Save Madison Valley Appeal

Seattle Department of
Construction & Inspections__________________________
CITY OF SEATTLE
ANALYSIS AND DECISION OF THE DIRECTOR OF
THE SEATTLE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTIONS
Record Number: 3020338-LU
Applicant Name: Chris Davidson of Studio Meng Strazzara
Address of Proposal: 2925 E Madison St
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
Land Use Application to allow a six-story building consisting of 82 residential units above
25,850 sq. ft. of retail space, located at ground level. Parking to be provided for 140 vehicles at
and below grade. Existing structures to be demolished.
The following approvals are required:
Design Review with Departures (Seattle Municipal Code 23.41)*

Departures are listed near the end of the Design Review Analysis in this document
SEPA - Environmental Determination (Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.05)
SEPA DETERMINATION:
Determination of Non-Significance
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
BACKGROUND
The proponent submitted an Early Design Guidance (EDG)
application in May 2016. Three EDG meetings ensued.
After receiving Design Review Board guidance, the
proponent applied for a Master Use Permit (MUP) with
design review and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
components in April 2017. During the department’s review
of the MUP application, the public requested a SEPA public
meeting and this meeting was held on June 6, 2017. The
following documents the history of the land use review:
700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 | PO Box 34019 | Seattle, WA 98124-4019 | 206-684-8600 | seattle.gov/sdci
Record No. 3020338-LU
Page 2 of 33
• The applicant submitted for early design guidance in May 2016.

• Three EDG meetings followed in July 13, 2016, October 26, 2016 and January
25, 2017.
• The applicant submitted a MUP application with Design Review and SEPA
components in April 2017.
• A public meeting was held on June 6, 2017 (unrelated to Design Review).
• The Recommendation meeting was held on September 13, 2017.
SITE AND VICINITY
Site Zones: Neighborhood Commercial (NC2P-40 and NC2P-30)
Zoning Pattern: North: Single Family (SF 7200), NC2P-40 and LR1
South: SF 5000
West: NC2P-40, LR1
East: SF 5000
Lot Area: 40,422 SF
Environmental Critical Areas: The site is a mapped Environmentally Critical Areas (ECA), due
to steep slope and liquefaction prone soils.
Current and Surrounding Development; Neighborhood Character:
The site contains one story retail structure, known as the City People's Garden Store.
The project site is in the Madison Valley neighborhood, characterized by its proximity to
Madison Park to the east and the Arboretum to the north. This neighborhood is comprised of
single family and multifamily residential housing types and commercial and retail uses along E
Madison St, which the City has designated as an arterial.
The site has street frontage on E Madison St, Dewey Pl E and an unimproved portion of E
Mercer St. Access for E Mercer St dead-ends Dewey Ave due to steep topography. A pedestrian
hill climb is proposed at this location as part of this proposal.
Recent development includes sizeable residential and mixed-use buildings. To the northwest,
across E Madison Ave, is a 3-story masonry building, the Madison Loft Condominium.
Adjacent to the southwest is a 2-story wood frame structure, the Washington Park Art Studios.
To the south and east of the site are single family structures as the zoning transitions to single
family. This site has the potential to serve as a transition area from the multifamily and
commercial uses along E Madison St to the single family zone south and east of the site.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
The public comment period ended on 5/24/2017. Comments, including the submitted
geotechnical, habitat assessment, traffic and parking analysis 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 construction impacts, public infrastructure impacts, drainage,
Page 3 of 33
environmentally critical areas, potential landslide concerns, environmental health, noise, plants,
trees, animals, parking, traffic, density, shading, height, bulk and scale. Comments were also
received that are beyond the scope of this review and analysis.
I. ANALYSIS – DESIGN REVIEW
FIRST EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE July 13, 2016

The packet includes materials presented at the meeting, and is available online by entering the
project number at this website:
http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/aboutus/news/events/DesignReview/SearchPastReviews/default.aspx
The packet is also available to view in the file, by contacting the Public Resource Center at
SDCI:
Mailing Public Resource Center
Address: 700 Fifth Ave., Suite 2000
P.O. Box 34019
Seattle, WA 98124-4019
Email: PRC@seattle.gov
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following comments were offered at the meeting:
• Concerned with the height, bulk and scale of the proposal; the proposed development
completely overwhelms the site and displays a lack of sensitivity to its potential
neighborhood, and is inconsistent with Design Guidelines CS2.B1 and CS2.C2
• Noted that the site has two or more individual Exceptional Trees and an Exceptional
Grove and that the proposed removal of these trees is inconsistent with Design Guideline
CS1.D1. The proposal disregards direction to provide a fully code compliant option with
respect to the steep slope, ECA and buffer, access and street improvement exception.
• The proposal utterly fails to respond appropriately to the context and site per Design
Guidelines, CS1-C Appropriate Use of Natural Topography, CS1-D Incorporate onsite
landscaping, and CS2-B Open Space to inform site design.
• Concerned with how height is being measured; approximately one third of the site is a 40
percent steep slope, with more than 30 feet elevation change from toe to toe, yet the
height diagram shows only a 2.5 ft differential step down between the flat area and the 30
ft drop in elevation.
• Noted that the graphic of the section cut is not representative of the true massing
proposed; at the north end of the site, the building mass looms over the Dewey
residences. A more than 60 ft vertical façade rises above Dewey. This is a 40’
commercial zone, neighboring a single family zone and is inconsistent with Design
Guidelines CS2.D11 and CS2.D4.
• Rather than respecting the topography, or using the site features to inform the design, this
project eradicates the site topography, inconsistent with Design Guideline CS1.C2.
• Currently a natural buffer with a mature urban tree canopy sits between the NC2P-40
commercial zone and single-family homes. This project would remove that buffer, rather
than providing a transition between more and less intense zones, as Design Guidelines
CS2.D3 and CS2.D4 recommend.
Page 4 of 33
• Lack of support for the 156 car, two story, 320 ft. long parking garage exposed on
Dewey. It will release fumes, noise, and light into neighboring homes. The proposed
façade changes the character of Dewey and creates an unfriendly and unsafe- feeling
pedestrian environment, inconsistent with guidelines Dc1.C1, DC1.C2, andDC4.C2.
• Lack of support for the garage entrance of Dewey Place, a non-conforming street because
of its narrow width, which will draw a large influx of traffic and impact safety. The
proposal includes 30 additional parking spaces above requirements and is inconsistent
with design guidelines CS2.D5 and CS2.B2.
• Concerned with the removal of existing vegetation, which includes 39 mature trees, over
20 native plant species and over 14,600 sf of tree canopy. The urban tree canopy and
green space on Dewey is contiguous with the Mercer Madison Wood, the Arboretum, and
is part of a larger urban forest corridor. The Design Guidelines CS1.D2 encourage
preserving or extending urban forest corridors.
• Lack of support for the south façade blank wall. The east side along Dewey continues the
visual effect of a blank wall. All these walls are at street level, creating an unfriendly
pedestrian environment, inconsistent with guideline DC2.B2.
• Concerned that the proposed retail floor is below street level, causing people to have to
walk down ramps or steps. The grade separation is unnecessary and is poor design,
inconsistent with guideline CS2.B2.
• Concerned that the proposal severely curtails privacy and outdoor activities on its south
and east side, inconsistent with guideline CS2.D5.
• Supportive of the development; this project will bring a socially responsible grocery co-
op and add many needed residential units to this fast growing city that is experiencing a
housing supply crisis.
• Noted that the neighborhood doesn’t currently have a central community space and views
this project as a rare opportunity. Supported the courtyard space shown in Option 2.
• Impressed by the proposed street frontage along Madison.
• Supported the proposed materials.
• Would like to see more setback and terracing along the Dewey façade.
• Concerned with tree removal. The project will eliminate a mature and grove of urban
trees that shelters, shades, and beautifies the adjoining neighborhood.
• Lack of support for back-lit signage or obtrusive lighting; prefer to see unlit stencils and
awning signage.
• Concerned with the location of loading off Madison St; it is not in keeping with a
pedestrian friendly environment. Would like to see more consideration given to the
placement and design of the garage and loading area.
• Concerned with noise impacts, in particular from the HVAC units.
• Strongly supported a combined option of with the community space as shown in Option 2
and Option 3.
• Lack of support for the proposed hillclimb.
• Supported proposal Option 3, as it provides a good balance of attractive commercial
property with minimal disruption to the neighborhood.
• Supported the scale of proposal; it is in scale with other development on Madison
• The Madison Greenways group has been in discussions with the City and SDOT to
implement a greenway through the neighborhood, with the greenway crossing Madison
St. at 29th Ave E. As a part of that effort, Madison Greenways, SDOT and Metro are in
talks to move the existing eastbound bus stop along Madison east one block to the front
of this building site. The design should plan for the repositioning of this bus stop.
Page 5 of 33
• Would like to see significant sized trees on Dewey and on Madison and a variety of
planting proposed.
• Concerned with traffic and parking entry impacts for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• Would like to see a smaller grocery, the green space and tree canopy preserved and the
natural topography respected.
• Concerned with drainage impacts.
• Supported the project, but would like to see the south frontage refined.
• Supported a pedestrian connection from Madison to Dewey.
SDCI staff also summarized design related comments received prior to the EDG meeting:
• Lack of support for strong accent colors.
• Supported the proposed vehicular entrances; splitting the entries is seems to be a
reasonable way to reduce congestion.
• Supported the proposed materials brick and natural wood to blend into the streetscape.
• Supported the Dewey frontage; the architect has done a good job of reducing the visual
impact of the building as well as its effect on shading.
• Would like to see the building be more adventurous in terms of saving energy, by
committing to meeting one of the green standards currently offered by the City of Seattle.
• Concerned with the shading of the p-patch garden; would like to see the developer and
architect respond to the presence of and potential impacts on the Mad P-Patch.
• Lack of support for a commercial loading on a residential street. Would like to see most
traffic and commerce on the main thoroughfare, Madison St.
• Would like to see increased setbacks along the parking structure and a substantial screen
of tall trees to soften that view.
• The garage entrance on Dewey would be hazardous to pedestrians, as Dewey is a very
narrow street with no planting strips, narrow sidewalks, and a single lane that hosts two-
way traffic.
• Supported the preferred design Option 3; it is successful at minimizing shading to
adjacent structures and using the natural topography to inform the design.
• Noted that building will serve as the east anchor of the Madison Valley commercial
district and that many of the buildings in the area feature square-paned/divided windows.
Would like to see that feature repeated here, particularly in the transoms above the large
retail windows. The transom windows shown in the EDG renderings come close, but
would like to see a more modern, rectangular panel.
• Would like to see more balance between this building's NE corner and the Madison Lofts
building.
• Supported the retail space on the NE corner; as the first retail space, most westward-
bound travelers will encounter in the retail core, and should be distinctive per Design
Guideline CS2-C.
• Supported Option 2 as it is suited for greater community involvement and is better for
more users of the site. The preferred design (Option 3) does include a generous setback
for the retail entry (10'), but its width along the street front is limited compared to Option
2.
• Noted that Option 2 does have a greater impact on the residents in the valley below, and
that must be addressed.
• Supported Option 3 as it transitions to the single family zones to the east and south.
Page 6 of 33
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. Height, Bulk, Scale and Massing Options: The Board acknowledged the public’s concern
with the height, bulk and scale of the proposal and agreed that the massing needed to further
transition along Dewey and the single family zone. The Board commended the applicant’s
effort to date and unanimously agreed the general massing and frontage along Madison is an
appropriate scale. The Board discussed the strengths of the massing options and supported
the courtyard community space shown in Option 2 and terraced massing shown in Option 3,
but also agreed more effort is needed to respond to the site topography and context. The
Board directed the applicant to return with a modified, hybrid massing option based on the
guidance provided.
a. The Board unanimously agreed with public comment that additional setbacks should
be provided to respond to the site topography and transition to the single family
zoning. While refining the massing at this location the Board also recommended
studying if there is potential to save some of the existing trees. (CS1-C, CS1-D, CS2-
A, CS2-B, CS2-D, DC2-A, DC3-C-3)
b. In order to address concerns about how the building height is calculated, the Board
requested more information and if possible, verification that the calculation is code
compliant for the next meeting. (CS1-C-2, CS2-D, DC2-A-1)
c. The Board supported the inclusion of a community space along the street as shown in
Option 2. The Board also discussed if a courtyard should be provided and ultimately
agreed that a courtyard could be developed, but providing adequate community space
for gathering is a higher priority and noted this activity could potentially occur as part
of the interior program. The Board recommended developing the grocery retail
frontage with adequate space for outdoor/indoor dining opportunities and pedestrian
amenities to engage and interact with the streetscape. (CS3-A, CS2-B-2, PL1, PL3-C,
DC3)
2. Response to Context and Topography: Echoing the public comment regarding the
frontage along Dewey, the Board was concerned with the extent of blank wall shown.
a. The Board questioned if two stories of elevated parking provides the best frontage
along Dewey and the adjacent single family zone. The Board recommended studying
different alternates address the residential context and respond to existing topography.
(CS1-C, CS2-A, CS2-D-2, CS3-A-1, CS2-B-3, DC1, DC3-C-3)
b. The Board was also concerned with the visibility of concrete and gabion baskets and
recommended developing a sensitive solution using high quality materials which
better relate to the surrounding residential context. (CS2-A, CS2-B, CS3-A-1, CS2-B-
3, DC2-B, DC3-C-3)
c. The Board noted that the tallest massing volume appears to be at the northeast corner
and agreed this area will be highly visible and the scale relationship is critical. (CS2-
A, CS2-B,CS2-C1, CS2-D, DC2-A-2, DC2-B, DC2-D-1)
Page 7 of 33
3. Site Features and Existing Tree Canopy: Affirming the public comment, the Board
requested more information about the status of the trees, including snags, and the urban forest
corridor. The Board stated that although replacement trees will never be the same, generous
planting could still be provided. Reviewing the proposed planting, the Board was concerned
with the equally spaced columnar row of trees and recommended differing scales of trees.
For the next meeting, the Board requested more details about the landscape plan, including
information on efforts to incorporate the existing tree canopy. (CS1-B-3, CS1-D, CS2-B,
CS2-D-2, DC3-C, DC4-D)
4. Trash, Vehicular Access and Loading Location: The Board recognized the diverse public
opinions regarding the parking, garage and loading access locations. The Board agreed that
splitting up the loading and parking access appears logical but requested more information
before indicating their preference. For the proposed trash and loading area along Madison,
the Board implied that the designing pedestrian character of the street is critical to address
the priority of the pedestrian realm. (CS2-B-2, PL1, DC1-B-1, DC1-C, DC4)
5. Materials: The Board strongly supported the quality of materials presented at this early
phase. (CS3-A-1, DC2, DC4-A-1.)
SECOND EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE October 26, 2016

PUBLIC COMMENT
• Concerned with the height calculation methodology.
• Lack of support for the project; at the first EDG, the Board made a number of
recommendations regarding the proposed building, none of which are adequately
addressed.
• The proposal is inconsistent with guideline CS2.D1. A mature, urban canopy, continuous
with the Arboretum, would be removed and replaced with small, dwarf ornamental trees
which at maturity will not equal the present canopy.
• Medium and large trees and a diverse understory are not viable with 5’, 10’, or 15’
setbacks. A green wall on the garage is a decoration distracting from the significant loss
of urban ecological services.
• Preference for a 30’ setback to accommodate large, native trees and plantings, a rich
understory and diverse ecological habitat that would screen the neighborhood from the
structure throughout the year.
• Lack of support for the 320’ long eastern façade; it is a 74’ wall, situated in a 40’ zone,
and abutting 25’ homes. The Board expressed concerns about the northeast corner of the
building at the first EDG, and it remains grossly out of scale with the context and
insensitive to the topography; inconsistent with Guideline CS2.D3.
• The applicant’s renderings are drawn with a profusion of trees which could never in
reality grow as proposed.
• The retaining wall height is not clearly stated, but is evidently over 10’ in places. The
sidewalk has no planting strip and the design will create an unfriendly pedestrian
experience, inconsistent with Guidelines PL2 and PL3.
• The eastern and southern facades, rather than being a “lush layered landscaping
greenbelt,” instead are blank walls and are inconsistent with guideline DC2.B2
• The two story above grade garage is inconsistent with guidelines DC1.C1, DC1.C2, and
DC4.C2. Would like to see a significantly smaller garage, entirely below ground.
Page 8 of 33
• There is no community space offered on Madison as was requested by the Board;

inconsistent with guideline PL1.C2.
• Concerned with the errors and omissions in the applicant’s traffic report.
• Would like to see a design option that reduces the size of the garage and lessens the
traffic impact for the entire area.
• Concerned with signage and lighting impacts and potential noise from rooftop ac units.
• Would like to see low income housing proposed.
• Would like to see sustainable systems incorporated such as rain water collection, PV
panels, insulated to “passive house” standards, street level covered bicycle parking, and
no off-gassing materials.
• Would like to see a reduced building footprint.
• Support for the project, noted that additional height is being contemplated for the area
related to HALA. Project will be a legacy to Madison park community.
• Would like to see onsite plants and habit incorporated.
• Concerned that the drawing provided by the developer is inaccurate in that it includes
trees that do not exist in the neighboring yards and landscape at what appears to be full
maturity.
• Concerned with the height bulk and scale of the massing facing the residential context.
Would like to see the Board accept a better design, as opposed to the code compliant
version which is inconsistent with CS2-A1, CS2, CS2.
• Support for project; the architect has worked very hard to listen to what the community
wants and put forth a lot of effort. The proposal could become an asset.
• Lighting, night glare and light pollution will be a significant problem with the building
perched atop the slope above single-family residences, and remains unaddressed in this
design, DC4.C2.
• Concerned that the proposed development does not fit with the nature of the
neighborhood. The context of the neighborhood is gardens and the proposed scale is
incompatible.
• Concerned with the height, bulk and scale of the frontage along Dewey.
• Appreciated the added buffer and the pedestrian experience and attention that is being
paid on Madison.
• Concerned with traffic and parking entry impacts.
• Support for the split parking garage entrance
SDCI staff summarized design related comments received prior to the EDG meeting:
• Concerned with storm water flooding impacts.
• Supported the northeast corner of the proposed building. The choice of natural materials
for this portion of the façade integrates the building with the landscape plantings and
urban forest to the east.
• Supported tree removal; any departures granted to preserve the trees and maintain the
allowed FAR would significantly increase the building's scale, bulk and mass.
• Supported the greater variety of larger trees and overall lusher landscaping which has
improved the design.
• Supported the improvements the development will make to both the front and back of the
building; the project will widen sidewalks and improve pedestrian safety by creating
quality places for people to walk.
• Supported the outdoor seating at street level and the recessed alcove for market entry.
Page 9 of 33
• Not convinced there is a need of a 50’ curb cut on Madison, and would like to see a
scaled drawing included as 50’ seems excessive.
• Concerned with the Dewey side retaining wall as it will be taller than pedestrians, the
green wall (if it is successful) may take a decade to fill in, and the setbacks are inadequate
to grow trees to their full size. The result is that the eastern façade, and the southern
façade will remain blank walls DC2.B2.
• Increasing part of the setback on Dewey Place by 5 feet is not a suitable response to
previous Board direction.
• The northeast corner of the building will tower over the context and create an oppressive
and overwhelming pedestrian experience.
• The combination of the height, bulk and scale of this building with apartments staring
down into the back yards of the neighboring single-family residences does not respect the
privacy and outdoor activities of the neighbors; CS2.D5.
• The code-compliant option retaining some trees is presented with many negative
attributes and without adequate justification for them.
• The proposed 4-6 ft max height stepped wall along Dewey will not make for a pleasant
pedestrian experience, as the green space will be too separated from the sidewalk.
• Would like to see the Board insist that the building be reduced in size and height along
Dewey.
• Concerned with accommodating bike passing along Madison Street.
• Would like to see public space incorporated outside, on top of the new building,
potentially as part of PCC's eating area.
• Would like to see one of the future tenants be a nursery.
• Supported the much improved pedestrian experience along Madison. It will be great to
have wider sidewalks and new landscaping.
• Concerned with the plan’s ivy covered wall, as it is still a monotonous wall and requires
high maintenance, DC2-B.
• Would like to see more space or setback at the ground level along Madison as it is a very
narrow arterial street.
• Would like to see a little park or trail along Dewey that could lead up to the building,
which may make for a better transition and also offer pedestrian access.
• Concerned with solar access. The design does not respect adjacent sites in that it towers
over them, completely blocking all afternoon light from the entire neighborhood to the
east. It will block the sun from much of the street for most of the year. CS1B, CS2-D.
• No alternative to an above ground parking garage on Dewey has been offered. Rather
than moving the garage underground, it remains exposed to the public on the eastern side
of the site.
• Would like to see a structure that had apartments facing south starting at the level of
Dewey with parking underneath and behind these residences. And only two stories of
residences above the PCC.
• Would like to see parking eliminated in excess of required capacity, and reduced parking
requirements to half in recognition of emerging patterns of urban mobility.
• Lack of support for the departure; the PCC retail garage entrance on Madison, it is not
consistent with “pedestrian friendly” zoning of the lot.
SDCI staff also summarized the following design related comments received prior to the Second
EDG meeting in the memo to the Board:
Page 10 of 33
• Would like to see nice-sized balconies; that would probably help the appearance.
• Supported the scale of proposal; it is in scale with other development on Madison, would
like to see higher density of housing along arterials.
• Supported a version of the plan that allows for a larger open area facing Madison so that
it is more street friendly and less of a canyon.
• Supported many street trees on all sides, as well as landscaping on the roof. Keeping
streets green is very important in maintaining the character of the neighborhood, and this
design achieves that goal.

1. Response to EDG: The Board recognized the applicant’s effort to date and supported the
changes including the additional setbacks provided. However, the Board agreed with the
public’s concern that the height, bulk and scale of the Dewey frontage was not yet resolved
and that the massing needed to transition further to respond to the single family zone. The
Board heard public comment regarding the Madison frontage and continued to support the
frontage along Madison and noted that it appears to be an appropriate scale. The Board
directed the applicant to return with a modified massing option based on the guidance
provided for the Dewey frontage. (CS1-C, CS1-D, CS2-A, CS2-B, CS2-D, DC2-A, DC3-C-
3)
2. Dewey Frontage: Height, Bulk, Scale and Response to Context: Echoing public
comment, the Board was concerned with the extent of blank wall shown and the potential for
light and glare impacts to surrounding residential properties. The Board agreed that the
frontage and scale relationship at this location is critical to address before moving forward.
a. The Board discussed if the elevated parking provides the best frontage condition on
Dewey and recommended studying the arrangement of uses and the location of
parking to provide a residential transition to the single family zoning and better
respond to the existing topography. (CS1-C, CS2-A, CS2-D, CS3-A-1, DC1, DC2-A-
2)
b. Concerned with the visibility of the exposed wall and frontage, the Board agreed with
public comment that additional massing transition, setback and landscape should be
incorporated to develop a sensitive solution, which better relates to the surrounding
residential context. (CS1-C, CS2-A, CS2-B, CS3-A-1, DC2-B, DC3-C-3)
c. Affirming the public comment regarding the pedestrian experience along Dewey, the
Board was also concerned with the height of the retaining wall proposed adjacent to
the sidewalk and recommended additional setbacks and planted landscape to improve
the public realm. (CS2-A, CS2-B, CS3-A-1, PL1-B-3, DC4-D-4)
3. Setbacks, Site Features and Existing Tree Canopy: While reviewing the existing
vegetation and proposed replacement planting, the Board acknowledged the public’s concern
with tree canopy loss, green wall maintenance, and that fact that the proposed planting will
take years to mature. The Board agreed that the setback depth, amount of landscape buffer,
and green wall maintenance is important to address. For the next meeting, the Board
recommended studying the depth of the setback and seriously examining the potential to save
some of the existing trees. (CS1-D-1, CS2-B, CS2-D-2, DC3-C, DC4-D)
Page 11 of 33
4. Trash, Vehicular Access and Loading Location: The Board acknowledged splitting the
loading and parking access point into two locations appears logical, but agreed more
information was needed before indicating their preference on the related departures. Related
to developing a sensitive solution to the Dewey frontage, the Board requested studying
alternates, such as one vehicular access point. (CS2-B-2, PL1, DC1, DC4)
5. Madison Streetscape and Gathering Space: The Board agreed with public sentiment and
continued to support the addition of a community space along the street, beyond an enlarged
entry sequence, and also encouraged studying the widening of the sidewalk along Madison to
provide adequate space for pedestrian to engage and interact with the streetscape. (CS2-B-2,
PL1, PL3-C, DC3)
6. Materials: The Board continued to strongly support the quality of materials presented. (CS3-
A-1, DC2, DC4-A-1.)
THIRD EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE January 25, 2017
PUBLIC COMMENT
The following public comments were offered at this meeting:

• Noted that progress has been made on the design of this project since the last design
review meeting; the biggest improvement is residential screening of the above grade
parking along Dewey.
• Concerned that the proposed height, bulk, and scale are not sufficiently mitigated to
provide a reasonable transition to the residential block. The proposal does not respond to
design guidelines addressing Context and Site, specifically CS1 Topography, CS2 Urban
Pattern and Form, and CS3 Architectural Context and Character.
• The limited setback at the lowest level, is now less than shown in EDG2 and does not
appear adequate to accommodate the growth and layering of mature trees and diverse
plantings.
• Would like to see more housing, denser landscaping, less cars and a smaller garage. The
lack of depth of the townhouse facades combined with the imposing upper level retail
read as flat vertical plane towering more than 75 feet above the Dewey Place.
• Concerned that the proposed development does not fit in and alters key characteristics of
the neighborhood – green space and trees creating a buffer and ecological connection to
the Arboretum, walkable streets, open light and space, modest scaled buildings with
similar height and bulk.
• Supported the addition of housing on the Dewey frontage. The addition fully conceals the
garage and eliminates the possibility of car noise and fumes and parking garage light.
• The guidelines support the replacement of ecological services. Would like to see a more
appropriate transition between the zones such as a 20-30 ft setback.
• The share of traffic exclusive residential access is minimal. The logic supporting split
access implies that it would reduce congestion by spreading traffic over two driveways,
but the reality is that only residential traffic, a modest amount, would be diverted from a
Madison driveway.
• Preference for a single vehicular entrance on Madison. The garage entrance on Dewey
will do little to help mitigate the traffic issues on Madison, but will dramatically alter the
nature of Dewey and the surrounding streets.
Page 12 of 33
• Noted that Dewey remains a narrow (18 feet wide), sub-standard two-way street.
• Would like to see the vehicular access departure approval conditioned to include an
onsite turnaround to avoid truck backups on Madison.
• Noted that a nearby comparable size grocery store is not moving forward in the design
review process as it is too large, would like to see the program of this project reduced
before it is moved forward.
• Would like to see greater setbacks on the east facade of the building to mirror the steep
slope that exists on the site today.
• The upper level setbacks are inadequate so that the net result is a large, looming building
that towers over the narrow, largely pedestrian street of Dewey.
• Supported separating the commercial parking access from the residential parking access.
• Would like to see the building footprint reduced, which can be achieved by reconfiguring
the parking and retail space.
• Support for design changes along Dewey Pl E. The proposed townhouses are a much
better transition to the surrounding neighborhood and are more attractive.
• The Board asked for more information related to trees and the information provided is not
sufficient; would like to see the mature urban tree canopy corridor maintained.
• This proposal eliminates significant trees and green landscape, and does not provide
adequate replacement to ecologically sustain the environment.
• The planting area in front of the townhomes is minimal, and the setbacks are too small to
grow full-sized trees to maturity and won’t be adequate to recreate the urban green space
that has provided ecological services to the area and served as a buffer.
• Lack of support for the townhouses, the usefulness of this setback to ecological function
is eliminated by the townhomes tacked onto the building’s backside.
• Concerned with traffic and parking entry impacts.
• At minimum, the developer should be required to contribute toward road and sidewalk
improvements, as well as traffic calming measures, along the site's adjacent residential
streets.
• Lack of support for the parking entrance on Dewey as it exposes 2 stories of parking
garage to the residential zone.
• Supported the proposed 11-foot setback to accommodate townhomes and the lowered
retaining wall to create people-scale views back and forth between the homes and
passers-by.
• Concerned that the proposal will reduce the amount of green space in the neighborhood.
• Lack of support for the vehicular garage entry on Dewey. It is a narrow alley widely used
as a walkway; having a garage will devastating.
• Concerned with the blank wall appearance of the south side of the building.
SDCI staff also summarized design related comments received in writing prior to the meeting:
• Noted that some object to the removal of large trees on the existing property, but the
hillside is in a liquefaction zone and has been poorly maintained.
• Preference for split vehicular access.
• Supported the garage access point on Madison which includes decorative screening,
improving the appearance of the entryway.
• Would like to see a gathering space for the general community on Madison.
• Supported the enlarged the pedestrian and sidewalk spaces along Madison.
Page 13 of 33
• Would like to see a diagram of the widened curb cut along Madison in full use.
Concerned that two-way vehicle traffic combined with truck loading/unloading is going
to create a dangerous pedestrian environment.
• Would like to see that vehicles will be able to enter and exit the commercial parking level
concurrently to avoid a significant back up along Madison.
• Concerned with “screened retail access” indicated page 31. Renderings should be true to
the predominant condition.
• Would like to see the façade above the townhomes at the PCC ground level be more
uniform in color to contrast with the townhouses below.
• The color and material transitions should relate to massing changes; at the moment they
don’t relate to form at all. It would be much nicer to carry the dark wood-like material
shown on either end of the façade across the elevation to connect them, providing a
uniform back drop to the townhouse façade.
• Supported how the wood terminates at the PCC window sills as indicated.
• Concerned with lighting glare impacts from the supermarket.
1. Response to EDG: The Board acknowledged the public comments concerned with the
height bulk and scale of the proposal, however, they concluded that the massing development
is responsive to previous guidance and that the design, overall, is on the right track. The
Board strongly supported the rearrangement of uses, specifically the addition of townhouse
units along the Dewey frontage as the use better reflects the residential character of the
neighborhood, provides an intentional transition to the surrounding single family zoning and
better responds to the existing topography. The Board directed the applicant to proceed with
the developed Massing Option 3. (CS1-C, CS2-A, CS2-D, CS3-A-1, DC1, DC2-A-2)
2. Dewey Frontage: Height, Bulk, Scale and Response to Context: Although the Board
supported the addition of townhouses along the Dewey frontage, the Board agreed with
public comment that the townhouses appeared shallow and that the north and south portions
of the façade have yet to be resolved. The Board gave the following guidance on the
proposal’s edges and transitions:
a. For the townhouse frontage, the Board recommended exploring the height and depth
of the modulation to read as a simplified and cohesive expression. In addition to
refining the plane changes at the townhouses, the majority of the Board recommended
further articulating the relationship between townhouse and retail above, potentially
with additional upper level setbacks. (CS2-A, CS2-D, CS3-A-1, DC2-A-2)
b. The Board noted that the north and south ends of the frontage appeared very flat and
requested continued massing development in order to develop a sensitive transition
along the entire frontage. (CS2-A, CS2-D, CS3-A-1, DC2-A-2)
c. The Board was supportive of the thoughtful approach to the streetscape treatment and
agreed the various elements, including terraced retaining walls, railing design and
layered planting, reflect a residential character. (CS2-B-2, CS3-A-1, PL1)
Page 14 of 33
3. South Frontage: Echoing public comment, the Board expressed concern about providing a
sensitive transition to the adjacent residential properties to the south. The Board
recommended further articulating the lower portion of the facade and adding clerestory
windows to be cohesive with the rest of the architectural cladding concept. (CS1-C, CS2-D,
CS3-A-1, DC2-A-2, DC2-B)
4. Vehicular Access: The Board agreed with public comment that the code compliant
alternative showing vehicular access solely off Dewey was the least preferred of the
alternatives shown as it creates visual impacts and pedestrian circulation conflicts. The
Board discussed the two other options, split access and all access off Madison. Ultimately the
Board agreed that they would like additional information, graphics, and input from the
technical experts including the City, before indicating their preference on vehicular access
location and the related departures. (PL1, DC1-B-1, DC1-C)
5. Trees and Canopy: The Board acknowledged the public’s concern for the loss of the
significant mature planting, however, the Board deferred to the arborist study as reviewed
and approved by the City and supported the arborist’s findings recommending the removal of
the canopy. Related to the replacement canopy, the Board stated their preference for the
addition of evergreens, to provide year-round landscape buffer. (CS1-D-1, CS2-B, DC3-C,
DC4-D)
6. Madison Streetscape and Gathering Space: The Board discussed the character of the
public community space along Madison. The Board approved of the widening of the
sidewalk along the street as it creates more opportunity for interaction. For the additional
outdoor space adjacent to the grocery entry, the Board recommended the development of a
public space which is true to the nature of the space and agreed the space can either function
as a gathering space or an active sidewalk. In either case, the Board encouraged
incorporating additional seating, space for pause and sightlines for streetscape connection.
(CS2-B-2, PL1, PL3-C, DC3)
7. Materials: The Board continued to approve of the quality of materials presented, in

particular along Madison. For the Dewey façade, the Board agreed with public comment that
that colors are playing a larger role than needed in differentiating portions of the facade and
recommended simplifying and resolving the material treatment into a cohesive language.
The Board also encouraged the introduction of masonry along the Dewey façade to
incorporate residential character and relate to the other main frontage. (CS3-A-1, DC2, DC4-
A-1.)
RECOMMENDATION September 13, 2017
PUBLIC COMMENT

• Lack of support for the project, the proposal fails to respond appropriately to the context
and site. (CS1-C CS2-B)
• Concerned that the project’s height bulk and scale has not been reduced since EDG2.
(CS2-B.1, CS2-C.2, CS2-D.1 and CS2-D.4)
Page 15 of 33
• Concerned that the project would be devastating environmentally because it would be not
keep environmental impacts to a minimum, keep the removal of trees and vegetation to a
minimum, or keep grading activities and impervious surfaces to a minimum. (CS1-D1
and D2)
• Concerned that the project eradicates the site topography, rather than respecting the
topography or using site features to inform the design. (CS1-C.2)
• Lack of support for the proposed landscaping; an entire greenbelt, that includes an
Exceptional tree and Exceptional grove will be removed. Would like to see an adequate
replacement including evergreen trees along with layering and an understory. (CS1.D1)
• Concerned with the Dewey vehicular entrance. Dewey is a narrow street that many
people walk down the center of on their way to the p-patch or to Madison and the stairs
up to the Arboretum.
• Felt that the proposal overpowers the site. Concerned that the project’s height, bulk and
scale are far too massive for this site and are larger than at EDG 1. (CS2-B.1, CS2-C.2,
CS2-D.1 and CS2-D.4)
• Concerned with the NE corner as it is still flat, tall, and set back minimally. Would like
to see additional setbacks incorporated to respond to site topography and transition to the
single family zone.
• Concerned with the proposed tree removal within the greenbelt, which supports rare
wildlife.
• Concerned that the proposal does not fit in with the scale of the neighborhood or provide
an adequate response to the Seattle Design Guidelines.
• Concerned with the effect the newly constructed project will have on the community.
• Would like to see a transition from the old to the new incorporated.
• Concerned that the proposal has become a larger building with reduced setbacks.
• Concerned with the lack of transition where the site abuts single family homes. Noted
that the project site is adjacent to less intensive zones on three sides, and it is inconsistent
with all five of the design guidelines that address the height, bulk, and scale of zone
transitions. (CS2.D.1-5)
• Concerned that the design of the building does not take in account the existing slope and
would significantly decrease the daylight for the surrounding neighborhood.
• Stressed that the upper level setbacks are inadequate so the result is a large, looming
building that towers over the narrow, largely pedestrian street of Dewey.
• Would like to see current building reduced, especially along the east facade.
• Concerned with the large windows of the retail space, which has privacy impacts for the
surrounding single family houses.
• Lack of support for access off Dewey; would like to see the sidewalks remain safe.
• Lack of support for the project; it will completely enclose the surrounding single family
area.
• Concerned with the removal of trees.
• The building height and the removal of the tree buffer zone are inconsistent with the
requirement for a transition between more and less intense zones in Design Guidelines
CS2-D.3 and CS2-D.4.
• Would like to see the existing trees incorporated into the design.
• Concerned with stormwater and that the proposal will significantly impact site drainage.
• Appreciated the work that the architect has done; this project should go forward.
Page 16 of 33
• Would like to see the project incorporate more biking parking/facilities and the vehicular
parking reduced.
• Support for the project; noted that the project site is on a major transportation route.
• Lack of support for the removal of the existing significant trees, as it is inconsistent with
the Design Guidelines.
• Concerned that the site topography, building height and the removal of the tree buffer
zone provides no transition to single-family homes. (CS2-D)
• Concerned with the traffic that will come with this project, adding to an already
congested Madison St.
• Concerned that the proposed building will shade the Mad-P community garden.
• Lack of support for the townhouse units and entrances on Dewey.
• Preference for a 25’-30’ setback along Dewey.
• Concerned with the removal of trees and healthy urban forest habitat;
• Concerned that the proposal will significantly decrease the amount of permeable surface
on the site and will maximize the hardscape surfaces.
• Would like to see the buffer between the proposed development and the single family
homes increased to afford and increased area for trees.
• Concerned that the planting area in front of the townhomes is minimal and won’t be
adequate to recreate the urban green space that has provided ecological services to the
area and served as a buffer. Exceptional trees are being removed, and the replacement
plantings are not comparable.
• Would like to see the existing tree canopy retained or replaced 1 for 1 to provide
adequate buffers.
• Supported the proposed landscape; the architect’s landscape plan is generous, in contrast
to other new developments of similar size.
• Noted that the builder should take serious precautions to prevent migratory birds from
colliding with this building. Would like to see bird-friendly lighting and glass.
• Lack of support for vehicular access on Dewey; dual access solves the applicant’s
internal problem of how to have an oversized supermarket and 82 residences on the same
site but does nothing to alleviate the problem on Madison and the surrounding streets.
• Concerned with a vehicular entrance on Dewey as it threatens pedestrians’ safety and is
inconsistent with guidelines CS2D5 and CS2B2.
• Supported the split vehicular entries, having residents enter and exit on Dewey this will
ease congestion on Madison St during rush hour, which is a concern for those who use
the Madison street arterial. Would like to see dumpsters located on the Dewey side of the
parking garage.
• Would like to see the project consider widening Dewey.
• Supported vehicular access exclusively from Madison.
• Concerned with pedestrian safety and the garage entrance on Madison.
• Supported the pedestrian stair. Lighting on such a stair is important, and will be difficult
to get right. Public safety must be balanced against the additional light shining into the
neighborhood nearby.
• Lack of support for the staircase to Madison as it would disrupt the quiet, residential
community.
Page 17 of 33
• Lack of support for back-lit signage or obtrusive lighting; would like to see signage and
lighting that is tasteful.
• Concerned with the potential for light pollution from ambient and security flood lights
around the building and on the terraces, as well as the headlights from traffic entering and
exiting the garage.
• Lack of support for bold accent colors on the exterior of the building.
• Support for the project and the changes that have been made.
• Concerned with the removal of tree and vegetation and the effect that has on site drainage
and safety and quality of life of people who live and work in this neighborhood.
• Lack of support for the massing, lack of open space and lack of consideration of light and
shadow effects.
• Would like to see the building shortened by one story to bring it more in line with every
other building on Madison and dramatically reduce the visual and visceral impact on its
southern neighbors.
• Preference for increasing the setback on Madison Street to promote a walking friendly
atmosphere.
• Encouraged multiple business spaces.
• Preference for a proposal that incorporates City People’s into its design.
• Supportive of the size of the project, which will house many people and improve
walkability and livability of the region but would like to see vehicle parking reduced and
bicycle parking increased.
• Reduction of parking can contribute to a reduction in the bulk and scale of the building as
well as reduce the development’s effect on mobility and safe pedestrian passage on East
Madison Street and in the adjacent neighborhood.
• Concerned that where the site abuts single family homes, the setback has gone from 15
feet in EDG -2 to 10 feet in the current proposal. The row of trees and what appears to be
a very tall fence it is not a very sensitive transition. (CS2-D3, CS2-D4, CS2-D5, PL3-B1)
• Concerned that the net gain in setbacks on Dewey are misleading. It is mentioned that
they have increased the setback from 6,200 sf to 6,800 sf. That increased amount
includes the townhouses which are part of the building. (CS2-D3, CS2-D4, CS2-D5,
PL3-B1)
• Concerned that the proposed landscaping is lacking. The choice of trees on Dewey are
slow growing and unless they are well maintained and pruned regularly, they are more
bush-like and will only grow to about 15 feet. (CS1-D1, CS1-D2, CS2-B3, DC2-C3B,
DC3-C3)
• Would like to see the neighborhood amenities of high value recognized and supported.
These include the Dewey Basin walking route and the Mad P p-patch community garden.
• Concerned with pedestrian safety; It is potentially hazardous to have delivery trucks
backing out onto a busy major traffic corridor.
• Concerned with the additional setbacks provided; at the last EDG meeting the Board
asked for additional setbacks on Dewey. Eighteen inches was added above the
commercial level, which is at approximately 30 feet high will be visually lost to anyone
standing on Dewey.
• Concerned with the development of public space on Madison, which appears to be an
extension of the supermarket. (CS2.B2)
• Concerned with who will be responsible for ensuring that the staircase/hill-climb assist
remains properly lit and maintained.
Page 18 of 33
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
building height calculations are addressed under the City’s zoning code and are not part of this
review.
following recommendations.
1. Response to EDG, Dewey Frontage: The Board acknowledged the public’s concern with
the height bulk and scale of the proposal and recognized the site and change of topography as
challenging. However, the Board concluded the applicant has done a thoughtful job of
modifying the proposal to respond to the context and previous guidance. The Board
supported the overall design advancement and recommended changes to the upper setbacks
along the Dewey frontage to better differentiate the lower and upper massing.
a. The Board noted that the setback had decreased with the addition of townhouse units
along the Dewey frontage, as shown at the previous Early Design Guidance meeting.
The Board continued to support the arrangement and massing of the townhouse units,
as opposed to a visible parking garage and larger setback, since the design better
reflects and responds the residential character of the neighborhood. (CS1-C, CS2-A,
CS2-B, CS2-D, CS3-A-1, DC1, DC2-A-2)
b. The Board strongly supported the development of the townhouse frontage, in
particular the simplification of the townhouse massing and the use of masonry and
quality materials. (DC2, DC4-A)
c. Although the Board supported the refined townhouse frontage, the Board agreed that
the upper level setback at the retail clearstory was not yet adequate and had too many
surface treatments. In order to unify the two surface colors and setbacks into one, the
Board recommended a condition to increase the setback at the retail clearstory and
residential above by 2’ to match the deepest retail clearstory setback and to limit the
variation of color to massing shifts. (CS2-A, CS2-B, CS2-D, CS3-A-1, DC2-A-2)
d. For the south frontage, the Board approved of the proposed design which included a
landscape buffer and wooden fence. (CS2-B, DC2, DC4-A)
e. Related to Madison, the Board agreed the proposal is appropriately scaled and
supported the massing and use of quality materials. (CS2-B, CS2-D, DC2, DC4-A)
2. Trees and Replacement Canopy: The Board discussed the removal of trees and recognized
the public’s concern for the loss of the significant mature planting, however, the Board
continued to support a replacement landscape buffer. For the buffer, the Board approved of
the proposed design which showed evergreen trees and planting designed to provide year-
round buffer. (CS1-D-1, CS2-B, DC3-C, DC4-D)
Page 19 of 33
3. Madison Streetscape: The Board supported the developed streetscape design which
included two retail spill-out spaces, additional seating and bike packing. In order to avoid
conflicts with pedestrian circulation, the Board recommended a condition to relocate the bike
parking between trees to another more suitable location along Madison that does not impede
pedestrian circulation. The Board also encouraged additional bike parking be provided along
Madison, but declined to recommend a condition for this item. (CS2-B-2, PL1, PL3-C,
DC3).
4. Hillclimb and Northeast Corner: The Board supported the preliminary hill-climb design
and the adjacent retail frontage including the retail storefront windows at the corner. Related
to the storefront windows, the Board agreed the amount windows could be reduced facing
Dewey but declined to recommend a condition for this item. The Board also noted the public
comment related to privacy and upper windows. While the Board recognized impacts such as
reduced light, privacy and view are difficult, the Board agreed the design adequately
responds to the context and declined to recommend a condition. (CS2-B, DC2, DC4-A,
DC3).
5. Materials and Detailing: The Board commended the proposed quality materials, in
particular the masonry along the Madison and Dewey façades. The Board noted that the
decision to use brick on the upper stories is not common in many current projects and agreed
the proposed application, quality and detailing of materials strengthen the design. (DC2,
DC4-A)
6. Vehicular Access and Related Departures: The Board discussed the departure related to
vehicular access and gave the following guidance:
a. The Board noted that SDOT and SDCI support the dual access proposal for both
safety and traffic operation reasons and unanimously recommended approval of the
departure for two points of access as it provides a better pedestrian experience and
has the potential to reduce pedestrian circulation conflicts than the code compliant
alternative with all vehicular access off Dewey or the other alternate showing all
access from Madison St. (DC1-B-1, DC1-C).
b. The Board agreed with public comment that Dewey is a narrow street and would not
have adequate room for trash staging. In order to develop a sensitive solution, the
Board recommended a condition to ensure there is no trash pickup staging along
Dewey. (DC1-B-1, DC1-C).
c. Related to the Madison curb cut departure, the Board discussed the two proposed
doors and whether reducing the openings into one larger door would provide a better
frontage. Ultimately, the Board agreed with the rationale that having two separate
doors for loading and garage access allows the loading door to be closed when not in
use. The Board unanimously recommended approval of the related departure,
provided the width is decreased to the minimum necessary as the resulting design
reduces the conflict with the curb and landscaping and the pedestrian safety is upheld
with the tactile paving strips, mirror and sensory alert systems. (DC1-C)
Page 20 of 33
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD DEPARTURES
The Board’s recommendation on the requested departure(s) will be 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 departure(s).
At the time of the Recommendation Meeting the following departures were requested.
1. Vehicular Access (SMC 23.47A.032.A.21): The Code requires vehicular access from
Dewey Pl E. The applicant prefers two points of access from both E Madison St, a pedestrian
street, and Dewey Pl E, but has also shown an option showing all access from Madison St.
The Board unanimously recommended approval of the departure for two points of access as
it provides a better pedestrian experience and has the potential to reduce pedestrian
circulation conflicts than the code compliant alternative with all vehicular access off Dewey
or the other alternate showing all access from Madison St. The Board agreed the resulting
design better meets Design Guidelines DC1-B-1 Access Location and Design and DC1-C
Parking and Service Uses.
2. Curb Cut Width (SMC 23.54.030F.2.b.2): The Code allows a maximum 30’ curb cut. The
applicant proposes a 40’ curb cut width off of E Madison St.
The Board unanimously recommended approval of the departure, provided the width is
decreased to the minimum necessary. The resulting design likely reduces the conflict with
the curb and landscaping and pedestrian safety is upheld with tactile paving strips, mirror and
sensory alert systems. The Board agreed the design better meets Design Guideline DC1-C
Parking and Service Uses, subject to the condition listed at the end of this report.
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-3. Managing Solar Gain: Manage direct sunlight falling on south and west
facing facades through shading devices and existing or newly planted trees.
CS1-C Topography
CS1-C-1. Land Form: Use natural topography and desirable landforms to inform project
design.
CS1-C-2. Elevation Changes: Use the existing site topography when locating structures
and open spaces on the site.
CS1-D Plants and Habitat
CS1-D-1. On-Site Features: Incorporate on-site natural habitats and landscape elements
into project design and connect those features to existing networks of open spaces and
Page 21 of 33
natural habitats wherever possible. Consider relocating significant trees and vegetation if
retention is not feasible.
CS1-D-2. Off-Site Features: Provide opportunities through design to connect to off-site
habitats such as riparian corridors or existing urban forest corridors. Promote continuous
habitat, where possible, and increase interconnected corridors of urban forest and habitat
where possible.
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-A Location in the City and Neighborhood
CS2-A-1. Sense of Place: Emphasize attributes that give a distinctive sense of place.
Design the building and open spaces to enhance areas where a strong identity already
exists, and create a sense of place where the physical context is less established.
CS2-A-2. Architectural Presence: Evaluate the degree of visibility or architectural
presence that is appropriate or desired given the context, and design accordingly.
CS2-B Adjacent Sites, Streets, and Open Spaces
CS2-B-1. Site Characteristics: Allow characteristics of sites to inform the design,
especially where the street grid and topography create unusually shaped lots that can add
distinction to the building massing.
CS2-B-2. Connection to the Street: Identify opportunities for the project to make a
strong connection to the street and public realm.
CS2-B-3. Character of Open Space: Contribute to the character and proportion of
surrounding open spaces.
CS2-C Relationship to the Block
CS2-C-1. Corner Sites: Corner sites can serve as gateways or focal points; both require
careful detailing at the first three floors due to their high visibility from two or more
streets and long distances.
CS2-D Height, Bulk, and Scale
CS2-D-1. Existing Development and Zoning: Review the height, bulk, and scale of
neighboring buildings as well as the scale of development anticipated by zoning for the
area to determine an appropriate complement and/or transition.
CS2-D-2. Existing Site Features: Use changes in topography, site shape, and vegetation
or structures to help make a successful fit with adjacent properties.
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.
CS2-D-5. Respect for Adjacent Sites: Respect adjacent properties with design and site
planning to minimize disrupting the privacy of residents in adjacent buildings.
CS3 Architectural Context and Character: Contribute to the architectural character of the
neighborhood.
CS3-A Emphasizing Positive Neighborhood Attributes
CS3-A-1. Fitting Old and New Together: Create compatibility between new projects,
and existing architectural context, including historic and modern designs, through
building articulation, scale and proportion, roof forms, detailing, fenestration, and/or the
use of complementary materials.
Page 22 of 33
PUBLIC LIFE
PL1 Connectivity: Complement and contribute to the network of open spaces around the
site and the connections among them.
PL1-A Network of Open Spaces
PL1-A-1. Enhancing Open Space: Design the building and open spaces to positively
contribute to a broader network of open spaces throughout the neighborhood.
PL1-A-2. Adding to Public Life: Seek opportunities to foster human interaction through
an increase in the size and quality of project-related open space available for public life.
PL1-B Walkways and Connections
PL1-B-3. Pedestrian Amenities: Opportunities for creating lively, pedestrian oriented
open spaces to enliven the area and attract interest and interaction with the site and
building should be considered.
PL1-C Outdoor Uses and Activities
PL1-C-1. Selecting Activity Areas: Concentrate activity areas in places with sunny
exposure, views across spaces, and in direct line with pedestrian routes.
PL1-C-2. Informal Community Uses: In addition to places for walking and sitting,
consider including space for informal community use such as performances, farmer’s
markets, kiosks and community bulletin boards, cafes, or street vending.
PL1-C-3. Year-Round Activity: Where possible, include features in open spaces for
activities beyond daylight hours and throughout the seasons of the year, especially in
neighborhood centers where active open space will contribute vibrancy, economic health,
and public safety.
PL3 Street-Level Interaction: Encourage human interaction and activity at the street-level
with clear connections to building entries and edges.
PL3-C Retail Edges
PL3-C-1. Porous Edge: Engage passersby with opportunities to interact visually with
the building interior using glazing and transparency. Create multiple entries where
possible and make a physical and visual connection between people on the sidewalk and
retail activities in the building.
PL3-C-3. Ancillary Activities: Allow space for activities such as sidewalk vending,
seating, and restaurant dining to occur. Consider setting structures back from the street or
incorporating space in the project design into which retail uses can extend.
PL4 Active Transportation: Incorporate design features that facilitate active forms of
transportation such as walking, bicycling, and use of transit.
PL4-C Planning Ahead For Transit
PL4-C-1. Influence on Project Design: Identify how a transit stop (planned or built)
adjacent to or near the site may influence project design, provide opportunities for
placemaking.
DESIGN CONCEPT
DC1 Project Uses and Activities: Optimize the arrangement of uses and activities on site.
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
Page 23 of 33
DC1-C-1. Below-Grade Parking: Locate parking below grade wherever possible.

Where a surface parking lot is the only alternative, locate the parking in rear or side
yards, or on lower or less visible portions of the site.
DC1-C-2. Visual Impacts: Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots, parking structures,
entrances, and related signs and equipment as much as possible.
DC1-C-4. Service Uses: Locate and design service entries, loading docks, and trash
receptacles away from pedestrian areas or to a less visible portion of the site to reduce
possible impacts of these facilities on building aesthetics and pedestrian circulation.
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-AMassing
DC2-A-1. Site Characteristics and Uses: Arrange the mass of the building taking into
consideration the characteristics of the site and the proposed uses of the building and its
open space.
DC2-A-2. Reducing Perceived Mass: Use secondary architectural elements to reduce
the perceived mass of larger projects.
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-1. Human Scale: Incorporate architectural features, elements, and details that are
of human scale into the building facades, entries, retaining walls, courtyards, and exterior
spaces in a manner that is consistent with the overall architectural concept
DC3 Open Space Concept: Integrate open space design with the building design so that
they complement each other.
DC3-CDesign
DC3-C-1. Reinforce Existing Open Space: Where a strong open space concept exists in
the neighborhood, reinforce existing character and patterns of street tree planting, buffers
or treatment of topographic changes. Where no strong patterns exist, initiate a strong
open space concept that other projects can build upon in the future.
DC3-C-3. Support Natural Areas: Create an open space design that retains and
enhances onsite natural areas and connects to natural areas that may exist off-site and
may provide habitat for wildlife.
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-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.
Page 24 of 33
DC4-C-2. Avoiding Glare: Design project lighting based upon the uses on and off site,
taking care to provide illumination to serve building needs while avoiding off-site night
glare and light pollution.
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-4. Place Making: Create a landscape design that helps define spaces with
significant elements such as trees.
RECOMMENDATIONS & BOARD DIRECTION
At the conclusion of the RECOMMENDATION meeting, the Board unanimously recommended

approval of the project with conditions.
The recommendation summarized above was based on the design review packet dated
Wednesday, September 13, 2017, and the materials shown and verbally described by the
applicant at the Wednesday, September 13, 2017 Design Recommendation meeting. After
considering the site and context, hearing public comment, reconsidering the previously identified
design priorities and reviewing the materials, the four Design Review Board members
recommended APPROVAL of the subject design and departures with the following conditions:
1. Along the Dewey frontage, increase the setback at the retail clearstory and residential above
by 2’ to match the deepest retail clearstory setback; limit the variation of color to massing
shifts. (CS2-A, CS2-B, CS2-D, CS3-A-1, DC2-A-2)
2. Relocate the bike parking between trees to another more suitable location on Madison that
does not impede pedestrian circulation. (CS2-B-2, PL1, PL3-C, DC3)
3. Ensure there is no trash pickup staging area located along Dewey. (DC1-C)
4. Decrease the 40’ curb cut width off of Madison to the minimum necessary. (DC1-C)
ANALYSIS & DECISION – DESIGN REVIEW
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.
Page 25 of 33
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.
At the conclusion of the Recommendation meeting held on September 13, 2017, the Board
recommended approval of the project with the conditions described in the summary of the
Recommendation meeting above.
Four members of the East 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.F3).
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 Condition:
1. The approved plans show an increased setback of 2’ along the Dewey frontage at the
retail clearstory and residential above to match the deepest retail clearstory setback.
Along with the increased setback, the variation of color has been limited to massing
shifts. The response satisfies the recommended condition #1.
2. Bike parking has been relocated to another more suitable location along Madison that
does not impede pedestrian circulation. The response satisfies the recommended
condition #2.
3. To ensure there is no trash pickup staging area located along Dewey, the trash room
has been relocated as shown in the approved plans. The response satisfies the
recommended condition #3.
4. In order to demonstrate the 40’ curb cut width off of Madison is the minimum
necessary, the applicant provided additional loading analysis, uploaded to the project
file on 4/12/2018. SDCI and SDOT has reviewed the submitted information and
concluded the 40’ width is the minimum necessary to facilitate truck loading. The
response satisfies the recommended condition #4.
The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all construction documents, details, and
specifications are shown and constructed consistent with the approved MUP drawings.
The Director of SDCI has reviewed the decision and recommendations of the Design Review
Board made by the four members present at the decision meeting and finds that they are
consistent with the City of Seattle Design Review Guidelines. The Director is satisfied that all
the recommendations imposed by the Design Review Board have been met.
Page 26 of 33
DIRECTOR’S DECISION
The Director accepts the Design Review Board’s recommendations and CONDITIONALLY
APPROVES the proposed design and the requested departures with the conditions summarized
at the end of this Decision.
II. ANALYSIS – 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 3/6/2017. 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
construction-related noise, air quality, greenhouse gas, construction traffic and parking impacts,
as well as mitigation.
Page 27 of 33
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 and timed 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 7:00 PM on weekdays and 9:00 AM and 7:00 PM on weekends and legal holidays in
Neighborhood Commercial zones.
If extended construction hours are necessary due to emergency reasons or construction in the
right of way, the applicant may seek approval from SDCI through a Noise Variance request. The
applicant’s environmental checklist does not indicate that extended hours are anticipated.
A Construction Management Plan will be required prior to issuance of the first building permit,
including contact information in the event of complaints about construction noise, 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. The limitations stipulated in the Noise Ordinance
and the CMP are sufficient to mitigate noise impacts; therefore no additional SEPA conditioning
is necessary to mitigation noise impacts per SMC 25.05.675.B.
Page 28 of 33
Construction Impacts – Mud and Dust
Approximately 27,000 cubic yards of material will be excavated and removed from the site.
Transported soil is susceptible to being dropped, spilled or leaked onto City streets. The City’s
Traffic Code (SMC 11.74.150 and .160) provides that material hauled in trucks not be spilled
during transport. The City requires that loads be either 1) secured/covered; or 2) a minimum of
six inches of "freeboard" (area from level of material to the top of the truck container). The
regulation is intended to minimize the amount of spilled material and dust from the truck bed en
route to or from a site.
No further conditioning of the impacts associated with these construction impacts of the project
is warranted pursuant to SEPA policies (SMC 25.05.675.B).
Earth
The ECA Ordinance and Director’s Rule (DR) 5-2016 require submission of a soils report to
evaluate the site conditions and provide recommendations for safe construction in landslide
prone areas. Pursuant to this requirement the applicant submitted a geotechnical engineering
study (Geotechnical Master Use Permit Report 2925 East Madison Street Development,
November 17, 2015, GeoEngineers, Inc.). These studies have been reviewed and approved by
SDCI’s geotechnical experts, who will require what is needed for the proposed work to proceed
without undue risk to the property or to adjacent properties. The existing ECA Ordinance and
Grading and Stormwater Codes will sufficiently mitigate adverse impacts to the environmentally
critical areas. No additional conditioning is warranted pursuant to SEPA policies (SMC
25.05.675.D).
Environmental Health
The site contains an existing structure greater than 50 years in age. 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.
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.
Page 29 of 33
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, historic resources, height bulk and scale, parking, traffic, plants and animals warrant further
analysis.
Drainage
The proposal will increase the amount of impermeable surface on the site; stormwater
management infrastructure will manage the potential increased volumes and rates of runoff.
Based on the amount of impervious surface being proposed a comprehensive drainage review is
required in the City of Seattle based on Volume 3 “Flow Control and Water Quality Treatment
Technical Requirements Manual.” Stormwater will be mitigated using a multiple floors of green
roof tops and an infiltrating bioretention facility to release rates based on the requirements. This
review is occurring with the construction permit application. The City’s Stormwater Ordinance
provides authority and regulations intended to mitigate potential drainage impacts; no further
mitigation is warranted pursuant to SMC 25.05.675.C or SMC 25.05.665.
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.
Historic Resources
One existing structure on site is more than 50 years old. This structure was reviewed for
potential to meet historic landmark status. The Department of Neighborhoods reviewed the
proposal for compliance with the Landmarks Preservation requirements of SMC 25.12 and
indicated the 60 year old structure on site is unlikely to qualify for historic landmark status
(Landmarks Preservation Board letters, reference number LPB 499/17). Per the Overview
policies in SMC 25.05.665.D, the existing City Codes and regulations to mitigate impacts to
historic resources are presumed to be sufficient, and no further conditioning is warranted per
SMC 25.05.675.H.
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
Page 30 of 33
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
are adequate and additional mitigation is not warranted under SMC 25.05.675.G.
Parking
The proposed development includes 82 residential units with 140 off-street vehicular parking
spaces, separated into 70 spaces for commercial uses and 70 for residential uses. The traffic and
parking analysis provided by the applicant (Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc., Traffic Impact
Analysis, June 2016); (Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc., Response to Tilghman Comment Memo,
May 26, 2017) (Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc., Traffic Impact Analysis, May 2017) indicates a
peak demand for approximately 52 residential and 60 commercial from the proposed
development. Peak residential demand typically occurs overnight.
Related to the residential parking, a suitable tool to estimate the parking demand for this project
is the King County Right Size Parking Calculator. This method, which estimates parking demand
taking number of units, project location and unit size into account, results in a parking demand
rate of 0.64 vehicles per unit. Using this rate, the project is expected to generate a parking
demand of approximately 52 residential vehicles during peak hours.
The commercial parking demand estimate of 60 is based on information compiled in the Institute
of Transportation Engineers’ Parking Generation manuals. These volumes provide parking rates
based on empirical studies throughout the United States and Canada, categorized by various land
uses.
In summary, it is estimated that there will be a total parking demand for approximately 52
residential and 60 commercial parking spaces from the proposed development during peak hours.
The number of proposed parking spaces accommodates all of the anticipated parking demand,
and no additional mitigation is warranted per SMC 25.05.675.M.
Plants and Animals
Mature vegetation is located on the site, including several trees and 1 tree which satisfies the
Exceptional tree size threshold requirement and 10 large trees which have a continuous canopy.
The location of these trees are described in the approved plan set on sheet AS101. The applicant
submitted arborist reports (Sean Dugan ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #457 ISA Board
Certified Master Arborist #PN-5459B and J.Casey Clapp ISA Certified Arborist #PN-7475A,
July 1, 2016); (Sean Dugan, September 15, 2016) (Sean Dugan and J.Casey Clapp, October 21,
2016) and identified the trees (#1131, Lombardy Poplar, Populus nigra, 37.5" dbh); (#1103, Red
Alder, Alnus rubra, 24.4” dbh); (#1105, Western Redcedar, Thuja plicata, 21.2” dbh); (#1106,
Western Redcedar, Thuja plicata, 12.2” dbh); (#1107, Western Redcedar, Thuja plicata, 14.0”
dbh); (1109, Western Redcedar, Thuja plicata, 12.9” dbh); (#1110, Lombardy Poplar, Populus
Page 31 of 33
nigra, 19.4” dbh); (#1111, Bigleaf Maple, Acer macrophyllum, 16.4” dbh); (#1112, Bigleaf
Maple, Acer macrophyllum, 19.1” dbh); (#1114, Bigleaf Maple, Acer macrophyllum, 17.7”
dbh); and (#1117, Red Alder, Alnus rubra, 13.9” dbh).
A Habitat Assessment (Proposed Development at Madison Valley City People’s Garden Store,
May 23, 2017, by Environmental Science Associates) was also submitted by the applicant.
SDCI’s Arborists reviewed the information on file and determined the trees are authorized for
removal and that the proposal is consistent with the provisions of SMC 25.11.050 and 25.11.080,
which sets forth Exceptional tree determination and protection requirements, as well as SDCI’s
Director’s Rule 16-2008.
The landscape plan proposes new trees that will replace and exceed the canopy of the existing
trees at maturity. No mitigation beyond the Code-required landscaping is warranted under SMC
25.05.675.N.
Transportation
The Traffic Impact Analysis provided by the applicant (Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc., Traffic
Impact Analysis, June 2016); (Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc., Response to Tilghman Comment
Memo, May 26, 2017) (Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc., Traffic Impact Analysis, May 2017)
indicated that the project is expected to generate a net total of 1230 daily vehicle trips, with 244
net new PM peak hour trips and 51 AM peak hour trips.
The additional trips are expected to distribute on various roadways near the project site,
including Madison and Dewey and would have minimal impact on levels of service at nearby
intersections and on the overall transportation system. Given the added impact of loading along
Madison, additional mitigation is warranted per SMC 25.05.675.R and a letter recorded with
King County will be required prior to issuance of a Building Permit, as conditioned below. The
letter shall be signed by the property owner and applicant and shall commit them to provide
flaggers to facilitate reversing down the arterial and backing into the loading dock for the life of
the project. The condition is expected to adequately mitigate the adverse impacts from the
proposed development, consistent with per SMC 25.05.675.R. The SDCI Transportation Planner
reviewed the information and determined that no additional mitigation is warranted per SMC
25.05.675.R
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).
Page 32 of 33
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 – DESIGN REVIEW
For the Life of the Project
1. 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 (Magda Hogness 206 727 8736 and Magda.Hogness@seattle.gov).
CONDITIONS – SEPA
Prior to Issuance of Demolition, Excavation/Shoring, or Construction Permit
2. 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.
Prior to Issuance of a Construction Permit
3. Provide a commitment letter recorded with King County, signed by the property
owner and applicant, stating the property owner and applicant will provide flaggers to
facilitate reversing down the arterial and backing into the loading dock for the life of
the project.
Magda Hogness, Senior Land Use Planner Date: July 23, 2018
Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections
MH:drm
K\Decisions-Signed\3020338-LU.docx
Page 33 of 33
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.
INTERPRETATION OF THE DIRECTOR
PURSUANT TO TITLE 23 OF SEATTLE MUNICIPAL CODE
LAND USE CODE

In the Matter of the Use of the Property at INTERPRETATION
No. 17-004
2925 – E Madison Street
SDCI Project No. 3028345
Related DPD Master Use Permit (MUP)

Project 3020338
Introduction
On behalf of her client Save Madison Valley, attorney Claudia M. Newman has requested
this interpretation relating to Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections (SDCI)
Project 3020338, an application for a Master Use Permit (MUP), including review under
the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and Design Review. As stated in the public
notice for the MUP application, the proposal is to construct a six-story building consisting
of 82 residential units above 26,250 square feet of retail space, located at ground level.
Parking is to be provided for 140 vehicles at and below grade. The existing structure on
the site is to be demolished. The request for interpretation raises the following questions:
1) Whether the project site meets the requirements of Seattle Municipal Code
(SMC) Section 25.09.180.B.21 for relief from prohibition on development in steep
slope critical areas.
2) Whether the proposed development, which includes removal of existing trees

and other vegetation from the site, will comply with SMC Sections 25.09.060.B,
25.09.180.D, and 25.09.320.A.3.b and 25.09.320.A.3.d, which address removal of
vegetation from steep slope critical areas and buffers, and avoidance of adverse
impacts to critical areas and buffers by restricting development to the most
environmentally suitable, naturally stable, and least sensitive portions of a site.
3) For purposes of height measurement under SMC Section 23.86.006.A.2,

whether the average grade level of existing lot grades was properly calculated by
the method of designating rectangular sections of the proposed structure at least 15
feet wide and finding average elevation of the existing lot grades at the midpoints
of the two opposing exterior sides of each designated rectangular section.
1
All references to Seattle Regulations for Environmentally Critical Areas, SMC Chapter 25.09, are to the
version of the regulations last amended by Seattle City Ordinance 124447, effective April 28, 2014. This
version predates the amendments under Seattle City Ordinances 125248 and 125292, effective May 15,
2017.
SDCI Interpretation No. 17-004
Page 2
Findings of Fact
1. According to the Geographic Information Service (GIS) land use maps maintained
by SDCI, most of the subject property is zoned NC2P-40: Neighborhood
Commercial 2, with a Pedestrian designation and a structure height limit of 40 feet.
The property fronts on East Madison Street to the northwest and Dewey Place East
to the east. The southerly 80 feet of the property adjacent to Dewey Place East is
zoned NC2P-30: Neighborhood Commercial 2, with a Pedestrian designation and
a structure height limit of 30 feet. The property is mapped as an Environmentally
Critical Area under SMC Chapter 25.09, Regulations for Environmentally Critical
Areas, due to the presence of steep slope areas of 40 percent average slope or greater
along the eastern third of the site (approximately), and because of liquefaction-
prone soils throughout the site. According to a topographic site survey dated April
17, 2017 and prepared by Brian D. Gillooly, a Professional Land Surveyor, the
property has a total area of about 40,422 square feet.2
2. As depicted on the topographic survey and on plan sheet G002 of the most recent
revised plan set dated April 30, 2018, the property slopes downhill from an
elevation of about 132 feet above sea level at the northwesterly corner of the lot to
about 94 feet at the lowest point along the easterly lot line adjacent to Dewey Place
East. Overall, there currently is about a 20 to 30-foot drop from the level portion
of the site to the Dewey Place East right-of-way. However, the difference in grade
over two-thirds of the site to the west and south of the steep slope area ranges from
about 132 feet to about 124 feet in the southeasterly corner of the site, at the top of
an existing flight of wood steps leading down the slope to Dewey Place. Just north
of this area, the grade ranges from about 128 feet to 132 feet over the remainder of
the site uphill from the steep slope area.
3. According to the survey, most of the site outside the sloped area is developed with
an existing commercial structure, parking area, and “nursery yard” with wood
planters and wood retaining wall in places along the top edge of the slope. Part of
the existing structure in the northeasterly corner overhangs the slope on columns.
The survey shows numerous existing trees within the undeveloped slope area.
According to the arborist report prepared for the applicant by Tree Solutions Inc.
and dated June 16, 2016 (revised July 1, 2016) there are 39 trees greater than 6
inches in diameter on site. According to page 2 of the revised arborist report, most
of the trees are along the east property edge growing on the steep slope section of
the property.
4. As depicted on site plan sheet AS101 of the revised plan set dated April 30, 2018,
the proposed new development would occupy most of the site, requiring
disturbance of the entire steep slope area as depicted on the survey. Removal of all
the existing trees is proposed. A list of the trees proposed to be removed is provided
on the site plan sheet. Additional vegetation on site would also be removed, based
2
The survey was initially dated September 3, 2015 and revised on March 3, 2017.
Page 3
on the location of the proposed structure on the site plan. The existing vegetation
would be replaced by landscaping as proposed on plan sheets L0.01 through L1.38.
5. The proposed structure height is analyzed on plan sheet G002, where the calculation
of average grade is presented and Land Use Code citations to height standards are
provided. Roof elevations in relation to both existing and finished grade are
provided on plan sheet AS101, and further height measurements based on
measurement from average grade is provided on elevation drawings sheets A201,
A202, A203, and A204. As described on sheet G002, the average grade level was
calculated under Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Section 23.86.006.A.2 and SDCI
Director’s Rule 4-2012. The plan on sheet G002 shows the smallest rectangle
enclosing the principal structure. That rectangle is divided into two sections
(Section A and B) at least 15 feet in length per the Code and rule, using the northerly
lot line. Section A is 157.5 feet wide and Section B is 35 feet wide. The sections
are drawn from north to south, approximately parallel to the steep slope contours.
The elevation of existing lot grades is then shown at the midpoints of each of the
two opposing exterior sides for each section of the structure, measured at the north
and south ends of each section. Where the sides of each section of the rectangle
fall outside the boundary of the project site, the elevation used is the nearest
elevation on the lot line of the site projected from the midpoint outside the site. The
calculation is depicted to the right of the plan view drawing and shows average
grade for Section 1 (or Section A) as 129.9 and Section 2 (or Section B) as 126.3.
A copy of this average grade calculation, excerpted from plan sheet G002, is
incorporated into this interpretation as Attachment 1.
6. On June 8, 2016, the applicant’s representative Jerry Kesselring applied for “relief
from prohibition on steep slope development” pursuant to SDCI Tip 327A, on the
basis that the steep slope on the site was “created through previous legal grading
activities” citing the “Revised MUP GT report [geotechnical report].”3 The
application also notes that the “Steep Slope mapped at the site will be removed
through excavation and grading activities during construction of the proposed
development.” SDCI responded to the applicant’s relief request on July 5, 2016,
with an “Environmentally Critical Areas Consideration” review from SDCI
Geotechnical Engineer Jim Mattoon, under Project No. 6541076. Mr. Mattoon
determined in part that “. . . the City GIS system and the submitted information for
the steep slope developmental allowance application demonstrated that steep slopes
at and adjacent to the site appeared to have been created by previous legal grading
activities associated with street improvements and property development.”
7. The revised geotechnical report dated March 25, 2016 prepared by GeoEngineers,
entitled Geotechnical Master Use Permit Revised Report, notes at page 2 “. . . that
past grading activities have occurred along East Madison Street adjacent to the
northwest border of the site. A timber trestle was located in the East Madison Street
3
The applicant submitted three geotechnical reports. The first is dated November 17, 2015. A second
report is dated March 25, 2016, and the third report is dated August 9, 2017. The revised report referred to
in the June 8, 2016 application is presumably the March 25, 2016 report.
Page 4
right-of-way, based on review of grading plans received from the City of Seattle.”
GeoEngineers made ten soil borings on the site as of the date that the revised report
was prepared, and also analyzed six off-site borings from prior developments.4 At
pages 3 and 4, the report further states in part:
Fill was encountered in each boring and consisted of very loose to medium
dense sand with variable silt and gravel content. The thickness of fill
encountered in borings ranged from approximately 8 to 30 feet below site
grades, with the thickest fill encountered in boring GEI-1 at the north corner of
the site. Asphalt treated sand, possibly from a historic road located on or
adjacent to the site, was encountered in borings GEI-1 and GEI-2 at
approximately 30 and 5 feet, respectively.
***
GeoEngineers has investigated the subsurface conditions at the site and we
conclude that up to 30 feet of fill is present in borings completed at the site.
The site has a significant grade change from the East Madison Street grade,
near Elevation 132 feet, to the Dewey Place East grade, near Elevation 92
feet. The steep slopes on the site are present where the fill encountered in the
borings was the thickest. Based on the topography and fill thickness, we
conclude that the steep slope present on the site was completed as part of fill
placement/grading activities associated with construction of the East Madison
Street embankment.
In order to confirm that the steep slope was created through legal grading
activities, we reviewed the street grade profile for East Madison Street
obtained from the City of Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT). The
street grade profile, presented in Appendix D, confirms that the steep slope
was created through legal grading activities (construction of the current East
Madison Street embankment). The street grade profile shows that East
Madison Street was supported on a trestle bridge in the site vicinity. The
SDOT street grade profile shows that up to 45 feet of fill was placed to
replace the trestle bridge with a fill embankment. The street grade profile
supports our interpretation that the steep slope was created through legal
grading activities.5
***
As stated in Section 25.09.180.B of the ECA Ordinance and the SDCI Client
Assistance Memo #327 – ECA Exemptions and Modifications to Submittal
Requirements, steep slope development standards do not apply when
developments are located on steep slope areas created through previous legal
grading activities. Based on our review of the historical topography and our
geotechnical investigation, it is our opinion that the existing slopes that meet
the City of Seattle steep slope criteria would not meet the steep slope criteria
without previous legal grading activities at the site.
4
See Figure 2 of March 25, 2016 GeoEngineers report and Appendices A and C.
5
The street grade profile in Appendix D of the GeoEngineers report is dated June 14, 1924.
Page 5
The same determination of the origin of the steep slope on the property is presented
in the original GeoEngineers report dated November 17, 2015 and in a later third
report dated August 9, 2017. The March 25, 2016 report and the November 17,
2015 report also contain the following statement, at page 4:
In addition, the planned development will not be constructed on top of the slope,
but excavated into the slope. The planned development will include shoring
consisting of soldier pile walls with ground anchors for support, and the
building will be designed to resist the lateral soil loads on a permanent basis.
Both the shoring and the permanent below-grade building walls will be
designed to result in an adequate factor of safety for slope stability. In summary,
the steep slope conditions that have resulted from past grading activities will be
stabilized by the planned development. The proposed development will not
negatively impact the stability of the slope, provided that the recommendations
discussed in this geotechnical report are implemented.
8. A public comment letter dated October 26, 2016 was filed by Ladd GEOServices
LLC, authored by Professional Engineer Deborah Ladd, on behalf of Save Madison
Valley, the party requesting this Code interpretation. In her comment letter, Ms.
Ladd states in part at page 2:
. . . GeoEngineers presented information that suggests the roadway
embankment fill slopes may have been legally graded. However, there is no
documentation presented that shows other parts of the Site fill slopes were
historically legally graded. As shown on Exhibit II [of the Ladd letter], most
of the Site slopes appear to have been constructed to support a fill pad for
private development. Only the north portion of the Site steep slopes appear to
be associated with the roadway embankment.
It is Ladd GEOServices’ opinion that most of the existing steep sloped on the
Site do not meet the criteria to provide relief from the steep slope development
requirement because most of the Site’s slopes were not created through previous
legal grading activities and were outside the fill that would have been
historically associated with the roadway right-of-way.
9. SDCI Geotechnical Engineer Rob McIntosh, who is assigned to the critical areas
review for Project 3020338, sent the following correction notice item to the
applicant’s project contact on May 15, 2017:
For information only. No response is required for this correction notice

item: SMC 25.09.080. Based on a review of the submitted information and
the City GIS, SDCI concludes that the ECA Steep Slope Critical Areas on and
adjacent to the project site appear to have been created by previous legal grading
associated with site development and right-of-way
improvements. Consequently, the project qualifies for Relief From Prohibition
On Steep Slope Development, as described in SMC 25.09.180 B2b. An ECA
Steep Slope Area Variance, or an Exception, is not required for this application.
Page 6
Please note that the October 26, 2016 “Geotechnical Review and Comment,
Proposed 2925 East Madison Street Development” letter by Ladd
GEOServices, LLC concludes that Relief From Prohibition On Steep Slope
Development should not be granted. It cites SDCI Tip 327A (2016b), page 2,
Item b: “This provision [for relief] does not extend beyond the cut or fill created
by the street, alley, sidewalk or other right-of-way improvement.” SDCI
acknowledges that the cited sentence in Tip 327A is in error because it conflicts
with the language in Seattle Municipal Code 25.09.180 B2b, which does not
exclude slopes created by previous legal grading activities beyond the cut or fill
created by the street, alley, sidewalk or other right-of-way improvement from
being granted relief. SDCI Tips are intended to assist the public by clarifying
code language, but the actual code language governs if conflicting information
is presented in Tips. Consequently, SDCI will be removing the cited sentence
from Tip 327A.
Except as described herein, the remaining Environmentally Critical Areas

requirements apply.
10. Records of a grading permit application by H. N. Clifton dating from November

1955 were obtained by the applicant from Seattle Municipal Archives. These
records include a description of the property as Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 21, 22, 23 and 24,
Block 7, Madison Street Addition. Based on the site survey prepared by Mr.
Gillooly, this description matches the northerly part of the project site, less Lots 5,
19 and 20 of Block 7, Madison Street Addition. The records show that fill was
placed on the subject property after Madison Street was graded as described in
Finding of Fact No. 7 and footnote 5.
11. Permit records maintained by SDCI show that Mr. Clifton obtained three grading
permits. The first permit, Permit 015, was issued December 14, 1955 to fill the
property described as Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 21, 22, 23 and 24, Block 7, Madison Street
Addition with 5,000 cubic yards of fill per plan. Final approval of the work
authorized by this permit was given on March 8, 1960. Permit 048 was issued
August 29, 1957 and authorized fill of Lots 1-5 with 4,148 cubic yards of material
from East Madison Street. Final approval of Permit 048 was granted on March 12,
1959.6 An application for Permit 00329 was submitted on October 3, 1972 to fill
Lots 1-5, 16 and 17, and Lots 19-24 with 1,050 cubic yards of earth. There is no
issuance date on this permit, but a note stating “drainage installed” was added pm
October 10, 1979. Seattle Building Permit No. 562961, issued April 15, 1976,
authorized construction of a building on the subject property, “Clifton’s Nursery,”
which is the current development on the property.
12. Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Section 25.09.180 provides in part:
6
The total grading authorized by Permits 015 and 048 is 9,148 cubic yards, which is slightly less than the
total of 9,683 cubic yards that Mr. Clifton applied for in his 1955 application described in Finding of Fact
No. 11.
Page 7
25.09.180 Development standards for steep slope areas
A. This Section 25.09.180 and Section 25.09.080 apply to parcels containing a steep
slope area or buffer.
B. Impacts on steep slope areas
1. Development is prohibited on steep slope areas, unless the applicant

demonstrates that the provisions of subsections 25.09.180.B.2 or 25.09.180.E apply.
2. Provided that all the provisions of this Chapter 25.09 and all applicable
provisions of Title 23 and Chapters 22.800 through 22.808 are met, subsection 25.09.180.B.1
does not apply when the applicant demonstrates the development meets one of the following
criteria. In determining whether these criteria are met, the Director may require a geotechnical
report to verify site conditions and to evaluate the impacts of the development in the steep slope
area and shall require such a report for criteria in subsections 25.09.180.B.2.c and
25.09.180.B.2.d. The geotechnical report is subject to the provisions for third party review in
subsection 25.09.080.C.
a. Development is located where existing development is located, if
the impact on the steep slope area is not altered or increased; or
b. Development is located on steep slope areas that have been

created through previous legal grading activities, including rockeries or retaining walls
resulting from rights of way improvements, if no adverse impact on the steep slope area will
result; or
c. Development is located on steep slope areas that are less than 20

feet in vertical rise and that are 30 feet or more from other steep slope areas, if no adverse
impact on the steep slope area will result; or
d. Development is located on steep slope areas where the Director

determines that application of subsection 25.09.180.B.1 would prevent necessary stabilization
of a landslide-prone area.
***
D. Vegetation Removal and Replanting. If removal of trees or vegetation in a steep

slope area and its buffer is authorized as part of approved development, it shall be kept to a
minimum, and shall be carried out pursuant to a tree and revegetation plan described in
section 25.09.320. Other removal of, clearing, or any action detrimental to trees or vegetation
in a steep slope area or buffer is prohibited, except as provided in Section 25.09.320. In
addition to complying with Section 25.09.320, any replanting that occurs shall consist of
native vegetation.
13. Section 25.09.060 provides in part as follows:
25.09.060 General development standards
The following general development standards apply to development on parcels

containing environmentally critical areas or their buffers, except as specifically provided in this
Chapter 25.09:
A. Any required nondisturbance area shall be legibly shown and described on the site
plan, and a covenant shall be required as set out in Section 25.09.335.
Page 8
B. The project shall avoid adverse impacts from development on environmentally

critical areas and buffers, and the Director shall restrict developmental coverage and
construction activity areas to the most environmentally suitable, naturally stable, and least
sensitive portion of the site in order to protect the ecological functions and values of wetlands
and fish and wildlife habitat areas, prevent erosion from development on steep slope areas, and
protect the public health, safety and welfare in landslide-prone, liquefaction-prone, and flood-
prone areas. Grading activities and impervious surfaces that may impact environmentally
critical areas or buffers shall be kept to a minimum and limited to areas approved by the
Director.
***
14. Section 25.09.320 provides in part:
25.09.320 Trees and vegetation
A.
1. Removing, clearing, or any action detrimental to habitat, vegetation or
trees is prohibited, except as provided below, within the following areas: landslide-prone
critical areas, (including steep slopes), steep slope buffers, riparian corridors, shoreline habitat,
shoreline habitat buffers, wetlands, and wetland buffers.
2. Tree-topping is prohibited.
3. The vegetation and tree removal and revegetation
activities listed in subsections 3a-d are allowed. The application submittal

requirements and general development standards in Sections 25.09.330 and 25.09.060 do not
apply to actions under subsections 3a, b(1), c(2)(a) or d, provided that no other development is
carried out for which a permit is required.
a. Normal and routine pruning and maintenance of:
(1) up to seven hundred and fifty (750) square feet of trees

and vegetative cover lawfully maintained prior to the effective date of this ordinance;
(2) trees and vegetation approved by permit prior to the

effective date of this ordinance, provided the conditions of the permit are complied with;
(3) lawns, paths and landscaping lawfully maintained prior

to the effective date of this ordinance that were not in a environmentally critical area or buffer
listed in subsection A1 above prior to the effective date of this ordinance, but are in a listed area
or buffer under this ordinance;
(4) steep slope areas described in subsection 25.09.180

B2a-c;
(5) other trees and vegetative cover, provided that when the
area of work is over seven hundred fifty (750) square feet in area, a plan is filed with the
Department that complies with subsections B2 and 3.
b. Removing trees or vegetation as part of an issued building or

grading permit consistent with a tree and revegetation plan, provided that
Page 9
(1) when the area of work is under one thousand five

hundred (1,500) square feet in area, a plan is filed with the Department that complies with
subsections B1 and 2; or
(2) when the area of work is one thousand five hundred

(1,500) square feet or more in area, a plan that complies with subsections B2 and 3 is filed with
the Department, the plan keeps significant environmental impact to a minimum, the Director
approves the plan before any disturbance occurs, and the work is performed by or under the
direction of a qualified professional.
c. Restoring or improving vegetation and trees, including removing

non-native vegetation or invasive plants and noxious weeds by hand, to promote maintenance
or creation of a naturally functioning condition that prevents erosion, protects water quality, or
provides diverse habitat when
(1) the restoration or improvement is a condition to

obtaining a permit or approval from the Director; or
(2) the restoration or improvement is not already a

condition to obtaining a permit or approval from the Director, and
(a) when the area of work is under one thousand

five hundred (1,500) square feet in area calculated cumulatively over three (3) years, a plan is
filed with the Department that complies with subsections B1 and 2; or
(b) when the area of work is one thousand five

hundred (1,500) square feet or more in area calculated cumulatively over three (3) years, or if
the removal of invasive plants or noxious weeds is by machine or chemicals, a plan that
complies with subsections B2 and 3 is filed with the Department, the plan keeps significant
environmental impact to a minimum, the Director approves the plan before any disturbance
occurs, and the work is performed by or under the direction of a qualified professional.
d. Removing trees or vegetation when the Director determines the

tree or vegetation is a threat to health or safety based on a report prepared by a qualified
professional and the removal is performed by or under the direction of a qualified professional.
15. Section 23.86.006 provides in part as follows:
23.86.006 - Structure height measurement
A. In all zones except downtown zones, and except for the Living Building Pilot
Program authorized by Section 23.40.060, unless otherwise specified, the height of structures
shall be measured according to this subsection 23.86.006.A.
1. General rule. Except as otherwise specified, the height of a structure is

the difference between the elevation of the highest point of the structure not excepted from
applicable height limits and the average grade level. In this subsection 23.86.006.A, "average
grade level" means the average of the elevation of existing lot grades. Except as provided in
subsection 23.86.006.A.2, average grade level is calculated, at the discretion of the applicant,
as follows:
a. at the midpoint, measured horizontally, of each exterior wall of

the structure, or
Page 10
b. at the midpoint of each side of the smallest rectangle that can

be drawn to enclose the structure.
2. Option for calculating average grade level to measure height. The

calculation of structure height in subsection 23.86.006.A.1 may be modified, at the discretion
of the applicant, as follows to permit the structure to respond to the topography of the lot:
a. Draw the smallest rectangle that encloses the principal

structure.
b. Divide one side of the rectangle, chosen by the applicant, into

sections at least 15 feet in length using lines that are perpendicular to the chosen side of the
rectangle.
c. The sections delineated in subsection 23.86.006.A.2.b are

considered to extend vertically from the ground to the sky.
d. The maximum height for each section of the structure is

measured from the average grade level for that section of the structure, which is calculated as
the average elevation of existing lot grades at the midpoints of the two opposing exterior sides
of the rectangle for each section of the structure.
SDCI Director’s Rule 4-2012, Height Measurement: Calculating Average Grade

Level, effective April 18, 2012, further explains the measurement technique
described in Section 23.86.006, in part as follows:
The Code allows for a general measurement technique (23.86.006.A.1) to determine average
grade level, and an option for the applicant (23.86.006.A.2) that allows the average grade level
to be calculated for multiple sections of a structure to encourage buildings to better follow the
topography. There are two formulas that may be used at the applicant’s option within the
general technique.7
***
Subsection 23.86.006.A.2 provides an acceptable option for determining average grade level to
allow structures to better respond to the topography of sloping sites. In general, the intent is to
allow a large structure to adjust the points at which height is measured so that portions of the
structure can “step up” with the slope. The technique basically allows the structure to be divided
into sections that are treated similar to separate structures for the purposes of calculating the
average grade level used to measure height.
Similar to the approach in Formula 2 under the General Rule, the first step is to draw the
smallest rectangle that encloses the entire structure, including all occupied floor area. Next,
choose one side of the rectangle (usually a side that is generally parallel to the direction of the
slope). Along this side of the rectangle, divide the rectangle into sections that are at least 15 feet
wide. The lines dividing the rectangle into sections are to be perpendicular to the chosen side,
and shall extend across the width of the structure, parallel to each other and to the opposing
ends of the rectangle.8
***
7
DR 4-2012, page 1. (Page 17 of Interpretation, Attachment 2.)
8
DR 4-2012, page 4. (Pages 20 and 21 of Interpretation, Attachment 2.)
Page 11
16. The request for this interpretation was received on May 24, 2017, in accordance
with the Seattle Land Use Code process for request of a formal Land Use Code
interpretation relating to a project application requiring public notice as set forth in
Section 23.88.020.C.3.a, which provides in part that “[a]ny person may request an
interpretation prior to the end of the public comment period . . . for the project
application.” Notice of the project application, Project 3020338, was published on
April 27, 2017 and ended on May 24, 2017. Under Section 23.88.020.E, because
the interpretation relates to a project requiring public notice, the interpretation is
required to be published concurrently with the other land use decisions relating to
Project 3020338.
Conclusions
1. The project site was reviewed by two different SDCI geotechnical engineers, Jim
Mattoon and Rob McIntosh, for compliance with the requirements for relief from
prohibition on steep slope development. (Findings of Fact Nos. 6 and 9). Both
SDCI reviewers concluded, after review of three separate geotechnical reports by
GeoEngineers, a company specializing in geotechnical analysis, that the steep slope
areas on the site qualified for relief from the general prohibition on development of
steep slopes set forth in Section 25.09.180.B.1. They concluded that the steep
slopes appeared to have been created by previous legal grading, which is a basis for
relief found at Section 25.09.180.B.2.b. The SDCI reviewers also reviewed the
City’s geographic information service (GIS) system, records of street grade profiles
obtained from the City of Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), and
records of grading permits obtained for additional work on the project site in 1955.
See Findings of Fact Nos. 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11. Based on the analysis in the
geotechnical reports and other information summarized in this conclusion, it is most
reasonable to conclude that the steep slope areas on the property were created by
previous legal grading, and therefore the area in which these slopes are found may
be disturbed and redeveloped.
2. Both the GeoEngineers reports and the available City records for the site support
the conclusion that previous legal grading occurred on the subject property.
GeoEngineers found, based on soil borings, that up to 30 feet of fill was placed on
the property. Finding of Fact No. 7. When this depth of fill is compared to the site
survey showing a maximum elevation difference of about 38 feet between the
lowest and highest points of the property (Finding of Fact Nos. 1 and 2), it is
reasonable to conclude that the current grade on the property was established by
placing approximately 30 feet of fill on the property to raise grade from what was
originally a site more or less level with Dewey Place East to a site level with East
Madison Street. The fill was not placed over the entire site but instead the easterly
edge of the fill is placed within the site, leaving a steep slope at the edge of the fill
adjacent to East Madison Street at the northwest corner of the property and adjacent
to Dewey Place East along the easterly boundary of the site. The historic street
grade profiles obtained from former Seattle Engineering Department (SED)
records, as well as the record of the grading permits approved for placing fill on the
Page 12
subject property (see Findings of Fact Nos. 7, 10 and 11), demonstrate that the
placement of fill qualified as “previous legal grading activities” per Section
25.09.180.B.2.b.
3. The comment letter provided by Ladd GEOServices LLC (Finding of Fact No. 8),
concedes that the fill placed on the site as a roadway embankment “may have been
legally graded,” but asserts that any other fill provided as a “fill pad for private
development” was not legal grading. This conclusion ignores or fails to account
for the grading permit information obtained from City archives and SDCI microfilm
records, as there is ample documentation of approved grading permits for the
subject property. The records of the grading permit review summarized in Findings
of Fact Nos. 10 and 11 and the approved permits themselves show that additional
fill placed on the site after improvement of Madison Street was done pursuant to
permits and therefore legal. Nothing in the regulations limits the approved grading
only to the street grading for East Madison Street. To do so would be to improperly
disregard the entire record of legal grading on the property pursued by H. N.
Clifton, as well as the approved building permit for the original nursery building
built in the 1970’s.
4. Under Section 25.09.180.B.2.b (Finding of Fact No. 12), development is allowed

on a steep slope area that was “created through previous legal grading activities
. . . if no adverse impact to the steep slope area will result.” It is up to the project
applicant to demonstrate in plan review that their proposal will not adversely impact
the slope, but if that demonstration is made to the satisfaction of SDCI’s
geotechnical engineers, the limits to steep slope development under subsection
25.09.180.B.1 do not apply to the site. Since the entire slope on the subject property
did not exist before the placement of fill for street improvement and site
development, the limits of Section 25.09.180.B.1 do not apply and the slope may
be developed as determined in the two Environmentally Critical Areas
Consideration reviews by Jim Mattoon and Rob McIntosh.
5. Because the steep slope is eligible for relief from the prohibition on development
in Section 25.09.180.B.1, the restrictions on development and vegetation removal
in Sections 25.09.060.B, 25.09.180.D, and 25.09.320.A.3.b and A.3.d do not apply.
Compliance with Section 25.09.180.B relieves a project applicant of the
requirement to meet development standards applicable only to critical areas that are
prohibited from being disturbed by development. Otherwise, the regulations in
Section 25.09.180.B.2 would be meaningless. The general standard in Section
25.09.060.B (Finding of Fact No. 13), for example, restricts development to the
most environmentally suitable and naturally stable portions of a site, but in the case
of property eligible for relief under Section 25.09.180.B.2, SDCI has made the
determination that areas eligible for relief are part of the most environmentally
suitable and naturally stable portions of the site and eligible for development.
6. Similarly, the regulations for tree and vegetation removal and replanting in Sections
25.09.180.D and 25.09.320.A.3.b and A.3.d (Findings of Fact Nos. 12 and 13) do
not apply to portions of a site that are eligible for development. Like 25.09.060,
Page 13
these regulations are intended to restrict development or other land disturbing

activity only within critical areas that are non-disturbance areas. If an area is
eligible to be developed, tree and vegetation removal is contemplated and allowed.
Even if these Code sections did apply, either because the area is still a steep slope
by definition or continues to be classified as a landslide-prone area, the tree and
vegetation removal and replanting would be allowed as part of an issued building
or grading permit, which will be required for the subject project. Replanting plans
are provided in the landscaping plans for the project as noted in Finding of Fact No.
4. To reason differently and require preservation of significant portions of the
existing vegetation would effectively disallow the relief granted under Section
25.09.180.B.2 and prohibit development on much, if not all, of the slope. There is
no Code or policy provision suggesting that regulation of vegetation in critical areas
is intended to apply to portions of a site determined to be eligible for development.
7. The request for interpretation also questions whether the height of the proposed
building was properly measured under Section 23.86.006.A.2. Section
23.86.006.A provides a general method of measuring structure height based on
“average grade” either by averaging the elevations of existing lot grade at the
midpoint of each exterior wall of a structure or by drawing the smallest rectangle
that encloses the structure and taking the existing lot grade elevation at the midpoint
of each side of the rectangle. As further provided in Section 23.86.006.A.2 and in
Director’s Rule (DR) 4-2012 (Finding of Fact No. 15 and Attachment 2), an
optional method is provided that allows an applicant, in their discretion, and to
“permit the structure to respond to the topography of the lot,” to first draw the
smallest rectangle enclosing the structure and then to divide one side of the
rectangle, “chosen by the applicant,” into sections at least 15 feet long using lines
perpendicular to the chosen line being divided. Using this method, only the
elevations of existing lot grade at the midpoint of each segment of the chosen line
and the line on the opposing side of the rectangle are included in the average grade
calculation.
8. The applicant for project 3020338 chose the optional method of Section
23.86.006.A.2 for the project, as described in Finding of Fact No. 5. The method,
as shown on plan sheet G002, enables the applicant to disregard the midpoint
elevations of the walls or the lines of a rectangle drawn around the entire building
that are closest to both the high side of the site along East Madison Street and the
low side along Dewey Place East. As pointed out in the request for interpretation,
the optional method allows the applicant to avoid using the very low grades at or
near the base of the slope adjacent to Dewey Place East in the average grade
calculation. While this method does add some height to the proposed structure on
the downhill side, both the Code and the Director’s Rule very clearly provide the
applicant the discretion to both choose the optional measurement method and then
choose the side that they divide into smaller segments. The Code language and
particularly the Director’s Rule suggests that the purpose is to encourage buildings
to “better follow the topography” and that the side to be divided into segments is
“usually a side that is generally parallel to the direction of the slope.” By choosing
the northerly line of the site as the side to be divided into segments, the applicant
Page 14
did follow the guidance in DR 4-2012, as this line, approximately perpendicular to

East Madison Street and Dewey Place East, is a side parallel to the direction of the
slope, which is downhill perpendicular to the two streets. Even if this was not the
case, neither the Code nor the rule compels the applicant to choose a particular side
as the side to be divided.
9. In the request for this interpretation, argument is presented that the optional height
measurement technique as presented by the applicant avoids the steep slope and
results in a building that does not respond to the lot topography. This argument
does not consider that most of the subject property is essentially level with the high
side of the site along East Madison Street. As shown on the site survey (see Finding
of Fact No. 2), the elevation at East Madison Street is about 132 feet, and the
elevation behind the existing commercial building on the site and to the south and
southeast over about two-thirds of the total area ranges between 132 feet and 128
feet. Only the relatively narrow band of slope adjacent to Dewey Place and at the
north end of the site is lower and, as discussed above, this steep slope was not
natural but rather created by the fill placed on the property. Any building built on
this property best responds to site topography by measuring height from the higher
elevations that predominate over most of the property and were created by the
previous grading of the site. Even so, the design does respond to the lower
elevations identified in the narrower 15-foot segment as depicted on plan sheet
G002.
Decision
The subject project qualifies for relief from the prohibition on development of steep slope
critical areas, as the steep slope on the project site was created by previous legal grading
of the property according to both permit records and historic SDOT street grade profiles of
City street improvement projects for East Madison Street. Because the slope is not subject
to limitations on development in steep slope critical areas, the trees and vegetation on the
slope may be removed as part of permitted construction and grading for the proposed new
structure. Height measurement of the new structure complies with the height measurement
techniques of the Land Use Code as set forth in Section 23.86.006.A.
Entered this 23rd day of July 2018.
________Signature on File______________________________
William K. Mills, Land Use Planner Supervisor
Department of Construction and Inspections
Page 15
Attachment 1
Page 16
Attachment 2
Director’s Rule 4-2012
DPD
Applicant: Page: 1 of Supersedes: DR
7 9-2011
City of Seattle
Department of Planning & Development Publication: Effective:
2/27/2012
4/18/2012
Subject: Code and Section Reference:
SMC 23.86.006.A
HEIGHT MEASUREMENT: Type of Rule:

CALCULATING AVERAGE GRADE
LEVEL Code Interpretation and procedural rule
Ordinance Authority:
SMC 3.06.040
Index: Approved Date

Zoning/Land Use Procedural Requirements
(Signature on file)__________4/17/2012
Diane M. Sugimura, Director
BACKGROUND:
Pursuant to City of Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Section 23.86.006, structure height is
measured from average grade in all zones except Downtown zones and zones in the
South Lake Union Urban Center, and except for the Living Building Pilot Program
authorized by Section 23.40.060. The Code allows for a general measurement
technique (23.86.006.A.1) to determine average grade level, and an option for the
applicant (23.86.006.A.2) that allows the average grade level to be calculated for
multiple sections of a structure to encourage buildings to better follow the topography.
Page 17
There are two formulas that may be used at the applicant’s option within the general
technique.
General Rule - Calculating Average Grade Level for Height Measurement
Pursuant to 23.86.006.A.1, the general rule allows two formulas for calculating the
average grade level from which the height of a structure is measured. Formula 1
calculates the average elevation of the topography, prior to any development activity,
based on the elevations of finished grade at the center of each exterior wall. Formula 2
uses the average elevations at the midpoints of the sides of the smallest rectangle that
can be drawn to enclose the structure. Exterior walls for height measurement purposes
shall be those walls that form the footprint of the structure that include cantilevered
portions of the structure.
If there are multiple structures on a lot, the average grade elevation is calculated
separately for each structure. To better address topographic conditions on a lot, an
alternative method can be used to divide a larger structure into smaller sections, and
the average grade level can be calculated for each of those sections of the structure.
Formula 1: Exterior Walls. Under this formula, the average grade level is calculated
as the average of the elevation of existing lot grades at the midpoints, measured
horizontally, of each exterior wall of the structure enclosing occupied floor area.
Formula 1: (midpoint grade elevations) x (exterior wall length)

(total length of each exterior wall)
Page 18
Example applying Formula 1 to calculate average grade level
A, B, C, D….Existing ground elevation at midpoint of

exterior wall a, b, c, d…..Horizontal length of exterior wall*
*include the perimeter of a deck, unless the deck has no walls at or below the deck level
and no covering above the deck
Formula: (A x a)+(B x b)+(C x c)+(D x d)+(E x e)+(F x f)+(G x g)+(H x h)+(J x j)+(K x k)+(L x l)+….
a + b + c + d + e + f + g + h + i + j + k + l +…
Example:
(105.2 x 12)+(104.8 x 5)+(104.2 x 15)+(104.0 x 9)+(103.7 x 6)+(105.6 x 30)+(106.6 x 9)+
(109.3 x 12)+(111.1 x 18)+(110.8 x 27)+(109.1 x 6)+(108.2 x 29)
= 12 + 5 + 15 + 9 + 6 + 30 + 9 + 12 + 18 + 27 +6 + 29
Page 19
19,130.4 = 107.47’ average grade level

178
The height of the structure is then measured from this average grade level of 107.47 feet.
Formula 2: Enclosing Rectangle. Under this formula, the average grade level is
calculated by first drawing the smallest rectangle that encloses the entire structure,
including all occupied floor area. The average grade level is calculated as the average
of the elevation of existing lot grades at the midpoints, measured horizontally, of each
side of this rectangle. For irregular lots, if the rectangle enclosing the proposed
structure would extend beyond the lot property lines, the Director will determine how to
treat the irregularity to most closely approximate the smallest enclosing rectangle.
Formula 2: (midpoint grade elevations) x (rectangle side lengths)

(total length of rectangle sides)
Example applying Formula 2 to calculate average grade level
Formula: (A x a) + (B x b) + (C x c) + (D x d)
a+b+c+d
Example: (104 x 33) + (105.2 x 56) + (111.7 x 33) + (109.5 x 56) =

33 + 56 + 33 + 56
3,432 + 5891.2 + 3,686.1 + 6,132 = = 107.53 average grade

level
178
Page 20
The height of the structure is then measured from this average grade level of 107.53 feet.
Option to the General Rule
Subsection 23.86.006.A.2 provides an acceptable option for determining average grade

level to allow structures to better respond to the topography of sloping sites. In general,
the intent is to allow a large structure to adjust the points at which height is measured
so that portions of the structure can “step up” with the slope. The technique basically
allows the structure to be divided into sections that are treated similar to separate
structures for the purposes of calculating the average grade level used to measure
height.
Similar to the approach in Formula 2 under the General Rule, the first step is to draw
the smallest rectangle that encloses the entire structure, including all occupied floor
area. Next, choose one side of the rectangle (usually a side that is generally parallel to
the direction of the slope). Along this side of the rectangle, divide the rectangle into
sections that are at least 15 feet wide. The lines dividing the rectangle into sections are
to be perpendicular to the chosen side, and shall extend across the width of the
structure, parallel to each other and to the opposing ends of the rectangle.
The average grade level for each section of the structure is calculated as the average
elevation of existing lot grades at the midpoints of the two opposing sides of each
section of the rectangle enclosing the structure, as shown below:
Page 21
Average grade level
Section 1: (A1 x a)+(A2 x a) = (105.1 x 18)+(101.8 x 18) = 1,891.8 + 1,832.4 = 3724.2 =

103.45 a+a 18 + 18 36
36
Section 2: (B1 x b)+(B2 x b) = (106.9 x 15) + (103.8 x 15) = 1,603.5 + 1,557 = 3160.5 =
105.35 b+b 15 + 15 30
30
Section 3: (C1 x c)+(C2 x c) = (108.9 x 24)+(106.2 x 24) = 2,613.6 + 2,548.8 = 5,162.4 =

107.55 c+c 24 + 24 48
48
Once the average grade level has been calculated for each portion of the structure, the
height for that portion can be measured up from that average grade level (see exhibit
below).
Page 22
Required topographic survey
For all measurement options, a topographic survey from a licensed land surveyor is
required when existing grade will be disturbed to accomplish construction of the
structure and when any exterior wall of the new structure, in the area where grade is
being disturbed, is within 2’ of the allowed height limit for the structure as measured
above existing grade. The Director may also require a topographic survey if the
information presented by the applicant is not consistent with information available from
common DPD geographic resources. Topographic information may be provided by
either:
- Showing 2 foot contours across the entire site; or,

- Specifying the existing grade elevations at each building corner, and at the
midpoint elevations that are used by the applicant in the average grade height
calculation.
Interpolated grade
On a lot where the surface contour has been altered as a result of past excavation, the
Code allows the average grade level to be calculated by using an interpolated grade, so
that future development on the excavated lot relates to the topography in a manner that
is more consistent with development on abutting lots.
To determine the interpolated grade, the existing grade elevations, measured along a
lot line, are extended across the subject lot in a straight line to connect with the
matching grade elevation along the nearest opposite lot line(s). The average grade
level is then calculated using the interpolated grade as the natural existing surface
contour.
Page 23
Interpolated Grade

City of Seattle
Nathan Torgelson, Director

RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EAST DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

Project Number: 3020338

Address: 2925 E Madison St

Applicant: Charles Strazzara of Studio Meng Strazzara

Date of Meeting: Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Board Members Present: Curtis Bigelow, Chair
Barbara Busetti
Kenny Pleasant
Andrew Haas

Board Members Absent: Melissa Alexander

SDCI Staff Present: Magda Hogness, Lisa Rutzick

SITE & VICINITY
Site Zone: Neighborhood Commercial
(NC2P‐40 and NC2P‐30)

Nearby Zones North: Single Family (SF 7200)
South: SF 5000
East: SF 5000
West: NC2P‐40

Lot Area: 40,422 SF

Access: The subject property currently
has vehicular access off E
Madison S.

Environmentally Critical Areas: The site is a mapped Environmentally Critical Areas (ECA), due to
steep slope and liquefaction prone soils.

Current Development:
The site is occupied by one story retail structure, known as the City People's Garden Store.

Surrounding Development and Neighborhood Character:
The project site is located in the Madison Valley neighborhood, characterized by its close
proximity to Madison Park to the east and the Arboretum to the north. This neighborhood is
predominately comprised of single family and multifamily residential housing types and
commercial and retail uses along E Madison St, which the City has designated as an arterial.

The site has street frontage on E Madison St, Dewey Pl E and an unimproved portion of E Mercer
St. Access for E Mercer St dead‐ends Dewey Ave due to steep topography. A pedestrian hill
climb is proposed at this location as part of this proposal.

Recent development includes sizeable residential and mixed‐use buildings. To the northwest,
across E Madison Ave, is a 3‐story masonry building, the Madison Loft Condominium. Adjacent
to the southwest is a 2‐story wood frame structure, the Washington Park Art Studios. To the
south and east of the site are single family structures as the zoning transitions to single family.
This site has the potential to serve as a transition area from the multifamily and commercial uses
along E Madison St to the single family zone south and east of the site.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing a 6‐story building consisting of 82 residential units above 26,100 sf of
retail space and includes parking for 140 vehicles. The existing structures are proposed to be
demolished.

FIRST EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE July 13, 2016
PUBLIC COMMENT
 Concerned with the height, bulk and scale of the proposal; the proposed development
completely overwhelms the site and displays a lack of sensitivity to its potential
neighborhood, and is inconsistent with Design Guidelines CS2.B1 and CS2.C2
 Noted that the site has two or more individual Exceptional Trees and an Exceptional
Grove and that the proposed removal of these trees is inconsistent with Design Guideline
CS1.D1. The proposal disregards direction to provide a fully code compliant option with
respect to the steep slope, ECA and buffer, access and street improvement exception.
 The proposal utterly fails to respond appropriately to the context and site per Design
Guidelines, CS1‐C Appropriate Use of Natural Topography, CS1‐D Incorporate onsite
landscaping, and CS2‐B Open Space to inform site design.
 Concerned with how height is being measured; approximately one third of the site is a 40
percent steep slope, with more than 30 feet elevation change from toe to top, yet the
height diagram shows only a 2.5 ft differential step down between the flat area and the
30 ft drop in elevation.
RECOMMENDATION #3020338
Page 2 of 25
 Noted that the graphic of the section cut is not representative of the true massing
proposed; at the north end of the site, the building mass looms over the Dewey
residences. A more than 60 ft vertical façade rises above Dewey. This is a 40’ commercial
zone, neighboring a single family zone and is inconsistent with Design Guidelines CS2.D11
and CS2.D4.
 Rather than respecting the topography, or using the site features to inform the design,
this project eradicates the site topography, inconsistent with Design Guideline CS1.C2.
 Currently a natural buffer with a mature urban tree canopy sits between the NC2P‐40
commercial zone and single‐family homes. This project would remove that buffer, rather
than providing a transition between more and less intense zones, as Design Guidelines
CS2.D3 and CS2.D4 recommend.
 Lack of support for the 156 car, two story, 320 foot long parking garage exposed on
Dewey. It will release fumes, noise, and light into neighboring homes. The proposed
façade changes the character of Dewey and creates an unfriendly and unsafe‐ feeling
pedestrian environment, inconsistent with guidelines Dc1.C1, DC1.C2, andDC4.C2.
 Lack of support for the garage entrance of Dewey Place, a non‐conforming street
because of its narrow width, which will draw a large influx of traffic and impact safety.
The proposal includes 30 additional parking spaces above requirements and is
inconsistent with design guidelines CS2.D5 and CS2.B2.
 Concerned with the removal of existing vegetation, which includes 39 mature trees, over
20 native plant species and over 14,600 sf of tree canopy. The urban tree canopy and
green space on Dewey is contiguous with the Mercer Madison Wood, the Arboretum,
and is part of a larger urban forest corridor. The Design Guidelines CS1.D2 encourage
preserving or extending urban forest corridors.
 Lack of support for the south façade blank wall. The east side along Dewey continues the
visual effect of a blank wall. All these walls are at street level, creating an unfriendly
pedestrian environment, inconsistent with guideline DC2.B2.
 Concerned that the proposed retail floor is below street level, causing people to have to
walk down ramps or steps. The grade separation is unnecessary and is poor design,
inconsistent with guideline CS2.B2.
 Concerned that the proposal severely curtails privacy and outdoor activities on its south
and east side, inconsistent with guideline CS2.D5.
 Supportive of the development; this project will bring a socially responsible grocery co‐
op and add many needed residential units to this fast growing city that is experiencing a
housing supply crisis.
 Noted that the neighborhood doesn’t currently have a central community space and
views this project as a rare opportunity. Supported the courtyard space shown in Option
2.
 Impressed by the proposed street frontage along Madison.
 Supported the proposed materials.
 Would like to see more setback and terracing along the Dewey façade.
 Concerned with tree removal. The project will eliminate a mature and grove of urban
trees that shelters, shades, and beautifies the adjoining neighborhood.
Page 3 of 25
 Lack of support for back‐lit signage or obtrusive lighting; prefer to see unlit stencils and
awning signage.
 Concerned with the location of loading off Madison St; it is not in keeping with a
pedestrian friendly environment. Would like to see more consideration given to the
placement and design of the garage and loading area.
 Concerned with noise impacts, in particular from the HVAC units.
 Strongly supported a combined option of with the community space as shown in Option
2 and Option 3.
 Lack of support for the proposed hillclimb.
 Supported proposal Option 3, as it provides a good balance of attractive commercial
property with minimal disruption to the neighborhood.
 Supported the scale of proposal; it is in scale with other development on Madison
 The Madison Greenways group has been in discussions with the City and SDOT to
implement a greenway through the neighborhood, with the greenway crossing Madison
St. at 29th Ave E. As a part of that effort, Madison Greenways, SDOT and Metro are in
talks to move the existing eastbound bus stop along Madison east one block to the front
of this building site. The design should plan for the repositioning of this bus stop.
 Would like to see significant sized trees on Dewey and on Madison and a variety of
planting proposed.
 Concerned with traffic and parking entry impacts for pedestrians and bicyclists.
 Would like to see a smaller grocery, the green space and tree canopy preserved and the
natural topography respected.
 Concerned with drainage impacts.
 Supported the project, but would like to see the south frontage refined.
 Supported a pedestrian connection from Madison to Dewey.
SDCI staff also summarized design related comments received prior to the EDG meeting:
 Lack of support for strong accent colors.
 Supported the proposed vehicular entrances; splitting the entries is seems to be a
reasonable way to reduce congestion.
 Supported the proposed materials brick and natural wood to blend into the streetscape.
 Supported the Dewey frontage; the architect has done a good job of reducing the visual
impact of the building as well as its effect on shading.
 Would like to see the building be more adventurous in terms of saving energy, by
committing to meeting one of the green standards currently offered by the City of
Seattle.
 Concerned with the shading of the p‐patch garden; would like to see the developer and
architect respond to the presence of and potential impacts on the Mad P‐Patch.
 Lack of support for a commercial loading on a residential street. Would like to see most
traffic and commerce on the main thoroughfare, Madison St.
 Would like to see increased setbacks along the parking structure and a substantial screen
of tall trees to soften that view.
Page 4 of 25
 The garage entrance on Dewey would be hazardous to pedestrians, as Dewey is a very
narrow street with no planting strips, narrow sidewalks, and a single lane that hosts two‐
way traffic.
 Supported the preferred design Option 3; it is successful at minimizing shading to
adjacent structures and using the natural topography to inform the design.
 Noted that building will serve as the east anchor of the Madison Valley commercial
district and that many of the buildings in the area feature square‐paned/divided
windows. Would like to see that feature repeated here, particularly in the transoms
above the large retail windows. The transom windows shown in the EDG renderings
come close, but would like to see a more modern, rectangular panel.
 Would like to see more balance between this building's NE corner and the Madison Lofts
building.
 Supported the retail space on the NE corner; as the first retail space, most westward‐
bound travelers will encounter in the retail core, and should be distinctive per Design
Guideline CS2‐C.
 Supported Option 2 as it is suited for greater community involvement and is better for
more users of the site. The preferred design (Option 3) does include a generous setback
for the retail entry (10'), but its width along the street front is limited compared to
Option 2.
 Noted that Option 2 does have a greater impact on the residents in the valley below, and
that must be addressed.
 Supported Option 3 as it transitions to the single family zones to the east and south.


following siting and design guidance.
1. Height, Bulk, Scale and Massing Options: The Board acknowledged the public’s concern with
the height, bulk and scale of the proposal and agreed that the massing needed to further
transition along Dewey and the single family zone. The Board commended the applicant’s
effort to date and unanimously agreed the general massing and frontage along Madison is an
appropriate scale. The Board discussed the strengths of the massing options and supported
the courtyard community space shown in Option 2 and terraced massing shown in Option 3,
but also agreed more effort is needed to respond to the site topography and context. The
Board directed the applicant to return with a modified, hybrid massing option based on the
guidance provided.
a. The Board unanimously agreed with public comment that additional setbacks should
be provided to respond to the site topography and transition to the single family
zoning. While refining the massing at this location the Board also recommended
Page 5 of 25
studying if there is potential to save some of the existing trees. (CS1‐C, CS1‐D, CS2‐A,
CS2‐B, CS2‐D, DC2‐A, DC3‐C‐3)
b. In order to address concerns about how the building height is calculated, the Board
requested more information and if possible, verification that the calculation is code
compliant for the next meeting. (CS1‐C‐2, CS2‐D, DC2‐A‐1)
c. The Board supported the inclusion of a community space along the street as shown in
Option 2. The Board also discussed if a courtyard should be provided and ultimately
agreed that a courtyard could be developed, but providing adequate community
space for gathering is a higher priority and noted this activity could potentially occur
as part of the interior program. The Board recommended developing the grocery
retail frontage with adequate space for outdoor/indoor dining opportunities and
pedestrian amenities to engage and interact with the streetscape. (CS3‐A, CS2‐B‐2,
PL1, PL3‐C, DC3)

2. Response to Context and Topography: Echoing the public comment regarding the frontage
along Dewey, the Board was concerned with the extent of blank wall shown.
a. The Board questioned if two stories of elevated parking provides the best frontage
along Dewey and the adjacent single family zone. The Board recommended studying
different alternates address the residential context and respond to existing
topography. (CS1‐C, CS2‐A, CS2‐D‐2, CS3‐A‐1, CS2‐B‐3, DC1, DC3‐C‐3)
b. The Board was also concerned with the visibility of concrete and gabion baskets and
recommended developing a sensitive solution using high quality materials which
better relate to the surrounding residential context. (CS2‐A, CS2‐B, CS3‐A‐1, CS2‐B‐3,
DC2‐B, DC3‐C‐3)
c. The Board noted that the tallest massing volume appears to be at the northeast
corner and agreed this area will be highly visible and the scale relationship is critical.
(CS2‐A, CS2‐B,CS2‐C1, CS2‐D, DC2‐A‐2, DC2‐B, DC2‐D‐1)
3. Site Features and Existing Tree Canopy: Affirming the public comment, the Board requested
more information about the status of the trees, including snags, and the urban forest
corridor. The Board stated that although replacement trees will never be the same,
generous planting could still be provided. Reviewing the proposed planting, the Board was
concerned with the equally spaced columnar row of trees and recommended differing scales
of trees. For the next meeting, the Board requested more details about the landscape plan,
including information on efforts to incorporate the existing tree canopy. (CS1‐B‐3, CS1‐D,
CS2‐B, CS2‐D‐2, DC3‐C, DC4‐D)

4. Trash, Vehicular Access and Loading Location: The Board recognized the diverse public
opinions regarding the parking, garage and loading access locations. The Board agreed that
splitting up the loading and parking access appears logical but requested more information
before indicating their preference. For the proposed trash and loading area along Madison,
the Board implied that the designing pedestrian character of the street is critical to address
the priority of the pedestrian realm. (CS2‐B‐2, PL1, DC1‐B‐1, DC1‐C, DC4)

Page 6 of 25
5. Materials: The Board strongly supported the quality of materials presented at this early
phase. (CS3‐A‐1, DC2, DC4‐A‐1.)

SECOND EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE October 26, 2016
PUBLIC COMMENT
 Concerned with the height calculation methodology.
 Lack of support for the project; at the first EDG, the Board made a number of
recommendations regarding the proposed building, none of which are adequately
addressed.
 The proposal is inconsistent with guideline CS2.D1. A mature, urban canopy, continuous
with the Arboretum, would be removed and replaced with small, dwarf ornamental trees
which at maturity will not equal the present canopy.
 Medium and large trees and a diverse understory are not viable with 5’, 10’, or 15’
setbacks. A green wall on the garage is a decoration distracting from the significant loss
of urban ecological services.
 Preference for a 30’ setback to accommodate large, native trees and plantings, a rich
understory and diverse ecological habitat that would screen the neighborhood from the
structure throughout the year.
 Lack of support for the 320’ long eastern façade; it is a 74’ wall, situated in a 40’ zone,
and abutting 25’ homes. The Board expressed concerns about the northeast corner of
the building at the first EDG, and it remains grossly out of scale with the context and
insensitive to the topography; inconsistent with Guideline CS2.D3.
 The applicant’s renderings are drawn with a profusion of trees which could never in
reality grow as proposed.
 The retaining wall height is not clearly stated, but is evidently over 10’ in places. The
sidewalk has no planting strip and the design will create an unfriendly pedestrian
experience, inconsistent with Guidelines PL2 and PL3.
 The eastern and southern facades, rather than being a “lush layered landscaping
greenbelt,” instead are blank walls and are inconsistent with guideline DC2.B2
 The two story above grade garage is inconsistent with guidelines DC1.C1, DC1.C2, and
DC4.C2. Would like to see a significantly smaller garage, entirely below ground.
 There is no community space offered on Madison as was requested by the Board;
inconsistent with guideline PL1.C2.
 Concerned with the errors and omissions in the applicant’s traffic report.
 Would like to see a design option that reduces the size of the garage and lessens the
traffic impact for the entire area.
 Concerned with signage and lighting impacts and potential noise from rooftop ac units.
 Would like to see low income housing proposed.
 Would like to see sustainable systems incorporated such as rain water collection, PV
panels, insulated to “passive house” standards, street level covered bicycle parking, and
no off‐gassing materials.
Page 7 of 25
 Would like to see a reduced building footprint.
 Support for the project, noted that additional height is being contemplated for the area
related to HALA. Project will be a legacy to Madison park community.
 Would like to see onsite plants and habit incorporated.
 Concerned that the drawing provided by the developer is inaccurate in that it includes
trees that do not exist in the neighboring yards and landscape at what appears to be full
maturity.
 Concerned with the height bulk and scale of the massing facing the residential context.
Would like to see the Board accept a better design, as opposed to the code compliant
version which is inconsistent with CS2‐A1, CS2, CS2.
 Support for project; the architect has worked very hard to listen to what the community
wants and put forth a lot of effort. The proposal could become an asset.
 Lighting, night glare and light pollution will be a significant problem with the building
perched atop the slope above single‐family residences, and remains unaddressed in this
design, DC4.C2.
 Concerned that the proposed development does not fit with the nature of the
neighborhood. The context of the neighborhood is gardens and the proposed scale is
incompatible.
 Concerned with the height, bulk and scale of the frontage along Dewey.
 Appreciated the added buffer and the pedestrian experience and attention that is being
paid on Madison.
 Concerned with traffic and parking entry impacts.
 Support for the split parking garage entrance
SDCI staff summarized design related comments received prior to the EDG meeting:
 Concerned with storm water flooding impacts.
 Supported the northeast corner of the proposed building. The choice of natural materials
for this portion of the façade integrates the building with the landscape plantings and
urban forest to the east.
 Supported tree removal; any departures granted to preserve the trees and maintain the
allowed FAR would significantly increase the building's scale, bulk and mass.
 Supported the greater variety of larger trees and overall lusher landscaping which has
improved the design.
 Supported the improvements the development will make to both the front and back of
the building; the project will widen sidewalks and improve pedestrian safety by creating
quality places for people to walk.
 Supported the outdoor seating at street level and the recessed alcove for market entry.
 Not convinced there is a need of a 50’ curb cut on Madison, and would like to see a
scaled drawing included as 50’ seems excessive.
 Concerned with the Dewey side retaining wall as it will be taller than pedestrians, the
green wall (if it is successful) may take a decade to fill in, and the setbacks are
Page 8 of 25
inadequate to grow trees to their full size. The result is that the eastern façade, and the
southern façade will remain blank walls DC2.B2.
 Increasing part of the setback on Dewey Place by 5 feet is not a suitable response to
previous Board direction.
 The northeast corner of the building will tower over the context and create an oppressive
and overwhelming pedestrian experience.
 The combination of the height, bulk and scale of this building with apartments staring
down into the back yards of the neighboring single‐family residences does not respect
the privacy and outdoor activities of the neighbors; CS2.D5.
 The code‐compliant option retaining some trees is presented with many negative
attributes and without adequate justification for them.
 The proposed 4‐6 ft max height stepped wall along Dewey will not make for a pleasant
pedestrian experience, as the green space will be too separated from the sidewalk.
 Would like to see the Board insist that the building be reduced in size and height along
Dewey.
 Concerned with accommodating bike passing along Madison Street.
 Would like to see public space incorporated outside, on top of the new building,
potentially as part of PCC's eating area.
 Would like to see one of the future tenants be a nursery.
 Supported the much improved pedestrian experience along Madison. It will be great to
have wider sidewalks and new landscaping.
 Concerned with the plan’s ivy covered wall, as it is still a monotonous wall and requires
high maintenance, DC2‐B.
 Would like to see more space or setback at the ground level along Madison as it is a very
narrow arterial street.
 Would like to see a little park or trail along Dewey that could lead up to the building,
which may make for a better transition and also offer pedestrian access.
 Concerned with solar access. The design does not respect adjacent sites in that it towers
over them, completely blocking all afternoon light from the entire neighborhood to the
east. It will block the sun from much of the street for most of the year. CS1B, CS2‐D.
 No alternative to an above ground parking garage on Dewey has been offered. Rather
than moving the garage underground, it remains exposed to the public on the eastern
side of the site.
 Would like to see a structure that had apartments facing south starting at the level of
Dewey with parking underneath and behind these residences. And only two stories of
residences above the PCC.
 Would like to see parking eliminated in excess of required capacity, and reduced parking
requirements to half in recognition of emerging patterns of urban mobility.
 Lack of support for the departure; the PCC retail garage entrance on Madison, it is not
consistent with “pedestrian friendly” zoning of the lot.

SDCI staff also summarized the following design related comments received prior to the Second
EDG meeting in the memo to the Board:
Page 9 of 25
 Would like to see nice‐sized balconies; that would probably help the appearance.
 Supported the scale of proposal; it is in scale with other development on Madison, would
like to see higher density of housing along arterials.
 Supported a version of the plan that allows for a larger open area facing Madison so that
it is more street friendly and less of a canyon.
 Supported many street trees on all sides, as well as landscaping on the roof. Keeping
streets green is very important in maintaining the character of the neighborhood, and
this design achieves that goal.


1. Response to EDG: The Board recognized the applicant’s effort to date and supported the
changes including the additional setbacks provided. However, the Board agreed with the
public’s concern that the height, bulk and scale of the Dewey frontage was not yet resolved
and that the massing needed to transition further to respond to the single family zone. The
Board heard public comment regarding the Madison frontage and continued to support the
frontage along Madison and noted that it appears to be an appropriate scale. The Board
directed the applicant to return with a modified massing option based on the guidance
provided for the Dewey frontage. (CS1‐C, CS1‐D, CS2‐A, CS2‐B, CS2‐D, DC2‐A, DC3‐C‐3)

2. Dewey Frontage: Height, Bulk, Scale and Response to Context: Echoing public comment,
the Board was concerned with the extent of blank wall shown and the potential for light and
glare impacts to surrounding residential properties. The Board agreed that the frontage and
scale relationship at this location is critical to address before moving forward.
a. The Board discussed if the elevated parking provides the best frontage condition on
Dewey and recommended studying the arrangement of uses and the location of
parking to provide a residential transition to the single family zoning and better
respond to the existing topography. (CS1‐C, CS2‐A, CS2‐D, CS3‐A‐1, DC1, DC2‐A‐2)
b. Concerned with the visibility of the exposed wall and frontage, the Board agreed with
public comment that additional massing transition, setback and landscape should be
incorporated to develop a sensitive solution, which better relates to the surrounding
residential context. (CS1‐C, CS2‐A, CS2‐B, CS3‐A‐1, DC2‐B, DC3‐C‐3)
c. Affirming the public comment regarding the pedestrian experience along Dewey, the
Board was also concerned with the height of the retaining wall proposed adjacent to
the sidewalk and recommended additional setbacks and planted landscape to
improve the public realm. (CS2‐A, CS2‐B, CS3‐A‐1, PL1‐B‐3, DC4‐D‐4)

3. Setbacks, Site Features and Existing Tree Canopy: While reviewing the existing vegetation
and proposed replacement planting, the Board acknowledged the public’s concern with tree
canopy loss, green wall maintenance, and that fact that the proposed planting will take years
to mature. The Board agreed that the setback depth, amount of landscape buffer, and green
wall maintenance is important to address. For the next meeting, the Board recommended
Page 10 of 25
studying the depth of the setback and seriously examining the potential to save some of the
existing trees. (CS1‐D‐1, CS2‐B, CS2‐D‐2, DC3‐C, DC4‐D)

4. Trash, Vehicular Access and Loading Location: The Board acknowledged splitting the loading
and parking access point into two locations appears logical, but agreed more information
was needed before indicating their preference on the related departures. Related to
developing a sensitive solution to the Dewey frontage, the Board requested studying
alternates, such as one vehicular access point. (CS2‐B‐2, PL1, DC1, DC4)

5. Madison Streetscape and Gathering Space: The Board agreed with public sentiment and
continued to support the addition of a community space along the street, beyond an
enlarged entry sequence, and also encouraged studying the widening of the sidewalk along
Madison to provide adequate space for pedestrian to engage and interact with the
streetscape. (CS2‐B‐2, PL1, PL3‐C, DC3)

6. Materials: The Board continued to strongly support the quality of materials presented. (CS3‐
A‐1, DC2, DC4‐A‐1.)

THIRD EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE January 25, 2017
PUBLIC COMMENT
 Noted that progress has been made on the design of this project since the last design
review meeting; the biggest improvement is residential screening of the above grade
parking along Dewey.
 Concerned that the proposed height, bulk, and scale are not sufficiently mitigated to
provide a reasonable transition to the residential block. The proposal does not respond
to design guidelines addressing Context and Site, specifically CS1 Topography, CS2 Urban
Pattern and Form, and CS3 Architectural Context and Character.
 The limited setback at the lowest level, is now less than shown in EDG2 and does not
appear adequate to accommodate the growth and layering of mature trees and diverse
plantings.
 Would like to see more housing, denser landscaping, less cars and a smaller garage. The
lack of depth of the townhouse facades combined with the imposing upper level retail
read as flat vertical plane towering more than 75 feet above the Dewey Place.
 Concerned that the proposed development does not fit in and alters key characteristics
of the neighborhood – green space and trees creating a buffer and ecological connection
to the Arboretum, walkable streets, open light and space, modest scaled buildings with
similar height and bulk.
 Supported the addition of housing on the Dewey frontage. The addition fully conceals
the garage and eliminates the possibility of car noise and fumes and parking garage light.
 The guidelines support the replacement of ecological services. Would like to see a more
appropriate transition between the zones such as a 20‐30 ft setback.
Page 11 of 25
 The share of traffic exclusive residential access is minimal. The logic supporting split
access implies that it would reduce congestion by spreading traffic over two driveways,
but the reality is that only residential traffic, a modest amount, would be diverted from a
Madison driveway.
 Preference for a single vehicular entrance on Madison. The garage entrance on Dewey
will do little to help mitigate the traffic issues on Madison, but will dramatically alter the
nature of Dewey and the surrounding streets.
 Noted that Dewey remains a narrow (18 feet wide), sub‐standard two‐way street.
 Would like to see the vehicular access departure approval conditioned to include an
onsite turnaround to avoid truck backups on Madison.
 Noted that a nearby comparable size grocery store is not moving forward in the design
review process as it is too large, would like to see the program of this project reduced
before it is moved forward.
 Would like to see greater setbacks on the east facade of the building to mirror the steep
slope that exists on the site today.
 The upper level setbacks are inadequate so that the net result is a large, looming building
that towers over the narrow, largely pedestrian street of Dewey.
 Supported separating the commercial parking access from the residential parking access.
 Would like to see the building footprint reduced, which can be achieved by reconfiguring
the parking and retail space.
 Support for design changes along Dewey Pl E. The proposed townhouses are a much
better transition to the surrounding neighborhood and are more attractive.
 The Board asked for more information related to trees and the information provided is
not sufficient; would like to see the mature urban tree canopy corridor maintained.
 This proposal eliminates significant trees and green landscape, and does not provide
adequate replacement to ecologically sustain the environment.
 The planting area in front of the townhomes is minimal, and the setbacks are too small to
grow full‐sized trees to maturity and won’t be adequate to recreate the urban green
space that has provided ecological services to the area and served as a buffer.
 Lack of support for the townhouses, the usefulness of this setback to ecological function
is eliminated by the townhomes tacked onto the building’s backside.
 Concerned with traffic and parking entry impacts.
 At minimum, the developer should be required to contribute toward road and sidewalk
improvements, as well as traffic calming measures, along the site's adjacent residential
streets.
 Lack of support for the parking entrance on Dewey as it exposes 2 stories of parking
garage to the residential zone.
 Supported the proposed 11‐foot setback to accommodate townhomes and the lowered
retaining wall to create people‐scale views back and forth between the homes and
passers‐by.
 Concerned that the proposal will reduce the amount of green space in the neighborhood.
 Lack of support for the vehicular garage entry on Dewey. It is a narrow alley widely used
as a walkway; having a garage will devastating.
Page 12 of 25
 Concerned with the blank wall appearance of the south side of the building.

 Noted that some object to the removal of large trees on the existing property, but the
hillside is in a liquefaction zone and has been poorly maintained.
 Preference for split vehicular access.
 Supported the garage access point on Madison which includes decorative screening,
improving the appearance of the entryway.
 Would like to see a gathering space for the general community on Madison.
 Supported the enlarged the pedestrian and sidewalk spaces along Madison.
 Would like to see a diagram of the widened curb cut along Madison in full use.
Concerned that two‐way vehicle traffic combined with truck loading/unloading is going
to create a dangerous pedestrian environment.
 Would like to see that vehicles will be able to enter and exit the commercial parking level
concurrently to avoid a significant back up along Madison.
 Concerned with “screened retail access” indicated page 31. Renderings should be true to
the predominant condition.
 Would like to see the façade above the townhomes at the PCC ground level be more
uniform in color to contrast with the townhouses below.
 The color and material transitions should relate to massing changes; at the moment they
don’t relate to form at all. It would be much nicer to carry the dark wood‐like material
shown on either end of the façade across the elevation to connect them, providing a
uniform back drop to the townhouse façade.
 Supported how the wood terminates at the PCC window sills as indicated.
 Concerned with lighting glare impacts from the supermarket.


1. Response to EDG: The Board acknowledged the public comments concerned with the height
bulk and scale of the proposal, however, they concluded that the massing development is
responsive to previous guidance and that the design, overall, is on the right track. The Board
strongly supported the rearrangement of uses, specifically the addition of townhouse units
along the Dewey frontage as the use better reflects the residential character of the
neighborhood, provides an intentional transition to the surrounding single family zoning and
better responds to the existing topography. The Board directed the applicant to proceed
with the developed Massing Option 3. (CS1‐C, CS2‐A, CS2‐D, CS3‐A‐1, DC1, DC2‐A‐2)

2. Dewey Frontage: Height, Bulk, Scale and Response to Context: Although the Board
supported the addition of townhouses along the Dewey frontage, the Board agreed with
public comment that the townhouses appeared shallow and that the north and south
portions of the façade have yet to be resolved. The Board gave the following guidance on
the proposal’s edges and transitions:
Page 13 of 25
a. For the townhouse frontage, the Board recommended exploring the height and
depth of the modulation to read as a simplified and cohesive expression. In addition
to refining the plane changes at the townhouses, the majority of the Board
recommended further articulating the relationship between townhouse and retail
above, potentially with additional upper level setbacks. (CS2‐A, CS2‐D, CS3‐A‐1, DC2‐
A‐2)
b. The Board noted that the north and south ends of the frontage appeared very flat
and requested continued massing development in order to develop a sensitive
transition along the entire frontage. (CS2‐A, CS2‐D, CS3‐A‐1, DC2‐A‐2)
c. The Board was supportive of the thoughtful approach to the streetscape treatment
and agreed the various elements, including terraced retaining walls, railing design
and layered planting, reflect a residential character. (CS2‐B‐2, CS3‐A‐1, PL1)

3. South Frontage: Echoing public comment, the Board expressed concern about providing a
sensitive transition to the adjacent residential properties to the south. The Board
recommended further articulating the lower portion of the facade and adding clerestory
windows to be cohesive with the rest of the architectural cladding concept. (CS1‐C, CS2‐D,
CS3‐A‐1, DC2‐A‐2, DC2‐B)

4. Vehicular Access: The Board agreed with public comment that the code compliant
alternative showing vehicular access solely off Dewey was the least preferred of the
alternatives shown as it creates visual impacts and pedestrian circulation conflicts. The
Board discussed the two other options, split access and all access off Madison. Ultimately the
Board agreed that they would like additional information, graphics, and input from the
technical experts including the City, before indicating their preference on vehicular access
location and the related departures. (PL1, DC1‐B‐1, DC1‐C)

5. Trees and Canopy: The Board acknowledged the public’s concern for the loss of the
significant mature planting, however, the Board deferred to the arborist study as reviewed
and approved by the City and supported the arborist’s findings recommending the removal
of the canopy. Related to the replacement canopy, the Board stated their preference for the
addition of evergreens, to provide year‐round landscape buffer. (CS1‐D‐1, CS2‐B, DC3‐C,
DC4‐D)

6. Madison Streetscape and Gathering Space: The Board discussed the character of the public
community space along Madison. The Board approved of the widening of the sidewalk along
the street as it creates more opportunity for interaction. For the additional outdoor space
adjacent to the grocery entry, the Board recommended the development of a public space
which is true to the nature of the space and agreed the space can either function as a
gathering space or an active sidewalk. In either case, the Board encouraged incorporating
additional seating, space for pause and sightlines for streetscape connection. (CS2‐B‐2, PL1,
PL3‐C, DC3)

7. Materials: The Board continued to approve of the quality of materials presented, in
particular along Madison. For the Dewey façade, the Board agreed with public comment
that that colors are playing a larger role than needed in differentiating portions of the facade
Page 14 of 25
and recommended simplifying and resolving the material treatment into a cohesive
language. The Board also encouraged the introduction of masonry along the Dewey façade
to incorporate residential character and relate to the other main frontage. (CS3‐A‐1, DC2,
DC4‐A‐1.)

RECOMMENDATION September 13, 2017
PUBLIC COMMENT
 Lack of support for the project, the proposal fails to respond appropriately to the context
and site. (CS1‐C CS2‐B)
 Concerned that the project’s height bulk and scale has not been reduced since EDG2.
(CS2‐B.1, CS2‐C.2, CS2‐D.1 and CS2‐D.4)
 Concerned that the project would be devastating environmentally because it would be
not keep environmental impacts to a minimum, keep the removal of trees and
vegetation to a minimum, or keep grading activities and impervious surfaces to a
minimum. (CS1‐D1 and D2)
 Concerned that the project eradicates the site topography, rather than respecting the
topography or using site features to inform the design. (CS1‐C.2)
 Lack of support for the proposed landscaping; an entire greenbelt, that includes an
Exceptional tree and Exceptional grove will be removed. Would like to see an adequate
replacement including evergreen trees along with layering and an understory. (CS1.D1)
 Concerned with the Dewey vehicular entrance. Dewey is a narrow street that many
people walk down the center of on their way to the p‐patch or to Madison and the stairs
up to the Arboretum.
 Felt that the proposal overpowers the site. Concerned that the project’s height, bulk and
scale are far too massive for this site and are larger than at EDG 1. (CS2‐B.1, CS2‐C.2,
CS2‐D.1 and CS2‐D.4)
 Concerned with the NE corner as it is still flat, tall, and set back minimally. Would like to
see additional setbacks incorporated to respond to site topography and transition to the
single family zone.
 Concerned with the proposed tree removal within the greenbelt, which supports rare
wildlife.
 Concerned that the proposal does not fit in with the scale of the neighborhood or
provide an adequate response to the Seattle Design Guidelines.
 Concerned with the effect the newly constructed project will have on the community.
 Would like to see a transition from the old to the new incorporated.
 Concerned that the proposal has become a larger building with reduced setbacks.
 Concerned with the lack of transition where the site abuts single family homes. Noted
that the project site is adjacent to less intensive zones on three sides, and it is
inconsistent with all five of the design guidelines that address the height, bulk, and scale
of zone transitions. (CS2.D.1‐5)
Page 15 of 25
 Concerned that the design of the building does not take in account the existing slope and
would significantly decrease the daylight for the surrounding neighborhood.
 Stressed that the upper level setbacks are inadequate so the result is a large, looming
building that towers over the narrow, largely pedestrian street of Dewey.
 Would like to see current building reduced, especially along the east facade.
 Concerned with the large windows of the retail space, which has privacy impacts for the
surrounding single family houses.
 Lack of support for access off Dewey; would like to see the sidewalks remain safe.
 Lack of support for the project; it will completely enclose the surrounding single family
area.
 Concerned with the removal of trees.
 The building height and the removal of the tree buffer zone are inconsistent with the
requirement for a transition between more and less intense zones in Design Guidelines
CS2‐D.3 and CS2‐D.4.
 Would like to see the existing trees incorporated into the design.
 Concerned with stormwater and that the proposal will significantly impact site drainage.
 Appreciated the work that the architect has done; this project should go forward.
 Would like to see the project incorporate more biking parking/facilities and the vehicular
parking reduced.
 Support for the project; noted that the project site is on a major transportation route.
 Lack of support for the removal of the existing significant trees, as it is inconsistent with
the Design Guidelines.
 Concerned that the site topography, building height and the removal of the tree buffer
zone provides no transition to single‐family homes. (CS2‐D)
 Concerned with the traffic that will come with this project, adding to an already
congested Madison St.

 Concerned that the proposed building will shade the Mad‐P community garden.
 Lack of support for the townhouse units and entrances on Dewey.
 Preference for a 25’‐30’ setback along Dewey.
 Concerned with the removal of trees and healthy urban forest habitat;
 Concerned that the proposal will significantly decrease the amount of permeable surface
on the site and will maximize the hardscape surfaces.
 Would like to see the buffer between the proposed development and the single family
homes increased to afford and increased area for trees.
 Concerned that the planting area in front of the townhomes is minimal and won’t be
adequate to recreate the urban green space that has provided ecological services to the
area and served as a buffer. Exceptional trees are being removed, and the replacement
plantings are not comparable.
 Would like to see the existing tree canopy retained or replaced 1 for 1 to provide
adequate buffers.
Page 16 of 25
 Supported the proposed landscape; the architect’s landscape plan is generous, in
contrast to other new developments of similar size.
 Noted that the builder should take serious precautions to prevent migratory birds from
colliding with this building. Would like to see bird‐friendly lighting and glass.
 Lack of support for vehicular access on Dewey; dual access solves the applicant’s internal
problem of how to have an oversized supermarket and 82 residences on the same site
but does nothing to alleviate the problem on Madison and the surrounding streets.
 Concerned with a vehicular entrance on Dewey as it threatens pedestrians’ safety and is
inconsistent with guidelines CS2D5 and CS2B2.
 Supported the split vehicular entries, having residents enter and exit on Dewey this will
ease congestion on Madison St during rush hour, which is a concern for those who use
the Madison street arterial. Would like to see dumpsters located on the Dewey side of
the parking garage.
 Would like to see the project consider widening Dewey.
 Supported vehicular access exclusively from Madison.
 Concerned with pedestrian safety and the garage entrance on Madison.
 Supported the pedestrian stair. Lighting on such a stair is important, and will be difficult
to get right. Public safety must be balanced against the additional light shining into the
neighborhood nearby.
 Lack of support for the staircase to Madison as it would disrupt the quiet, residential
community.
 Lack of support for back‐lit signage or obtrusive lighting; would like to see signage and
lighting that is tasteful.
 Concerned with the potential for light pollution from ambient and security flood lights
around the building and on the terraces, as well as the headlights from traffic entering
and exiting the garage.
 Lack of support for bold accent colors on the exterior of the building.
 Support for the project and the changes that have been made.
 Concerned with the removal of tree and vegetation and the effect that has on site
drainage and safety and quality of life of people who live and work in this neighborhood.
 Lack of support for the massing, lack of open space and lack of consideration of light and
shadow effects.
 Would like to see the building shortened by one story to bring it more in line with every
other building on Madison and dramatically reduce the visual and visceral impact on its
southern neighbors.
 Preference for increasing the setback on Madison Street to promote a walking friendly
atmosphere.
 Encouraged multiple business spaces.
 Preference for a proposal that incorporates City People’s into its design.
 Supportive of the size of the project, which will house many people and improve
walkability and livability of the region but would like to see vehicle parking reduced and
bicycle parking increased.
Page 17 of 25
 Reduction of parking can contribute to a reduction in the bulk and scale of the building as
well as reduce the development’s effect on mobility and safe pedestrian passage on East
Madison Street and in the adjacent neighborhood.
 Concerned that where the site abuts single family homes, the setback has gone from 15
feet in EDG ‐2 to 10 feet in the current proposal. The row of trees and what appears to
be a very tall fence it is not a very sensitive transition. (CS2‐D3, CS2‐D4, CS2‐D5, PL3‐B1)
 Concerned that the net gain in setbacks on Dewey are misleading. It is mentioned that
they have increased the setback from 6,200 sf to 6,800 sf. That increased amount
includes the townhouses which are part of the building. (CS2‐D3, CS2‐D4, CS2‐D5, PL3‐
B1)
 Concerned that the proposed landscaping is lacking. The choice of trees on Dewey are
slow growing and unless they are well maintained and pruned regularly, they are more
bush‐like and will only grow to about 15 feet. (CS1‐D1, CS1‐D2, CS2‐B3, DC2‐C3B, DC3‐C3)
 Would like to see the neighborhood amenities of high value recognized and supported.
These include the Dewey Basin walking route and the Mad P p‐patch community garden.
 Concerned with pedestrian safety; It is potentially hazardous to have delivery trucks
backing out onto a busy major traffic corridor.
 Concerned with the additional setbacks provided; at the last EDG meeting the Board
asked for additional setbacks on Dewey. Eighteen inches was added above the
commercial level, which is at approximately 30 feet high will be visually lost to anyone
standing on Dewey.
 Concerned with the development of public space on Madison, which appears to be an
extension of the supermarket. (CS2.B2)
 Concerned with who will be responsible for ensuring that the staircase/hill‐climb assist
remains properly lit and maintained.
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 building height calculations are addressed under the City’s zoning code and are not part of
this review.


following recommendations.

1. Response to EDG, Dewey Frontage: The Board acknowledged the public’s concern with the
height bulk and scale of the proposal and recognized the site and change of topography as
Page 18 of 25
challenging. However, the Board concluded the applicant has done a thoughtful job of
modifying the proposal to respond to the context and previous guidance. The Board
supported the overall design advancement and recommended changes to the upper
setbacks along the Dewey frontage to better differentiate the lower and upper massing.
a. The Board noted that the setback had decreased with the addition of townhouse
units along the Dewey frontage, as shown at the previous Early Design Guidance
meeting. The Board continued to support the arrangement and massing of the
townhouse units, as opposed to a visible parking garage and larger setback, since the
design better reflects and responds the residential character of the neighborhood.
(CS1‐C, CS2‐A, CS2‐B, CS2‐D, CS3‐A‐1, DC1, DC2‐A‐2)
b. The Board strongly supported the development of the townhouse frontage, in
particular the simplification of the townhouse massing and the use of masonry and
quality materials. (DC2, DC4‐A)
c. Although the Board supported the refined townhouse frontage, the Board agreed
that the upper level setback at the retail clearstory was not yet adequate and had too
many surface treatments. In order to unify the two surface colors and setbacks into
one, the Board recommended a condition to increase the setback at the retail
clearstory and residential above by 2’ to match the deepest retail clearstory setback
and to limit the variation of color to massing shifts. (CS2‐A, CS2‐B, CS2‐D, CS3‐A‐1,
DC2‐A‐2)
d. For the south frontage, the Board approved of the proposed design which included a
landscape buffer and wooden fence. (CS2‐B, DC2, DC4‐A)
e. Related to Madison, the Board agreed the proposal is appropriately scaled and
supported the massing and use of quality materials. (CS2‐B, CS2‐D, DC2, DC4‐A)

2. Trees and Replacement Canopy: The Board discussed the removal of trees and recognized
the public’s concern for the loss of the significant mature planting, however, the Board
continued to support a replacement landscape buffer. For the buffer, the Board approved of
the proposed design which showed evergreen trees and planting designed to provide year‐
round buffer. (CS1‐D‐1, CS2‐B, DC3‐C, DC4‐D)

3. Madison Streetscape: The Board supported the developed streetscape design which
included two retail spill‐out spaces, additional seating and bike packing. In order to avoid
conflicts with pedestrian circulation, the Board recommended a condition to relocate the
bike parking between trees to another more suitable location along Madison that does not
impede pedestrian circulation. The Board also encouraged additional bike parking be
provided along Madison, but declined to recommend a condition for this item. (CS2‐B‐2,
PL1, PL3‐C, DC3).

4. Hillclimb and Northeast Corner: The Board supported the preliminary hill‐climb design and
the adjacent retail frontage including the retail storefront windows at the corner. Related to
the storefront windows, the Board agreed the amount windows could be reduced facing
Dewey but declined to recommend a condition for this item. The Board also noted the
public comment related to privacy and upper windows. While the Board recognized impacts
Page 19 of 25
such as reduced light, privacy and view are difficult, the Board agreed the design adequately
responds to the context and declined to recommend a condition. (CS2‐B, DC2, DC4‐A, DC3).

5. Materials and Detailing: The Board commended the proposed quality materials, in particular
the masonry along the Madison and Dewey façades. The Board noted that the decision to
use brick on the upper stories is not common in many current projects and agreed the
proposed application, quality and detailing of materials strengthen the design. (DC2, DC4‐A)

6. Vehicular Access and Related Departures: The Board discussed the departure related to
vehicular access and gave the following guidance:
a. The Board noted that SDOT and SDCI support the dual access proposal for both safety
and traffic operation reasons and unanimously recommended approval of the
departure for two points of access as it provides a better pedestrian experience and
has the potential to reduce pedestrian circulation conflicts than the code compliant
alternative with all vehicular access off Dewey or the other alternate showing all
access from Madison St. (DC1‐B‐1, DC1‐C).
b. The Board agreed with public comment that Dewey is a narrow street and would not
have adequate room for trash staging. In order to develop a sensitive solution, the
Board recommended a condition to ensure there is no trash pickup staging along
Dewey. (DC1‐B‐1, DC1‐C).
c. Related to the Madison curb cut departure, the Board discussed the two proposed
doors and whether reducing the openings into one larger door would provide a
better frontage. Ultimately, the Board agreed with the rationale that having two
separate doors for loading and garage access allows the loading door to be closed
when not in use. The Board unanimously recommended approval of the related
departure, provided the width is decreased to the minimum necessary as the
resulting design reduces the conflict with the curb and landscaping and the
pedestrian safety is upheld with the tactile paving strips, mirror and sensory alert
systems. (DC1‐C)

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD DEPARTURES
The Board’s recommendation on the requested departure(s) will be 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 departure(s).

At the time of the Recommendation Meeting the following departures were requested.

1. Vehicular Access (SMC 23.47A.032.A.21): The Code requires vehicular access from Dewey Pl
E. The applicant prefers two points of access from both E Madison St, a pedestrian street,
and Dewey Pl E, but has also shown an option showing all access from Madison St.

The Board unanimously recommended approval of the departure for two points of access as
it provides a better pedestrian experience and has the potential to reduce pedestrian
Page 20 of 25
circulation conflicts than the code compliant alternative with all vehicular access off Dewey
or the other alternate showing all access from Madison St. The Board agreed the resulting
design better meets Design Guidelines DC1‐B‐1 Access Location and Design and DC1‐C
Parking and Service Uses.

2. Curb Cut Width (SMC 23.54.030F.2.b.2): The Code allows a maximum 30’ curb cut. The
applicant proposes a 40’ curb cut width off of E Madison St.

The Board unanimously recommended approval of the departure, provided the width is
decreased to the minimum necessary. The resulting design likely reduces the conflict with
the curb and landscaping and pedestrian safety is upheld with tactile paving strips, mirror
and sensory alert systems. The Board agreed the design better meets Design Guideline DC1‐
C Parking and Service Uses, subject to the condition listed at the end of this report.

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‐3. Managing Solar Gain: Manage direct sunlight falling on south and west facing
facades through shading devices and existing or newly planted trees.
CS1‐C Topography
CS1‐C‐1. Land Form: Use natural topography and desirable landforms to inform project
design.
CS1‐C‐2. Elevation Changes: Use the existing site topography when locating structures
and open spaces on the site.
CS1‐D Plants and Habitat
CS1‐D‐1. On‐Site Features: Incorporate on‐site natural habitats and landscape elements
into project design and connect those features to existing networks of open spaces and
natural habitats wherever possible. Consider relocating significant trees and vegetation if
retention is not feasible.
CS1‐D‐2. Off‐Site Features: Provide opportunities through design to connect to off‐site
habitats such as riparian corridors or existing urban forest corridors. Promote continuous
habitat, where possible, and increase interconnected corridors of urban forest and
habitat where possible.
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‐A Location in the City and Neighborhood
Page 21 of 25
CS2‐A‐1. Sense of Place: Emphasize attributes that give a distinctive sense of place.
Design the building and open spaces to enhance areas where a strong identity already
exists, and create a sense of place where the physical context is less established.
CS2‐A‐2. Architectural Presence: Evaluate the degree of visibility or architectural
presence that is appropriate or desired given the context, and design accordingly.
CS2‐B Adjacent Sites, Streets, and Open Spaces
CS2‐B‐1. Site Characteristics: Allow characteristics of sites to inform the design,
especially where the street grid and topography create unusually shaped lots that can
add distinction to the building massing.
CS2‐B‐2. Connection to the Street: Identify opportunities for the project to make a
strong connection to the street and public realm.
CS2‐B‐3. Character of Open Space: Contribute to the character and proportion of
surrounding open spaces.
CS2‐C Relationship to the Block
CS2‐C‐1. Corner Sites: Corner sites can serve as gateways or focal points; both require
careful detailing at the first three floors due to their high visibility from two or more
streets and long distances.
CS2‐D Height, Bulk, and Scale
CS2‐D‐1. Existing Development and Zoning: Review the height, bulk, and scale of
neighboring buildings as well as the scale of development anticipated by zoning for the
area to determine an appropriate complement and/or transition.
CS2‐D‐2. Existing Site Features: Use changes in topography, site shape, and vegetation or
structures to help make a successful fit with adjacent properties.
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.
CS2‐D‐5. Respect for Adjacent Sites: Respect adjacent properties with design and site
planning to minimize disrupting the privacy of residents in adjacent buildings.
CS3 Architectural Context and Character: Contribute to the architectural character of the
neighborhood.
CS3‐A Emphasizing Positive Neighborhood Attributes
CS3‐A‐1. Fitting Old and New Together: Create compatibility between new projects, and
existing architectural context, including historic and modern designs, through building
articulation, scale and proportion, roof forms, detailing, fenestration, and/or the use of
complementary materials.
PUBLIC LIFE
PL1 Connectivity: Complement and contribute to the network of open spaces around the site
and the connections among them.
PL1‐A Network of Open Spaces
PL1‐A‐1. Enhancing Open Space: Design the building and open spaces to positively
contribute to a broader network of open spaces throughout the neighborhood.
Page 22 of 25
PL1‐A‐2. Adding to Public Life: Seek opportunities to foster human interaction through
an increase in the size and quality of project‐related open space available for public life.
PL1‐B Walkways and Connections
PL1‐B‐3. Pedestrian Amenities: Opportunities for creating lively, pedestrian oriented
open spaces to enliven the area and attract interest and interaction with the site and
building should be considered.
PL1‐C Outdoor Uses and Activities
PL1‐C‐1. Selecting Activity Areas: Concentrate activity areas in places with sunny
exposure, views across spaces, and in direct line with pedestrian routes.
PL1‐C‐2. Informal Community Uses: In addition to places for walking and sitting, consider
including space for informal community use such as performances, farmer’s markets,
kiosks and community bulletin boards, cafes, or street vending.
PL1‐C‐3. Year‐Round Activity: Where possible, include features in open spaces for
activities beyond daylight hours and throughout the seasons of the year, especially in
neighborhood centers where active open space will contribute vibrancy, economic
health, and public safety.
PL3 Street‐Level Interaction: Encourage human interaction and activity at the street‐level with
clear connections to building entries and edges.
PL3‐C Retail Edges
PL3‐C‐1. Porous Edge: Engage passersby with opportunities to interact visually with the
building interior using glazing and transparency. Create multiple entries where possible
and make a physical and visual connection between people on the sidewalk and retail
activities in the building.
PL3‐C‐3. Ancillary Activities: Allow space for activities such as sidewalk vending, seating,
and restaurant dining to occur. Consider setting structures back from the street or
incorporating space in the project design into which retail uses can extend.
PL4 Active Transportation: Incorporate design features that facilitate active forms of
transportation such as walking, bicycling, and use of transit.
PL4‐C Planning Ahead For Transit
PL4‐C‐1. Influence on Project Design: Identify how a transit stop (planned or built)
adjacent to or near the site may influence project design, provide opportunities for
placemaking.
DESIGN CONCEPT
DC1 Project Uses and Activities: Optimize the arrangement of uses and activities on site.
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‐C Parking and Service Uses
DC1‐C‐1. Below‐Grade Parking: Locate parking below grade wherever possible. Where a
surface parking lot is the only alternative, locate the parking in rear or side yards, or on
lower or less visible portions of the site.
Page 23 of 25
DC1‐C‐2. Visual Impacts: Reduce the visual impacts of parking lots, parking structures,
entrances, and related signs and equipment as much as possible.
DC1‐C‐4. Service Uses: Locate and design service entries, loading docks, and trash
receptacles away from pedestrian areas or to a less visible portion of the site to reduce
possible impacts of these facilities on building aesthetics and pedestrian circulation.
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‐A Massing
DC2‐A‐1. Site Characteristics and Uses: Arrange the mass of the building taking into
consideration the characteristics of the site and the proposed uses of the building and its
open space.
DC2‐A‐2. Reducing Perceived Mass: Use secondary architectural elements to reduce the
perceived mass of larger projects.
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‐D Scale and Texture
DC2‐D‐1. Human Scale: Incorporate architectural features, elements, and details that are
of human scale into the building facades, entries, retaining walls, courtyards, and exterior
spaces in a manner that is consistent with the overall architectural concept
DC3 Open Space Concept: Integrate open space design with the building design so that they
complement each other.
DC3‐C Design
DC3‐C‐1. Reinforce Existing Open Space: Where a strong open space concept exists in
the neighborhood, reinforce existing character and patterns of street tree planting,
buffers or treatment of topographic changes. Where no strong patterns exist, initiate a
strong open space concept that other projects can build upon in the future.
DC3‐C‐3. Support Natural Areas: Create an open space design that retains and enhances
onsite natural areas and connects to natural areas that may exist off‐site and may
provide habitat for wildlife.
DC4 Exterior Elements and Finishes: Use appropriate and high quality elements and finishes
for the building and its open spaces.
DC4‐A Exterior 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‐C Lighting
Page 24 of 25
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‐C‐2. Avoiding Glare: Design project lighting based upon the uses on and off site,
taking care to provide illumination to serve building needs while avoiding off‐site night
glare and light pollution.
DC4‐D Trees, 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‐4. Place Making: Create a landscape design that helps define spaces with
significant elements such as trees.

RECOMMENDATIONS & BOARD DIRECTION
At the conclusion of the RECOMMENDATION meeting, the Board unanimously recommended
approval of the project with conditions.

The recommendation summarized above was based on the design review packet dated
Wednesday, September 13, 2017, and the materials shown and verbally described by the
applicant at the Wednesday, September 13, 2017 Design Recommendation meeting. After
considering the site and context, hearing public comment, reconsidering the previously
identified design priorities and reviewing the materials, the four Design Review Board members
recommended APPROVAL of the subject design and departures with the following conditions:

1. Along the Dewey frontage, increase the setback at the retail clearstory and residential above
by 2’ to match the deepest retail clearstory setback; limit the variation of color to massing
shifts. (CS2‐A, CS2‐B, CS2‐D, CS3‐A‐1, DC2‐A‐2)
2. Relocate the bike parking between trees to another more suitable location on Madison that
does not impede pedestrian circulation. (CS2‐B‐2, PL1, PL3‐C, DC3)
3. Ensure there is no trash pickup staging area located along Dewey. (DC1‐C)
4. Decrease the 40’ curb cut width off of Madison to the minimum necessary. (DC1‐C)
Page 25 of 25
City of Seattle
Engineering Services
CHRIS DAVIDSON
2001 Western Avenue, Ste 200
Seattle, WA 98121
Re: Project# 6541076
Environmentally Critical Areas Consideration

Review Type ECA EXMP Date July 05, 2016
Project Address 2925 E Madison St Contact Phone (206) 587-3797
Contact Email cdavidson@studioms.com Contact Fax (206) 587-0588
SDCI Reviewer Jim Mattoon Address Seattle Department of
Construction and
Reviewer Phone (206) 684-5979
Inspections
Reviewer Fax 700 5th Ave Suite 2000
PO Box 34019
Reviewer Email Jim.Mattoon@seattle.gov
Seattle, WA 98124-4019
Owner CHRIS DAVIDSON
SMC 25.09. Environmentally Critical Areas (ECAs) review is required for building permit
applications. Based on a review of the submitted information and the City GIS system, SDCI
concludes that the project appears to quality for the criteria established in the Critical Areas
Regulations, SMC 25.09.180.B2b. Specifically, the City GIS system and the submitted information
for the steep slope developmental allowance application demonstrated that steep slopes at and
adjacent to the site appeared to have been created by previous legal grading activities associated
with street improvements and property development. Further, the geotechnical report by
GeoEngineers, Inc., dated November 17, 2015, inferred that granting a steep slope exemption will
not result in adverse impacts on this site and adjacent properties. For these reasons, SDCI will
waive the required ECA Steep Slope Variance associated with SDCI Application No. 6541076. This
approval is conditioned upon a subsequent building permit application for a design that
demonstrates that the proposed development will be completely stabilized in accordance with the
recommendations presented in the geotechnical report and provisions of the ECA Code and
Grading Code. All other ECA Submittal, General, and Landslide-Hazard, and development
standards still apply for this development.
Project# 6541076 Page 1 of 1

How to Respond to a Seattle DCI Correction
City of Seattle Notice
Step 1: Wait for all reviews to be completed
• You may check the status of any review at the following link:
http://web6.seattle.gov/dpd/permitstatus
• All reviews must be completed before the applicant can respond, upload, or submit any correction
responses.
• Electronic Plans: We will send correction letters to the Seattle DCI Project Portal. We will notify the
primary contact for the project when all reviews in the review cycle are complete.
• Paper Plans: We will notify the primary contact for the project by email or phone when all reviews in
the review cycle are complete and plans are ready to be picked up. Once you have been notified, pick
up the plans at Plans Routing in the Applicant Service Center.
Step 2: Make Corrections

Provide a written response for each item on all correction notices. We will not accept corrected
plans without written responses. Include the following information for each item:
• Describe the change
• Say where the change can be found in the plan set
• If you have not made a requested change, give a code citation or provide calculations to explain why
not
• Coordinate responses to correction items among all designers, architects, engineers, and owners
• If you make voluntary changes to your plans, describe the changes you have made in your response
letter
Correct your Plans:
• Cloud or circle all changes
• You may add new sheets to the plan set if you have new information to show
For Electronic Plans:
• Always upload a complete plan set
For Paper Plans:
If you replace sheets in the paper plan sets:
• Remove the old sheets, mark them as “VOID,” and include them loose at the back of each plan set
• All original sheets and plan pages must be returned to Plans Routing in the Applicant Service Center
• Insert the new sheets and staple the plan sets
If you make changes to the original paper plan sheets:
• Make all changes with ink (preferably red, waterproof ink). Do not use pencil to make changes
• Do not tape or staple anything to the plan sets
Platting Actions: Provide new copies of the survey when responding to a correction notice for a
shortplat, lot boundary adjustment, or other platting action. Provide the same number of copies that were
required when you submitted the project.
Step 3: Submit Corrected Plans

Electronic Plans:
Upload your corrected plan set and correction response letter through your Seattle DCI Project Portal.
Paper Plans:
Return your corrected plans and your correction response letter to Plans Routing in the Applicant Services
Center.
If you don't follow these instructions:
• Plans Routing may not accept your corrected plans
• We may be delayed in starting corrected plan review, which can delay permit issuance
• We may charge a penalty fee
Plans Routing / Applicant Services Center - 700 5th Avenue, 20th Floor
Hours: Monday, Wednesday, Friday: 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m., Tuesday, Thursday: 10:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.

Save Madison Valley Appeal

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Save Madison Valley Appeal

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Seattle Department of

Construction & Inspections__________________________

Record Number: 3020338-LU

Applicant Name: Chris Davidson of Studio Meng Strazzara

Address of Proposal: 2925 E Madison St

The following approvals are required:

Design Review with Departures (Seattle Municipal Code 23.41)*

SEPA - Environmental Determination (Seattle Municipal Code Chapter 25.05)

• The applicant submitted for early design guidance in May 2016.

SITE AND VICINITY

Site Zones: Neighborhood Commercial (NC2P-40 and NC2P-30)

Lot Area: 40,422 SF

Current and Surrounding Development; Neighborhood Character:

I. ANALYSIS – DESIGN REVIEW

FIRST EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE July 13, 2016

PRIORITIES & BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

SECOND EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE October 26, 2016

• There is no community space offered on Madison as was requested by the Board;

PRIORITIES & BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

THIRD EARLY DESIGN GUIDANCE January 25, 2017

The following public comments were offered at this meeting:

PRIORITIES & BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

7. Materials: The Board continued to approve of the quality of materials presented, in

RECOMMENDATION September 13, 2017

The following public comments were offered at this meeting:

PRIORITIES & BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD DEPARTURES

DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES

CONTEXT & SITE

DC1-C-1. Below-Grade Parking: Locate parking below grade wherever possible.

RECOMMENDATIONS & BOARD DIRECTION

At the conclusion of the RECOMMENDATION meeting, the Board unanimously recommended

ANALYSIS & DECISION – DESIGN REVIEW

a. Reflects inconsistent application of the design review guidelines; or

Applicant response to Recommended Design Review Condition:

II. ANALYSIS – SEPA

Environmental review resulting in a Threshold Determination is required pursuant to the State

Under such limitations/circumstances, mitigation can be considered. Thus, a more detailed

Short Term Impacts

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Construction Impacts - Parking and Traffic

Pursuant to SMC 25.05.675.B (Construction Impacts Policy), additional mitigation is warranted

Construction Impacts - Noise

Construction Impacts – Mud and Dust

Long Term Impacts

Height, Bulk, and Scale

Plants and Animals

Determination of Non-Significance. This proposal has been determined to not have a

CONDITIONS – DESIGN REVIEW

For the Life of the Project

Prior to Issuance of Demolition, Excavation/Shoring, or Construction Permit

Prior to Issuance of a Construction Permit

IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR ISSUANCE OF YOUR MASTER USE PERMIT

Master Use Permit Expiration and Issuance

LAND USE CODE

Related DPD Master Use Permit (MUP)

2) Whether the proposed development, which includes removal of existing trees

3) For purposes of height measurement under SMC Section 23.86.006.A.2,

For information only. No response is required for this correction notice

Except as described herein, the remaining Environmentally Critical Areas

10. Records of a grading permit application by H. N. Clifton dating from November

12. Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) Section 25.09.180 provides in part:

25.09.180 Development standards for steep slope areas

B. Impacts on steep slope areas