design review board - seattle

Design Review Board777 THOMAS STREET | SEATTLE, WASHINGTON

MACFARLANE PARTNERS / ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.07.31.2013 DPD PROJECT # 3014045

SITE

777

N

2DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013

MACFARLANE PARTNERS, LLC

ANKROM MOISAN ARCHITECTS, INC.

Table of Contents

Project Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

SITE ANALYSIS : context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Landmark’s Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Proposed Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Previously Presented Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Revised Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Proposed Site Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Proposed Development: Ground Floor Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Proposed Development: Second Floor Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Proposed Development: Typical Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

PLANS: Roof . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

SECTIONS : A - North South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

SECTIONS : B - East West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

ELEVATIONS : Materials Selections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

ELEVATIONS : East - 8th Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

ELEVATIONS : North - Thomas Street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

ELEVATIONS : West - Alley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

ELEVATIONS : South - Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Response to DRB 1 Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

DRB Theme 1 : 8th Avenue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

DRB Theme 2 : Emphasizing Primary Residential Entry . . . . . . 25

DRB Theme 3 : Response to Alley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

DRB Theme 4 : Response to Neighboring Church . . . . . . . . . 33

DRB Theme 5 : Response to Historic Landmark . . . . . . . . . . . 38

DRB Theme 6: Signage and Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

DRB Theme 7: Departures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



Project Information

PROJECT ADDRESS

777 Thomas StreetSeattle, WA 98109

PROJECT TEAM

OWNER/APPLICANT:

MacFarlane Partners

201 Spear Street, 14th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105415.356.2500Contact: Susan [email protected]

ARCHITECT:

Ankrom Moisan Architects

117 South Main Street, Suite 400Seattle, WA 98104206.576.1600Contact: Ricky [email protected]

PROGRAM GOALS

DEVELOPMENT PROFILE

1. Use Type III wood frame construction

2. Achieve a minimum 174 residential units

3. 0.80 parking ratio minimum

1. 174 Units

2. 113,000 sf Net Rentable Residential

3. 5,070 sf Retail Space

4. 130 Parking Spaces

PROJECT GOALS

JOB / HOUSING BALANCE

Urban infi ll promotes job and housing balance, promoting 24 hour environments where people work/live/play all near their home. This results in less vehicle miles traveled, more use of public transit, etc.

MAKE IT MEMORABLE

Our project thrives to be unique in a sea of non-distinct mid-rise market rate housing. Our project will tell a story unique to the neighborhood with townhomes aimed at young families, work spaces geared to small businesses and material and form used in distinctive ways.

COMMERCIAL

RESIDENTIAL

OTHER


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



N

HARRISON STREET

THOMAS STREET

JOHN STREET

DEX

TER

AVE

N

8th

AVE

N

9th

AVE

N

WES

TLA

KE

AVE

N

DENNY WAY7 Denny Park Plan4 Denny Park Apts *Busy Massing & Colors

1

2

5

4

SITE ANALYSIS : context

1 1 Story Brick Building *Punched Openings

*Patchy Detail Accents

2 1 Story Brick Building *Intricate Brick Patterns

*Large Storefront

3 Trinity Park Lutheran Church *Monochramatic Palette *Brick

5 2 Story Residence *Sits Alone Next to Surface Parking

6 Seattle Unity Church *Clean & Simple Massing

*Ribbon Windows6

7Off Leash Dog Area

3

PROPOSEDPROJECT

DPD# 3012408

site


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



Landmark’s Features

large windows door integrated into bay module

horizontal band

simple ornament on pilasterregular bay module

Proposed Development

Site Plan - Proposed DesignN

0 8’ 16’ 32’

1

2

3

4

5

Remove existing floor slab and replace with new slab to accommodate underground parking, below landmark and adjacent new development.

Remove existing roof structure and replace with new concrete deck to accommodate new residential development and outdoor amenity space.

Remove existing wall during construction and rebuild with salvaged bricks

Remove portion of existing wall to accommodate parking entry. Site topography requires parking entry to be located here.

Remove existing wall to engage landmark with adjacent new development.

Proposed Changes

Residential Entry

Retail Entry

Vehicle Entry

ALLEY

8TH AVE N

THO

MA

S S

T


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



60’

120’777 Thomas(Landmark)

ExistingEntry

Residential Development

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

Previously Presented Concept

CONCEPT DIAGRAM CONCEPT DIAGRAM


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013




777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



Revised Proposal


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



Proposed Site Plan

N

UP

UP

UP UP UP UP

UNITUNITUNIT

UNIT

UNIT

UNIT

UNIT

UNIT

UNIT UNIT UNIT UNIT

RETAIL

LOBBY

LEASING

RETAIL

PARKING

TRASH

TRASH

DN 8.3% SLOPE

UNIT

UP

UP

UP


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



Proposed Development: Ground Floor Plan

0 5’ 10’ 20’

SCALE: 1”=20’

Thom

as S

tree

t

Chu

rch

8th Avenue

Alley


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



Proposed Development: Second Floor Plan

N0 5’ 10’ 20’

SCALE: 1”=20’

Thom

as S

tree

t

8th Avenue

Alley


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



Proposed Development: Typical Plan

UNITNNNIINIT UNITNNUNIT UNITNNNUNIT

UNITUUUUUUUUUUU TUNITUUUUUUUUUU T

UNITUNITNIT

ELEC

UNITUUUUUUUU

UNITTUNITNU

UNITU TUNIT

UNITUN

UNITNNUN

UNITN

UNITNI

UNITUUNNUNI UNITUN T

UNITITN UNITT

UNITTTTTTTTTT

UNITNU

UNITNITUNIT

UNITUNUN

TRASH

UNITU UNIT UNITNNNUNIT UNITTTIT

N0 5’ 10’ 20’

SCALE: 1”=20’

Thom

as S

tree

t

8th Avenue

Alley


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



PLANS: Roof

A

OVERALL ROOF PLANB

A

OVERALL ROOF PLANB

Thom

as S

tree

t

8th Avenue

Alley

N


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



SECTIONS : A - North South

KEY PLAN

Units

Parking/BOH

Retail

8th Avenue

Thomas Street

8th Avenue

Thomas Street

Thomas Street

Level 7

Level 6

Level 5

Level 4

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1

Property Line

Parking

RetailLobby

Property Line

Upper Level Setback per SMC23.48.012

N

Units

Parking

RetailKEY PLAN

8th Avenue

Thomas Street

8th Avenue

Thomas Street


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



SECTIONS : B - East West

Parking

Parking

Alley

Parking

Property Line

Property Line2’ Alley Dedication

8th Avenue North

Level 7

Level 6

Level 5

Level 4

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1

ELEVATIONS : Materials Selections


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



FIBER CEMENT PANEL FIBER CEMENT PLANK WHITE VINYL WINDOWSBRICK - COLE CREEK

MAIN BODY PLANKS FRAME/TRIM PENTHOUSE

MISTY GRAY BUNNY GRAY THUNDERCLOUD GRAY DEEP SILVER

PAINTED CONCRETE

ELEVATIONS : East - 8th Avenue

KEY PLAN

8th Avenue

Thomas Street

8th Avenue

Thomas Street


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



White Frame Vinyl Window

Bolt-on Balcony with Glass Guardrail

Fiber Cement Panel Fiber Cement Panel

Dark Mansonry Veneer Alum. StorefrontSteel and glass canopy

Existing landmarkpainted concrete wall

Existing landmark window system

Glass Guardrail System

Planter

Upper Level Setback per SMC23.48.012

PropertyLine

PropertyLine

ELEVATIONS : North - Thomas Street


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



KEY PLAN

8th Avenue

Thomas Street

8th Avenue

Thomas Street

Bolt-on Balcony with Glass Guardrail

Fiber Cement Panel

Fiber Cement Panel

Fiber Cement Panel

White Vinyl window

16’

Existing landmark window system

Existing landmarkpainted concrete wall

ELEVATIONS : West - Alley


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



KEY PLAN

8th Avenue

Thomas Street

8th Avenue

Thomas Street

Existing landmark painted concrete wall

Cast in place concrete

Dumpster Staging

Glass Guardrail System

Bolt-on balcony White Vinyl WindowFiber Cement Panel

Fiber cement panel

Property Line

Fiber cement panel

Cast in place concreteWhite vinyl window

Bolt-on balcony

Fiber cement panel


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



ELEVATIONS : South - Church

8th Avenue

KEY PLAN

Thomas Street

8th Avenue

Thomas Street

Response to DRB 1 Direction


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



1: 8TH AVENUE

2: EMPHASIZING PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL ENTRY

3: RESPONSE TO ALLEY

4: RESPONSE TO NEIGHBORING CHURCH

5: RESPONSE TO HISTORIC LANDMARK

6: LIGHTING AND SIGNAGE

7: DEPARTURES

MAJOR THEMES

Design Review Board Comments from DRB 1 GUIDELINE DRB RECOMMENDATION

A-2STREETSCAPE COMPATIBILITY

The Board reiterated the applicant should discuss options with SDOT to move the curb line further out to the street and provide a curb bulb.

A-3ENTRANCES VISIBLE FROM THE STREET

The Board suggested that the planter walls be replaced with lower planters and taller landscaping to soften and screen the patios.

A-6TRANSITION BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND STREET

The Board recommended that the planters separating the residential entries and the sidewalk should relate to a human scale and provide a visual transition to the entries.

D-1PEDESTRIAN OPEN SPACES AND ENTRANCES

The Board noted that the area adjacent to the south facing wall of the historic landmark should be designed to enhance the recessed entry with items such as lighting, landscaping, and benches.

D-6SCREENING OF DUMPSTERS, SERVICE AREAS

The Board expressed concern the solid waste staging area may not be sufficient. The applicant should demonstrate how the staging area will sufficiently accommodate the collection schedule and amount of solid waste on collection days.

D-7PERSONAL SAFETY AND SECURITY

The Board recommended bringing the garage door entry closer to the alley property line to assist with safety and security.

GUIDELINE DRB RECOMMENDATION

D-8TREATMENT OF ALLEYS

The Board noted that locating the garage door entry should line up with the wall of the building above.

D-10COMMERCIAL LIGHTING

Operable rollup doors, lighting, and any other strategies that can help to enhance the commercial viability on Thomas St would be strongly supported by the Board.

D-11RESPECT FOR ADJACENT SITES

Operable rollup doors, lighting, and any other strategies that can help to enhance the commercial viability on Thomas St would be strongly supported by the Board.

D-12TRANSITION BETWEEN RESIDENCE AND STREET

The Board recommended that the ROW should include items to delineate the entry location, such as benches or landscaping.

E-2LANDSCAPING TO ENHANCE THE BUILDING

The Board would like to see details of landscaping at the base of the dark masonry piers. The landscaping should serve to soften the material and enhance the residential entries. The landscape plan on the south facade should be designed to enhance the individual patio areas, rather than linear landscaping that appears to delineate a walkway.

DRB Theme 1 : 8th Avenue

Relevant Design GuidelinesA-2 Streetscape Compatibility

A-3 Entrances Visible from the Street

A-6 Transition Between Residence and Street

Design Review Board Recommendations

“... the planters separating the residential entries and the sidewalk should relate to a human scale and provide a visual transition to the entries.”The Board reiterated the applicant should discuss options with SDOT to move the curb line further out to the street and provide a curb bulb.

The Board suggested that the planter walls be replaced with lower planters and taller landscaping to soften and screen the patios.

“The Board appreciated the orientation of the street level entries and felt that the design of the front patios would serve to enhance the entries and usability of the patios.”


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



DRB Theme 1: 8th Avenue - Individual Entries


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



SECTION AT STOOP

7’

Property Line

6’ 6’

B C

11’

7’

4’-4

”

DRB Theme 1: 8th Avenue - Individual Entries


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



DRB Theme 2 : Emphasizing Primary Residential Entry

Relevant Design Guidelines

D-1 Pedestrian Open Spaces and Entrances

D-12 Residential Entries and Transitions


The Board noted that the area adjacent to the south facing wall of the historic landmark should be designed to enhance the recessed entry with items such as lighting, landscaping, and benches.

The Board recommended that the ROW should include items to delineate the entry location, such as benches or landscaping


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



DRB Theme 2: Emphasizing Primary Residential Entry

ENLARGED ENTRYLANDCAPE PLAN

16’

15’-8”

21’-7

”

33’-6

”


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



Retai l Space

1. LANDSCAPE FORMS PARALLEL BENCH 2. LOW ACCENT WALLS.

4. PLANTINGS AT FOUNDATION AND CANOPY. 3. PET REST AREA IN PLANTERS.



777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



DRB Theme 3 : Response to Alley

Relevant Design GuidelinesD-6 Screening of Dumpsters, Utilities, and Service Areas

D-7 Personal Safety and Security

D-8 Treatment of Alleys


“The Board was concerned with the safety issues presented by the recessed garage entry.”

“The applicant should demonstrate how the staging area will suffi ciently accommodate the collection schedule and amount of solid waste on collection days.”

The Board noted that locating the garage door entry should line up with the wall of the building above.


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



DRB Theme 3: Response to Alley – Activating Pedestrian Experience

A PISA UNIT BLOCK WALLS B LARGE MULTI-LEVEL PLANTING AREA C TOURNESOL SITEWORKS PLANTERSFOR PRIVACY E ARCHITECTURAL SLAB PAVING

24”x24” (TYP.) D ACCENT TREES, (STEWARTIA SP.)

C

B D

E

A


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



8th Avenue

KEY PLAN

Thomas Street

DRB Theme 3: Response to Alley – Activating Pedestrian Experience


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



8th Avenue

KEY PLAN

Thomas Street

DRB Theme 3: Response to Alley - Waste Management Strategy

UP

8 7 6 4

A

5

B

C

PARKING ENTRY

ALLEY

TRAS

H2

C.YD

RECY

CLIN

G2

C.YD

RETAILTRASH/RECYC

14

RECY

CLIN

G2

C.YD

SOILD WASTE STAGING AREA

RECY

CLIN

G2

C.YD

RECY

CLIN

G2

C.YD

RECY

CLIN

G2

C.YD

RECY

CLIN

G2

C.YD

THE TRASH AND RECYCLING STRATEGY INCLUDES A LANDING ADJACENT TO THE ALLEY TO STAGE DUMPSTERS ON COLLECTION DAYS AND ALLOW CLEAR TRAVEL PATHS THROUGH THE ALLEY.

TRASH / RECYCLE STAGING AREA


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



Relevant Design GuidelinesE-2 Landscaping to Enhance the Building and / or Site


“The landscape plan should be designed to enhance the individual patio areas, rather than linear landscaping that appears to delineate a walkway.”

“... the design of individual terraces, setback, and refl ective surfaces is a positive response to the EDG...”

DRB Theme 4 : Response to Neighboring Church


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



PARTIAL PLAN AT SOUTH ALLEY



777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013





777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013




Outline of North facade of Church

Church Windows


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013





777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



JUNE 21

DEC 21

9:00

9:00

9:00

12:00

12:00

12:00

15:00

15:00

15:00

18:00

18:00

18:00

MAR 21


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



Relevant Design GuidelinesD-10 Commercial Lighting

D-11 Commercial Transparency


“Uplighting and/or downlighting of the historic structure would be helpful, but the Board noted this would be in the purview of either SDOT or the Landmarks Preservation Board...”

“... the design of individual terraces, setback, and refl ective surfaces is a positive response to the EDG...”Operable rollup doors, lighting, and any other strategies that can help to enhance the commercial viability on Thomas St would be strongly supported by the Board.

DRB Theme 5 : Response to Historic Landmark

A OPTIONAL FIRE PIT B CUSTOM BUILT IN BENCH / LOUNGE SEATING C LOLL: LOUNGE / CHAIR D LARGE DINING TABLE, BAR HT. E KNOLL: MAYA LIN STONES

F TOURNESOL SITEWORKS PLANTERS

G ARCHITECTURAL SLAB PAVING

FITNESS

G

FD C

B

A

E

LEVEL TWO TERRACE H ARCHITECTURAL SCREENSH

F

B

B

F

B


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013




AMENITY SPACE ABOVE LANDMARK STRUCTURE AT CORNER OF 8TH AVE AND THOMAS ST

EXISTING LIGHTING1


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013





777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



Relevant Design GuidelinesD-10 Commercial Lighting

DRB Theme 6: Signage and Lighting


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



2 4

1

3


HINKLEY LIGHTING - PIER FIXTURE

EXISTING LIGHTING1

3 4

2

EDGE LIGHTING- UNIT DOOR FIXTURE

HINKLEY LIGHTING - STOOP FIXTURE


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013




1

2

2

1) ENTRY SIGNAGE CONCEPT

2) RETAIL SIGNAGE CONCEPT


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



PERSPECTIVE LOOKING SOUTHWEST FROM 8TH AVE AND THOMAS ST


DRB Theme 7: Departures

REQUEST

1

2

3


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



DEVELOPMENT STANDARD REQUIREMENT

“ON CLASS 2 PEDESTRIAN STREETS, AS SHOWN ON MAP B, ALL FACADES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET”

“ON CLASS 1 AND 2 PEDESTRIAN STREETS, SHOWN ON MAP B, LOCATED AT THE END OF THIS CHAP-TER: A MINIMUM OF SIXTY (60) PERCENT OF THE WIDTH OF THE STREET LEVEL FACADE MUST BE TRANSPARENT”

“BLANK FACADES SHALL BE LIMITED TO SEG-MENTS FIFTEEN (15) FEET WIDE, EXCEPT FOR GARAGE DOORS WHICH MAY BE WIDER THAN FIFTEEN (15) FEET. BLANK FACADE WIDTH MAY BE INCREASED TO THIRTY (30) FEET IF THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT THE FACADE IS ENHANCED BY ARCHITECTURAL DETAILING, ARTWORK, LAND-SCAPING, OR OTHER SIMILAR FEATURES THAT HAVE VISUAL INTEREST”

THE HISTORIC LANDMARKED STRUCTURE FAC-ING THOMAS PROVIDES A MINIMUM FAÇADE HEIGHT OF FOURTEEN FEET SIX INCHES (14’-6). WE PROPOSE TO LEAVE THE HISTORIC STRUCTURE UNALTERED.

THE DEVELOPMENT FRONTS A CLASS 2 PEDESTRI-AN STREET ALONG THOMAS ST. WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 60% OF THE WIDTH OF THE STREET LEVEL FACADE TO BE TRANSPARENT. THE HISTOR-IC LANDMARKED STRUCTURE FACING THOMAS IS ONLY 56% TRANSPARENT. WE PROPOSE TO LEAVE THE HISTORIC UNALTERED.

THE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY FRONTS A CLASS 2 PEDESTRIAN STREET ALONG THOMAS ST. CLASS 2 PEDESTRIAN STREETS REQUIRE BLANK FA-CADES TO BE LIMITED TO SEGMENTS NO LONGER THAN 15 FEET WIDE. THE HISTORIC LANDMARKED STRUCTURE INCLUDES A NON-TRANSPARENT SEGMENT TWENTY TWO FEET AND 22’3” WIDE FACING THOMAS AND A 22’2”NON-TRANSPARENT SEGMENT FACING 8TH AVENUE. WE PROPOSE TO LEAVE THE HISTORIC UNALTERED.

23.48.014B2

23.48.018A1A

23.48.018B2A

DEPARTURE MATRIX


23.48.014B2: MINIMUM FACADE HEIGHTS SHALL NOT APPLY WHEN ALL PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE ARE LOWER THAN THE ELEVATION OF THE REQUIRED MINIMUM FACADE HEIGHT LISTED BELOW.

1. ON CLASS 1 PEDESTRIAN STREETS, AS SHOWN ON MAP B, PEDESTRIAN STREET CLASSIFICATIONS, LO-CATED AT THE END OF THIS CHAPTER, ALL FACADES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FORTY-FIVE (45) FEET.

2. ON CLASS 2 PEDESTRIAN STREETS, AS SHOWN ON MAP B, ALL FACADES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF TWENTY-FIVE (25) FEET.

3. ON ALL OTHER STREETS, ALL FACADES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF FIFTEEN (15) FEET.

THE HISTORIC LANDMARKED STRUCTURE FACING THOMAS PROVIDES A MINIMUM FAÇADE HEIGHT OF FOURTEEN FEET SIX INCHES (14’-6). THE DESIGN TEAM PROPOSES TO LEAVE THE HISTORIC STRUC-TURE FACADE UNALTERED.

ALLOWING THE LANDMARK’S FAÇADE TO REMAIN UNAL-

TERED HELPS PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD’S HISTORIC

FABRIC.

CODE

REQUEST

WHY THIS DEPARTURE MEETS THE IN-TENT OF DESIGN GUIDELINES

14'-6

"

25'-0

"

REQUIRED: 25’

PROVIDED: 14’6


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



DEPARTURE 1: MINIMUM FACADE HEIGHT


23.48.018A1A: TRANSPARENCY REQUIRE-MENTS APPLY TO ALL STREET LEVEL FA-CADES, EXCEPT THAT TRANSPARENCY RE-QUIREMENTS DO NOT APPLY TO PORTIONS OF STRUCTURES IN RESIDENTIAL USE.1 . TRANSPARENCY SHALL BE REQUIRED AS FOLLOWS:A. CLASS 1 AND 2 PEDESTRIAN STREETS, SHOWN ON MAP B, LOCATED AT THE END OF THIS CHAPTER: A MINIMUM OF SIXTY (60) PERCENT OF THE WIDTH OF THE STREET LEVEL FACADE MUST BE TRANSPARENT.

B. ALL OTHER STREETS: A MINIMUM OF THIRTY (30) PERCENT OF THE WIDTH OF THE STREET-LEVEL FACADE MUST BE TRANSPAR-ENT.

THE DEVELOPMENT FRONTS A CLASS 2 PEDESTRIAN STREET ALONG THOMAS ST. WHICH REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 60% OF THE WIDTH OF THE STREET LEVEL FACADE TO BE TRANSPARENT. THE HISTORIC LANDMARKED STRUCTURE FACING THOMAS IS ONLY 56% TRANSPARENT. WE PROPOSE TO LEAVE THE HISTORIC FACADE UNALTERED.



FABRIC.

CODE

REQUEST


5'-0"

REQUIRED: 72’ PROVIDED: 67’

ADDITIONAL GLAZING REQUIRED TO MEET CODE


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



DEPARTURE 2: FACADE TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS


23.48.018B2A: 1 . ANY PORTION OF THE FACADE WHICH IS NOT TRANSPARENT SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO BE A BLANK FACADE.

2. BLANK FACADE LIMITS FOR CLASS 1 AND 2 PEDESTRIAN STREETS.

A. BLANK FACADES SHALL BE LIMITED TO SEGMENTS FIFTEEN (15) FEET WIDE, EXCEPT FOR GARAGE DOORS WHICH MAY BE WIDER THAN FIFTEEN (15) FEET. BLANK FACADE WIDTH MAY BE INCREASED TO THIRTY (30) FEET IF THE DIRECTOR DETERMINES THAT THE FACADE IS ENHANCED BY ARCHITECTUR-AL DETAILING, ARTWORK, LANDSCAPING, OR OTHER SIMILAR FEATURES THAT HAVE VISU-AL INTEREST. THE WIDTH OF GARAGE DOORS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY PLUS FIVE (5) FEET.B. ANY BLANK SEGMENTS OF THE FACADE SHALL BE SEPARATED BY TRANSPARENT AR-EAS AT LEAST TWO (2) FEET WIDE.

THE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY FRONTS A CLASS 2 PEDESTRIAN STREET ALONG THOMAS ST. CLASS 2 PEDESTRIAN STREETS REQUIRE BLANK FACADES TO BE LIMITED TO SEGMENTS NO LONGER THAN 15 FEET WIDE. THE HISTORIC LANDMARKED STRUCTURE INCLUDES A NON-TRANSPARENT SEGMENT TWENTY TWO FEET TWO INCHES WIDE FACING THOMAS AND A TWENTY TWO FOOT TWO NON-TRANSPARENT SEGMENT FACING 8TH AVENUE. WE PROPOSE TO LEAVE THE HISTORIC FACADE UNALTERED.



FABRIC.

CODE

REQUEST


23'-3"

15'-0"

15'-0"

22'-2"

REQUIRED: 15’ PROVIDED: 23’3

REQUIRED: 15’

PROVIDED: 22’2


777 THOMAS ST

07.31.2013



DEPARTURE 3: BLANK FACADE LIMITS

design review board - seattle

Documents