city of seattle edward b. murray, mayor of seattle edward b. murray, mayor ... are used to evaluate...

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

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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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: [email protected]

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Design_Review_Program/Project_Reviews/Reports/default.asp

http://www.seattle.gov/dpd/Planning/Design_Review_Program/Project_Reviews/Reports/default.asp

mailto:[email protected]


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.


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

http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/


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.

http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/edms/


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)


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.

https://www.seattle.gov/dpd/aboutus/whoweare/designreview/designguidelines/default.htm


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/cmp.htm


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.



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.

http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-toxic-substances-control-act

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_12360.pdf

http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=DOC_12360.pdf

http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-air-act

http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act

http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-safe-drinking-water-act

http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-resource-conservation-and-recovery-act

http://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-comprehensive-environmental-response-compensation-and-liability-act


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.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=43.21C.030

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=197-11-355


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



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

[email protected] or to our message line at 206-684-8467.

mailto:[email protected]

city of seattle edward b. murray, mayor of seattle edward b. murray, mayor ... are used to evaluate...

Documents