Thanks for the great report on the meeting! I was able to attend the previous one but couldn't make last night's so this is really nice to be able to read about it and see the pictures.
This is a short answer to the question about commenting on a rezone request. Quasi-judicial land use decisions are made by the decision maker, ultimately the City Council, based on evidence and arguments made in hearings. There'll be a Hearing Examiner hearing and then a City Council hearing. Persons (and groups) affected by the proposed rezone can submit facts and arguments to those hearings, but the decision makers (Hearing Examiner and City Council) are not supposed to hear or consider information received outside the context of the hearing. This applies to both "the public" and the party proposing the zoning change --- the developer here. There are written rules about what kinds of comments can be submitted and it's good to be familiar with those, but they're not terribly restrictive. The date for the hearing will be published in the DPD Land Use bulletins and anyone wanting to present facts or arguments should prepare to do that on the specified dates.
Scott, I'd encourage you to keep your eyes on the DPD Land Use bulletins, if you don't already - and let your readers know when they can provide their input within the rules Bill talks out above.
In my (very limited) experience, Councilmembers know what they can and can't talk about, and (if meeting in person) will stop you if you start to stray into the 'prohibited' zone.
I do want to add that I continue to have concerns about the parking garage entry on 23rd. I know 23rd's current state is rather unfortunately auto-dominated, but if we have any success in the future with a road diet for 23rd, that will change. On the other hand, since the Casey Family property is so incredibly street-unfriendly, stuffing the garage entrance on that corner of the site may be the best possible compromise.
I would suggest that the concerns about community benefit and impacts on our 'main' street are real, and that the frustration in Design Review meetings is more a function of talking about social and aconomic factors to a group seemingly more preoccupied with the appearance of the building than the impact.
I hear that there more rumblings about a: where is the community benefit for a rezone (for example funding community amenities or below market units in return), or b: this must be a one-off as we don't want to turn 23rd or Union into a tunnel. However, not many people showed up to voice those concerns. Possibly, folks will get together to articulate a clear statement regarding the proposed rezoning and neighborhood expectations at the hearing set up to address that.
The process Just a minor addition to Bill's excellent summary of the process. The next step in the process is a written recommendation from DPD to the Hearing Examiner. It is not a given that the DPD will agree with the Design Review Board. Although theiir review is fairlyy ttechnical from this point on, DPD may still be influenced by public comment either way. They have a set of locational criteria that they must address in their recommendation regarding the rezone (follow the links below for more on those):
SMC 23.34.008 General rezone criteria. http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=CODE&s1=23.34.008.snum.&Sect5=CODE1&Sect6=HITOFF&l=20&p=1&u=/~public/code1.htm&r=1&f=G
SMC 23.34.009 Height limits of the proposed rezone. http://clerk.ci.seattle.wa.us/~scripts/nph-brs.exe?d=CODE&s1=23.34.009.snum.&Sect5=CODE1&Sect6=HITOFF&l=20&p=1&u=/~public/code1.htm&r=1&f=G
SMC 23.34.078 Neighborhood Commercial 3 (NC3) zones, function and locational criteria.
The building proposed looks modern, as the architect and the developer want it to. I might have preferred something traditional like brick on the exterior, but am assured of the durability of the products proposed and I like the overall form and orientation. Thanks to the big trees on the west, I don't think that the scale issue with the SW corner will be significant. I am most concerned about the importance of the building in the community.
I think that approving this rezone this would set a precedent for the 4 corners around 23rd and Union, but it need not set a precedent for any areas beyond that as far as extending the 65-foot heigh limit. I would not object to those 4 corners growing to the 65-foot height, although I also would not hold my breath until they do. There are plenty of filling stations in more densely populated areas that held on for years despite zoing that alowed mush more(consider the SW corner of Broadway and Pine, and the north end of the Broadway commercial area for example).
The benefit of this building to the Union Street business district would be that it would represent substantial new investment, and that could lead to good things for all of us who live close by. Yes, this one will not have affordable housing, but it will not take any down, either. It will be the tallest thing around for quite a while, but it is well situated at this corner to become a landmark, in my view, so that's okay by me. Most importantly, if successful, it should also prove that there is a market worth investing in in this area, and that will help other property owners attract tenants and obtain financing for upgrades or redevelopment.
The community would benefit from more services along Union, and the other benefits that may of us want to see, like building affordable housing, can become more feasible on other sites if this one works.
This is a bold step, but one I think is worth taking.
I've watched Council Ctte meetings where, based on neighboring landowners' opinions, rezones have been not approved. The information that seemed to matter the most were the opinions of those right beside the property and on the same block.
Just had to comment on their market rate rental prices - $1200 for a studio? That seems higher than market rate for this area.. maybe a new building in Belltown or even on Broadway. It is a tight rental market (currently), but this is a stretch. Any word on any of the "Green" features on this project? I would oppose any granting of height rezone unless the building is getting a LEED silver or better rating.
I haven't heard if they ar going for certification of this building. I would offer a couple of thoughts: One of the big cost drivers for this site is cleanup of the soil from the dry cleaner that used to occupy the site. (Apparently the price paid was not adequately discounted to deal with this cost, which is why the site was rejected by two non-profit housing providers that looked at developing the site.) Mueller has taken the approach to overcome that obstacle by requesting th additional density allowed by the extra height.
From an environmental standpoint, the rezone adds about 30 compact housing units right on two transit lines that serve the city's two major employment centers, UW and downtown, and the site gets cleaned up. I would take that over 30 LEED-gold certified 2400 sf homes in suburban King County.
LEED is great for PR for the City and even makes good marketing sense sometimes, but the certification is not free. For building of this type $50,000 would not be out of line for the costs to certify. For that reason I think we should think about what all of our goals are before making LEED a requirement.
Help: Comments
The main text of your comment goes here.
Basic html tags such as a, b, i, strike, and blockquote are allowed