PLEASE HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE!
Subscribe to CHS to help us pay writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.
“I’m concerned about the impact of such a huge structure on the small businesses and parking in this neighborhood,” one of the signees writes.
“I oppose a building of 6 stories,” wrote another.
The special meeting comes as a new addition to the months and years of planning required for Capitol Hill firm Hunters Capital to develop the property which also must pass through the city’s design review process.
The project is planned for the busy 15th Ave E commercial strip on the edge of Capitol Hill’s northeast core of valuable single family-style homes.
CHS reported here in October as the proposal was approved by the East Review Board in its early design guidance phase. Hunters and the Runberg Architecture Group are proposing to transform the old QFC block into new apartments, businesses, and plaza space they say would give the neighborhood a vibrant streetscape with a mix of trees old and new, small retail spaces to add to the street’s eclectic mix, and 170 new homes.
The developers say their preferred “S” design would preserve the E Republican canopy, provide space for a larger 15th Ave E plaza to break up the retail facade and provide additional corner retail space, allow for a north podium deck, make room for a “pedestrian through block” breezeway on the south end of the project next to the old firehouse building, keep the back alley from becoming too tightly crowded, and allow for residential use of the alley, the developers say.
The “S” design would create 170 new apartment units in a six-story building, with about 10,000 square feet of retail space, and underground parking for 99 vehicles.
To do it and preserve a prized European hornbeam tree while also healthily transitionitioning the project to the adjacent lower areas surrounding to the north, the developers say they need a departure from area zoning to allow the extra sixth story of height.
The petition started by resident Christoph Siegert doesn’t take a side as it calls for the public meeting on the project’s application for its crucial Master Use Permit but has been a rallying point for those opposing the sixth floor.
A SDCI spokesperson says the meeting was triggered under city law “as more than 50 people requested a public meeting, including those who signed the online petition.”
“We are holding the meeting as soon as possible after the end of the formal comment period to ensure we could collect written input, then hold the meeting to hear additional public comment before further project review,” the spokesperson said.
The project will also undergo further design review in the coming months as it must pass through the “Recommendation” phase of the city process “when the project is ready,” the spokesperson added.
As for the Master Use Permit process, the formal period of public feedback for the decision ended in January with only two public comment letters, one in support of the proposed sixth story, one in opposition.
“I support maximum and exceptional height and bulk requests to provide as much usable space for the residents, customers and guests of the property and related retail locations on the property,” wrote the commenter supporting the proposal who says they live northeast of the property. “I support a full unrestricted roof deck for the full surrounding views which will be exceptional and a new asset for the neighborhood.”
“We support the redevelopment of this site and believe that the general development plan proposed by the applicant is reasonable,” reads the second letter from a 16th Ave E couple who questioned the calculation around preserving the special tree. “However, as explained above, certain aspects of the design are not appropriate and should be change. We would support the five-story option preserving the tree and the other Hornbeam tree near the northeast corner of the site.”
With the coming February 28th meeting, there will now be another opportunity for people to speak up.
PLEASE HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE!
Subscribe to CHS to help us pay writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for as little as $5 a month.
Hunters Capitol- ruining one Capitol Hill block at a time. They won’t stop until they own the whole neighborhood.
Nothing more Seattle than hating homes for new residents to live.
Unless no one on Capitol Hill can afford to live in them….
you’re claiming that this building will be built and no one will move into this housing? that seems pretty far-fetched.
Hating homeless is more Seattle like
Wait, new residents? I thought we were building new inventory to house the old residents still, at affordable rates.
I’m confused, something’s gone against the plan.
Yeah! How dare they try to improve a disused one story blank wall building and parking lot! Save our chainlink fences!!
Whom can we contact to express support for this project as proposed? The article doesn’t offer any info on how to provide public comment, only a link to the petition against the project.
Public feedback can be provided at the 2/28 virtual meeting
Just let them build. This design is thoughtful, but even something more generic would be better than a fenced-off parking lot with an empty grocery shell and the narrow sidewalk on that part of 15th.
Zoning should come out and deny their departure request and get this over with. There’s even a note from the city you can find with the design review docs where it calls the developers out for their ridiculous calculations to try and make it appear this tree reduces development potential in a way that would allow for extra FAR and height.
I love this! More density is great, can’t come quick enough, along with Safeway project.
Add more people + businesses on 15th!
I lived on Capital Hill… in an apartment 3 floor. Is it better for people to be homeless than have affordable housing by adding an additional floor… i think not. So have them add two & making one be affordable housing and the other community resources for the neighborhood to use as well as more affordable housing units then watch this project happen….
Under that scenario the developer would back out. There wouldn’t be sufficient return on the money. The 6th story isn’t for more housing since the building will have the same number of units at 5 or 6 stores since the original 5 story design had 170 units, it’s to increase profits and there will be little to no “affordable” housing.
bigger units = more people living in them = more people housed
Huh? How many more people are you going to house in an additional 50sq ft? Look at the plans
at least a few? who cares? 1 more is more than is housed in the neighborhood now.
It’s about the cost. A little more sq ft = a hike in the rental prices, that is what it’s about. It’s pretty transparent and there is plenty of vacant high cost units in the city, it’s affordable units we lack.
More housing. Love that some of it as affordable. Let them build higher if they want.
This is an entirely market rate building.
20% will be income-restricted.
Link? Last I saw they were paying into the fund but it’s possible that changed.
Regardless the entire reason they can build to 55 is because of MHA. They already get extra height. They don’t get another 10 feet because of a tree at the corner of the lot.
And we wonder why housing is so expensive
This is a no brainer.
“Worried about small business owners” said one commenter.
Yeah, who wants 500 people living within 50 feet of their front doors. Bad for business. All those people.
This is vintage NIMBY: co-opt the language of urbanism to prevent any urbanist policies.
It’s sick; for another example, see the “Save Madison Valley” crew of miscreants.
The lesson is to not take a single thing these ppl say at face value, it’s bad faith arguments all the way down.
Get rid of the trees. There is nothing exceptional about either one. And hornbeams are plentiful in our area. They line portions of 19th Ave East, for example. Then stick with the five story development, with no need for any height exceptions. Or keep the trees and build higher.
First, zoning laws when changed are well thought out and the public has to trust that everyone will follow the zoning otherwise it’s a free for all. Second, the original design called for the same number of units at 5 stories and the city’s calculation is that by saving the canopy it will reduce the size of a few of the units so there is no housing gain to the extra story (I’d bet that larger more expensive units would be the new result) Third, this will impact all neighborhoods as other developers come in and ignore regulations. This would be one more handout to big developers who have had their way with the city for years. So if big developers don’t have to abide by regulations do homeowners, landlords and renters? I think not.
They are abiding by regulations. They are asking, legally, for a departure to preserve the mature hornbeams on the north side, and, in exchange for tree preservation, to be granted an extra floor. This is all per the Seattle Tree Ordinance.
The hornbeams provide extensive bird habitat. They are full of birds. I think it’s a gain for the area to preserve the trees and grow additional housing. Please don’t focus on the aesthetics or tree type; these trees are significant and essential to the species that use them.
In addition, it’s in the interest of the community at large for the project to move forward. The QFC site is nothing but urban blight, and new retail along with multi- family housing, can only benefit our shared urban experience.
The project is set to move forward. How is asking to not abide by regulations abiding by regulations? I’ll have to try that one if I’m ever pulled over. I’ll legally ask if I can drive faster than 60 MPH. Whether 5 or 6 stories the building will be built, it will have 170 units and it will get rid of the existing blight, those decisions have been made. The city contested that saving the trees would require an additional story, it doesn’t make sense. They could more easily eliminate the pass through on the S side since it will only pass from 15th to an alley and gain back anything lost to the trees.
I think this is a good tradeoff – Being a person who want developers to see trees as a valuable asset to our community, and wants to see upzoning, this exception sets precedent that concessions can be made to accommodate them in designs. One could imagine that properties with exceptional trees could actually become more desirable as a result.
I hear tree advocates often complain that it would be easy to accommodate trees if the architects were just more clever – seems like the value for trees needs to be about concessions and allowances to give them actual value rather than small punitive fines when they cut them down illegally.
This is a ludicrous and calculated miss-use of the Tree Ordinance. The “special tree” is wedged in next to a wall. The chances of it surviving the development and construction are small.
Aside from the issue of the completely out of scale 6th story, the parking is insufficient. 15th Avenue has just been turned, for the first time that I am aware of, into metered parking. Based on stats of Seattle car ownership we can be assured that very close to 170 of the units will be inhabited by people with cars. They will end up adding an additional 75 cars to the residential streets which already are nearly full capacity 24/24. Then add the visitors to the building and patrons of the new businesses, all vying for street parking and trying to avoid paying on the main drag. Then add the soon to be completed other mega apartment where the gas station was. Businesses actually need people from beyond the neighborhood to survive. They need to provide parking for every unit and allow daytime use by businesses when/if the apartment parking is not fully utilized.
Agrred. Especially bad if they charge $175/m to park in their garage.
Thank you for pointing this out. I’m tired of developers “saving trees” that are dead by the time they finish the project or left to die during project delays or upon completion. We’re being played.
i prefer housing for people not cars. you be you though.
I hope the project gets another grocery store Because soon with the Safeway closing to be redeveloped we will have no grocery store on 15th Ave .
Hunters Capital is a very reputable business and has done good work elsewhere on Capitol Hill. I trust them to do a quality building here, but agree that 5 stories is enough.
Agreed. I know some of the people at Hunters and am disappointed they are using the trees as an excuse to build higher when other options are available that would still save the trees and remain at 5 stories. This is out of character for Hunters.
I am glad they are using whatever means they can find to build as much as they can fit into the space. We have a housing crisis, and we need it all.
170 units at 5 or 6 stories. Does anyone read the materials? It’s transparent the reason for the 6th floor is to afford higher priced units.
I’d like to see an upper story set back like what is over Palermo’s now. Let sunlight onto the street instead of making a boxy canyon like Ballard.
shade is nice, definitely prefer canyons
Since this project is located on the east side of 15th Ave, that upper story setback won’t really have much of an effect on how much sunlight will be hitting the street…just saying.
Keep housing scarce! As a CH homeowner it’s good for my net worth!