Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project.

Im part of Save
Madison Valley, a community of neighbors formed in response to the
development. These are photos of two community meetings weve held and
some of the nearly 600 people on our Facebook group. Weve received input
from several hundred people, and the concerns were going to talk about
tonight are a result of the proposed developments excessive height, bulk and
scale. We welcome responsible development. This is not that. This proposed
development completely overwhelms the site and displays a real lack of
sensitivity to its potential neighborhood. In a June 21st memo, Magda
Hogness wrote: please, note, at least one option must show retention of all
Exceptional Trees. (I might add, this site has two or more individual
Exceptional Trees and meets criteria for an Exceptional Grove). Further, Ms.
Hogness wrote: One option must be fully code compliant with respect to the
steep slope, ECA and buffer, access and street improvement exception, and
require no departures. This proposal disregards these directions, along with
other directions in the same memo, as well as directions on record from the
pre-submittal meeting on March 23rd. We are asking that this proposal be
sent back so the applicant provides what has been asked for.

I have reviewed the EDG submittal for the City Peoples site, and would like to
call out where I believe the proposal utterly fails to respond appropriately to the
Context and Site Design Guidelines. Specifically, CS1-C (Appropriate Use of
Natural Topography), CS1-D Incorporate on site Landscaping, and CS2-B
(Open Space to inform site design).
Approximately one-third of the site is a 40 percent steep slope, with more than
30 feet elevation change from toe to top. Yet the height diagram shows only a
2-foot differential step down between the flat area and the 30-foot drop in
elevation.

In addition, the section cut (pg. 35) is not representative of the true massing
proposed. It is drawn irregularly through the structures mid-section where a
small portion of the primary building faade is inset above the exposed garage.
The applicant claims to calculate structural height, using the mid-points of
each exterior wall. In fact, a simplified two-section approach is used, which
instead attempts to favorably exploit the sites uneven topography, where two
small flat areas, or dog ears abutting the steep slope are located at the NE
and SE corners.
The result is a structural height far in excess of the overall average existing
grades at midpoints circumscribing the exterior walls. Contrary to the applicant
s s Project Vision, statement, the proposed building scale and massing
grossly overwhelm the site, and clearly disrespect the sites topography,
landscaping, and its neighbors through a perversion of the structural height
calculation. It should be sent back for major revisions.

The height, bulk and scale of this building are excessive, overwhelming the
site and the surrounding street grid. The F-A-R of 96% is too high for this
unique, triangular-shaped, sloped lot. It reflects a flagrant disregard of the
surrounding neighborhood homes, and the neighboring commercial buildings.
This is inconsistent with guidelines CS2.B1 and CS2.C2. The following two
slides illustrate this.

This is the current location of the development. Single Family homes sit sideby-side with proportionately-sized apartments and neighboring commercial
buildings.

And this is the location with an overlay of the proposed development. As you
can see, the buildings height, bulk and scale are out of proportion with all
neighboring structures. It dwarfs its immediate neighbors to the South, East,
and West.

At the north end of the site the building mass looms over Dewey residences.
A more than 60 foot vertical facade rises above Dewey in a 40 foot commercial
zone, neighboring a single family zone. This is inconsistent with design
guidelines CS2.D1 and CS2.D4.

As you have seen, rather than respecting the topography, or using the site
features to inform the design, this project eradicates the site topography. The
current 30-foot high, 40% grade steep slope will be removed. This is
inconsistent with guideline CS1.C2.

CURRENT

PROPOSAL

Currently a natural buffer with a mature urban tree canopy sits between the
NC2P-40 commercial zone and single-family homes. This project would
remove the buffer and replace it with a 30- to 60-foot building. Saplings would
replace a mature grove of trees. In fact, the mature trees shown in the
proposal cannot grow in 10-foot wide planting boxes pressed up against a
wall, as shown in the rendering. Rather than providing a transition between
more and less intense zones, as design guidelines CS2.D3 and CS2.D4
recommend, the proposal removes the buffer.

The proposed 156-car, two-story, 320-foot long parking garage is exposed on

Dewey. It will release fumes, noise, and light into neighboring homes. The
proposed facade changes the character of Dewey and creates an unfriendly
and unsafe-feeling pedestrian environment. This is inconsistent with
guidelines DC1.C1, DC1.C2, and DC4.C2.

18

The proposal adds a garage entrance onto Dewey Place, a non-conforming

street because of its narrow width. This will draw a large influx of traffic onto
the residential, single-lane streets of Republican, 30th, and Dewey. This
negative environmental impact is caused by irresponsible design. Additionally,
the inappropriate placement of the garage entrance will have a significant
impact on safety. These streets are neighborhood walkways, connecting the
Arboretum and the P-Patch to several schools and daycares. Furthermore, the
proposal includes 30 additional parking spaces above the citys requirements.
It is inconsistent with design guidelines CS2.D5 and CS2.B2.

The amount of green space and vegetation removed is not replaced to any
appreciable degree. 39 mature trees are removed, over 20 native plant
species removed, and over 14,600 sq feet of tree canopy destroyed. In
addition to the exceptional tree grove, we believe there are two or more
exceptional trees proposed for removal. This is inconsistent with guideline
CS1.D1.

The urban tree canopy and green space on Dewey is contiguous with the
Mercer Madison Wood, the Arboretum, and is part of a larger urban forest
corridor that connects Lake Washington to Portage Bay and Union Bay. The
design guidelines encourage preserving or extending urban forest corridors.
Instead, this project severs the urban forest corridor by eliminating all
vegetation on the site. This is inconsistent with guideline CS1.D2.

The South faade is a blank wall. The East side on Dewey continues the visual
effect of a blank wall. The West facade has a large blank wall as well. All of
these walls are at street level, creating an unfriendly pedestrian environment.
This is inconsistent with guideline DC2.B2.

East Madison is a pedestrian-friendly corridor.

The retail floor is below street level, causing people to have to walk down
ramps or steps. This grade separation is unnecessary and is poor design.
This is inconsistent with guideline CS2.B2.

The building severely curtails privacy and outdoor activities on its south and
east sides. Apartments will be perched above backyards of existing homes.
Windows and balconies look directly down on neighboring properties. This is
inconsistent with guideline CS2.D5.

Thank you for your time. This design needs to be sent back because it is nonresponsive to the pre-submittal conference of March 23rd, the memo from
Magda Hogness dated July 21st, and the design guidelines. Please help us
develop Madison Valley responsibly and respectfully.