.006, may be permitted by the
Director when the provisions of both Section 23.42.042 and this subsection 23.47A.006.A
are met:
The provisions of SMC 23.42.042 have been met, and are discussed above. The provisions of
this subsection are as follows.
3. Residential Uses in C2 zones.
a. Residential uses may be permitted in C2 zones as a conditional use subject to the following
criteria:
1) The residential use generally should not be located in an area with direct access to
major transportation systems such as freeways, state routes and freight rail lines.
The proposed development is located approximately one-half block to the west of State Route
99, also known as Aurora Ave N – a local principal arterial. The proposed development is not
located in an area with direct access to freeways or freight lines.
In the vicinity of the subject site, Aurora Ave N is characterized as a commercial corridor lined
with various auto-oriented commercial, light-industrial, and mixed-use structures. These uses
commonly have direct vehicular access from Aurora Ave N. In the vicinity, Aurora Ave N has
signalized intersections, allowing for cross traffic, and speeds are limited to 35 miles per hour.
Aurora Ave N is also served by public transportation and lined with sidewalks. These land use,
access and traffic conditions are not typical of major transportation systems, such as state routes;
Aurora Ave N is more accurately characterized as a local principal arterial. Aurora Ave N does
not provide direct access to a freeway in the vicinity.
Furthermore, the proposed development does not have direct access to Aurora Ave N. The site is
located on N 96th St, approximately 2-blocks west. The intersection of N 96th St and Aurora Ave
N is not a through intersection, as there is a jog in N 96th St in that location, nor does it contain a
traffic light.
Interstate 5, a freeway, is considered the nearest major transportation system. Interstate 5 is
located approximately 1-mile to the east. The proposed development does not have direct access
to Interstate 5.
2) The residential use generally should not be located in close proximity to industrial
areas and/or nonresidential uses or devices that have the potential to create a nuisance
or adversely affect the desirability of the area for living purposes as indicated by one of
the following:
The proposed residential use is not located in close proximity to industrial areas. The site is
encompassed by residential and commercial zoning. The nearest area of industrial zoned land is
located approximately 2.5-miles to the southwest in the Ballard-Interbay-Northend
Manufacturing Industrial Center.
Application No. 3025501
Page 5 of 24
Table A identifies non-residential uses in the immediate vicinity, and their proximity to the site.
Table A: Non-Residential Uses
Address Existing Use/Development Proximity
9603 Aurora Ave N Auto sales services (RK Motors); one-story structure
with surface parking
Northeast;
approx. 75-feet
9607 Aurora Ave N Recycling (Northwest Metals); one-story structure
with surface parking and exterior storage
Northeast;
approx. 200-feet
945 N 96th St Commercial (Enrico Products); 2-story structure with
surface parking.
East; adjoining
property lines
9501 Aurora Ave N Motel (Crown Inn Motel); two-story structure with
surface parking.
East; approx. 65-
feet
9525 Aurora Ave N Service (restaurant); one-story. East; approx.
125-feet
942 N 95th St Commercial (Northwest Jiu Jitsu Academy); one-
story structure
Southeast;
adjoining corners
938 N 95th St Brewery (Lantern Brewing); two-story structure South; adjoining
property lines
930 N 95th St Auto repair services (Axis Automotive); one-story
office/garage structure with surface parking
South; adjoining
property lines
i. The nonresidential use is prohibited in the NC3 zone;
All uses identified in Table A, except for recycling and outdoor storage, are permitted in the
Neighborhood Commercial 3 (NC3) zone. Recycling-related uses occur at 9607 Aurora Ave N,
approximately 200-feet northeast of the site. Uses of this recycling facility include collection and
storage of recycled metals, but not processing, therefore it is more accurately classified as an
outdoor storage use. The facility is open Monday through Friday, from 8AM to 4:30PM. The
portion of the site used for outdoor storage is well-screened with solid, sight obscuring fencing.
The outdoor storage area also abuts a lowrise residential zone and townhouse development, and
does not appear to create a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the desirability of the area for
living purposes.
ii. The nonresidential use or device is classified as a major noise generator; or
Recycling uses are considered major noise generators per SMC 23.47A.018. A storage facility
for Northwest Metals is located at 9607 Aurora Ave N, approximately 200-feet from the subject
site. The facility is open Monday through Friday, from 8AM to 4:30PM. Uses of the facility
include collection and storage of recycled metals, but not processing. The uses conducted on site
are not conducive of significant noise impacts that have the potential to create a nuisance.
Furthermore, the facility is located directly adjacent to a lowrise residential zone, with a
townhouse development abutting the site to the west. No concerns pertaining to the recycling
facility have been identified by public comment.
Major vehicle repair uses are also considered major noise generators per SMC 23.47A.018.
While there are several automotive-based commercial uses (minor service, sales, etc.) in the
vicinity, none are considered to qualify as a “major vehicle repair” use or major noise generators
due to hours of operation and levels of service.
Application No. 3025501
Page 6 of 24
While generally classified as a major noise generator, the uses conducted at the site of the
recycling-related facility do not create a nuisance or otherwise adversely affect the desirability of
the area for living purposes.
iii. The nonresidential use is classified as a major odor source.
Uses that employ the “cooking of grains” are considered major odor sources per SMC
23.47A.020. There is an existing small-scale brewery located at 938 N 95th St, adjacent to the
site along the south property line. The brewery has the potential to produce odors due to
processes involving the “cooking of grains”. This was also raised as a concern by public
comment.
The proposed development has incorporated additional measures to reduce odor-related impacts
from adjacent properties. The project has proposed an Energy Recovery Ventilation (ERV)
system. The ERV system will intake and exhaust unit ventilation vertically to the roof, rather
than horizontally through the exterior wall. As a result, no trickle vents will be placed within unit
windows, further reducing odor-related impacts from the adjacent properties.
3) In making a determination to permit or prohibit residential uses in C2 zones, the
Director shall take the following factors into account:
i. The distance between the lot in question and major transportation systems and
potential nuisances;
The proposed development is located approximately one-half block to the west of State Route
99, also known as Aurora Ave N. Aurora Ave N is designated as a Principal Arterial by the
Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). The site does not have direct access, nor does
Aurora Ave N provide direct access to freeways or other major transportation systems in the
immediate vicinity. Interstate 5, a freeway, is considered the nearest major transportation system.
Interstate 5 is located approximately 1-mile to the east. See the above response to subsection
SMC 23.47A.006.A.1.
Minimal, unmitigated potential nuisances are found within the vicinity of the site, as listed in
Table A and analyzed in the above response to subsection SMC 23.47A.006.A.2.ii-iii.
“Major vehicle repair” and “recycling” uses are classified as major noise generators. However,
of the automotive-based uses (minor service, sales, etc.) in the vicinity, none are considered to
qualify as a “major vehicle repair” use or otherwise create a nuisance based on the intensity of
uses/scale of business/activities conducted onsite. Furthermore, while “recycling” uses are also
generally classified as a major noise generator, the activities and uses (storage, office, etc.)
conducted at the site of the recycling-related facility do not create a nuisance or otherwise
adversely affect the desirability of the area for living purposes. See the above response to
subsection SMC 23.47A.006.A.2.ii.
As a use that employs the “cooking of grains”, the adjacent brewery to the south has the potential
to produce odors that may create a nuisance to future residents of the proposed development. The
proposed development has incorporated additional measures to reduce odor-related impacts from
adjacent properties. See the above response to subsection SMC 23.47A.006.A.2.iii.
Application No. 3025501
Page 7 of 24
Since Aurora Ave N is characterized and designated as a local Principal Arterial, and potential
odor-related impacts are mitigated, the short distance between the subject site and these uses is
not a concern.
ii. The presence of physical buffers between the lot in question and major
transportation systems and potential nuisance uses;
Similar to the above response to subsection SMC 23.47A.006.A.3.i, since Aurora Ave N is
characterized and designated as a local Principal Arterial, the lack of physical buffers between
the subject site and Aurora Ave N is not a concern.
While there are no significant physical buffers between the proposed development and potential
nuisance uses, the project has proposed to incorporate engineered systems into the design of the
building envelope which mitigate potential noise and odor-related nuisances. In effect, these
systems provide a built-in buffer.
In response to potential noise-related nuisances, a Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
Noise Impact Analysis (A3 Acoustics, 9/8/17) has been completed for the proposed
development. The analysis prescribes requirements for the project to meet the interior noise
standards of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA), including required minimum
acoustical ratings for the building envelope and windows. The top two levels of the proposed
development facing Aurora Ave N have also been prescribed specific acoustical treatments.
In response to potential odor-related nuisances, the proposed development has incorporated
additional measures to reduce odor-related impacts from adjacent properties. The project has
proposed an Energy Recovery Ventilation (ERV) system. The ERV system will intake and
exhaust unit ventilation vertically to the roof, rather than horizontally through the exterior wall.
As a result, no trickle vents will be placed within unit windows, further reducing odor-related, as
well as noise, impacts from the adjacent properties.
The MUP Decision shall be conditioned to maintain the ERV system, while uses identified as
major odor sources are located adjacent to the site, thereby mitigating existing odor-related
impacts that have the potential to adversely affect the desirability of the area for living purposes.
iii. The potential cumulative impacts of residential uses on the availability for
nonresidential uses of land near major transportation systems; and
As previously stated, the proposed development is not located in an area with direct access to
major transportation systems. Therefore, there is no potential for the cumulative impacts of the
proposed residential use to impact the availability of land for non-residential uses near major
transportation systems. Furthermore, given the pattern of zoning and land uses, and location
within the Aurora-Licton Springs Residential Urban Village, there are few opportunities for the
type of non-residential uses that depend upon major transportation systems.
iv. The number, size and cumulative impacts of potential nuisances on the proposed
residential uses.
Since the impacts of the potential noise and odor-related nuisances are expected to be minimal,
and proposed to be mitigated and conditioned herein, the cumulative impacts of these potential
Application No. 3025501
Page 8 of 24
nuisances on the proposed residential uses are not considered to adversely affect the desirability
of the area for living purposes.
b. Residential uses required to obtain a shoreline conditional use permit are not required to
obtain an administrative conditional use permit.
The proposed development is not required to obtain a shoreline conditional use permit.
c. Additions to, and accessory structures on the same lot as, existing residential structures are
permitted outright.
The proposed development is not an addition to, or accessory structure on the same lot as, an
existing residential structure.
DIRECTOR’S DECISION
The Director CONDITIONALLY APPROVES the proposed Administrative Conditional Use
with the conditions listed at the end of this Decision.
II. ANALYSIS & DECISION – DESIGN REVIEW
CURRENT AND SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENT; NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
Existing uses onsite include automotive repair services. Existing development consists of two
single-story structures which contain small offices and garages. The two long, parallel structures
are oriented onto a shared drive and parking. Existing structures are proposed to be demolished.
Surrounding development consists of a variety of uses and is generally observed to transition
from commercial and light industrial/warehouse along Aurora, to multi-family apartments and
townhomes mid-block, to single family residential approximately one block west of the site.
Immediately adjacent to the site, there is a commercial warehouse to the east, a brewery to the
south and 2-story apartments building to the west. The auto-oriented neighborhood character is
anticipated to change as new development occurs.
The Early Design Guidance and Recommendation packets include materials presented at the
meetings, and are available online by entering the project number (3025501) at this website:
http://www.seattle.gov/SDCI/Planning/Design_Review_Program/Project_Reviews/Reports/defau
lt.asp.
The packet is also available to view in the file, by contacting the Public Resource Center at
SDCI:
Mailing
Address:
Public Resource Center
700 Fifth Ave., Suite 2000
P.O. Box 34019
Seattle, WA 98124-4019
Email: PRC@seattle.gov
Application No. 3025501
Page 9 of 24
EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE November 21, 2016
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following public comments were offered at this meeting:
• Concerned about the open design of the courtyard and the high potential for “urban
campers”; the proposed courtyard in Option 3 appears to be open to the public. Would
like the see the courtyard relocated to a more central position or at the rear of the site, or
gated if it remains in its current location.
• Identified safety and security as a priority, would like to see the design and programming
provide “eyes on the street”.
• Would like to see the building entry moved forward to the street.
• Concerned that the garage location, as proposed in Option 3, lessens visibility.
• Concerned about the proposed east facing lower-level units and livability, several units
are fronting a solid blank wall.
• Concerned about the proposed south facing units; the site to the south is a brewery which
produces odors that may impact livability.
• Concerned about existing drug use and prostitution in the neighborhood, and is concerned
that the proposed open space (courtyard, setbacks, etc.) will provide space where these
activities may occur.
SDCI staff also summarized design related comments received in writing prior to the meeting:
• Concerned about safety and security as a result of drug activity, vehicular crimes, and
prostitution in the area, cited Guideline PL2-B as a priority.
• Supported the proposed design of ground level large store front windows as it provides
“eyes on the street”, and would also like to see the main entrance facing the street as it
will also provide “eyes” and orient activity away from the less intense residential zone to
the west.
• Would prefer the massing and zoning analysis be based on current zoning rather than the
proposed zoning changes associated with HALA.
• Concerned that the proposal overstates the walkability of the neighborhood and proximity
to commercial amenities, and notes that the lack of pedestrian infrastructure, poor
lighting and topography can be barriers to pedestrian activity.
• Does not support the inclusion of priority guideline CS3-A, “emphasizing positive
neighborhood attributes”, and the applicant’s response, as it should not be assumed that
being sensitive to the area’s industrial history is desirable.
• Does not support the rationale for the requested departure as it is not clear how it results
in a better design and the resulting design negatively impacts the properties to the west.
Identified CS2-D-4 and CS2-D-5 as priority guidelines.
The Office of Housing (OH) provided the following comments in writing prior to the meeting
since the project has applied to receive Housing Levy funds for the project. OH supports the
Option 3 requested departure to allow the building to encroach into the required upper level
setbacks since it would allow units to be located away from the street and from the residential
building to the west. Additionally, OH supports the location of the NW corner courtyard as it
provides amenity space and buffers adjacent residential buildings.
Application No. 3025501
Page 10 of 24
All public comments submitted in writing for this project can be viewed using the following link
and entering the project number: http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/
PRIORITIES & BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
After visiting the site, considering the analysis of the site and context provided by the
proponents, and hearing public comment, the Design Review Board members provided the
following siting and design guidance.
1. Massing & Relationship to Adjacent Sites: The Board did not state a specific preference
for a one of the proposed massing options, rather they discussed the merits associated with
each option and agreed a hybrid of Options 2 and 3 would be most successful.
a. The Board was in support of the L-shaped massing options as it is an effective zone
transition, however, the Board did not support the rationale for the requested
departure which would reduce the side setback. It is unclear how the requested
departure results in a design that better meets the intent of the guidelines and
promotes respect for adjacent sites. (CS2-D-3, CS2-D-4)
b. The Board suggested minimizing the front setback to better engage with the street and
pedestrian realm. (CS2-D)
c. The Board supported the façade modulation as proposed in Option 2, particularly the
rear façade, as it better responds to adjacent sites and breaks up the building mass.
(CS2-D-3, CS2-D-4)
d. Responding to public comment, the Board agreed that the layout of residential units
should better respond to adjacent site conditions and anticipate future development.
Further consideration should be given to adjacent uses as it impacts the arrangement
of interior uses, for instance, where proposed unit windows are facing blank walls and
how the design shall respond to odors from the adjacent brewery to the south. (DC1-
A-4, DC2-B-2)
e. The Board was concerned with the 6-foot rear setback as the amount of glazing that
can be achieved at 6-feet is minimal. Furthermore, the Board was concerned about
future development on neighboring sites which may block access to light and create
quality of life concerns for units along the rear façade. At the Recommendation
phase, the Board would like to see window studies that explore the relationship of the
proposed development to adjacent sites. (CS1-B-2, DC2-B-1)
2. Entries, Street Level Uses & Safety: The Board discussed safety and security concerns as
they pertain to building entries, the courtyard, setbacks, and location of services.
a. In agreement with public comment, the Board was concerned with the recessed front
door and felt that an entry closer to the street would create a stronger connection with
the pedestrian realm. The Board requested further study of relocating the entry closer
to the street as a means to activate the street and pedestrian realm. (PL3-A, DC1-A-1)
b. The Board supported the programming of common spaces along the street as
proposed in Option 2 to activate the street frontage and promote safety through “eyes
on the street”. (PL2-B, DC1-A-1, DC1-A-4)
c. In agreement with public comment, the Board was concerned about the open
appearance of the courtyard, as proposed in Option 3. However, the Board agreed
safety concerns could be mitigated with proper lighting, landscaping, low fencing and
by promoting eyes on the courtyard with 24-hour staff. The Board was similarly
concerned with spaces created by the side and rear setbacks, as well as the long
Application No. 3025501
Page 11 of 24
driveway and side walkway, and would like to see further study of the treatment of
these spaces to reconcile safety and security concerns. (PL2-B, DC1-A-1, DC1-A-4,
DC4-C-1)
d. The Board encouraged activation of the courtyard through the programming of
adjacent ground-level interior spaces. The Board supported the program/courtyard
relationship as proposed in Option 3 because the interior uses create a strong
connection and promote eyes on the courtyard space. The Board would like to see this
relationship carried over in a hybrid massing option at the Recommendation phase.
(PL2-B, DC1-A-1, DC1-A-2, DC1-A-4, DC4-D)
e. In agreement with public comment, the Board was concerned about the parking
garage entry as proposed in Option 3 as it is a prominent feature on the street-facing
façade, fails to activate the street and limits visibility where eyes on the street is a
priority concern. If a hybrid massing option continues to include a parking garage, the
Board was in support of the garage as proposed in Option 2 as it creates a stronger
street frontage and more visible street frontage. (PL2-B, DC1-B-1, DC1-C-2)
f. The Board requested further study of the trash and utility room locations. The Board
suggested these services be located closer to the street to provide accessibility and
minimize side yard spaces which may foster unwanted congregation. The
reconfiguration of trash and utility rooms should be considered with any changes to
the proposed parking garage. (DC1-B-1)
RECOMMENDATION May 22, 2017
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following public comments were offered at this meeting:
• Concerned about the impact of steam and odors produced by the brewery to the south on
the building materials and residential units.
The Chair also summarized design related comments received in writing prior to the meeting:
• Concerned that the 6-story building does not fit within the existing context which is
primarily composed of 3-story buildings.
One purpose of the design review process is for the Board and City to receive comments from
the public that help to identify feedback and concerns about the site and design concept, identify
applicable citywide and neighborhood design guidelines of highest priority to the site and
explore conceptual design, siting alternatives, and eventual architectural design. Concerns with
off-street parking, traffic and construction impacts are reviewed as part of the environmental
review conducted by SDCI and are not part of design review.
All public comments submitted in writing for this project can be viewed using the following link
and entering the project number: http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/
PRIORITIES & BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS
After visiting the site, considering the analysis of the site and context provided by the
proponents, and hearing public comment, the Design Review Board members provided the
following recommendations.
Application No. 3025501
Page 12 of 24
1. Massing & Façade Composition
a. The Board discussed the evolution of the building mass, and architectural and
landscape concept, and supported the final design. (DC2, DC4-D)
b. The Board was concerned that the west façade of the building may appear overly
institutional in character due to the small, narrow windows, and they suggested that
larger windows – as on the south façade – may achieve a more residential character.
This observation primarily applied to the southern half of the west façade. The Board
encouraged further exploration of this aspect of the design, but did not recommend a
this as a condition. (DC2-B-1)
c. The Board questioned the height of the parapet as it increases the perceived bulk of
the building, however, they agreed that it provides appropriate visual screening of the
rooftop mechanical systems. (DC1-C-2, DC2-B-1)
d. The Board supported the “cool colonial red” color of the corrugated metal siding, and
approved of the material sample which was a deep, burgundy red as opposed to the
bright, fire engine red of the rendered images. The Board recommended a condition
that the burgundy red color be maintained. (DC2-B-1, DC4-A-1)
e. The Board noted that the white vinyl windows related well to the gray cementitious
panel, but did not relate as well to the red corrugated metal siding. However, the
Board declined to recommend a condition to change the windows. (DC2-B-1, DC4-
A-1)
2. Architectural Concept & Entry Portal
a. The Board generally supported the design of the entry portal as it is a strong
expression of the overall architectural concept, and creates a distinctive entry
experience. (PL3-A-2, DC2)
b. The Board was concerned about the use of the black standing seam metal material on
the frame of the entry portal, as the thin appearance did not appear substantial enough
to fulfill the concept. The black frame should read as a solid, sculptural element, and
the material seams should be concealed to achieve this effect. Gutters should also be
concealed within the design of the frame. The Board recommended the resolution of
this design element as a condition. (DC2-D-2, DC4-A)
c. The Board was concerned with the application of materials within the frame of the
entry portal, particularly on the street-facing façade, and would like to see the
composition simplified. Within the frame, the painted concrete located above and
along the eastern edge of the storefront system should be eliminated. The painted
concrete sill at the base of the storefront system was acceptable as shown. The Board
recommended resolution of this design as a condition. (DC2-B-1)
3. Pedestrian Experience. The Board encouraged the applicant to continue refining aspects of
the design as outlined below, but declined to recommend conditions for these items:
a. The Board discussed the impact of the garage entry on the pedestrian realm, and
encouraged further study of how to reduce the service-oriented, industrial appearance
of the northeast corner (garage entry, stairwell egress, gas meter). The design of the
northeast corner should visually balance, and not detract attention from the strong
architectural expression of the entry portal. Consider integrating the entries to the
garage and stairwell into a singular element, and setting it back from the pedestrian
realm. (DC1-B-1, DC1-C-2)
b. The Board noted that the northeast corner should not read as the primary entry. (PL3-
A-1, DC1-C-2)
Application No. 3025501
Page 13 of 24
c. The Board was concerned about the painted concrete surrounding the garage entry,
and suggested the applicant explore whether flipping the gray paneling and red
corrugated metal siding would create a more fine-grained scale or texture along the
pedestrian realm. (DC2-D-2)
d. The Board was concerned about the proposed location of the gas meter, as it detracts
from the otherwise strong architectural expression of the entry portal and impacts the
pedestrian experience. The Board encouraged further exploration of whether the gas
meter could be relocated within the east side setback. (DC1-B-1, DC1-C-2)
e. If the gas meter is relocated, the Board directed the applicant to integrate landscaping
at the base of the portal element to further soften impact of the garage entry on the
pedestrian realm. (DC1-C-2, DC4-D-1)
f. The Board was open to the proposed potential additional courtyard gate, which the
applicant indicated may be required for secondary egress and would be locked from
the public side.
DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES
The priority Citywide and Neighborhood guidelines identified as Priority Guidelines are
summarized below, while all guidelines remain applicable. For the full text please visit the
Design Review website.
CONTEXT & SITE
CS1 Natural Systems and Site Features: Use natural systems/features of the site and its
surroundings as a starting point for project design.
CS1-B Sunlight and Natural Ventilation
CS1-B-2. Daylight and Shading: Maximize daylight for interior and exterior spaces and
minimize shading on adjacent sites through the placement and/or design of structures on
site.
CS2 Urban Pattern and Form: Strengthen the most desirable forms, characteristics, and
patterns of the streets, block faces, and open spaces in the surrounding area.
CS2-D Height, Bulk, and Scale
CS2-D-3. Zone Transitions: For projects located at the edge of different zones, provide
an appropriate transition or complement to the adjacent zone(s). Projects should create a
step in perceived height, bulk and scale between the anticipated development potential of
the adjacent zone and the proposed development.
CS2-D-4. Massing Choices: Strive for a successful transition between zones where a
project abuts a less intense zone.
PUBLIC LIFE
PL2 Walkability: Create a safe and comfortable walking environment that is easy to
navigate and well-connected to existing pedestrian walkways and features.
PL2-B Safety and Security
PL2-B-1. Eyes on the Street: Create a safe environment by providing lines of sight and
encouraging natural surveillance.
PL2-B-2. Lighting for Safety: Provide lighting at sufficient lumen intensities and scales,
including pathway illumination, pedestrian and entry lighting, and/or security lights.
Application No. 3025501
Page 14 of 24
PL2-B-3. Street-Level Transparency: Ensure transparency of street-level uses (for uses
such as nonresidential uses or residential lobbies), where appropriate, by keeping views
open into spaces behind walls or plantings, at corners, or along narrow passageways.
PL3 Street-Level Interaction: Encourage human interaction and activity at the street-level
with clear connections to building entries and edges.
PL3-A Entries
PL3-A-1. Design Objectives: Design primary entries to be obvious, identifiable, and
distinctive with clear lines of sight and lobbies visually connected to the street.
PL3-A-2. Common Entries: Multi-story residential buildings need to provide privacy
and security for residents but also be welcoming and identifiable to visitors.
PL3-A-4. Ensemble of Elements: Design the entry as a collection of coordinated
elements including the door(s), overhead features, ground surface, landscaping, lighting,
and other features.
DESIGN CONCEPT
DC1 Project Uses and Activities: Optimize the arrangement of uses and activities on site.
DC1-AArrangement of Interior Uses
DC1-A-1. Visibility: Locate uses and services frequently used by the public in visible or
prominent areas, such as at entries or along the street front.
DC1-A-2. Gathering Places: Maximize the use of any interior or exterior gathering
spaces.
DC1-A-3. Flexibility: Build in flexibility so the building can adapt over time to evolving
needs, such as the ability to change residential space to commercial space as needed.
DC1-A-4. Views and Connections: Locate interior uses and activities to take advantage
of views and physical connections to exterior spaces and uses.
DC1-B Vehicular Access and Circulation
DC1-B-1. Access Location and Design: Choose locations for vehicular access, service
uses, and delivery areas that minimize conflict between vehicles and non-motorists
wherever possible. Emphasize use of the sidewalk for pedestrians, and create safe and
attractive conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers.
DC1-CParking and Service Uses
DC1-C-2. Visual Impacts: Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots, parking structures,
entrances, and related signs and equipment as much as possible.
DC2 Architectural Concept: Develop an architectural concept that will result in a unified
and functional design that fits well on the site and within its surroundings.
DC2-B Architectural and Facade Composition
DC2-B-1. Façade Composition: Design all building facades—including alleys and
visible roofs— considering the composition and architectural expression of the building
as a whole. Ensure that all facades are attractive and well-proportioned.
DC2-B-2. Blank Walls: Avoid large blank walls along visible façades wherever
possible. Where expanses of blank walls, retaining walls, or garage facades are
unavoidable, include uses or design treatments at the street level that have human scale
and are designed for pedestrians.
DC2-DScale and Texture
DC2-D-2. Texture: Design the character of the building, as expressed in the form, scale,
and materials, to strive for a fine-grained scale, or “texture,” particularly at the street
level and other areas where pedestrians predominate.
Application No. 3025501
Page 15 of 24
DC3 Open Space Concept: Integrate open space design with the building design so that
they complement each other.
DC3-B Open Space Uses and Activities
DC3-B-1. Meeting User Needs: Plan the size, uses, activities, and features of each open
space to meet the needs of expected users, ensuring each space has a purpose and
function.
DC3-B-2. Matching Uses to Conditions: Respond to changing environmental
conditions such as seasonal and daily light and weather shifts through open space design
and/or programming of open space activities.
DC3-B-3. Connections to Other Open Space: Site and design project-related open
spaces to connect with, or enhance, the uses and activities of other nearby public open
space where appropriate.
DC3-B-4. Multifamily Open Space: Design common and private open spaces in
multifamily projects for use by all residents to encourage physical activity and social
interaction.
DC4 Exterior Elements and Finishes: Use appropriate and high quality elements and
finishes for the building and its open spaces.
DC4-AExterior Elements and Finishes
DC4-A-1. 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.
DC4-A-2. Climate Appropriateness: Select durable and attractive materials that will
age well in Seattle’s climate, taking special care to detail corners, edges, and transitions.
DC4-CLighting
DC4-C-1. Functions: Use lighting both to increase site safety in all locations used by
pedestrians and to highlight architectural or landscape details and features such as entries,
signs, canopies, plantings, and art.
DC4-DTrees, Landscape, and Hardscape Materials
DC4-D-1. Choice of Plant Materials: Reinforce the overall architectural and open space
design concepts through the selection of landscape materials.
DC4-D-2. Hardscape Materials: Use exterior courtyards, plazas, and other hard
surfaced areas as an opportunity to add color, texture, and/or pattern and enliven public
areas through the use of distinctive and durable paving materials. Use permeable
materials wherever possible.
DC4-D-4. Place Making: Create a landscape design that helps define spaces with
significant elements such as trees.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD DEPARTURE
The Board’s recommendation on the requested departure was based on the departure’s potential
to help the project better meet these design guidelines priorities and achieve a better overall
project design than could be achieved without the departures.
At the time of the Recommendation meeting, the following departure was requested:
1. Setback Requirements (SMC 23.47A.014.B.3): For a structure containing a residential
use, the Code requires a setback along any rear or side lot line that abuts a residentially
Application No. 3025501
Page 16 of 24
zoned lot of 15-feet for portions of structures between 13-feet and 40-feet in height, and
an additional setback at the rate of 2-feet per 10-feet in excess of 40-feet. The applicant
proposes to encroach within the required setback for an additional height of 10-inches
above 13-feet.
The Board recommended approval of the requested departure. The 10-inch intrusion into
the required setback allows for the canopy to be located at the same height as the entry
portal, thereby resulting in a consistent architectural expression at the ground level and
better meeting the intent of Design Guideline DC2-B-1, Façade Composition. The
increased glazing and transparency also promotes eyes on the courtyard, better meeting
the intent of Design Guideline PL2-B, Safety and Security.
BOARD DIRECTION
The recommendation summarized above was based on the design review packet dated Monday,
May 22, 2017, and the materials shown and verbally described by the applicant at the Monday,
May 22, 2017 Design Recommendation meeting. After considering the site and context, hearing
public comment, reconsidering the previously identified design priorities and reviewing the
materials, the five Design Review Board members recommended APPROVAL of the subject
design and departures with the following conditions:
1. Maintain the “Cool Colonial Red”, or a similar burgundy red, color of the corrugated
metal panel. (DC2-B-1, DC4-A-1)
2. Refine the expression and materiality of the black frame of the entry portal. (DC2-D-2,
DC4-A)
3. Simplify the materiality and façade composition within the black frame of the entry
portal. (DC2-B-1)
DIRECTOR’S ANALYSIS
The design review process prescribed in Section 23.41.014.F of the Seattle Municipal Code
describing the content of the SDCI Director’s decision reads in part as follows:
The Director’s decision shall consider the recommendation of the Design Review Board,
provided that, if four (4) members of the Design Review Board are in agreement in their
recommendation to the Director, the Director shall issue a decision which incorporates the full
substance of the recommendation of the Design Review Board, unless the Director concludes the
Design Review Board:
a. Reflects inconsistent application of the design review guidelines; or
b. Exceeds the authority of the Design Review Board; or
c. Conflicts with SEPA conditions or other regulatory requirements applicable to the site; or
d. Conflicts with the requirements of state or federal law.
Subject to the recommended conditions, the design of the proposed project was found by the
Design Review Board to adequately conform to the applicable Design Guidelines.
Application No. 3025501
Page 17 of 24
At the conclusion of the Recommendation meeting held on May 22, 2017, the Board
recommended approval of the project with the conditions described in the summary of the
Recommendation meeting above.
Five members of the Northwest Design Review Board were in attendance and provided
recommendations (listed above) to the Director and identified elements of the Design Guidelines
which are critical to the project’s overall success. The Director must provide additional analysis
of the Board’s recommendations and then accept, deny or revise the Board’s recommendations
(SMC 23.41.014.F.3).
The Director agrees with the Design Review Board’s conclusion that the proposed project and
conditions imposed result in a design that best meets the intent of the Design Review Guidelines
and accepts the recommendations noted by the Board.
Following the Recommendation meeting, SDCI staff worked with the applicant to update the
submitted plans to include the recommendations of the Design Review Board.
Applicant response to Recommended Design Review Conditions:
1. The applicant documented the response to condition #1 in the SDCI Land Use Correction
Response Letter, dated June 14, 2017, stating that the plans were revised to identify the
prefinished corrugated metal panel as “Cool Colonial Red” in color, see the materials
legend on sheet A4.00. SDCI, however, recommends a condition of the MUP Decision
that the “Cool Colonial Red”, or a similar burgundy red, color of the corrugated metal
panel be maintained for the life of the project.
2. The applicant documented the response to condition #2 in the SDCI Land Use Correction
Response Letter, dated June 14, 2017, stating, “Per the Board’s comments, the thickness
of the black frame has been increased to better express the entry portal and a note has
been added, specifying concealed gutters within the canopy facia, see sheets A4.00 &
A4.01. To have the frame read as a solid sculptural element, the standing seam material
applied to the outside face of the entry portal has been revised to a flat profile metal
siding with minimal material seams. See the materials legend on A4.00 and elevations on
sheets A4.00, A4.02 & A4.03.” This response satisfies the recommended condition for
the MUP Decision.
3. The applicant documented the partial resolution of condition #3 in the SDCI Land Use
Correction Response Letter, dated July 14, 2017. The applicant has simplified the
materiality and façade composition within the black frame of the entry portal by
eliminating the concrete headway above and to the west of the storefront system,
extending the aluminum louvers to the underside of the portal canopy, and incorporating
metal cladding in the vertical gap between the storefront system and entry portal. The
aluminum louvers and metal cladding match the storefront system in color. The applicant
will confirm the minimum ceiling plenum space at the time of building permit review to
ensure the maximum amount of storefront glazing can be achieved. This shall be
reviewed as a condition to be resolved prior to issuance of the building permit.
The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all construction documents, details, and
specifications are shown and constructed consistent with the approved MUP drawings.
Application No. 3025501
Page 18 of 24
The Director of SDCI has reviewed the decision and recommendations of the Design Review
Board made by the five members present at the decision meeting and finds that they are
consistent with the City of Seattle Design Review Guidelines. The Director accepts the Design
Review Board’s recommendation and conditions 1 and 2 shall be required.
DIRECTOR’S DECISION
The Director accepts the Design Review Board’s recommendations and CONDITIONALLY
APPROVES the proposed design and the requested departure with the conditions listed at the
end of this Decision.
III. ANALYSIS & DECISION – SEPA
Environmental review resulting in a Threshold Determination is required pursuant to the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), WAC 197-11, and the Seattle SEPA Ordinance (Seattle
Municipal Code (SMC) Chapter 25.05).
The initial disclosure of the potential impacts from this project was made in the environmental
checklist submitted by the applicant dated February 1, 2017. The Seattle Department of
Construction and Inspections (SDCI) has annotated the environmental checklist submitted by the
project applicant; reviewed the project plans and any additional information in the project file
submitted by the applicant or agents; and any pertinent comments which may have been received
regarding this proposed action have been considered. The information in the checklist, the
supplemental information, and the experience of the lead agency with the review of similar
projects form the basis for this analysis and decision.
The SEPA Overview Policy (SMC 25.05.665 D) clarifies the relationship between codes,
policies, and environmental review. Specific policies for each element of the environment, and
certain neighborhood plans and other policies explicitly referenced may serve as the basis for
exercising substantive SEPA authority. The Overview Policy states in part: "where City
regulations have been adopted to address an environmental impact, it shall be presumed that
such regulations are adequate to achieve sufficient mitigation" subject to some limitations.
Under such limitations/circumstances, mitigation can be considered. Thus, a more detailed
discussion of some of the impacts is appropriate.
SHORT TERM IMPACTS
Construction activities could result in the following adverse impacts: construction dust and storm
water runoff, erosion, emissions from construction machinery and vehicles, increased particulate
levels, increased noise levels, occasional disruption of adjacent vehicular and pedestrian traffic, a
small increase in traffic and parking impacts due to construction related vehicles, and increases
in greenhouse gas emissions. Several construction-related impacts are mitigated by existing City
codes and ordinances applicable to the project such as: the Stormwater Code (SMC 22.800-808),
the Grading Code (SMC 22.170), the Street Use Ordinance (SMC Title 15), the Seattle Building
Code, and the Noise Control Ordinance (SMC 25.08). Puget Sound Clean Air Agency
regulations require control of fugitive dust to protect air quality. The following analyzes
greenhouse gas emissions, construction-related noise, traffic and parking impacts, as well as
mitigation.
Application No. 3025501
Page 19 of 24
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction activities including construction worker commutes, truck trips, the operation of
construction equipment and machinery, and the manufacture of the construction materials
themselves result in increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions which
adversely impact air quality and contribute to climate change and global warming. While these
impacts are adverse, no further mitigation is warranted pursuant to SMC 25.05.675.A.
Construction Impacts - Parking and Traffic
Increased trip generation is expected during the proposed demolition, grading, and construction
activity. The area is subject to significant traffic congestion during peak travel times on nearby
arterials. Large trucks turning onto arterial streets would be expected to further exacerbate the
flow of traffic.
The area includes limited on-street parking. Additional parking demand from construction
vehicles would be expected to further exacerbate the supply of on-street parking. It is the City's
policy to minimize temporary adverse impacts associated with construction activities.
Pursuant to SMC 25.05.675.B (Construction Impacts Policy), additional mitigation is warranted
and a Construction Management Plan is required, which will be reviewed by Seattle Department
of Transportation (SDOT). The requirements for a Construction Management Plan include a
Haul Route and a Construction Parking Plan. The submittal information and review process for
Construction Management Plans are described on the SDOT website at:
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/cmp.htm.
Construction Impacts - Noise
The project is expected to generate loud noise during demolition, grading and construction.
The Seattle Noise Ordinance (SMC 25.08.425) permits increases in permissible sound levels
associated with private development construction and equipment between the hours of 7:00 AM
and 10:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM and 10:00 PM on weekends and legal holidays in
Commercial zones.
While the applicant’s environmental checklist does not indicate that extended hours are
anticipated, the hours the proposed development is subject to are not as restrictive as the hours
typically enforced in zones where residential uses occur.
Due to the adjacent lowrise residential zone and residential uses, the limitations stipulated in the
Noise Ordinance are not sufficient to mitigate noise impacts at this particular site; therefore,
pursuant to SMC 25.05.675.B, the applicant shall be required to limit periods of noise generating
construction activities to 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM on
weekends and legal holidays, unless modified through a Construction Noise Management Plan,
to be determined by SDCI prior to issuance of a demolition, grading, or building permit,
whichever is issued first. These hours are consistent with the designated hours for increases in
permissible sound levels associated with private development in Lowrise and Neighborhood
Commercial zones.
Application No. 3025501
Page 20 of 24
A Construction Management Plan will be required, including contact information in the event of
complaints about construction noise and, and measures to reduce or prevent noise impacts. The
submittal information and review process for Construction Management Plans are described on
the SDOT website at: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/cmp.htm. A Construction Noise
Management Plan with specific mitigation for work beyond 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays
and 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekends and legal holidays is required to be incorporated into
the Construction Management Plan.
Environmental Health
The applicant submitted studies regarding existing contamination on site, including a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment (Adapt Engineering, 8/23/16), Phase II Environmental Site
Assessment (Adapt Engineering, 10/3/16), and Remediation Plan (Adapt Engineering, 5/22/17).
If not properly handled, existing contamination could have an adverse impact on environmental
health.
As indicated in the SEPA checklist, the Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessments, and the
Remediation Plan, the applicant will comply with all provisions of MTCA in addressing these
issues in the development of the project.
If the recommendations described in the Remediation Plan are followed, then it is not anticipated
that the characterization, removal, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any such materials
will result in a significant adverse impact to the environment. This conclusion is supported by the
expert environmental consultants for the project, whose conclusions are also set forth in the
materials in the MUP file for this project.
Adherence to MTCA provisions and federal and state laws are anticipated to adequately mitigate
significant adverse impacts from existing contamination on site. The Remediation Plan describes
strategies to ensure adherence with MTCA provisions and indicates compliance with
Washington State Department of Ecology regulatory authority.
Mitigation of contamination and remediation is in the jurisdiction of Washington State
Department of Ecology (Ecology), consistent with the City’s SEPA relationship to Federal, State
and Regional regulations described in SMC 25.05.665.E. This State agency program functions to
mitigate risks associated with removal and transport of hazardous and toxic materials, and the
agency’s regulations provide sufficient impact mitigation for these materials. The City
acknowledges that Ecology’s jurisdiction and requirements for remediation will mitigate impacts
associated with any contamination.
The proposed strategies and compliance with Ecology’s requirements are expected to adequately
mitigate the adverse environmental impacts from the proposed development and no further
mitigation is warranted for impacts to environmental health per SMC 25.05.675.F.
Should asbestos be identified on the site, it must be removed in accordance with the Puget Sound
Clean Air Agency (PSCAA) and City requirements. PSCAA regulations require control of
fugitive dust to protect air quality and require permits for removal of asbestos during demolition.
The City acknowledges PSCAA’s jurisdiction and requirements for remediation will mitigate
impacts associated with any contamination. No further mitigation under SEPA Policies
25.05.675.F is warranted for asbestos impacts.
Application No. 3025501
Page 21 of 24
Should lead be identified on the site, there is a potential for impacts to environmental health.
Lead is a pollutant regulated by laws administered by the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), including the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Residential Lead-Based
Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (Title X), Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA),
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) among
others. The EPA further authorized the Washington State Department of Commerce to
administer two regulatory programs in Washington State: The Renovation, Repair and Painting
Program (RRP) and the Lead-Based Paint Activities Program (Abatement). These regulations
protect the public from hazards of improperly conducted lead-based paint activities and
renovations. No further mitigation under SEPA Policies 25.05.675.F is warranted for lead
impacts.
LONG TERM IMPACTS
Long-term or use-related impacts are also anticipated as a result of approval of this proposal
including: greenhouse gas emissions; parking; possible increased traffic in the area. Compliance
with applicable codes and ordinances is adequate to achieve sufficient mitigation of most long-
term impacts and no further conditioning is warranted by SEPA policies. However, greenhouse
gas emissions, height bulk and scale, and parking warrant further analysis.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational activities, primarily vehicular trips associated with the project’s energy
consumption, are expected to result in increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas
emissions which adversely impact air quality and contribute to climate change and global
warming. While these impacts are adverse, no further mitigation is warranted pursuant to SMC
25.05.675.A.
Height, Bulk, and Scale
The proposal has gone through the design review process described in SMC 23.41. Design
review considers mitigation for height, bulk, and scale through modulation, articulation,
landscaping, and façade treatment.
Section 25.05.675.G.2.c of the Seattle SEPA Ordinance provides the following: “The Citywide
Design Guidelines (and any Council-approved, neighborhood design guidelines) are intended to
mitigate the same adverse height, bulk, and scale impacts addressed in these policies. A project
that is approved pursuant to the Design Review Process shall be presumed to comply with these
Height, Bulk, and Scale policies. This presumption may be rebutted only by clear and convincing
evidence that height, bulk, and scale impacts documented through environmental review have
not been adequately mitigated. Any additional mitigation imposed by the decision maker
pursuant to these height, bulk, and scale policies on projects that have undergone Design Review
shall comply with design guidelines applicable to the project.”
The height, bulk, and scale of the proposed development and relationship to nearby context have
been addressed during the Design Review process. Pursuant to the Overview policies in SMC
25.05.665.D, the existing City Codes and regulations to mitigate height, bulk and scale impacts
and additional mitigation is not warranted under SMC 25.05.675.G.
Application No. 3025501
Page 22 of 24
Parking
The proposed development includes 100 affordable residential units with additional supportive
services provided on site. Three vehicular parking spaces are provided for staff use. The
applicant provided a letter (Parking Demand for Master Use Permit #3025501, DESC, 4/19/17)
documenting the low likelihood of car ownership of residents based on similar
affordable/supportive housing developments. Similarly-sized facilities have seen 1-2 residents
with cars. Three onsite parking spaces are provided for staff, staff are also provided a subsidized
transit pass to encourage use of public transportation. The SDCI Transportation Planner
reviewed the information provided.
SMC 25.05.675.M notes that there is no SEPA authority provided for mitigation of residential
parking impacts in Urban Villages within 1,320 feet of frequent transit service. The site is
located in the Aurora-Licton Springs Urban Village within 1,320 feet of frequent transit service.
Regardless of the parking demand impacts, no SEPA authority is provided to mitigate residential
impacts of parking demand from this proposal.
DIRECTOR’S DECISION – SEPA
This decision was made after review by the responsible official on behalf of the lead agency of a
completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the responsible
department. This constitutes the Threshold Determination and form. The intent of this
declaration is to satisfy the requirement of the State Environmental Policy Act (RCW 43.21.C),
including the requirement to inform the public of agency decisions pursuant to SEPA.
Determination of Non-Significance. This proposal has been determined to not have a
significant adverse impact upon the environment. An EIS is not required under RCW
43.21.030(2) (c).
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant
adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement (EIS) is not required
under RCW 43.21C.030 (2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed
environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This information is
available to the public on request.
This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in WAC 197-11-355 and Early review
DNS process in SMC 25.05.355. There is no further comment period on the DNS.
CONDITIONS – ACU
For the Life of the Project
1. Maintain the Energy Recovery Ventilation (ERV) system, while uses identified as major
noise and odor sources are located adjacent to the site.
Application No. 3025501
Page 23 of 24
CONDITIONS – DESIGN REVIEW
Prior to Issuance of a Construction Permit
2. Simplify the materiality and façade composition within the black frame of the entry portal by
minimizing the ceiling plenum space and height of the louvers to the extent possible, while
maintaining a consistent horizontal datum above the storefront glazing.
For the Life of the Project
3. Maintain the “Cool Colonial Red”, or a similar burgundy red, color of the corrugated metal
panel.
4. The building and landscape design shall be substantially consistent with the materials
represented at the Recommendation meeting and in the materials submitted after the
Recommendation meeting, before the MUP issuance. Any change to the proposed design,
including materials or colors, shall require prior approval by the Land Use Planner.
CONDITIONS – SEPA
Prior to Issuance of Demolition, Excavation/Shoring, or Construction Permit
5. Provide a Construction Management Plan that has been approved by SDOT. The submittal
information and review process for Construction Management Plans are described on the
SDOT website at: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/cmp.htm.
6. If the applicant intends to work outside of the limits of the hours of construction described in
condition #7, a Construction Noise Management Plan shall be required, subject to review and
approval by SDCI Noise Abatement staff, and prior to a demolition, grading, or building
permit, whichever is issued first. The construction noise management plan may be modified
as needed through SDOT and SDCI review. The construction noise management plan shall
be incorporated into the Construction Management Plan.
During Construction
7. Construction activities (including but not limited to demolition, grading, deliveries, framing,
roofing, and painting) shall be limited to 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM
and 7:00 PM on weekends and legal holidays. Non-noisy activities, such as site security,
monitoring, weather protection shall not be limited by this condition. This condition may be
modified through a Construction Noise Management Plan, required prior to issuance of a
building permit as noted in condition #6.
Abby Weber, Land Use Planner Date: August 31, 2017
Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections
AW:drm
K\Decisions-Signed\3025501.docx
Application No. 3025501
Page 24 of 24
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR ISSUANCE OF YOUR MASTER USE PERMIT
Master Use Permit Expiration and Issuance
The appealable land use decision on your Master Use Permit (MUP) application has now been published. At the
conclusion of the appeal period, your permit will be considered “approved for issuance”. (If your decision is
appealed, your permit will be considered “approved for issuance” on the fourth day following the City Hearing
Examiner’s decision.) Projects requiring a Council land use action shall be considered “approved for issuance”
following the Council’s decision.
The “approved for issuance” date marks the beginning of the three-year life of the MUP approval, whether or not
there are outstanding corrections to be made or pre-issuance conditions to be met. The permit must be issued by
SDCI within that three years or it will expire and be cancelled (SMC 23-76-028). (Projects with a shoreline
component have a two-year life. Additional information regarding the effective date of shoreline permits may be
found at 23.60.074.)
All outstanding corrections must be made, any pre-issuance conditions met and all outstanding fees paid before the
permit is issued. You will be notified when your permit has issued.
Questions regarding the issuance and expiration of your permit may be addressed to the Public Resource Center at
prc@seattle.gov or to our message line at 206-684-8467.