City of Seattle
Seattle Department of Neighborhoods / / UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
Office of Regional Affairs
1
Members
Matthew Fox (Co Chair)University District Community Council
Daniel Kraus (Co Chair)
University of Washington Staff
Elaine King
Montlake Community Club
Betty Swift
Portage Bay/Roanoke Community Council
Teresa Lord Hugel
University District Chamber
Brett Frosaker
Ravenna Bryant Community Assoc.
Eric Larson
Roosevelt Neighbor’s Alliance
Dave Eckert
Roosevelt Neighbor’s Association
Chris Leman
Eastlake Community Council
Pat Cowen
University Park Community Council
Cameron Miller
Wallingford Community Council
Neal Lessenger
University of Washington
Kirsten Curry
Laurelhurst Community Club
Ashley Emery
University of Washington Faculty
Hien Dang
University of Washington Students
Alternates
Anita BowerMontlake Community Club
Tom Roth
Ravenna Springs Community Council
Matthew Stubbs
University of Washington
Larry Sinnott
Ravenna Bryant Community Assoc.
Brian Ramey
University District Community Council
Ruedi Risler
University Park Community Council
Heather Newman
Laurelhurst Community Club
Ex-Officio Members
Steve Sheppard – DONCity of Seattle, Dept. of Neighborhoods
Theresa Doherty – UW
University of Washington, Office of Regional Affairs / City of Seattle - University of Washington
Community Advisory Committee
MEETING NOTES
Meeting #111
February 8, 2011
University of Washington Tower
4333 Brooklyn
Seattle, WA 98105
22nd Floor
I. Welcome and Introductions
Members and Alternates Present
Matt Fox, Co-chair, University District Barbara Quinn, University Park
Betty Swift, Portage Bay/Roanoke Elaine King, Montlake
Neal Lessenger, UW Brett Frosaker, Ravenna Bryant
Cameron Miller, Wallingford Chris Leman, Eastlake
Staff and Others Present
Steve Sheppard, DON Theresa Doherty, UW
Rebecca Barnes, UW Architect John Lebo, UW
Cindy Edens, Wright Runstad Chris Broadgate, Wright Runstad
John Savo, NBBJ Eric Fiske
Jan Arntz
I. Welcome and Introductions
The meeting was opened by Mathew Fox, co chair. Brief introductions followed.
II. Approval of Agenda/Housekeeping
A. Approval of Minutes for Meeting #110 – The minutes for Meeting #110 were approved without substantive changes.
B. Approval of Agenda – The agenda was approved.
III. UW Architect – Rebecca Barnes
Rebecca Barnes introduced herself to the committee. She has been the UW Architect since June 2010; position also is the Assistant Vice Provost for Campus Planning, sees the position as a stewardship position and is staff to the Architectural Commission. /
CUCAC Meeting #111
Draft Minutes, 2/8/11
The Architectural Commission consists of both people who are senior administrative officials in the UW and for professional members who are appointed by the Board of Regents and those members right now three architects and one landscape architect. She briefly went over the membership of the Commission and stated that the responsibilities of the Commissions were: 1) to review designs; 2) select the architects; and 3) looking at other plans that might affect the campus. She also sits on the UW Landscape Advisory Committee. She noted that she has responsibilities for other UW Campuses also.
Ms. Barnes noted that she has a long history in Seattle, working for Jones and Jones and TRA architectural firms, and with the City of Seattle Department of Community Development. In the 90’s she led the City’s Comprehensive Plan including the Urban Village planning.
Members of CUCAC raised Several Questions for Ms. Barnes.
Questions from Neil Lessenger
· What the difference between Capital Resources Planning and Capital Funding.
Ms. Barns responded that the commission is more involved with design rather than funding. Resources is a focus on the funding and there might be a big overlay, but Capital Planning might be the planning of a particular facility or building.
* Is the Campus Architect and Architectural Commission replacing some of the functions of the Project Managers.
Ms. Barns responded that while she works with them and provides advice on some design issues, their role is set and remains unchanged.
* How involved is the Campus Architect with Design Review issues, what level of funding?
Involvement depends on the project not necessarily the funding amount. Both small and large projects can come before the Commission, but generally those that go to the commission rather than the Design Review Board. She noted that the Design Review Board looks at projects under $5,000,000 and that she sits on both bodies. However this distinction is not hard and fast and she reviews projects and determines which should be brought before the Commission.
Questions form Matt Fox
* CUCAC has had design issues in the past with CUCAC being told the Architectural Commission has already signed off on that design, what can be done about that?
Theresa Doherty noted that the concern related in part to timing of reviews. Ms. Barnes suggested that it might be helpful for CUCAC and she to meet and CUCAC can let her know the issues their point of view and she can take them to the Architectural Commission. Mr. Fox suggested that this occur prior to the project being before the Commission. Ms. Barns stated that she would make an effort to bring projects to CUCAC earlier and listen to their input/comments.
Questions from Chris Leman
* How often does the Architectural Commission meet?
Every three months, for at least one whole day and some times a day and a half.
* The meetings are public and could CUCAC could send an observer to those meetings.
Yes you could.
Brief additional discussion followed concerning the relationship between the Architectural Commission and CUCAC. Chris Leman noted that he has tried to follow actions that come before the Architectural Commission with little success. He noted that the agenda and items to come to the meeting are not available until the day of the meeting and that minutes for the meetings are not available for three to four months and then only after the next meeting as the Commission has taken the position that its minutes are not public until adopted at the next meeting.
Theresa Doherty noted that the agendas are not available until the day before their meeting, but that she would try to get them to Steve Sheppard to assure that they are made available to CUCAC members. She further stated that she attempts to make sure that all major projects that will go the Architectural Commissions also go to CUCAC.
IV. Husky Stadium Renovation/Landmark Nomination Update
Editor’s Note: The next part of the presentation is related to slides and was not easily translated into a written format.
Chris Broadgate from Wright Runstad was recognized to provide an update on Husky Stadium. Mr. Broadgate noted that much of the information that he was presenting is similar to information provided previously and briefly reviewed the design of the stadium. He then went over the construction schedule as follows:
Start construction – November 7, 2011
Husky’s play Apple Cup 2011 at Qwest Field
Husky’s play 2012 Season in Qwest Field
Complete and turn over stadium for 2013 Season – August 2013
He noted that the design and construction team would consist of:
Wright Runstad Project management
360 Architecture Project Architect
Magnuson Valences Civil/Structural Engineer
Turner Construction Prime Contractor
Landmark Nomination:
UW has nominated the Stadium for landmark designation. The main reason for the nomination is the age of the stadium and it could be nominated by anybody. UW nominated it just to get through the process and to be sure we could be on schedule because of the timeline of the project. UW doesn’t feel it qualifies as a landmark because of all the updates that have occurred over the years. It’s really not the original architecture. It has been this building then that building and just one on top of another over the years, we feel that doesn’t really qualify to save it for a landmark, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t nominate it and go through the process.
Betty Swift asked what advantage accrued to the University from nominating the building when they do not believe it meets historic standards. Matt Fox offered the opinion that precludes those who might actually desire its designation from nominating the building. Mr. Broadgate added that is only precluded a late nomination. He noted that such a late nomination could throw the process off schedule If UW nominates it, it still allows the people who need to who would like to speak to whether it’s a landmark or not to have that process happen but it keeps it on schedule. We are scheduled to go before the Landmark Board February 16.
There was a brief discussion of the spiral ramps. Some members noted that this was the one element that might seem iconic. UW staff responded that the current ramps are not compatible with present ADA rules and tht it would be nearly impossible to retain them for that reason.
V. Discussion of Building Site 5C (Associated with the Minor Amendment Requests for West Campus)
Matt Fox stated that at the last meeting he had agreed to draft a letter concerning CUCAC’s recommendation to remove proposed development from site 5C in exchange for the changes to open space requirement in the West Campus and the transfer of developable square footage from the Central Campus to the West Campus. It was noted that this was an important part of CUCAC’s response to the University’s minor amendment request. This letter simply reflects previous actions of CUCAC in this regard. He provided members with copies of the draft letter indicated the location of the site in question, and opened for discussion.
Neil Lessenger stated that he agreed with the thrust of the letter. He stated that the current Denny Yard is not very well conceived. With the exception of Denny Hall itself, the surrounding buildings do not relate to the yard. Therefore the remaining open end should not be undeveloped. Jan Arntz responded that this site was thoroughly discussed during the development of the Master Plan and that it was eventually designated as a possible building site with the understanding by so designating, that did not automatically mean tht it would be developed.
Chris Leman stated that he had a couple of minor suggestions. The letter doesn’t mention that some months ago CUCAC officially voted to oppose the building designation and to request the University to restore it to open space designation and for potential building to end. He suggested that wording similar to: At a recent meeting CUCAC voted to oppose the current designation of 5C as a potential building site and to urge the University to reclassify it as open space designation. Inserted where you have the word (currently or permanently) incorporates it into Denny Yard and then suggests that be the end of the paragraph. New paragraph would start after that sentence. Last paragraph would be: The above letter was, we can add unanimously to the letter if it is approved unanimously, approved at the February 8, 2011 CUCAC meeting.
Matt Fox agreed; he realized wording was missing right after sending the letter to committee for review.
Neal Lessenger moved:
That CUAC authorize its Chairs to send the letter regarding deletion of development site 5C, as amended at its February 8, 2011 meeting.
Motion was seconded.
The vote was called. The results were:
8 in favor
0 oppose
0 abstaining
A quorum being present and a majority of those present having voted in the affirmative, the motion passed.
VI. Street Trees – Jon Lebo, Interim Director, Capital Projects
John Lebo noted that he was attending instead of the Campus Landscape architect, who would attend the next meeting to discuss the University’s tree programs more comprehensively. The topic that he would cover would focus on street trees in West Campus.
Editor’s Note: The next part of the presentation is related to slides and was not easily translated into a written format.
Mr. Lebor noted that this presentation related to the street trees being proposed to be taken down for the Phase I Student Housing project. There are different projects for sites 31, 32, 33, and 35 plus an alley vacation which includes public benefits to offset development which will include street trees and pedestrian improvements. Example: putting street trees where street trees don’t exist, widening sidewalks, and putting bulbs at intersections to make it more user friendly for the pedestrians in the area. There will also be improvements to two medians in NE Campus Parkway; one to the east and one to the west.
Street trees are different from trees in the actual physical site. Street tree process UW goes through the City of Seattle Department of Transportation Urban Forestry; Bill Ames is the City Arborist. Process goes through City, there are very few existing street trees associated with the two sites we are talking about tonight, sites 32 and 35 and there are four street trees on Campus Parkway. He noted a general dearth of existing street trees.
Street trees on the median are not thriving and the University is proposing to replace the trees. The reasons that these trees are not thriving include: poor soil conditions, the way they were initially planted, and poor drainage. Roots are waterlogged and locations not always compatible with overshadowing. The improvements include: improve the soil conditions, and remove some trees to allow the others to thrive.
Mr. Lebo noted that in many cases the trees are poorly placed in narrow pits. The challenge will be to provide new street trees and plant them in ways that will allow them to thrive. Plans will often widen sidewalks to have more room for the people to walk and wait for the bus, etc. This will require some efforts to protect roots. The hope is that with wider sidewalks, those pedestrians will not be so likely to walk over roots and overly compact soils.
On NE Campus Parkway there are four existing street trees, proposal is to plant six Elm trees (different species of Elm), and a variety of trees all around the site. This is part of the public benefit which is part of the alley vacation.
Chris Leman noted that many of the trees along the NE Campus Way median were planted as part of the Forestry Exposition by various world dignitaries. He offered the opinion that there would be some sensitivity about removing these trees. Mr. Lebo stated that the city Arborist had looked at these trees and that the removals were upon the arborist’s recommendations or with their concurrence. Mr. Leman cautioned that the City Arborists may lack sensitivity on this issue. These trees were brought from around the world by dignitaries and they have a very important history. Others offered the opinion that some of the plantings may have been poorly thought out and that some replacements might be appropriate. Mr. Lebo stated that he would come back to CUCAC with a listing and further inventory of the trees in this grove. However he stated that he wishes to go forward with the street tree replacements.