Reminder: Seattle Asian Art Museum overhaul and expansion land use meeting

Another night, another important development meeting for an iconic part of the Capitol Hill landscape. Thursday, City of Seattle officials will hold a meeting to provide an opportunity for citizen comment on the environmental impact of the three-story, 13,650 square-foot project that includes a seismic and systems overhaul of the 83-year-old building home to the Seattle Asian Art Museum and a 3,600 square-foot expansion of the facility.

CHS reported here on the petition that put the public hearing on the schedule. Museum officials say they support the opportunity for more public feedback on the project during its “Master Use Permit” application process.

Seattle Asian Art Museum Land Use Public Meeting

The planned fall 2017 project would expand the Asian Art Museum 3,600 square feet into the park from the east side of the 1933 historic building. The museum plans to add more display space to represent South Asia and India as well as fix infrastructure issues including a climate control system and seismic upgrades, while making the museum ADA accessible. The project has faced a wave of opposition from neighbors but a museum representative said the tide of public feedback received has shifted after a CHS story documented the first letters on the projects from neighbors — a tally late last week, showed 56 letters in support of the project, 43 opposed, and six “other/neutral.”

While the comments collected are important, the final decision won’t be a vote decided by the public. Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections planners must weigh the proposed project’s potential environmental impact including views and recreational use in the landmarks-protected Volunteer Park. In addition to speaking Thursday night, comments can also be sent to PRC@seattle.gov referencing project #3024753.

 

Subscribe and support CHS Contributors -- $1/$5/$10 per month

One thought on “Reminder: Seattle Asian Art Museum overhaul and expansion land use meeting

  1. Justin, did the “museum representative” attribute a swing in opinion to the CHS article? And are they referring to letters to the museum, or letters to the city? Big distinction in terms of bias. Thanks for covering the issue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *