The project at 19th and Mercer will replace a parking lot and green space while retaining an existing office building. (Images: Public47 Architects)
Trouble for the planned mixed-use development at 19th and E Mercer started with plans to tear down a big, old cedar tree. Now, frustration over the city’s design review process has prompted 20 Capitol Hill neighbors to formally challenge the project’s design.
The lead appellant, nearby homeowner Dr. Suzanne Lasser, said the first major issue occurred in February when she realized the city’s design review website did not include many letters of concern submitted by neighbors months earlier.
Then, the following design review board meeting was held at a location Lasser said was not ADA accessible, preventing some members of the public from attending. Those that did attend the meeting were also advised not to comment on the size of the building, Lasser said, which several people wanted to discuss.
“We just felt like we weren’t heard as normal citizens in the design review process,” she said.
Earlier this month Lasser and the group of neighbors filed an appeal with the city’s Hearing Examiner, challenging the project’s approval by the East Design Review Board. Lasser said neighbors do not want to stop the project, but would like to force another round of design review with more neighborhood input.
Developer Epic Property Management LLC, which has owned the parcel since 2003, is proposing a five-story, 32-unit building with 2,260 square feet of street level retail and parking for 10 vehicles underground with another two spots in the alley.
The plan would retain neighborhood restaurant Monsoon and the cluster of businesses in the offices behind the restaurant.
Unfortunately, the red cedar will be coming down as part of the plans supported by the design review board in a previous meeting.
Specific concerns raised by the appellants vary when it comes to designs from Public47 Architects. The appeal largely focuses on a lack of planning around traffic flow, delivery areas, the height of the building, and plans to add a 13-step staircase to the entrance of the existing office building which neighbors say would not be ADA accessible.
We will be adversely affected by the design flaws related to entrances and exits. The current design of exists and entrances to the apartment endangers pedestrians and may result in unsafe vehicle drop offs and deliveries. The design is not up to current ADA standards. Also, we are concerned about property devaluation, construction disruption, renters’ and retail traffic congestion.
Developers have not yet filed a formal response to the appeal. However, in a recording of a preliminary meeting on Tuesday, a representative for Epic said they would move to dismiss some of the issues raised in the appeal and asked for further clarification on others.
“What design features do the appellants believe are unsafe?,” asked attorney Clayton Graham. “We see a lot of compound statements raising safety, access (issues) … it’s hard to really tell what it’s getting at.”
How commercial vehicles will load and unload around the intersection was of particular concern to Lasser.
“You can’t double park a truck on 19th, where are the delivery trucks going?” Lasser said. “We just wanted answers from somebody in the city and didn’t get any.”
A hearing on the “merits of the appeal” has been set for November 28th.
Meanwhile, Seattle’s process for gathering public and expert feedback on new building designs is poised to undergo the most significant update since it was established in 1994. For starters, we may be saying goodbye to the East Design Review Board. Other recommendations made in May by a city-appointed task force include requiring community engagement from developers, better facilitating online public comments, and streaming design review meetings online.
Classic Capitol Hill NIMBYism. Whining that they weren’t heard when in fact the erratic and unfounded comments they made related to parking and ADA access, and a Tree on the site are simply accounted for under development policies. Add a lift to the staircase design, add a curbside delivery zone like those all over the City, and finally cut down the dang tree tomorrow so whiners wont have anything to whine about. The property owner owns the tree and it’s their right to do whatever they want with it.
Actually that’s not entirely true as regards the tree. I learned this the hard way when I sold my home with an exceptional tree in the back yard.
The problem is that these things can break down, and the building becomes inaccessible. I currently live out of state, and went to go to a movie theater where the theater entrance was upstairs as it was built over something else. The SINGLE public elevator outside was broken. The only other option was an escalator, which I was unable to use. That meant I did not have access to the theater.
If I’d called I probably would have been given access to the service elevator but that would have meant getting loaded back in my car, in the pouring rain, driving around the building and being dropped off there, and then my husband having to come back around the front and park again.
A ramp, when it is logical to build one, is a much better solution for guaranteed equal access.
There is no housing for “the poor” or for the majority of working class people here who are not tech workers. Density is one thing, but if all the new constructions ends up being “density” for tech bros as the only ones who can afford it then I have to side with the NIMBYS. Enough is enough. This bubble needs to burst so the rest of us can once again find an affordable apartment in the whole region, let alone Seattle.
Just efforts to slow a project that’s going to happen. A case of NIMBY is all.
For people so concerned about pedestrian safety, access, and double parking – do they express those concerns about Uber drivers and the like? Those sorts of services are what cause the most danger to pedestrians.
Great to see a mixed use building here add to the great little cluster of stores here. If there is anything to complain about it is the dark doomsday exterior with dated and way overdone staggered windows.
Did people really voice a concern against having renters occupy this project? Wow, what selfish and despicable behavior.
And construction noise? If you want to live without construction noise don’t live in one of hottest neighborhoods in one of the countries faster growing cities.
People who act like spoiled babies are the worst.
I was on the board during the DRB meetings for this project, and the level of neighborhood NIMBYism was astonishing. Now that my board term is over, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A TANTRUM over neighbors like this. Where should the young and poor people in Seattle live? In poorer, farther out neighborhoods where people don’t have time to make a fuss like you can? Where they just have to commute farther on the bus while you probably drive to your office a mile away and expect no one to have taken the PUBLIC parking spot outside your house when you return?
If you think you are progressive liberals, you should be ashamed of yourself. You are the Trump class of Seattle who would like to build a wall and keep out the poor people.
If there are more meetings, I will attend as a member of the public in support of this project, and I promise to be even angrier than Suzzane Lasser.
How sad that you were on the board with your immensely biased and bigoted, name-calling attitude. And lady, ain’t no poor people going to live in this building!
To Del–Poor is a relative term in Capitol Hill –any homeowner in that neighborhood (like Dr,. Lasser) is earning more than the overpaid tech workers that’ll end up in this building.
Clearly Amy Taylor rides a high horse.
Anybody who might oppose her point of view is worthy of all manor of insult.
Neighbors should have input into projects.
They know their ‘hoods best.
Del put it so well, “How sad you were on the board with your immensely biased and bighoted, name-calling attitude.“
Why we even allow entrenched interests to dictate the terms of other humans living near them I’ll never know. I’d be willing to be a lot that all of the DRB commenters are homeowners over 50 and mostly/all white. They hate young people like me and use their high status to keep us out and away from them.
Manor of Insults might be a good name for this building.
Sometimes I am guilty of riding a high horse, I should have taken a breath before writing such an angry post. Internet… argh.
Agree with Zach, it feels like fancy homeowners hate young people sometimes. And more housing supply means more available cheaper/older units for actually poor people, that won’t be taken up by higher income people who will live in this new building. More housing supply = good.
Manor of Insults…. haha.
Well said!
I’m a neighbor, I think it looks nice, and I’m looking forward to this addition to the neighborhood.
Same here. I live a few blocks from here and welcome the addition to the neighborhood.
I think this is a more attractive than average building and hope that it’s allowed to proceed to replace this empty lot(!) without yet another round of review.
Looks like a solid addition to the neighborhood in terms of scale and aesthetics, and obviously a million times better than an empty lot. Not to mention the huge demand for apartments stated a million times elsewhere. Hope it gets built without further delay.
Typical NIMBY neighbor–looks like she’s a doctor just trying to get her way. I heard St Joe’s is involved in this appeal. Why would they get involved? I get why rich people are objecting to having renters nearby–though I don’t agree with them. But why the Catholic Church?
FWIW, St. Joseph’s School has been officially removed as an appellant.
It’s only considered NIMBY when it’s rich white people complaining. If it’s poor brown people, then it’s ‘fighting gentrification.’ I grew up and still live in this formerly middle-class neighborhood, and will say unequivocally that it’s not the long-term residents who are being selfish, but rather the pro-development newbies who regard this place as their cutesy-poo playground, whereby anything that doesn’t get them to the gastropub faster should be trampled into the ever-spreading concrete. You can all eat a bag of dicks – and I ain’t talking about cheeseburgers.
nimbyism isn’t ok regardless of race, but at least there’s a real, tangible basis for black people being worried about new units coming near them. with project like these, it’s ONLY (and yes – ONLY) being fought because new buildings hurt entrenched homeowner’s feelings.
i personally believe that the fear black activists worried about housing coming up near them is misplaced – as rents will go up regardless, and they cannot assume a new building is the thing that’s causing the rent increase they’re experiencing – it’s a correlation not a causation (actually probably a reverse causation!)
So Captain what you’re saying is… “No one gets to live here except people like me who have always been here.” Congrats, sounds like you’re textbook nimby!
PS I do however hear you on the obnoxious “playground” attitude to be seen in the neighborhood, but I tend to attribute that more to the going out scene vs. people who actually live there. I’m sure you’ve seen that change over the years… Thoughts?
Well said, CaptainSmashtastic!
I initially mistook the image of this building as an image of the one directly across the street, where Tallulah’s is. They look identical.
Fine, build this hulking, sidewalk-crowding monstrosity and overcharge for tiny “luxury” units; we’ll accept it as “inevitable” “urban density.” But figure out a way to build around the damn tree.
As a nearby neighbor, I fully support this project. As a renter who could never afford to own a home in this lovely neighborhood, and a believer in Society and the Urban Village, it seems clear the density associated with the project is for the greater good. It will add new business and drive support for the existing business, which is good for Capitol Hill and Miller Park. Renters are people too, and deserve a chance to live in this neighborhood like anyone else. Dr. Lasser’s complaints about potential loss of home value and renters moving in seems really out of touch. That someone so educated could express those sentiments is really depressing. It’s important that younger folks of more average means continue to be able to afford to live in this neighborhood largely populated by the middle-aged upper one percent. That kind of population mix contributes to the definition of the American City. Foundational economics suggests adding inventory to the area may keep future rent increases at bay. Other neighbors’ concerns about access, loading zones, and pedestrian safety don’t concern me much. It looks like the city is requiring the developer to install a curb bulb at the corner of 19th and Mercer, which should help address some of those safety concerns, and the rest can be addressed with a loading zone on 19th. I have followed this project and it seems there was a lot of neighborhood input throughout, and it looks like the design review people reviewed it carefully. The claims of lack of input, ADA, etc., seem like a cover for other concerns such as potential loss of street parking.. Finally, it is good to see that St Joe’s is no longer a part of this appeal but wonder how they were included in the first place. I’m sad to see the cedar tree go, but compromises are made for the greater good, and that’s what this project represents.
Well put