Developers are ready to trade a 15th Ave E parking lot for a new 36-unit apartment building. Now, they hope to convince the review board they have the finishing touches necessary to do the job.
The Wren building will take its second and likely final pass in front of the East Design Review Board Wednesday night after getting kicked back in the process in July for a design proposal that lacked in the “materials and detailing” department on its 15th Ave E-facing façade. “The Board struggled with how the design relates to adjacent buildings and creates its own sense of place and identity,” the report (PDF) on the July session reads.
Wednesday night, developer Isola Homes and the architects from Caron Architecture will come to the table with a plan for cedar siding and aluminum that they hope convinces the board the four-story, 36-unit project with a planned 1,400 feet of commercial space is ready to move forward.
The planned building will stand where a surface parking lot fills the space today sandwiched between the credit union-turned architecture office home of Board and Vellum and SASG to the south and the East John Court building home to Bakery Nouveau to the north. No parking is planned for the project — unless you count the dozen bike stalls being designed into the building’s first floor.
The Board and Vellum building and parking lot were purchased for $2.5 million in spring 2015 by developer Isola Homes, according to King County Records. While the former credit union building has been overhauled and repurposed for offices, the parking lot turned out to be Isola’s developmental target. Caron had also designed the four-story building that had been slated to replace the credit union structure before the economic meltdown of the late 2000s.
In its proposal, Isola says the Wren project will create commercial space “which contributes to the existing economic infrastructure of the 15th Avenue Corridor,” while developing “a small scale, pedestrian oriented streetscape which will expand the social scene of the vicinity by infilling a site that is currently surface parking.” Isola says the project will also “provide critical mass to the urban fabric at the south end of the ’15th street Corridor'” and create “a sense of place for the neighborhood.”
If you can’t make Wednesday night’s meeting but have something to say, send email to project planner [email protected].
Can we just ban those dumb “Juliette” balconies now? What is the point of them? Also, when is corrugated metal panels/siding going out of style? It must be cheap, does anyone really love that material?
General design complaints aside, this will be way better than a parking lot though.
My understanding is that the balconies count for the “open space” requirement that developers/architects must adhere to…..can anyone confirm this? But I agree they are useless and unattractive elements of a building.
At least now those corrugated siding boxed don’t look out of place with the neighborhood. They ARE the neighborhood.
(but I agree – the Juliet balconies are cheap looking and serve no purpose other than letting developers get some break for letting in light or whatever).
I think you need the Juliet balconies so that the resident can open the full length sliding door without worrying about walking through the screen and falling to the street below. Railings are required by code for these, I believe?
I think this building looks fine… appropriate size, shape, and use for the context.
I don’t mind Juliet balconies at all. I prefer an actual balcony but at least there is something to step out on or serving as a railing to an open slider. I’m all for as much opportunity to get light and air as possible.
I see slab metal siding but no corrugated metal.
All in all, I think this is a nice project.
Right – that’s why you usually only put a window in when there’s somewhere to step out to. Why don’t they just put in a large window?
Dah can’t edit… I mean why put in a sliding glass door when there’s nothing to exit to.
A slider with a railing allows for more airflow (larger surface opening than a window), you can lean up against it and peer out to take in your surroundings. You feel less closed in….
Can someone educate me on why there would be no parking for the residents? I get that this is a very walkable neighborhood, but people still drive in this city.
Because Seattle now believes that cars are evil, and just wishing away the need for them for anybody can make it so.
My question– and I seriously don’t know– if someone lists as their address a newly constructed apt bldg that has no parking, can they still buy a RPZ parking decal? This is (I believe) Zone 4 parking. If on the one hand you’re going to claim a car isn’t necessary so the bldg doesn’t need parking, you shouldn’t on the other hand be able to buy a RPZ decal. I could see grandfathering long-time residents but new residents and/or new bldgs shouldn’t be able to buy them, in my opinion.
@Jim98122x – I suspect there’s not that much planning involved. My observation is that the city is more reactive. Reducing carbon impacts is a thing, so they say “hey, we want to be a car free city and so let’s eliminate parking. Paris and San Francisco don’t have minimums”. (Of course they have extensive rail…) Then the neighbors complain that they can’t park in the public right of way in front of their house, so to get them to shut up they make it restricted parking.
I’m betting there is no plan for when the # of permits exceeds available parking. Getting people out of their cars is by design.
My personal opinion – it’s all public right of way, so there shouldn’t be RPZs at all. But it’s politics.
Jim, its seems you can. I don’t believe the city links the buildings availability of onsite parking to the ability to get a PRZ permit.
2 years ago aPodements went up next to me. 57 units total and I have observed many of those residents parking on the street with PRZ, Zone 4 permits in their vehicles windows.
Probably because building underground parking tends to increase the cost of a new building by as much as 30%, and as such, dramatically increases the minimum rent necessary to be profitable?
And above-ground parking is ugly and pedestrian-unfriendly.
This is an excellent location for a building without parking. It’s next to a grocery store, along a pedestrianized business district, on several bus lines, across the street from a major employer and walking distance to a light rail station. People who rely on their cars probably just shouldn’t live here. In fact, I’m in the camp of not issuing RPZ permits for new construction like this, just as a way to promote this site for non-car-users.
Life is about decisions. If you have a car and chose to use it to get around the city, you should make the decision to live in a place that has parking. It’s as simple as that.
“Life is about decisions. If you have a car and chose to use it to get around the city, you should make the decision to live in a place that has parking. It’s as simple as that.”
“Life is about decisions. If you can’t afford the rent in an area, you should make the decision to live in a place that is cheaper. It’s as simple as that.”
woonerf has solved affordable housing too. There’s no need to address issues; just say “live somewhere else.”
woonerf is correct that this is a great car-free location. Ditch the car if you 1) want to live in one of the densest parts of the city, and 2) are inclined towards complaining about truly boring things like parking. If you need a car, perhaps you should consider living closer to wherever your daily activities are (work, school, whatever). The other choice is just drive around and find a street spot like a champ.
Jim98122x – it’s absurd to suggest limiting RPZ stickers to people who already have access to parking. Like, really very silly and definitely not the point.
It seems to me that someone living in a building without parking should get first dibs on RPZ permits. But then again, the permits have no limit, so that idea doesn’t go anywhere. But since street space is public & someone living in a building without parking is still a neighborhood resident, then I hope RPZs flow down from the sky like manna from heaven.
A truly wasted opportunity to date is the Key Bank property and lot. The bank is a cavern of minimal use and ugly. Its building should be torn down and that and the lot replaced with a multistory building that a new bank branch and other retail can go in. But PLEASE owner, if you do develop it, dig a large hole for parking for residents and business users.
If you’re not aware, Key Bank is undergoing a major renovation inside. Sadly, it won’t be going anywhere anytime soon.
I agree with you tho….
Personally, I think this is great location for higher density. Add 1-2 more stories for housing. Noting that the site (empty parking lot) displaces no businesses or people. We have a housing crisis and here is another opportunity to help address it.
You “pro-density at any cost” people are never satisfied. This development will add 36 new units to the neighborhood. Why isn’t that enough?
Because the cost of housing is still increasing, therefore we are producing an insufficient quantity of it, given a supply/demand marketplace?
Would you rather have 15 people driving in from Kent?