Joming Lau Portfolio March 2018 by Joming Lau

E LAKEVIEW BLVD

10TH AVE E

P E ROY ST

MERCER ST

ITY S

BELLEVUE AVE E

15TH AVE E

E JOHN ST

! ! !

BROADWAY E

EW AY

E DENNY WAY

! ! !

15TH AVE

! !

E PINE ST

! !

E PIKE ST

12TH AVE

BROADWAY

! !

! I ! AD EM !

! !

19TH AVE

LI V

! !

11TH AVE

UNIV

VE HA 6T

N SE

JOMING LAU Urban Planning and Design

@ joming.lau@gmail.com 

6002 26th Ave NW, Seattle, WA



206.849.1864 linkedin.com/in/jominglau

14TH AVE

ERS

E THOMAS ST

! !

BELLEVUE AVE

E AND RP

12TH AVE E

I5 SB I5 NB

EASTLAKE AVE E

I5 EXPRESS 9TH R

OLIVE WY ON RP

h g

T ON

RP HUBBELL PL

! !

VE NA

TIO NP

13TH AVE

! !

VEN

N TU

VE HA 8T

VE HA 7T

VE DA

VE HA 4T

VE HA 5T

CON

OLIV E

AVE

R EL

OFF

WESTLAKE

The proposed pocket park site serves an unmet need for green space within the Pike-Pine District of Capitol Hill. Tucked in between several Y residential buildings, the proposed pocket wouldWA also provide a respite from the highly impervious IVE OL surfaces that characterize the area. Although during the summer there is adequate canopy cover from the street trees, during the winter, there is a feeling of starkness when the trees have shed their leaves.

MELROSE AVE

ST L EL HO W

EW AR T

Within southwest 9T Capitol Hill, there are 2 parks, Plymouth Pillar Park H and Cal Anderson Park AV proposed site. While Cal within 900 feet of the Anderson Park servesE as a place for all residents of Capitol Hill to enjoy green space, there is not a small, quieter place that local residents around the proposed site can use for passive, contemplative activities, or as an impromptu space that allows for meaningful interactions to happen.

AV E

I5 EX PR PIK

FAIRVIEW AVE

Selecting a Pocket Park Site in Capitol Hill

PIK

! !

YA L

By taking the place of a parking lot, the proposed ST Eand pocket park will satisfy the open space PIN recreation needs of neighborhood residents within the surrounding blocks who may not be able to enjoy other park spaces slightly further from the proposed site. The site is also favorably situated in terms of access by bicycle or bus, allowing residents to take a moment in their daily routine to enjoy a short break. T

! !

FAIRVIEW AVE N

WESTLAKE AVE N

DENNY WAY

G IN

Formosa Pocket Park in West Hollywood is a 4,000 square foot park that was created for citizens of a nearby mixed-use development. Containing a variety of plant types, a water fountain and seating areas, the park was designed out of a desire for more public gathering spaces, and to be a recreational haven from the bustle of surrounding streets

VI R

E ALOHA ST

VE TA

Example: Formosa Park, West Hollywood, CA

I5 N

ER ERC

Pocket parks are one way to provide recreation or open space needs distinctive from other types of park needs such as regional, community or neighborhood parks. Primarily aimed at offering a small open-space/recreational venue of a more passive or intimate nature, servicing local REPUBLICA residents rather than across the city (a N citizens ST role played by larger park types). Pocket parks may be considered as an alternative to or replacement of a neighborhood park where providing a typical neighborhood park is impractical or not achievable.

Pocket Parks: A Neighborhood Treasure

VALLEY ST

E UNION ST

Bellevue Eastgate Implementation Plan - FAR Massing Models

Map Graphics Examples

Urban Design and Graphics Support Examples

SUBASE New London Joint Land Use Study (JLUS)

Seattle Streetcar Station Wayfinding Maps

Downtown Sub-district Design Standards

Deep Energy Retrofit Case Studies

Capitol Hill Pocket Park Siting Project

Pike/Pine Conservation Overlay District: Building Relocation Analysis

Parks for the People: Design Competition

Tianzhong Village: Development Concepts

Landscape Performance Series: Case Study Briefs

Wedgwood 35th Ave NE Feasibility Study

SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Joming Lau is an AICP-certified urban planner and designer with a keen interest in the nexus of planning, urban design and sustainability. He has a Masters of Urban Planning from the University of Washington as well as a Certificate in Urban Design. He also holds a BSc in Environmental Sciences, and is a LEED Accredited Professional. Joming brings his professional experience in graphics development, public outreach, project management, and research and combines it with his exceptional technical skills in ArcGIS, Adobe Creative Suite, Trimble Sketchup, and Microsoft Office. He was first interested in the concept of sustainable communities after a visit in 2003 to Durika, a ecovillage and biological reserve in Costa Rica that truly walked the talk of sustainability. Inspired, he was interested in how its principles could be replicated elsewhere. This led to an interest in sustainability in regards to the built environment. In recognizing the large impacts that cities have on our natural environment, he became interested in how cities and urbanized spaces are planned, and how they can have a positive impact on the world.

Site: Eastgate TOD - Large Lot

Building Summary N Calculated FAR: 1.98 Building footprint: 27,687sf (19,950sf on office floors) Building Height: 160’ (12 stories) (13’x 12 floors + 4 feet for ground floor retail.) Office: 159,600sf N Assumptions Retail: 19,687sf Applicable Standards: EG-TOD Total GSF: 266,987 sf (179,287sf office/retail and 87,700 sf parking) FAR: 2.0

Site: Trailer Inns RV Park

Max Height: 160 feet (13’x 12 floors + 4 feet for ground floor retail.) Lot Area: 90,456sf Assumptions Lot Coverage: 75% (67,842sf) Applicable EG-TOD MaxStandards: Impervious Surface: 60% (54,274sf) FAR: 2.0Parking req. ratios: 2/1000sf for office, and 2/1000 sf for retail Uses: 160 Office with ground floor retail Max Height: feet (13’x 12 floors + 4 feet for ground floor retail.) requirements: Lot Area:Other 90,456sf • Frontage on 2 streets (1 for access, 1 activated by TOD St); Lot Coverage: 75% (67,842sf) • 10’ façade separation above 45’, Max Impervious Surface: 60%(for (54,274sf) • ~20,000sf floor plates office/retail uses)

Parking req. ratios: 2/1000sf for office, and 2/1000 sf for retail Parking Program Uses: Office with ground floor retail Total Parking: 358 stalls 107,400sf Other requirements: Structured Pkg required: 292 stalls 87,700sf • Frontage on 2 streets (1 for access, 1 activated by TOD St); Surface parking possible: 71 stalls 21,200sf Assumptions • 10’ façade separation above 45’(5, extra stalls) Applicable Standards: NMU • ~20,000sf floor plates (for office/retail uses) FAR: 1.0

Max Height: 75 (15’ ground floor + 6x10ft above grade floors)

Lot Coverage: 40% (58,718 sf) Parking Program Max Impervious Surface:358 60%stalls (88,078sf) 107,400sf Total Parking: LotPkg Area: 146,797sf Structured required: 292 stalls 87,700sf Parking requirements: Parking ratios of 1.3/750sf (per unit) Surface parking possible: 71 stalls *This is an approximation, based on parking21,200sf requirements of 1.2/unit (5 extra stalls) (studio/1bdrm), and 1.6/unit (2 bdrm), assuming the majority of units as studio/1bdrms, and a small amount of 2 bdrms.

Uses: Residential with ground floor retail Other requirements: ~20,000sf floor plates (for residential/retail uses) Parking Program Total Parking: Structured Pkg provided: Surface parking:

267 stalls 80,100sf 159 stalls 42,994sf 143 stalls 43,891sf (36 extra stalls)

Bellevue Eastgate Implementation Plan FAR Massing Models

MAKERS Archiecture & Urban Design Client: City of Bellevue June 2016

Building Summary Calculated FAR: 1.98 Building footprint: 27,687sf (19,950sf on office floors) Building Height: 160’ (12 stories) (13’x 12 floors + 4 feet for ground floor retail.) N Office: 159,600sf N Retail: 19,687sf Assumptions TotalBuilding GSF: 266,987 sfApplicable (179,287sf office/retail 87,700 sf parking) Standards:and EG-TOD Summary

FAR: 2.0 Calculated FAR: 1.98 N Max Height: 160 feet (13’xon12office floorsfloors) + 4 feet for ground floor retail.) Building footprint: 27,687sf (19,950sf Lot 160’ Area:(12 90,456sf Building Height: stories) (13’x 12 floors + 4 feet for ground floor retail.) Lot Coverage: 75% (67,842sf) Office: 159,600sf Max Impervious Surface: 60% (54,274sf) Retail: 19,687sf Parking ratios: office/retail 2/1000sf for and office, and 2/1000 sf for retail Total GSF: 266,987 sf req. (179,287sf 87,700 sf parking) Uses: Office with ground floor retail Other requirements: • Frontage on 2 streets (1 for access, 1 activated by TOD St); • 10’ façade separation above 45’, Building Summary • ~20,000sf floor plates (for office/retail uses) Calculated FAR: 1.0 Building footprint: 34,335sf (25,000sf on residential floors) Program Building Height: 75Parking feet (7 stories) (10’x7 floors + 5 feet for ground floor retail Parking: 107,400sf Residential: 125,385Total sf (167 units averaging 750sf/unit)358 stalls Structured Pkg required: 292 stalls 87,700sf Retail: 20,895sf Total GSF: 194,056sfSurface (146,280sf residential/retail parking possible: and 47,776sf 71 stallsparking) 21,200sf

(5 extra stalls)

Building Summary Calculated FAR: 1.98 Building footprint: 27,687sf (19,950sf on office floors) Building Height: 160’ (12 stories) (13’x 12 floors + 4 feet for ground floor retail.) Office: 159,600sf Retail: 19,687sf Total GSF: 266,987 sf (179,287sf office/retail and 87,700 sf parking)

As part of an effort by the City of Bellevue to meet part of its projected demand for office growth by rezoning the Eastgate Corridor to increase building heights and floor area ratios (FAR) in order to allow for additional development potential. MAKERS was hired to develop an implementation plan to better describe how changes to this subarea might occur. An element of this work was to analyze whether the proposed changes would result in desired outcomes, and whether certain incentives such as increased building heights or FAR that were being considered were feasible, given other development constraints (lot coverage, impervious surfaces, parking requirements, setbacks, etc.) My role on this project was to create SketchUp models (placed into Google Earth) illustrating building massing at various FARs and building height limits. A robust development model was developed in Excel to calculate building, lot, and parking statistics using certain assumptions as input variables. Additionally, I helped to develop a number of graphics illustrating concepts for proposed streetscape improvements.

NIK

OAK ST

T LC

9TH AVE

RO YA

8TH AVE

7TH AVE

LAMME ST

5TH AVE

7TH AVE 3RD AVE

3RD AVE

R-3

SHORT ST

TRACY AVE

MAKERS Archiecture & Urban Design Various Clients

R-2

M-1 35

SHORT ST

R-2

WILLSON AVE

GRAND AVE

3RD AVE

GILKERSON DR

GRAND AVE

4TH AVE

M-2

GRIFFIN DR

R-3

MENDENHALL ST

EVERG

INTERS TATE

REEN

WILLSON AVE

8TH AVE

7TH AVE

M-2

BEALL ST

8TH AVE 11TH AVE

6TH AVE

LEA AVE

7TH AVE

9TH AVE

4TH AVE

8TH AVE

FLORA LN

MAUS LN

10TH AVE 9TH AVE

6TH AVE

8TH AVE

COTTONWOOD ST

SHORT ST

BEALL ST

LAMME ST

NORTH 9TH, PARK 1

R-4

LAMME ST

90 HW

R-4

My proficiency in ArcGIS and Adobe Illustrator has afforded an opportunity for me to serve as a resource at MAKERS for the creation of maps for a variety of projects, many of which are currently still in progress.

LAMME ST

INT

BAXTER LN

TA GE

125 250

Feet 500

PROJECT LOCATION

FR ON

STORY MILL RD

ER STA TE

MANLEY RD

VALLEY CENTER RD

High Visibility Intersection (special design would apply) Trail Corridor (Existing or Planned) URD Boundary

Feet 500

125 250

MIDTOWN NORTH BRIDGER DR GRIFFIN DR

7TH AVE

MAIN ST

LAKE RD

BABCOCK ST

7TH AVE

High Visibility Intersection (special design would apply) Trail Corridor (Existing or Planned) URD Boundary

B-2

PLI

19TH AVE

Storefront BABCOCK ST Mixed Landscape Other

R-4

DAVIS LN

Proposed Connections

R-3

HIDDEN VALLEY RD

Block Frontage Designations

8TH AVE

ALLEY

11TH AVE

BABCOCK ST

12TH AVE

R-4

FLANDERS MILL RD

Storefront Mixed Landscape et Other re

TRACY AVE

R-4 PEACH ST

PARCEL 3 PARK MINOR SUB 154A

Area 4. Redevelopment Opportunity

GOOCH HILL RD

WILLSON AVE

30”

R-4

8TH AVE

LAMME ST

14TH AVE

15TH AVE

GRAND AVE

3RD AVE

4TH AVE

6TH AVE

8TH AVE

BEALL ST

Proposed Connections

COTTONWOOD ST

MAIN ST OAK

ST MENDENHALL ST

R-O

Existing Streets

NORTH GRAND FIELD CENTENNIAL PARK

R-4

CENTENNIAL PARK

Block Frontage Designations Existing Streets

17TH AVE

3RD AVE

10TH AVE

7TH AVE

R-2

R-4

WESTLAKE PARK

ASPEN ST 3. Example Development Illustrations 2006 Plan NORTH GRANDfrom FIELD

AN TT HA

9TH AVE

SHORT ST

NIK

Feet 500

125 250

EAST GALLATIN RECREATION AREAASPEN ST

CIL M

11TH AVE

3rd Ave

5th Ave

R-3

10’

R-4

R-3

LAMME ST

BLACK POWDER TRL

4. Should we designate any block frontages asBABCOCK storefront?ST

3. Example Development Illustrations from 2006 Plan

10TH AVE 11TH AVE

SACCO DR

TRACY AVE

R-4

TWO TRACK WAY

SHORT ST

B-2

PATRICK ST

R-3

SHORT ST VILLARD ST

WHEAT DR

BAXT

VILLARD ST

R-3

COTTONWOOD ST

PEACH ST

VILLARD ST

RUTH THIEBAULT WAY

7th Ave

R-O

5TH AVE

MATHESON WAY

8TH AVE

OAK PARK DR

7TH AVE

5TH AVE

PLI

TSCHACHE LN

PEACH ST

LE SD

R-4

DURSTON RD

PLI

ROUSE AVE

OAK PARK DR

15TH AVE

T RO YA LC

9TH AVE

11TH AVE

12TH AVE

14TH AVE 15TH AVE

MATHESON WAY

R-1

RUTH THIEBAULT WAY

R-4

NORTH GRAND FIELD CENTENNIAL PARK

R-1

MANDEVILLE LN

RUTH THIEBAULT WAY Hemlock ST

ASPEN ST

RK PA

Oak ST

IVAN AVE

WESTLAKE PARK

DURSTON RD

R-O

PLI

TAMARACK ST

ASPEN ST

ASPEN ST R-1

Map Graphics Examples

IVAN AVE

PLI

R-O

L CT

B-2

ROY ST

IVAN AVE

ASPEN ST

R-4

MAE ST

Area 3. Redevelopment Opportunity

Area 2. Redevelopment Opportunity

R-3

PLI

R-4

TAMARACK ST

B-2

TAMARACK ST

B-2

M-1

DURSTON RDPlan 3. Example Development Illustrations from 2006

JUNIPER ST

R-1

R-3

MAE ST

HEMLOCK ST

R-3

MAE ST

R-3

BIRCH ST

R-3

JUNIPER ST

ROY ST

SACAJAWEA PARK

JUNIPER ST

R-3

MIDTOWN NORTH

NORTH 9TH, PARK 2

PLI

HEMLOCK ST

HIL BOOT

OAK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION PARK 4

PLI

HEMLOCK ST

JUNIPER ST

ATI

1. Example Development Illustrations DR from 2006 CRABAPPLE Plan

SACAJAWEA PARK

SACAJAWEA PARK JUNIPER ST

LL GA

R-4

BIRCH ST

GE RD DR FRONTA RED WING

OAK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION PARK 1

OAK NORTH 9TH, MEADOWS PARK 2 SUBDIVISION PARK 4

JUNIPER ST

R-O

NORTH 9TH, PARK 2

MANLEY RD

CRABAPPLE DR

OAK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION PARK 4

OAK ST

7TH AVE

2 3

NORTH 9TH, PARK 1

CRABAPPLE DR

MIDTOWN DRAFT COMMUNITY DESIGN FRAMEWORK B-2 MIDTOWN SOUTH

R-4

OAK ST

NORTH 9TH, PARK 1

7TH AVE 11TH AVE

11TH AVE

14TH AVE

R-4

RO YA

OAK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION

N DR PARK 1

9TH AVE

GREE

8TH AVE

R-O EVER

OAK PARK DR

ACCE SS

ACCESS

14TH AVE

INT INTER STATE ERSTATE 90 HW 90 HW Y Y

OAK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION PARK 1

11TH AVE

B-2

NORTH 9TH, PARK 1

11TH AVE

R-O

12TH AVE

ACCE SS

12TH AVE

15TH AVE

PATRICK ST

B-2

GILKER

LE SD

ACCESS

BAXT

MAIN ST

MIDTOWN SOUTH

ACC

ESS

STUCKY RD

FRON

TAGE

KAGY RD

Area 1. Gateway Opportunity: Phase 2

BLACKWOOD RD

COTTONWOOD RD

MENDENHALL ST

GOLDENSTEIN LN

MAIN ST

BABCOCK ST

125 250

Feet 500

Block Frontage Designations

Bozeman Code Update High Visibility Intersection StorefrontDevelopment

Existing Streets

Proposed Connections

Mixed Landscape Other

NOVEMBER 2015

(special design would apply) Trail Corridor (Existing or Planned) URD Boundary

City of Bozeman - Community Design Framework Board

City of Anacortes - Proposed Land Use Designation Map

These maps range from summarizing workshop results for the City of Olympia’s Downtown Strategy, to a map highlighting proposed changes to the Land Use Designation Map for the City of Anacortes. as part of its Comprehensive Plan update. Also shown are maps associated with the Development Code Update for the City of Redmond, including a set of over 10 Block Frontage Maps as well as overview maps. The maps to the left are some examples of my work at MAKERS.

City of Olympia - Graphic Summaries of Public Workshop Results

City of Redmond - Community Design Framework and Block Frontage Maps

Urban Design and Graphics Support Examples

SW 153rd Street

Typical Section of Proposed Corridor Condition

Curb Bulb

6’ Clear Walk Zone

7’ 5’ Planter Parking Lane Zone

12’ Travel Lane

7’ Parking Lane

MAKERS Archiecture & Urban Design Various Clients

5’ 6’ Planter Clear Walk Zone Zone

60’ Right of Way

SW 153rd Street

Typical Section of Existing Corridor Condition

Parking Lot

~7.5’ ~5’ Sidewalk Street Parking

~7.5’ ~5’ Street Parking Sidewalk

~17’ Travel Lane

Parking Lot

60’ Right of Way

City of Redmond - Sidewalk Street Section

City of Olympia - Housing Strategy Diagram

DRAFT 05/19/2016 Burien Downtown Mobility Study - Street Section

Burien Downtown Mobility - Street Section

Upper Floor Stepbacks

Extra through-block connection (30’ wide) used to help meet ADP along this frontage

Provide continuous sidewalks west of 6th Ave SW. Where feasible, include pedestrian amenities (Ped. lighting, street trees/ landscape plantings, furnishings) with streetscape improvements.

BAU

Variety of setbacks

Segment with 10’+ widened sidewalk

Through-block connection

Upper level residential courtyard facing street

Courtyard

8TH AVE SW

9TH AVE SW

10’ stepbacks above 4th floor

2ND AVE SW

6TH AVE SW

SW 153RD ST

SW 152ND ALY

bulbs along corridor to expand planting area; Re-stripe street Stage 2: Upgrade streetscape or establish a Local Improvement District for future streetscape improvements

2 4TH AVE SW

LVD

To meet the Average Daylight Plane standard a block frontage could combine the following:

Cropped corner plaza

SW 152ND ST

30’

Debit area

1ST AVE S

SW 151ST ST

Calculations use the first 30’ of property adjacent to streets to measure conformance.

li ay

D ge

era Av

5TH AVE SW

6TH AVE SW

SW 150TH ST

The block massing concept below illustrates an example of how the Average Daylight Plane provision would work in promoting a variety of façade stepbacks and breaks and courtyards fronting on the street.

lan

tP gh

Conceptual Block Layout Example 8TH AVE SW

Average Daylight Plane Concept Concept under consideration calls for building façades along all streets to meet the Average Daylight Plane (ADP) concept illustrated below. By employing an average, it promotes greater diversity in the building frontages by allowing architects to mix and match massing elements to meet the standard. It also provides much greater flexibility in creating workable building floorplans than a consistent daylight plane (if applied to the entire façade).

SW 152ND ALY

SW 153RD ALY

Burien Downtown Mobility - Streets Overview

DRAFT 05/19/2016

These graphics range from visualizing building massing for development concepts at the City of Everett, creating graphics to illustrating design standards for the City of Redmond, to creating more diagrammatic graphics to illustrate planning processes at the City of Olympia. Lastly are some graphics associated with streetscape improvements, as part of a mobility study for downtown Burien The graphics to the left are some examples of my work at MAKERS.

SW 153RD ALY

Burien Downtown Mobility Study - Street Improvements Overview

Segment with small stepback above 4th floor

My proficiency in Trimble Sketchup Adobe Illustrator, and Adobe Indesign afforded me an opportunity to serve as a resource at MAKERS for the creation of a variety of graphics for a different projects.

100

200

300

400 Feet

1 inch = 100 feet

Courtyard Space

Credit area

Island Square’s 78th Aves E frontage illustrates an example of how a development could meet the ADP.

Segment with courtyard adjacent to sidewalk

This development in Bellevue with its relatively flat facade on all block fonrtages and internalized courtyard would not

CityTOWN of Mercer Island Town Center Development Code Update Poster CENTER V I S I O N I N G

D E V E L O P M E N T

C O D E

U P D A T E

FEBRUARY 2016

SUBASE New London Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) MAKERS Archiecture & Urban Design Client: SE Connecticut Council of Governments (SCCOG) September 2017

Existing aerial view and proposed design for Crystal Lake Road Improvements

Town of Groton Overview Map

Aerial of Key Town of Waterford properties and associated zoning districts

In 2016, MAKERS was hired to lead the development of a JLUS for Submarine Base (SUBASE) New London, in Groton, CT. The 12-month project is part of an proactive effort to ensure long-term compatibility between military installations and their neighbors within a study area that spanned a submarine base, six municipalities, two Tribal reservations, and several large institutional partners. As the production lead on the project, I was responsible for performing background research, developing report templates, as well as document production of the full JLUS report, which included over 100 illustrations, graphics, and maps. In addition, I supported outreach efforts (including developing outreach materials and coordinating logistics, in addition to providing ongoing communications with the client and over thirty Policy and Technical Committee members, made up of elected officials and Town staff Website: http://seccog.org/pdfs/SNL_JLUS_ Final_2017-12-01_sm.pdf

OUTBOUND

INBOUND

CUSTOMER INFORMATION N

12 LIT TH TL & E JA SA CK IG SO O N N

First Hill Streetcar funded by

7 CH TH IN & J AT A O CK W S N O

A program of

14 CE TH N & TR W A A L S D HIN IS TR G IC TO T N Y YE ES SL LER ER & TE BR RR OA AC D E WA Y B FIR RO ST AD W H A IL Y L & TE RR AC B E FIR RO ST AD W H A IL Y L & M A RIO N B CA RO PIT AD O WA L Y H & IL L PIK EPIN B E CA RO PIT AD O WA L Y H & IL L DE N N Y

SEATTLE STREETCAR O PIO CC ID N E EE N R TA SQ L M UA A RE LL 5 JA TH PA & N JAC TO K W SO N N

OUTBOUND

Operated by

SEATTLE STREETCAR LINK LIGHT RAIL

INTER-CITY TRAIN

SDOT

BICYCLE SHARE

SOUND TRANSIT

ST EXPRESS BUS SOUNDER TRAIN

FERRY

SOUND TRANSIT

METRO BUS TRANSFER POINT

INBOUND

ORCACARD.COM

WASHINGTON STATE

WATER TAXI

KING COUNTY

SR 520

ORCA TRANSIT PASSES

SHELTER MAINTENANCE

KING COUNTY

(206) 684-7623 (ROAD)

SOUND TRANSIT

SPONSOR THIS SHELTER

E O

SEATTLE.STREETCAR@SEATTLE.GOV

1ST AVE S

NORD ALLEY

ALAKSKAN WAY

ST AR T

MES

OCCIDENTAL MALL

S JACKSON ST

KLONDIKE GOLD RUSH NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

SEATTLE METROPOLITAN POLICE MUSEUM UNION STATION SQUARE CHINATOWN INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT STATION

YOU ARE HERE SR 99 KING STREET STATION

L I O T B A Y

P I O N E E R S Q U A R E S JACKSON ST

KING STREET STATION

UNION STATION S T A D I U M S

WELLER STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

OCCIDENTAL AVE S

UNION STATION

S KING ST

C E N T R A L D I S T R I C T

YESLER WAY

4TH AVE S

PIONEER PASSAGE

15TH AVE E

12TH AVE E

BROADWAY AVE E

PI ON E E R S QUA R E

WATERFALL GARDEN PARK

14TH AVE S

ALAKSKAN WAY

14TH AVE S

D O W N T O W N

CHINATOWN INTERNATIONAL DISTRICT STATION

YOU ARE HERE SR 99

February 2016

CITY HALL PARK

3RD AVE S

WESTERN AVE

10TH AVE E

POST AVE

E AV IR VIE W FA

FAIRVIEW AVE

TERRY AVE N

ST TER Y

ST EW

NORD ALLEY

ST EW AR T

BELLEVUE AVE E

DEXTER AVE N

BR O AD

4TH AVE S

3RD AVE S

2ND AVE S

1ST AVE S

15TH AVE E

BAT

PIONEER PASSAGE

10TH AVE E

12TH AVE E

BROADWAY AVE E

OCCIDENTAL AVE S

WESTERN AVE

POST AVE

E AV EW FA IR VI

BELLEVUE AVE E

FAIRVIEW AVE

TERRY AVE N

ST BR O AD

DEXTER AVE N

ST ER Y

SEATTLE METROPOLITAN POLICE MUSEUM UNION STATION SQUARE

PREFONTAINE PLACE

BA TT

CENTRAL DISTRICT

KLONDIKE GOLD RUSH NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

T O

E AV

ISO

MAD

F I R S T H I L L

AV YESLER WAY

OCCIDENTAL MALL

S JACKSON ST

L A K E H I N G

D 3R

T TS

E AV

PIKE

T 1S

PIONEER SQUARE

C H I N A T O W N I N T E R N A T I O N A L D I S T R I C T S DEARBORN ST

S KING ST S JACKSON ST

S T A D I U M S

PINE

FIRST HILL

P I K E - P I N E

P I K E P L A C E M A R K E T

E PIKE ST

DOWNTOWN

E PINE ST

W A S H I N G T O N S T A T E C O N V E N T I O N C E N T E R

SMITH TOWER

OCCIDENTAL PARK

AY W

RE MA

OLI

S MAIN ST

B E L L T O W N

PIKE-PINE

BO N

SR 99

C H I N AT O W N I N T E R N AT I O N A L DISTRICT

I-90

S DEARBORN ST

SR 99 I-90

CENTURYLINK FIELD

WELLER STREET PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE

OCCIDENTAL AVE S

E L L I OT T B AY

WATERFALL GARDEN PARK

M JA

S WASHINGTON ST

E JOHN ST E DENNY WAY

E PIKE ST

E ST

PIK

E PINE ST

AY W

W A S H I N G T O N S T A T E C O N V E N T I O N C E N T E R

E ST

1S T

C A P I T O L H I L L

IVE

P I K E P L A C E M A R K E T

P I O N E E R S QUA R E

I-5

W AY

DENNY WAY

OCCIDENTAL PARK

S MAIN ST

B E L LT O W N

DENNY TRIANGLE

S O U T H L A K E U N I O N

S E A T T L E C E N T E R

AVE

KE AVE

SEATTLESTREETCAR.ORG

E JOHN ST

ROY ST MERCER ST

CITY HALL PARK PREFONTAINE PLACE

WESTLAKE

CAPITOL HILL

E DENNY WAY

WESTLA

1S T

S WASHINGTON ST

SMITH TOWER

PIONEER SQUARE PARK

PERGOLA

YESLER WAY

VALLEY ST

E AV

DENNY WAY

5AM to 1AM 10AM to 8PM

I-5

D 3R

HOURS OF OPERATION

SOUTH LAKE UNION

MERCER ST

S E A T T L E C E N T E R

M JA

YESLER WAY

VALLEY ST

ROY ST

UPTOWN

PIONEER SQUARE PARK

T EX

SR 99

PIONEER BUILDING

TOTEM POLE

PERGOLA

E AV

O C C I D E N TA L M A L L PIONEER SQUARE

D 2N

LAKE UNION

PIONEER BUILDING

TOTEM POLE

E AV

D 2N

SR 99 SR 520

EASTLAKE

W A

2ND AVE S

Monday to Saturday Sunday & Holiday

MAKERS Archiecture & Urban Design Client: City of Seattle Department of Transportation

O C C I D E N TA L M A L L PIONEER SQUARE

(206) 553-3000

AMTRAK

PRONTO

OCCIDENTAL AVE S

Non-Discrimination Policy The City of Seattle and King County Metro operate Seattle Streetcar without regard to race, color and national origin. To request additional information about non-discirmination policies related to Seattle Streetcar, or to obtain information about filing a discrimination complaint, please call (206) 296-7592.

Seattle Streetcar Station Wayfinding Maps

14 CE TH N & TR W A A L S D HI IS N TR G IC TO T N YE YE S SL LER ER & TE BR RR OA AC D E WA Y B FI RO RS A T DW H A IL Y L & TE RR AC B E FI RO RS A T DW H A IL Y L & M A RI O N B CA RO PI AD TO W L AY H & IL L PIK EPI N B E CA RO PI AD TO W A L Y H & IL L DE N N Y

12 LI TH TT & LE J A SA CK IG SO O N N

7 CH TH IN & J AT A O CK W S N ON

O PI CC O ID N E EE N R TA SQ L M UA A RE LL 5T JA H PA & N JAC TO K W SO N N

GREEN LAKE

SAFECO FIELD

SEATTLE STREETCAR SDOT

LINK LIGHT RAIL SOUND TRANSIT

Seattle Streetcar operated by

HOURS OF OPERATION

ORCA TRANSIT PASSES ORCACARD.COM

Monday to Saturday............. 5AM to 1AM Sunday & Holiday.................10AM to 8PM

SHELTER MAINTENANCE (206) 684-7623 (ROAD)

CENTURYLINK FIELD

LAKE WA S H I N G TO N

CUSTOMER INFORMATION (206) 553-3000

SEATTLESTREETCAR.ORG

ST EXPRESS BUS SOUND TRANSIT

METRO BUS TRANSFER POINT KING COUNTY SOUNDER TRAIN SOUND TRANSIT

INTER-CITY TRAIN AMTRAK

BICYCLE SHARE PRONTO

FERRY

WASHINGTON STATE

SAFECO FIELD

WATER TAXI KING COUNTY

S E AT T L E

S T R E E T C A R

First Hill Streetcar funded by

As part of the effort to create a distinct and cohesive identity for the Seattle Streetcar Network, MAKERS was hired by SDOT to develop wayfinding maps for both the First Hill and South Lake Union lines of the streetcar system. The maps are intended to orient streetcar users to important landmarks within walking distance of 18 stops within the system. An additional version of the map was also created for each stop in order to accomodate the display of sponsors in the future. As the project lead at MAKERS, I played an integral role in the design of the station wayfinding maps, working very closely with the Streetcar Program Manager. Major tasks included developing and refining map templates, updating maps to incorporate extensive public input, providing QA/QC across 34 separate maps, and preparing the maps for printing. Website: https://www. facebook.com/SeattleStreetcar/ posts/1187691084592053

Photos courtesy: facebook.com/SeattleStreetcar

TOWN TOWN PORTAL PORTAL 60 60

DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS

PURPOSE: The tall signature buildings within the Town Portal Sub-District capitalize on the visibility from the TOWN PORTAL PURPOSE: The tall signaturetobuildings within the Sub-District capitalize on the visibility from the TOWN 60 and draw highway passers-by the downtown areaTown with Portal their robust architecture. Predominantly a residential PORTAL 60 and draw passers-by to the downtown area with their robust architecture. Predominantly a residential highway PURPOSE environment, its tall densely built within multifamily provide the captive clientele that sustains growing commerce The signature buildings the Town Portalstructures Sub-District capitalize on visibility from the highway draw Portal passers-by the capitalize downtown PURPOSE downtown. environment, itsthetall densely built multifamily structures provide the captive clientele unique that sustains growing commerce The signature buildings within the Town Sub-District within Standards areand intended toto allow design flexibility facilitating and iconic buildings. area with their robust architecture. Predominantly a residential on the visibility from the highway draw passers-by the downtown within downtown. Standards areandintended toto allow design flexibility facilitating unique and iconic buildings. environment, its densely built multifamily structures provide the captive area with their robust architecture. Predominantly a residential clientele that sustains growing commerce structures within downtown. Standards environment, its densely built multifamily provide the captive are intended allow growing design flexibilty facilitating and iconic clientele that to sustains commerce within unique downtown. Standards buildings. are intended to allow design flexibilty facilitating unique and iconic buildings.

PARKING PARKING

Location Access Location Screening Access

BUILDING Screening SETBACKS BUILDING SETBACKS

Front

BUILDING STANDARDS Minimum 22' up to 60' HEIGHT BUILDING STANDARDS Residential - 10' minimum First Floor Minimum 22' up to 60' HEIGHT First Floor Upper Floors

Non-residential - 12' minimum Residential - 10' minimum 9'-12' Non-residential - 12' minimum

Upper Floors Finished Ground Floor

9'-12' Elevated 2'-3' for residential units located within 5' of a public sidewalk.

Finished Ground Floor

Entrances must meet ADA requirements as dictated by the International Elevated 2'-3' for residential units located within 5' of a public sidewalk. Building Code.

BUILDING WIDTH TRANSPARENCY BUILDING WIDTH First Floor TRANSPARENCY

Entrances must meet ADA requirements as dictated by the International Elevated up to 6" for non-residential units along streetfront façades. Building Code.

First Floor

Elevated up to 6" for non-residential units along streetfront façades. Doors with at least 30% glazed surface area are included. Minimum 20% along streetfront façades. Doors with at least 30% glazed surface area are included. Minimum 15% along other facades with the exception of interior shared walls. Minimum 20% along streetfront façades.

Upper Floors

Minimum 15% along other facades with the exception of interior shared walls. Minimum 20% with the exception of interior shared walls.

OPENINGS

Windows

Minimum 20% with the exception of interior shared walls. At least one first story building entrance for each independently occupied unit shall be along the front façade and connected to the adjacent sidewalk. The At least one firstbe story building entrance for each occupied unit entrance shall architecturally emphasized andindependently provided weather shall be along front façade connected the adjacent sidewalk. The protection thatthe extends at least and 3' from the front to façade. entrance shall be architecturally emphasized and provided weather protection that extends at least 3' from the front façade. Shall exhibit a width to height ratio of 1:1.25 or taller.

Windows First floor

Shall exhibit a width to height ratio of 1:1.25 or taller. Between 24" and 36" along streetfront facades.

Upper Floors Doors

OPENINGS

Doors

SILL LEVEL SILL LEVEL

Upper Floors First floor

Between 30" and 36" along streetfront facades. Between 24" and 36" along streetfront facades.

Upper Floors

Between 30" and 36" along streetfront facades.

ARTICULATION

ARTICULATION Horizontal Front façade

Horizontal

Front façade Top

Top Pitched Roofs © CREA AFFILIATES Pitched Roofs © CREA AFFILIATES

Vertical Vertical 2319 N 45TH STREET STE 205 SEATTLE WASHINGTON 98103 206-297-3045 f: 206-316-2287 2319 N 45TH STREET STE 205 ww w.crea-affiliates.com SEATTLE WASHINGTON 98103 206-297-3045 f: 206-316-2287

At least 50% of the length of the building's front façade at the fourth story level and for the floors above shall be recessed by at least 4'. At least 50% of the length of the building's front façade at the fourth story level The top extremities of the first floor and the top floor shall be articulated for a and for the floors above shall be recessed by at least 4'. height that is a minimum of 8% of the floor height with the use of architectural The top extremities of the first floor and the top floor shall be articulated for a elements. height that is a minimum of 8% of the floor height with the use of architectural For pitched rooflines modulated fascia board or friese board at least 7" tall elements. shall be highlighted along the underside of the eaves. For pitched rooflines modulated fascia board or friese board at least 7" tall Long continuous ridgelines are prohibited. A ridgeline shall be varied vertically shall be highlighted along the underside of the eaves. or horizontally every 50 feet or less. Long continuous ridgelines are prohibited. A ridgeline shall be varied vertically All streetfront facades shall be articulated vertically every 10-15 linear feet at or horizontally every 50 feet or less. the first floor level. Articulation of upper story streetfront facades 10-25 feet is All streetfront facadesand shallrecesses be articulated every 10-15 along linear feet at preferred. Projections shall bevertically a minimum 2' deep the front the first floor level. Articulation of upper story streetfront facades 10-25 feet is facade. preferred. Projections and recesses shall be a minimum 2' deep along the front Flat facades that are longer than 25' shall be punctuated with balconies, facade. projecting windows or permanent window overhangs every 10' or less and Flat that18" are longer than 25' shall be punctuated with balconies, shallfacades be at least deep. projecting windows or permanent window overhangs every 10' or less and shall be at least 18" deep. Allowed on all building fronts. They shall not extend more than 6' from a building's wall for the first story and not more than 24" for upper stories. Allowed all building fronts. They shallornot extend more thanOnly 6' from a Awnings on made of fabric, metal, wood glass are preferred. horizontal or building's wall forare thepermitted. first story and not more than 24" for upper stories. angled awnings Awnings made of fabric, metal, wood or glass are preferred. Only horizontal or Are permitted forare thepermitted. first story if they are 2-3' above street level and located angled awnings outside the public ROW. Are permitted within the public ROW on upper floors Are permitted story more if theythan are 2-3' above level and located as long as theyfor dothe notfirst extend 3' from the street building wall and clear 12' outside public ROW. Are permitted the public ROW onleast upper floors from thethe sidewalk. The projecting faceswithin of balconies must be at 50% as long they do not extend more than 3' from the building wall and clear 12' open oras transparent. from the sidewalk. The projecting faces of balconies must be at least 50% Are permitted only at primary building entrances. open or transparent.

Vertical Vertical

PROJECTIONS Awnings

PROJECTIONS

Awnings Balconies Balconies

Arcades Bay/Pop Windows Arcades

ROOF Bay/Pop Windows FAÇADE ROOF Required Materials FAÇADE Required Materials

Prohibited Materials Prohibited Materials

Awnings

PROJECTIONS

Awnings Balconies Balconies

Arcades Bay/Pop Windows Arcades

ROOF Bay/Pop Windows FAÇADE ROOF Required Materials FAÇADE Required Materials

Prohibited Materials Prohibited Materials

LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPING

Utilities Utilities

LIGHTING LIGHTING

Facade Mounted

Yard

Yard Parking Parking

435 MARTIN ST, BLAINE

The City of Blaine contracted CREÄ to help develop design standards in order to create a sense of place in their downtown. After site visits and engaging with City staff, four subdistricts were established, each with its own distinct identity.

BUILDING STANDARDS BUILDING STANDARDS

Mansard roofs are prohibited Ground floor facades in public view shall be in masonry, stone, wood, singularly or in combination for all opaque wall surfaces Ground floor facades in public viewashall in masonry, stone, Interior shared wall exposed along side be property line must be wood, coated and singularly or in for all pattern, opaque concrete wall surfaces finished with ancombination attractive scored textured art or graphics Interior shared wall administrative exposed alongreview. a side property line must be coated and that must undergo finished with an attractive scored pattern, concrete textured art or graphics Ground floor: vinyl and metal siding; upper stories: vinyl and metal siding in that must undergo administrative review. excess of 15% of opaque surface of any one wall Ground floor: vinyl and metal siding; stories: vinyl andsiding metalgrade siding in All floors and facades: asphalt siding,upper aluminum lap siding, excess of 15% of opaque surfaceunpainted, of any oneunpolished) wall plywood, unfinished (uncoated, concrete (except All floors facades: asphaltwall) siding, aluminum lap siding, siding grade along anand interior zero setback and reflective materials. plywood, unfinished (uncoated, unpainted, unpolished) concrete (except SEE 17.126 along an interior zero setback wall) and reflective materials.

LANDSCAPING LANDSCAPINGUtilities Utilities

SEE 17.126 All outdoor service and storage areas should not be visible from adjacent sidewalks. All serviceunits andshall storage areas should not be visible from adjacent All outdoor outdoor HVAC be screened. A noise reducing barrier shall be sidewalks. provided for all HVAC units that exceed 50dB(A). Vegetation can be used to

All outdoor units shall be A noise screen but isHVAC not considered an screened. acceptable noisereducing barrier. barrier shall be provided for all HVAC units that exceed 50dB(A). Vegetation can be used to Utility meters shall be placed so that they are not visible from the street. Utility screen but is not considered an acceptable noise barrier. meters should be grouped when possible. Utility meters shall be placed so that they are not visible from the street. Design should consider placement of satellite dishes, micro-turbines andUtility other meters should away be grouped when possible. utility features from the street.

MINIMUM MINIMUM

Design should consider placement of satellite dishes, micro-turbines and other utility features away from the street. Illumination levels shall meet the safety standards defined by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). Lighting shall not spillover onto Illumination shall meet the safety standards defined by the Illuminating neighboringlevels residential properties or cause glare on adjacent streets. The Engineering Society of level Northat America (IESNA). not spillover onto maximum illumination the property lineLighting abuttingshall residential properties neighboring residential properties or causedesign glare on adjacent streets. shall not exceed 0.1 footcandles. Lighting should include the The maximum level sensors, at the property lineenergy abutting residential properties installation of timers,STANDARDS photo and other saving devices. DOWNTOWN DISTRICTillumination DESIGN shall not mounted exceed 0.1 footcandles. Lighting should include theare Facade lighting fixtures that washdesign the face of the building Facade Mounted installation of timers,STANDARDS photo sensors, and other saving devices.not DOWNTOWN DISTRICTShielded, DESIGN preferred. full cut-off fixtures shall be energy used with illumination

LIGHTING

Facade Mounted

Yard Yard Parking Parking

Contact Michael Jones, Community Development Director 360-543-9981 mjones@cityofblaine.com

Legend

Facade mounted fixtures thatcan wash face of the building are exceeding 5.0 footlighting candles. Up lights bethe used discretely if necessary. preferred. Shielded, full cut-off fixtures shall be used with illumination not Low level (bollards or recessed) lighting fixtures shall be installed for interior exceeding 5.0 foot candles. Up lights can be used discretely if necessary. walkways. Pole mounted lights may provide additional lighting. Low level (bollards or recessed) lighting fixtures shall be installed for interior Parking area and walkways must be lit. Commercial properties that are walkways. Pole mounted lights may provide adjacent to residential areas shall reduce theadditional lighting inlighting. their parking lots to an

CB-Market Zone Public Zone CB-Transition Zone

7/15/2014 Parking and walkways musthour be lit. Commercial averagearea of 0.2 footcandles one after closing. properties that are adjacent to residential areas shall reduce the lighting in their parking lots to an 7/15/2014 average of 0.2 footcandles one hour after closing.

DO W N T O W N S U B -DI S T R I C T S C I T YSOF DO W N T O W N S U B -DI T RBLA I C ITNSE 2014 C IJULY T Y OF17, BLA INE JULY 17, 2014

My role on this project to date has been in graphics development. This has included creation of the base map, existing zoning and proposed sub-district maps. Using Photoshop and Indesign, I also developed elevation montages of several representative streets for each subdistrict, as well as a flyer for public meeting.

Questions?

Community Open House Flyer

LIGHTING

F St

Single Family Zone Residential Office Zone

MAXIMUM MAXIMUM 7/15/2014

Proposed Zones

MARKET

G St

TOWN PORTAL - 60

7/15/2014 PUBLIC

WATERVIEW - 36 H St

Are not permitted on the ground floor front façade. Are permitted only at primary building entrances. Mansard roofs are prohibited Are not permitted on the ground floor front façade. Mansard roofs are prohibited Ground floor facades in public view shall be in masonry, stone, wood, singularly or in combination for all opaque wall surfaces Ground floor facades in public view shall be in masonry, stone, wood, Interior shared wall exposed along a side property line must be coated and singularly or in combination for all opaque wall surfaces finished with an attractive scored pattern, concrete textured art or graphics Interior shared wall administrative exposed alongreview. a side property line must be coated and that must undergo finished with an attractive scored pattern, concrete textured art or graphics Ground floor: vinyl and metal siding; upper stories: vinyl and metal siding in that must undergo administrative review. excess of 15% of opaque surface of any one wall Ground floor: vinyl and metal siding; upper stories: vinyl and metal siding in All floors and facades: asphalt siding, aluminum lap siding, siding grade excess of 15% of opaque surface of any one wall plywood, unfinished (uncoated, unpainted, unpolished) concrete (except All floors facades: asphaltwall) siding, aluminum lap siding, siding grade along anand interior zero setback and reflective materials. plywood, unfinished (uncoated, unpainted, unpolished) concrete (except SEE 17.126 along an interior zero setback wall) and reflective materials.

MARKET - 48

Martin St

GARDEN - 36

TRANSITION

Clark St

GARDEN - 48

SINGLE FAMILY Steen St

SEE 17.126 All outdoor service and storage areas should not be visible from adjacent sidewalks. All outdoor service and storage areas should not be visible from adjacent All outdoor HVAC units shall be screened. A noise reducing barrier shall be sidewalks. provided for all HVAC units that exceed 50dB(A). Vegetation can be used to All outdoor units shall be A noise screen but isHVAC not considered an screened. acceptable noisereducing barrier. barrier shall be provided for all HVAC units that exceed 50dB(A). Vegetation can be used to Utility shallconsidered be placedan so acceptable that they arenoise not visible from the street. Utility screenmeters but is not barrier. meters should be grouped when possible. Utility meters shall be placed so that they are not visible from the street. Utility Design should consider placement of satellite dishes, micro-turbines and other meters should be grouped when possible. utility features away from the street. Design should consider placement of satellite dishes, micro-turbines and other utility features away from the street.

Boblett St

RESIDENTIAL OFFICE

EXISTING AND PROPOSED ZONING

Illumination levels shall meet the safety standards defined by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). Lighting shall not spillover onto Illumination shall meet the safety standards defined by the Illuminating neighboringlevels residential properties or cause glare on adjacent streets. The Engineering Society of level Northat America (IESNA). not spillover onto maximum illumination the property lineLighting abuttingshall residential properties neighboring residential properties or causedesign glare on adjacent streets. shall not exceed 0.1 footcandles. Lighting should include the The maximum illumination level sensors, at the property lineenergy abutting residential properties installation of timers, photo and other saving devices. shall not exceed 0.1 footcandles. Lighting design should include the Facade mounted lighting fixtures that wash the face of the building are installation of timers, photo sensors, and other energy saving devices. preferred. Shielded, full cut-off fixtures shall be used with illumination not Facade mounted fixtures thatcan wash face of the building are exceeding 5.0 footlighting candles. Up lights bethe used discretely if necessary. preferred. Shielded, full cut-off fixtures shall be used with illumination not Low level (bollards recessed) lighting fixtures shalldiscretely be installed for interior exceeding 5.0 foot or candles. Up lights can be used if necessary. walkways. Pole mounted lights may provide additional lighting. Low level (bollards or recessed) lighting fixtures shall be installed for interior Parking area and walkways must be lit. Commercial properties that are walkways. Pole mounted lights may provide additional lighting. adjacent to residential areas shall reduce the lighting in their parking lots to an Parking and walkways one musthour be lit. Commercial averagearea of 0.2 footcandles after closing. properties that are adjacent to residential areas shall reduce the lighting in their parking lots to an average of 0.2 footcandles one hour after closing.

CITY OF BLAINE, WA JULY 2, 2014 (Rev. 07/29/14) NOTE: THIS MAP IS FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY.

Elevation montage of Peace Portal Drive Facade Mounted

6-8 PM 4TH FLOOR, CITY HALL

Peace Portal Drive

ww w.crea-affiliates.com

August 2014

THURSDAY JULY 17TH

Are not permitted on the ground floor front façade. Are permitted only at primary building entrances. Mansard roofs are prohibited Are not permitted on the ground floor front façade.

Design Standards for Town Portal Downtown Sub-District PROJECTIONS

Please join us for this community open house where you will have a chance to review these new standards and share your comments. Refreshments will be provided.

Long continuous ridgelines prohibited. vertically A ridgeline shall10-15 be varied All streetfront facades shall are be articulated every linearvertically feet at or horizontally every 50 feet or less. the first floor level. Articulation of upper story streetfront facades 10-25 feet is

All streetfront facadesand shallrecesses be articulated every 10-15 along linear feet at preferred. Projections shall bevertically a minimum 2' deep the front the first floor level. Articulation of upper story streetfront facades 10-25 feet is facade. preferred. Projections and recesses shall be a minimum 2' deep along the front Flat facades that are longer than 25' shall be punctuated with balconies, facade. projecting windows or permanent window overhangs every 10' or less and Flat that18" are longer than 25' shall be punctuated with balconies, shallfacades be at least deep. projecting windows or permanent window overhangs every 10' or less and shall be at least 18" deep. Allowed on all building fronts. They shall not extend more than 6' from a building's wall for the first story and not more than 24" for upper stories. Allowed all building fronts. They shallornot extend more thanOnly 6' from a Awnings on made of fabric, metal, wood glass are preferred. horizontal or building's wall forare thepermitted. first story and not more than 24" for upper stories. angled awnings Awnings made of fabric, metal, wood or glass are preferred. Only horizontal or Are permitted forare thepermitted. first story if they are 2-3' above street level and located angled awnings outside the public ROW. Are permitted within the public ROW on upper floors Are permitted story more if theythan are 2-3' above level and located as long as theyfor dothe notfirst extend 3' from the street building wall and clear 12' outside public ROW. Are permitted the public ROW onleast upper floors from thethe sidewalk. The projecting faceswithin of balconies must be at 50% as long they do not extend more than 3' from the building wall and clear 12' open oras transparent. from the sidewalk. The projecting faces of balconies must be at least 50% Are permitted only at primary building entrances. open or transparent.

CREÄ Affiliates Client: City of Blaine, WA

and standards for the downtown district. Streamlining the development application process with clear codes and design standards will help lower the City’s cost for development review and establish Blaine’s reputation as a investment friendly partner. New investors and buildings in the downtown area will strengthen the local economy and make it a great place for residents and visitors alike.

Blaine Ave

0'-120'

Onsite Walkways

Pitched Roofs

Come and Learn how the City of Blaine has been simplifying development codes

Harrison Ave

Rear

Onsite Walkways

Top Pitched Roofs

The top extremities of the first floor and the top floor shall be articulated for a height that is a minimum of 8% of the floor height with the use of architectural The top extremities of the first floor and the top floor shall be articulated for a elements. height that is a minimum of 8% of the floor height with the use of architectural For pitched rooflines modulated fascia board or friese board at least 7" tall elements. shall be highlighted along the underside of the eaves. For pitched rooflines modulated fascia board or frieseshall board least vertically 7" tall Long continuous ridgelines are prohibited. A ridgeline beat varied shall be highlighted underside of the eaves. or horizontally every along 50 feetthe or less.

OPEN HOUSE

4th St

Side Front Rear Side

COMMERCIAL UP TO 30% MINIMUM 40% - MAXIMUM 100% RESIDENTIAL UP TO 30% COMMERCIAL UP TO 30% PUBLIC UP TO 50% RESIDENTIAL UP TO 30% Richly textured porous or permeable pavement is preferred. PUBLIC UP TO 50% All onsite walkways must exhibit a volume with width to height proportion of Richly textured porous that or permeable pavement is preferred. 1:3 or more. Facades are setback by 4' or more from the ground floor All onsitefacing walkways must exhibit volume withinwidth to height proportion of façade the walkway are a not included the height. 1:3 or more. Facades that are setback by 4' or more from the ground floor SEE 17.125 façade facing the walkway are not included in the height. Rear yard. SEE 17.125 Preferred from alley. Rear yard. SEE 17.125 Preferred from alley. SEE 17.125 Jetties of up to 3' are permitted within property limits. Full setbacks may not be applied if it reduces building coverage below the Jetties of up to 3' are permitted within property limits. minimum required. Full setbacks may not be applied if it reduces building coverage below the 0' up to 5' averaged. minimum required. 0'-20' 0' up to 5' averaged. 0'-120' 0'-20'

Top

Downtown Sub-district Design Standards

COMMUNITY

3rd St

MINIMUM 40% - MAXIMUM 100%

DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS DOWNTOWN DISTRICT DESIGN STANDARDS

DESIGN STANDARDS DESIGN STANDARDS SITE STANDARDS BUILDING SITE STANDARDS OPEN AREA BUILDING OPEN AREA

SITE STANDARDS SITE STANDARDS

C R E Ä A F F I L I AT E S 100 50 0

100

200 ft

2319 N 45TH STREET STE 205 SEATTLE WASHINGTON 98103 206-297-3045 f: 206-316-2287

w w w. c r e a - a f fi l i a t e s . c o m

Existing and Proposed Zoning Map

7/15/2014

ENERGY CASE STUDY: DEEP GREEN HISTORIC BUILDING RETROFITS

WW *URFRII ,PDJH 0D Q 79 UHHQRYDWLR

w Holland

UDY: Ne

CASE ST

TROFITS

ILDING RE

ORIC BU EN HIST

EP GRE UDY: DE

VKD V RQ SURMH 7KH RZQHU ODU XSGDWHV WR WKH QV DQG WLS RVVLEOH HJX HG LQVWUXFWLR WKURXJK U HRV GHWDLO VKRZLQJ WKDW LW LV S H KRZ WR YLG I WK XFWLRQ LQFOXGHV QHUJ\ UHG H D UHVWRUDWLYH SDUW R WLQJ DQG H G E RYD WLRQ URFRII DQ UHQ ROOX DWW * HQW G S QP XUWHV\ 0 ZDVWH DQ ,PDJH &R WKH HQYLUR QO\ RQ V R DFW XUQ ÂśV LPS QG UHW WH D KRPH VRXUFHV D W WDNHV UH RU HOLPLQD WR UHGXFH DQ RQH WKD UDWKHU WK FRPPXQLW\ er 2012 | Septemb Residence e/Grocoff Zero Hous Mission Y: UD CASE ST

VWV

MHFW 7RWDO IRU 3UR . DIWHU XWLOLW\ FRPSDQ\ LW

6RODU 39 HUDO WD[ FUHG IHG LQFHQWLYH DQG

6RXUFHV

)XQGLQJ $ZDUGHG

7D[ &UHGLWV HUJ\ 7D[ (Q 5HQHZDEOH ly &UHGLW LWDO primari 2ZQHU &DS 203(k) rehab A through FH loan

Building Program The former school is now KRPH WR HLJKW QRQSURÂżWV including three historic preservation related organizations.

LFKDUGVRQ

3KRWR -LP 5

Project Ty

Main Street

Savings vinygs erg Sa EnergyEn

67%

nal the natio better than savings (including average PV) from solar

Cost

Tenant behavior 7KH RZQHU SODQV WR PRWLYDWH WHQDQWV WR UHDFK JUHDWHU HQHUJ\ DQG ZDWHU HIÂżFLHQF\ WKURXJK ongoing building performance monitoring and tenant engagement.

Whole Building EUI (Modeled Pre-Retrofit baseline + Modeled Post-Retrofit) vs. National Average 250

Project Costs

Gas Electricity

Total for Project: $3.2 million 5HWURÂżW &RVWV PLOOLRQ Historic Preservation Costs: $1.4 million Soft Costs: $800,000 Hard Costs: $2.4 million Tax Credits Awarded: $0

Baseline

200

National Average = 147.55

150

Funding Sources

Commissioning and Retro-commissioning Commissioning of mechanical and lighting systems was crucial to helping the owner and contractors identify issues and improve installation of heating and cooking system HPHUJHQF\ VKXW RIIV DQG ÂżOWHULQJ DV ZHOO DV lighting controls. The project team did not conduct enhanced commissioning due to budget constraints.

100

Colorado State Historical Fund Foundation grants Private donation Loan (incl. low interest construction loan from CO Historical Foundation)

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Pre

Nov

Post

Pre

Post

Pre

LESSONS

Jan

Post

Dec

CASE STUDY: Emerson School | September 2012

gs gsst Savin Co Savin

77%

y costs in total utilit HG WR decrease ÂżW FRPSDU SRVW UHWUR type building average

Photos Courtesy: Jim Lindberg, National Trust for Historic Preservation

tails

: Location VERUJ .6 LQ 6W /LQG 1 0D n: nstructio Year of Co 0 190 PSOHWHG: 5HWURÂżW &R gress) pro (in 2 201 Size: Building 6) : VWRU\ signation Historic De ter for Historic gis al Nation Re ces Pla and Cladding ng ildi Bu d brick/ l: Reinforce Structura masonry DLQ 6WUHHW s 0 ord Keyw DU Historic Historic Standards UQDFXO 6RODU 39 9H

6XPPDU\

KEY FACT

Controls /LJKW VZLWFKLQJ LQFOXGHV DXWRPDWHG YDFDQF\ UDWKHU WKDQ RFFXSDQF\ VHQVRUV LQ RIÂżFH VSDFHV DOO lighting except the egress path and stairway areas is set to a default â&#x20AC;&#x153;offâ&#x20AC;? mode. There are individual, programmable HVAC controls for each heat pump unit. Offsite, online monitoring and tracking functions are included for all units.

Energy or sustainability consultant White Box Technologies, Inc. Moncef Krarti, (303) 771-8370 krarti@yahoo.com

Resources Preservation Nation 'HQYHUÂśV

KEY FACTS

3URMHFW &R

Engineer Rogers and Sons, Inc. Stacy Rogers, President (303) 296-2999 stacy@rogershvac.com

Project De

nson and Joh Holmberg & Wagonshop ith Blacksm

CASE ST

]HUR OGHVW QHW $PHULFDÂśV R QFH WKH NL YLQ 0L\D]D GH XUWHV\ .H ,PDJH &R HQHUJ\ UHVL +RXVH ZLWK LWV vings Cost Sa y VLRQ =HUR 0LV 39 DQG S in total utilit s ODU gs CT ction vin redu Q RI VR ÂżW SRVW UHWUR KEY FA S Energy Sa FRVW D FRPELQDWLR HDWLQJ FRROLQJ 108% TB ge an avera DO K Type FA ct CT G better than residence JHRWKHUP KEPrYoje ily QHUJ\ ORD D single-fam TB2% XFHG LWV H ily 11 HG fam V U 39 KD gle Sin WK WKH VRODU Main ial OO WKH E\ ZL Resident URYLGLQJ D Street I S HQWV WKH RR VLG H U U UH HG RQ WK IRUPH QR LUHG FRPELQ LFDO H DIWHU LWV DG SDLQW WRU DXVV +RXV SRZHU UHTX KH VLGLQJ OH H RU WKH * FRII VDZ W FWLQJ WKH KLV DVEHVWRV RII 5HVLGHQF ZLWK YLVLEOH JDSV HU 0DWW *UR D ZDONDEOH ZKLOH UHVSH H EXLOGLQJ ZLWK Overview WLRQ 2ZQ V WKH *URF ZV Q LQ I WK HQ UHQRYD DN\ ZLQGR QG ORFDWLR O\ NQRZQ D ULJLQDO LQWHJULW\ R LWHG IRU D H R VX WK $OWHUQDWLYH FWRULDQ KRPH KDG OH QDFH SULRU WR LWV JUH IXQFWLRQDO OD\RXW D RI DOO\ LGH IXU 9L UHVWRUDWLRQ I SLWFK DUH WKH DO ÂżQLVKHV URR )RON G D KDOI FHQWXU\ ROG JLQ WKH RUL RI DVKHV DQ DSSHDOLQJ WKH DQJOH ZLQGRZ V LQVXODWLRQ H ZLWK LWV OGLQJ DQG 9 DUUD\

+RXVH pact LRQ =HUR Project ImUHV WKH VWRU\ RI WKH 0LVV ZKLFK FW ZHEVLWH

nts

Apartme

6XPPDU\

F 3 RI WKH EXL RI WKH KRP KRWRYROWDL SRWHQWLDO ULHQWDWLRQ VL]HDEOH S URFHVV RRG 7KH R UHH VWHS S QHLJKERUK OORZHG D WK G UHVWRUH J\ UHWURÂżW IR 7KH HQHU HQVRUV DQ H PRWLRQ V XV 'V /( OLJKW ZLWK /RVH /HVV ZV G DG OLQJ ROG ZLQGR FRR FRYHU\ DWLQJ DQG KHUPDO KH QG LQVWDOO HQHUJ\ UH XVH JHRW 8VH /HVV RVWDW DQG FRQWUROV D LDOV UP 6PDUW WKH HXVH EXLOGLQJ PDWHU V U U WKDQ WKH YHQWLODWRU UD DWH O WR JHQHU RODU SDQH QVWDOO D V 3URGXFH L QHUJ\ FRQVXPH H

Emerson School is a Denver landmark owned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) and is the oldest surviving example of a school designed by architect Robert Roeschlaub, who was known nationally for his school plans. Notable architectural features include large central OREELHV RQ WKH ÂżUVW DQG VHFRQG Ă&#x20AC;RRU FRQQHFWHG E\ D ODUJH VWDLUFDVH 7KH EXLOGLQJ KDV KLJK FHLOLQJV tall windows and all original wood wainscoting and wood interior lobby doors. Some classrooms KDYH RULJLQDO FDELQHWU\ DQG FKDONERDUGV YLVLEOH 7KH H[WHULRU LQFOXGHV WKH ÂżUVW NQRZQ H[DPSOH RI a sundial on a Colorado building and a prominent hipped roof, pierced by two brick chimneys that provided passive ventilation for the classrooms.

Project Impact

0, nstruction Year of Co DGGHG

HQ NLWFK PSOHWHG DWK 5HWURÂżW &R E e EGUP Building Siz LWLRQHG VSDFH RQG ) F 6 YLQJ VSDFH ) OL 6 signation Historic De LVWHU IRU +LVWRULF HJ

1DWLRQDO 5 J EXLOGLQJ RQWULEXWLQ 3ODFHV F : :RRG ing dd Cla Building %DOORRQ Structural: Building )UDPH PLO\ s 6LQJOH ID Keyword 39 DO 9LFWRULDQ *HRWKHUP

FRXUWHV\ *

Overview

modeled reduction in total XWLOLW\ FRVW SRVW UHWURÂżW

V RI DQ LWHG 6WDWH LQ WKH 8Q 1DWLRQDO WHG LQ WKH VW H[DPSOH Costs ion UVW DQG EH HUWLÂżFDWLRQ DQG LV OLV Project ject DOOHG WKH Âż : $7.2 mill DV EHHQ F WK DFKLHYHV /((' F V K HQW Total for Pro W WKDW ER QG $SDUWP WURÂż Holland w Ne 1HZ +ROOD XVLQJ GHYHORSPHQW , (QHUJ\ 5H KR iana border al Architecture, -Ind . ois ces DIIRUGDEOH Illin viv Pla g Re the of Historic of Dutch tory buildin ois, near 5-s Illin ling e s fee lle, Th Register The Emerson School is located on a 46,000 sf lot, just one half block south of Colfax Avenue, nvi ng ls. site in Da g Sourntce with a stro rs and orie senior and family k building FundinDev a 1.35-acre Authority: 'HQYHUÂśV KLVWRULF Âł0DLQ 6WUHHWÂ´ FRUULGRU 7KH VXUURXQGLQJ &DSLWRO +LOO QHLJKERUKRRG LV 'HQYHUÂśV bels, dorme blocks of proximity elopme Located on is an ornate, red bric pped gables, cor within a few t, and within close IL Housing , ste million PRVW GHQVH ZLWK D PL[ RI DSDUWPHQWV EXVLQHVVHV DQG RIÂżFHV DORQJ D WUDGLWLRQDO RUWKRJRQDO XUEDQ ds: $1.8 worth Park, distric Apartments ent, roof forms fun Els ss x stm ME ine ple V and Inve HO y com rar lle bus LQJ VSDFH Community Equity grid. The Emerson School site includes 42 parking spaces to the north side of the building. The evoked by Danville Public Lib wn Danvi USRRO SDUN Enterprise housing Tax Credit t of the downto the QG ÂżYH FD n 75 percen original front entrance of the building faces directly south, toward 14th Street. The south side of -income sits near away from tha VWRUDJH D Low re cks NH mo a blo I EL ion es , two VH of 86 mill VLRQ R ject includ services, Investment (9%): $2. OXGHG UHX the property has been re-landscaped as an urban garden, with new lighting, fencing, street trees, QHV SURYL Pro nity LQF e V OL mu QWV Th EX . Com EOLF nts hip and DUWPH 17 million Enterprise WR IRXU SX rior eleme ROODQG $S car dealers race and Credits: $1. cago:shrubs and benches. A new â&#x20AC;&#x153;B-Cycleâ&#x20AC;? bike share station is scheduled to open along the 14th street a former W RI 1HZ + ctural, shell and inte Historic Tax e Loan Bank of Chi QG UHWURÂż the site of the primary park ter 00 Q D stru on 4,0 DWLR ing th, $18 side of the property in March, 2013. Hom l lud m: sou 5HQRY Federa lding, inc nt on the sing Progra serving as nt bui a ace g Hou Gra are s adj ble stin d om munitie wro Afforda the exi ygroun Green Com lership sho ape. k and pla Enterprise tenant par with the former dea to landsc nity 0 ted p, mu ,00 ver sho $46 Com repair site con an Energy der of the ng option 1,402 Illinois Cle the remain ble-housi Grant: $21 Emerson School is a well-known neighborhood landmark. The rehabilitation of the school and Foundation ded afforda Credits (for The upants, ation Tax (cover a much nee luding single occ Illinois Don the surrounding landscape has enhanced the immediate area around it and has been positively ): $214,000 inc lities, pact e provided of building e tenants, ental disabi donation Project Im w Holland Apartmentsavahav cess) received by the neighborhood. The 60 or so tenants of the building help bring activity to the area le to divers blems, developm violence. When the pro ign ilab 6, Ne LEED des estic ess pro QLWV Community 5,0and h 47 units illn , dom l QW X wit 00 of ville Since 200 nta s PH help support a small sandwich shop across the street. Further community impact is anticipated lle, Dan nt: $13 n victim City of DSDUW s with me wn Danvi , nt Block Gra QV IRU WKH nts supplies. s, person sons who have bee in downto Investmentwhen a new bike share station opens on the Emerson School property. This facility will bring an Developme DSSOLFDWLR son familiie per Apartme Community ZHUH multiple per se problems and Enterprise w Holland F\ WKHUH 7,150 estimated 80 users to the property daily, providing an alternative to auto use for building tenants, abu on Danville: U RFFXSDQ ble housing that Ne es (9%): $17 vices nts G IR erv me substance Res HQH art afforda Human Ser visitors and area residents. DV ÂżUVW RS Holland Ap k of our community Crosspoint $249,816 SURMHFW Z demand for , of the New loo ): 6,500 the strong the effect and the out in Danvilleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s heyday (developer Escrow (9%): $16 showing r describes fortunes of the city nd of 500 . It was gra The building itself is tt Eisenhaue the Equity out Fee: $ 43, Mayor Sco be a barometer for Holland Apartments t. it Developer CASE STUDY: Emerson School | September 2012 Deferred Danvilleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ant derelic ked up at w to Ne vac loo ms g, ple the see kin of g s hul e wn, peo â&#x20AC;&#x153;The buildin red by the succes in essenc became a of downto and a and , s are k?â&#x20AC;? â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;90 d asu 1 1980â&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and ant and in a blighte Will it ever come bac can be me tom in the k? vac but it hit bot t even when it was going to bring it bac e tha is someon back.â&#x20AC;? so unique . Both are red, â&#x20AC;&#x153;When 1 and wonde same about the city 12 20 st the | Augu wondered

Overview

LQJ GHUDO %XLOG VSLQDOO )H D H :D\QH $ RORUDGR $VSLQDOO LV WKRXVH WK Q & D KDOI DQG &RXU SDFHV RQ QG -XQFWLR ÂżFH J V ew *UD 2I NLQ vi LQ RVW most Over G 6WDWHV 3 XLOGLQJ FRQVWUXFWHG DQG VXUIDFH SDU Programiety the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s DV D 8QLWH H E as one of UH IHHW UDO Building hou %XLOW LQ SHUPDQHQW SRVW RIÂżF ses a var WDEOH VTXD building has a place H EORFN RI WKH FHQW RQ UHQ g UVW RQ The LWK This buildin ants with the UR EXLOGLQJ ZDV WKH Âż WHG ZLWKLQ ]H EXLOGLQJ Z of federal tenants. RFD QHW FH ten LV O l UVW RIÂż est of federa XUHV DQG OO EH WKH Âż WKUHH VWRU\ houses a variety LYLF VWUXFW ing the larg WH WKLV ZL that V FRPSOH \ UHÂżQHG F IRS occupy ce followed by acre site Q SURMHFW L KLWHFWXUDOO spa DUF DWLR of QL] QG t amoun y Corps life, the LPSRUWDQW D WULFW $IWHU WKH PRGHU ces. urts, Arm their useful ÂżW ZLWK GLV c Pla the U.S. Co U.S. Probation the end of EXVLQHVV Register of Histori UHWUR ring UJ\ s, nea HQH eer 0s al and LOGLQJ 8 6 of Engin in the 196 the Nation WHG WKH EX American Recovery 6 $WWRUQH\V s installed FRRUGLQD WKH 2IÂżFH 8 A, and the eived an lding system LVWUDWLRQ *6$ DGGLWLRQ , FBI, GS of the bui PLQ VWHPV ,Q building rec UHG Marshals H With many HQHUDO 6HUYLFHV $G tions. The HIÂżFLHQW EXLOGLQJ V\ DLQDELOLW\ DV UHTXL IÂżF ova WH 2 ren tic HQD J\ H * both G VXVW 8 6 6 and cosme Q UHTXLULQJ HQHU RZQHU WK FLHQF\ DQ 8 determined that upgrades DWLR QHUJ\ HIÂż 5$ DOORF project. scheduled A Region DWHV RQ H QW $FW $5 *6$ PDQG ildings Service. GS coordinated for the sts 5HLQYHVWPH G WR FRPSO\ ZLWK Bu ely Project Co HGH the Public be effectiv SURMHFW QH ion could ndards for vat Sta ser ties pre cili ic $15 millionTBD, pending by the Fa and histor ts e design *other cos local Jan 2013 sustainabl project to taining completion the ect proj ted presen dback per l, the GSA ained fee H DFFHVVLELOLW\ pact ion counci a, and obt Sources Project Im n preservat RS\ DQG WK ntown are to nd Junctio Fundingcov hin the dow RWRYROWDLF 39 FDQ well connected and with the Gra the community wit Re ery lding is fuel DV WKH SK Working American nt Act (ARRA) QWV VXFK trict, the bui the promotion of ups and PH dis gro HOH wn ss LRU QWULEXWHG nto el, WHU busine Reinvestme H DOVR FR FWLRQ RI H[ . Located in the dow tives. At the site lev KDY HV RGX LOLWL LQWU IDF rna WR WKH th facade G VKRZHU ation alte sou DQ ort LQJ the nsp DUN on ramp act. F\FOH S n and tra energy imp nsportatio WKH DYDLODELOLW\ RI EL public tra ion of net QG and reduct HKLFOHV D TROFITS HIÂżFLHQW Y ood improvement ILDING RE orh to neighb ORIC BU ST HI tails er 2012 GREEN | Septemb EP Project De e us DE ho UDY: and Court Building CASE ST RU Location: all Federal W $QQ $UE pin WK 6 As e YHQ yn 6 6H UDY: Wa CASE ST

Zero H Mission ce n e Resid

rdable The building with 47 affo style living, units. apartment

48%

Post

KEY FACT

ogram rtmentto apa BuildingisPr dedicated

43%

Expected Cost Cost Savings Savings

better than the national average

Pre

Once com al-style nce Reviv al Renaissa pinall Feder Wayne As Courthouse is Building and EH WKH ÂżUVW J WR DQWLFLSDWLQ the building on net-zero of Historic Register National PV array, h a large Places, wit al system for rm and geothe cooling the heating and building.

coff ouse/Gro

35%

ily Multifam ial Resident

47%

Post

y Summar Second plete, the

vings Cost Sa

the *Better than ge avera national

ExpectedEnergy EnergySavings Savings

Adaptive Use

Pre

y Savings erggs Envin Energy Sa

pepe TyTy ctct oje oje PrPr

vings Cost Sa

Project Type

Pre

101%

KEY FACT

Pollock

ADD SKILLS December 2012

Building Envelope R-40 insulation was added to the unoccupied attic. All but two windows are completely restored RULJLQDO GRXEOH KXQJ VLQJOH SDQH VDVK IURP 0RVW RI WKH ORZHU VDVKHV UHPDLQ RSHUDEOH WR DOORZ XVHUV IUHVK DLU ZKHQ GHVLUHG ZKLOH WKH XSSHU VDVKHV DUH Âż[HG WKRXJK WKLV LV UHYHUVLEOH The tenant space that remained occupied during rehabilitation will have windows restored in a later phase. The non-historic exterior doors were replaced with new, historically appropriate doors, the original hardware and closers reused, and all exterior trim painted. In this phase of the project, masonry repairs were limited, with both buildings set to be repointed in 2013.

Post

ilding

Public Bu

102%

rtesy: Thom

of A winner sing and hist ents rds for hou land Apartm state awa on, New Hol that shows preservati Gold project green is a LEED servation, be pre oric hist housing can that affordable and , ding buil project. on a single achieved

The 20,000-sq-ft school underwent a comprehensive, $3.2-million green overhaul that included installation of a geothermal heating and cooling system, and the restoration of over 200 original window sashes. The energy saving measures are targeting energy consumption UHGXFWLRQV E\ XS WR

Post

Project Ty

the better than average national solar-PV after incl.

y in total utilit decrease UHWURÂżW FRVWV SRVW

KEY FACTS

y Summar national and numerous oric

Image Cou

Architect SLATERPAULL Architects Inc. Gary Petri, Principal (303) 607-0977 gpetri@slaterpaull.com

Summary

Preservation Green Lab/National Trust ADD PROJ DESCRIPTION for Historic Preservation

Lighting/Daylighting There was a strong effort to open up the building to harvest daylight as much as possible. The lighting design called for 0.9 W/sf overall. Several strategies were pursued to achieve this. The V RIÂżFH SDUWLWLRQV DQG GURSSHG FHLOLQJV ZHUH UHPRYHG WR UHYHDO XSSHU WUDQVRP OLJKWV RQ H[WHULRU ZLQGRZV DQG WR DOORZ OLJKW WR SHQHWUDWH LQWR WKH FHQWUDO OREELHV RQ WKH ÂżUVW DQG VHFRQG Ă&#x20AC;RRU RI WKH 0DLQ 6FKRRO 7KH RIÂżFH OD\RXWV ZHUH FRQÂżJXUHG WR PDLQWDLQ WKH RULJLQDO IXOO FHLOLQJ KHLJKWV DORQJ H[WHULRU ZLQGRZ ZDOO IW KLJK LQ 0DLQ 6FKRRO ZLWK SULYDWH RIÂżFHV DORQJ LQWHULRU ZDOOV ÂżWWHG ZLWK D ZLQGRZ WR FDSWXUH ERUURZHG OLJKW /LJKW Âż[WXUHV DUH DOO KLJK HIÂżFLHQF\ &)/V ZLWK 7 EXOEV LQ FRPPRQ DUHDV 7KH H[WHULRU OLJKWLQJ XVHV DOO QHZ /(' Âż[WXUHV

Building Owner National Trust for Historic Preservation Jim Lindberg, Field Director jlindberg@savingplaces.org

Pre

gs gs Savin y vin y Sa Energ d erg ExpecteEn

2006 Size: Building 71,395 SF 5 stories, n: Designatio Historic Places Historic for Register al ion Nat ural: (1988) and Struct Cladding n) Building el (additio ste al, ber and , Geotherm Brick; tim : Multifamily ble Keywords rda Affo , ival Dutch Rev

Project Team

Pre

S KEY FACT

gsgs vinvin SaSa st st CoCo

IL Location: Danville, milion St., : 324 N Ver nstruction additition) Year of Co 7 (southern 1906; 192 : WHG RPSOH 5HWURÂżW &

Post

r Inc.

sense Sola

Photo: Scot

Expected

tails

Project De

rtments

Â&#x2021; (TXLSPHQW XSJUDGH UHWURÂżW Â&#x2021; Building renovation/addition Â&#x2021; Tenant Improvements

Pre

: nd Location Avenue, Gra 400 Rood , 81501 CO Junction, n: nstructio n) Year of Co st additio (ea 9 1918, 193 PSOHWHG: 5HWURÂżW &R ed) 2013 (target e: Siz Building 6) DVHPHQW : VWRULHV E signation Historic De ter for Historic gis National Re Places ing: dd Cla Building d Concrete Reinforce uctural: Indiana Str Building Ashlar Limestone Use, s: Adaptive Keyword al, Geotherm Revival Solar PV, naissance Second Re

t Ely, Sun

os Lazo

Photo: Carl

and Apa New Holl

HVAC Ground-source heat exchange wells are buried beneath the north parking lot, consisting of 30 ERUHV HDFK IHHW GHHS 7KH JHRWKHUPDO ÂżHOG LV FRQQHFWHG WR D V\VWHP RI FHLOLQJ PRXQWHG heat pumps serving the Main School and Cottage School, with a 27 ton cooling load and no back XS FKLOOHU 7KH VRLO KDV D FRQGXFWLYLW\ RI %WX KU ) IW 7ZR KLJK HIÂżFLHQF\ JDV ERLOHUV N%WX each) are available for backup heating. Ventilation incorporates two original central chimneys and

Project Scope

Post

ederal spinall F A e n y a W rthouse and Cou Building

CASE ST

UDY: DE

CASE ST

ils

ta Project De

Deep Energy Retrofit Title Date Case Studies

(PHUVRQ 6FKRRO LV WDUJHWLQJ /((' 6LOYHU FHUWLÂżFDWLRQ 0DMRU UHWURÂżW VWUDWHJLHV LQFOXGH improvements to mechanical systems (heating, ventilation and cooling, or HVAC) and the building envelope, addition of renewable energy, and attention to tenant behavior. The ground-source heat exchange system has eliminated the need for on-site fossil fuel consumption entirely.

*U.S. Climate Zones based on 2009 IECC Code

Location: 1420 Ogden Street, Denver, CO Year of Construction: 1917 (1 story Cottage Annex) 5HWURÂżW &RPSOHWHG: 2012 Building Size: VWRULHV 6) Historic Designation: National Register for Historic Places, Local Historic Landmark Building Cladding and Structural: Wood and brick/masonry Keywords: 6FKRRO 1RQSURÂżW %ULFN Reuse

Post

TROFITS

ILDING RE

ORIC BU EN HIST

EP GRE UDY: DE

OFITS

NG RETR

C BUILDI

STORI GREEN HI

% Cold

Pre

Photo: Jim Lindberg, National Trust for Historic Preservation

5HWURÂżW 6WUDWHJLHV

Climate zone

Project Details

Post

Emerson School

Photos: Jim Lindberg, National Trust for Historic Preservation

Lessons Learned

StandardsHistoric TaxHistoric CreditsTax Credits Tax Credit Awarded

Secretary of Secretary the of the Interior Standards Interior Standards

State Federal

Barriers and Solutions A major challenge in this project involved working around one tenant who stayed in the building during construction. That space was not rehabilitated. Additionally, during demolition, two structural columns were exposed within a 1980s partition wall. The columns were kept in the existing location, in the middle of the main lobby, and reconditioned. The owner says the black steel columns â&#x20AC;&#x153;actually look like they belong thereâ&#x20AC;?.

DFXODU W RI D YHUQ FOXGHV 7KLV UHWURÂż W EXLOGLQJ LQ WRULF 0DLQ 6WUHH RQ KLV HQW RI D Q UHSODFHP f with an roo tal me d corrugate WHG UDLVHG UD $5 67 (1(5*< 7KH PDLQ SRUWLRQ RI WKH VFKRRO ZDV FRPSOHWHG LQ DQG ZDV GHVLJQHG E\ &RORUDGRÂśV ÂżUVW U 39 ZLWK VROD architect, Robert Roeshlaub, a specialist in school design. In 1917, the Cottage School VHDP URRI master ODU 39 V 7KH VR rgy URRI SDQHO DQQH[ ZDV DGGHG WR VHUYH NLQGHUJDUWHQ DQG ÂżUVW JUDGH (PHUVRQ 6FKRRO RSHUDWHG DV D 'HQYHU ene ugh eno generates public until 1979, when it was converted to a senior center and medical clinic. In 2009, the not require lding to school . donated to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, with rehabilitation work done for the buibuilding ting was hea for natural gas

Building History

LQ WR FUHDWH D QRQSURÂżW RIÂżFH FHQWHU IRU SUHVHUYDWLRQ DQG FRQVHUYDWLRQ JURXSV

HG WRZQ W DOVR LQFOXG ULFN W LQ GRZQ 7KH UHWURÂż RU E 0DLQ 6WUHH PLWK VKRS WKH H[WHUL RQ 1RUWK FNV UHSRLQWLQJ of historic LV ORFDWHG G WKH EOD al source DJRQVKRS H QRUWK JUL IHHW GHHS ZLWK with a loc ent of a PLWK : WRZQÂśV WUX ew em LGH FNV WKH vi lac W Z %OD QJ er rep IHH Ov LWK HG DOR RKQVRQ XUH LV bricks and HQ GHFN Z HUJ DQG $OLJQ ULFN VWUXFW . WRULF ZRRG 7KH +ROPE DQVDV SRSXODWLRQ JOH VWRU\ E QRQ KLV7KH (PHUVRQ 6FKRRO UHWURÂżW LQFOXGHG VLJQLÂżFDQW brick pavers . ULJLQDO VLQ OXGHG e historic /LQGVERUJ DVW 7KH R YDWLRQ LQF the samrestoration ZHVW WR H work on all of the original windows for OH 7KH UHQR EULFN ZDOOV LV RULHQWHG EULFN ZDOOV UQDFXODU VW\ LQV LWV RULJLQDO VRIW m G ra YH XG LQWH FDO og both the Main and Cottage Schools. The nonW VW SD H OR IRR ing Pr ild VÂś QDPH LV LQJ PDLQWD DWLYH RI WK XLOG Bu QHV HQW XVL H E UHV ing DO E historic stucco l slid RULJLQ QGRZV 7K VRQ LV UHS rentlyaround the south entrance was fan, origina K ZKLFK WKH H KXQJ ZL DQG -RKQ lding is curandow nedoriginal facades either restored, This bui QDO GRXEO removed, inal ceiling DQG ORRSV RQWR ZKLF +ROPEHUJ SDUDSHW RQ ily the HLJKW RULJL VWDLUVWHS mney, orig SV e of a fam the hom UHWHQWLRQ RI W LQFOXGLQJ D ODUJH ge, including its chi PDQ\ PHWDO VWUD pany.matching salvaged brick. In or replaced with URQ roasting com inal for Ă&#x20AC;RRU DQG coffee DQG VWRUHI addition, there was extensive repair work and ains the orig VKDSHG FLUFOH LQ LWV PDLQ LQ SODFH ret rior V R UH HHO XOE The inte LWK /(' E sts ZDJRQ ZK QDO URRIÂśV UDIWHUV DOV painting of the exterior eaves, gutters, trimwork, J Z W V D Co KWLQ RRU WKD ct W OLJ PS EDUQ G H RULJL Proje LW KHDW SX Ă&#x20AC;XRUHVFHQ 0* the basement entryways. On UH WLHG 7K and the porches ,50to WRS F PLQL VSO FHPHQW RI KRUVHV ZH Project: $67 GHG UHSOD WK D GXFWOHVV HOHFWUL HUH LQVWDOOHG WR WKH RYDO forCottage Total the School annex, the original front doors WHJ\ LQFOX ZL UHP ,3V Z DV KHDWHU UHWURÂżW VWUD 5 \ 5HWURÂżW SDQHOV 6 WLRQ DORQJ ZLWK WKH LQFK ,66 WKH DO J HUJ WHG WXU RI $61 (Q : XOD QD LRQ iona crawl space in the building and werePre found UDO LQV $ SRUW UDWHG D ODUJH LQVXOD servatin toric HUJ\ 6WDU LGH 5 0 LQJ 6WUXFWX FHPHQW RI Hisreinstalled. $92,60the non historic front porch was DQG UHSOD K KHDWLQJ DQG FRRO I VWUHQJWK DQG SURY LQVWDOODWLRQ RI DQ (Q n cost: Also, URR ERW Acquisitio DUGHG URRIV DQG DZthe Photos Courtesy: Jim Lindberg, National Trust for Historic Preservation SURYLGHV UDIWHUV WR LPSURYH removedGLWV and original features repaired. WHG PHWDO KH ding 7RWDO WD[ FUH G FRUUXJD costs pen VLGHV RI W QLQVXODWH LF X *additional pletion in XX WRU KLV RI QRQ ject com preservation work included removal of most of the non-historic interior walls and dropped pro roof. Interior m sea HHQ raised XUFHV 6R KDV QRZ E J ,W LQ FHLOLQJV 6XEVWDQWLDO UHVWRUDWLRQ ZRUN ZDV SHUIRUPHG RQ WKH FHQWUDO OREELHV RQ WKH ÂżUVW DQG WLRQ )XQG was self-funded by IDLU FRQGL tion in QG LQ RQO\ attractive destina VHFRQG Ă&#x20AC;RRUV DV ZHOO DV RQ RULJLQDO ZDLQVFRWLQJ FDELQHWU\ LQWHULRU GRRUV DQG ZRRG Ă&#x20AC;RRUV DQG 1 e project FFXSLHG D *Th d an pact owner UHDWLRQ RI LW ZDV XQR considere building stairs throughout the building. O\]H WKH F the XUFKDVHG rs and is Project EXIm HG WR FDWD LOGLQJ ZDV S the last four yea DOVR KHOS ted for :KHQ WKLV DWLRQ KDV ova QRY ren UH LQJ and XLOG 1 occupied RUJ 7KH E GVE /LQ LFW GRZQWRZQ WRULF GLVWU KLV UVW ÂśV Âż â&#x20AC;&#x153;Older buildings like the Emerson /LQGVERUJ 2 gust 201 School are sustainable because they hop | Au ns go Wa & cksmith are in the right place â&#x20AC;&#x201C; in established, hnson Bla rg and Jo be lm Ho UDY: walkable and mixed-use neighborCASE ST

Historic Preservation Strategies

hoods with access to public parks, schools, libraries and transit.â&#x20AC;?

Photos Courtesy: Jim Lindberg, National Trust for Historic Preservation

--LP /LQGEHUJ 6U )LHOG 2IÂżFHU 17+3

CASE STUDY: Emerson School | September 2012

Financing NTHP received the building as a donation, raised $1.7 million toward rehabilitation costs, and ÂżQDQFHG PLOOLRQ 17+3 DOVR OHG UH WHQDQWLQJ RI WKH EXLOGLQJ WR SURYLGH VXIÂżFLHQW LQFRPH WR cover debt service plus operating costs.

Image Courtesy: Google Maps

Design Process The design process for the project was constantly under budget pressure as the project team worked on both fundraising and a leasing pro-forma during the design phase. The considerable time spent evaluating design and tenant scenarios allowed the project to reach completion and occupancy goals on-time and on-budget. The owner deliberated whether to pursue LEED FHUWLÂżFDWLRQ DQG GHFLGHG WR SXUVXH FHUWLÂżFDWLRQ DW WKH 6LOYHU OHYHO 7KH SURMHFW WHDP GHYHORSHG an energy model, in part because it is required for LEED, but the results of the model were not RSWLPDOO\ LQWHJUDWHG LQWR WKH GHVLJQ SURFHVV EXGJHW FRQVWUDLQWV OLPLWHG VRPH HQHUJ\ HIÂżFLHQF\ strategies, including enhanced commissioning.

Historic Designation

Â&#x2021; National Register of Historic Places Â&#x2021; Denver Landmark Designation

Historic Preservation Awards Â&#x2021; Community Preservation Award - Historic Denver, Inc.

Building Technologies 7KH SURMHFW WHDP LQWHJUDWHG D JHRWKHUPDO V\VWHP LQWR WKH QHZ +9$& GHVLJQ 7KLV ZDV D JRRG ÂżW IRU WKH SURMHFW JLYHQ WKH FRQVLGHUDEOH DYDLODEOH ODQG DURXQG WKH VFKRRO WKH JHRWKHUPDO ÂżHOG LV EXULHG XQGHU D SDUNLQJ ORW $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKH GXUDEOH JHRWKHUPDO V\VWHP ZDV D JRRG ÂżW IRU 17+3ÂśV long-term ownership plans. The previously blocked off historic ventilation chimneys were also LQWHJUDWHG LQWR WKH +9$& GHVLJQ /LJKWLQJ GHVLJQ LQFOXGHV KLJK HIÂżFLHQF\ FRPSDFW Ă&#x20AC;XRUHVFHQW lights (CFLs) and a strong emphasis on daylighting. The owner plans to install photovoltaic (PV) SDQHOV LQ IXWXUH \HDUV SRVVLEO\ XVLQJ VRODU URRI VKLQJOHV WKDW ZLOO PDWFK WKH (PHUVRQ 6FKRROÂśV historic character.

+LVWRULF 6LJQLÂżFDQFH Notable as the oldest surviving example of a school designed by architect Robert 5RHVFKODXE 6LJQLÂżFDQW architectural features include the large central lobbies RQ WKH ÂżUVW DQG VHFRQG Ă&#x20AC;RRU FRQQHFWHG E\ D ODUJH staircase. The building has all original wood wainscoting and wood interior lobby doors, with some classrooms having the original cabinetry and chalkboards still visible. The exterior includes the ÂżUVW NQRZQ H[DPSOH RI a sundial on a Colorado building and a prominent hipped roof, pierced by two brick chimneys that provided passive ventilation for the classrooms.

Site Improvements The entire property has been re-landscaped as an urban garden, with new lighting, fencing, street trees, shrubs and benches. This work has greatly improved the pedestrian experience of the surrounding block and is helping to re-knit damaged urban fabric in the area. Ten surface parking spaces were removed from the south side of building. A new â&#x20AC;&#x153;B-Cycleâ&#x20AC;? bike share station will provide a transportation alternative for building tenants, visitors and neighbors.

Emerson School Building Reopens After Green Restoration Preservation Nation - Going IRU *ROG DW 'HQYHUÂśV (PHUVRQ School Mountain States - Green Rehab of Historic Denver School Unveiled Denver Business Journal Âľ1R %RQHVÂś DERXW LW 5HIXUELVKLQJ old buildings work

About Preservation Green Lab The Preservation Green Lab is a sustainability think tank and national leader in efforts to DGYDQFH WKH UHXVH DQG UHWURÂżW of older and historic buildings. The Green Lab works with partners to develop innovative research, advance public policy and increase private investment to reduce demolitions and improve building performance. By providing proven solutions to policy makers and building professionals, the Green Lab works to cut carbon pollution and enhance the unique character of vibrant neighborhoods. A project of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Green Lab was launched in 2009 and is based in Seattle, Wash. For more information regarding this report, contact: Preservation Green Lab greenpreservation@savingplaces.org 206.324.0397 1429 12th Avenue, Suite D, Seattle, WA 98122

About the Case Studies

ADD ROLES In furthering the discussion about high-performance historic buildings, the Preservation Green Lab set out to create a toolkit that would allow for the collection and distribution of case studies highlighting projects across five building types (singlefamily, multi-family, adaptive use, main street and public). These case studies weave together a narrative about the buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s history, impact, and sustainable features. Through a discussion about the lessons learned from the retrofit project, these case studies seek to demonstrate the effectiveness of deep energy retrofits in historic buildings. My work on this project included the integration of technology (web and online surveys) and content collected through surveys and correspondence with building owners. Building performance data was gathered by working with building owners, and then entered into ENERGY STARÂŽ Portfolio Manager. I also developed the web and InDesign templates to facilitate future case study development, and created a manual to walk through how to do so.

This collection of Deep Green Historic Building case studies showcase unique buildings that successfully blend historic preservation and measured energy performance. These case studies provide inspiring stories and best practices, including detailed information about project ÂżQDQFLQJ HQHUJ\ SHUIRUPDQFH DQG KLVWRULF SUHVHUYDWLRQ DSSURDFKHV If you are interested in showcasing your building and contributing to our catalog of case studies, please visit the following url to submit an application: http://www.preservationnation.org/green-lab/casestudies/survey/

CASE STUDY: Emerson School | September 2012

10TH AVE E

15TH AVE E

12TH AVEE E 15TH AVE

12TH AVE E

15TH AVE

l cia

e ris

rla

id M

e is

ris

ve O

h ig

Lo w

d oo rh hb o eig N

BROADWAY

15TH AVE

19TH AVE

! !

½ ¾

Bicycle Route Transit Route

19TH AVE

14TH AVE

12TH AVE

BROADWAY E

12TH AVE

BROADWAY

11TH AVE

Existing Park

IS ! AD EM !

EW AY

LIV EW AY

14TH AVE

BELLEVUE AVE

T ON

treespikepine

m n

Major Arterials

11TH AVE

RP HUBBELL PL

TIO NP

BELLEVUE AVE

OLIV E

HUBBELL PL

ON RP

TIO NP

TY ST

VEN

CON

UNIV

ERSI

Bus Stop

½ !

Study Area Boundary

E UNION ST

Proposed Pocket Park Site

! !!

ITY S

VEN

E PIKE ST

½ !

ERS

CON

BELLEVUE AVE E

I5 NB

OLIVE WY ON RP

D 9TH WY

OLIV E

LIV

EASTLAKE AVE E

I5 SB

I5 SB I5 EXPRESS

MELROSE AVE

I5 EX

ST L HO W

EW AR T

G IN

VI R

E PINE ST

E UNION ST

Feet 4,000

Wallingford, etc..), while older populations are

situated to the south, and along the 1940-1959shorelines.

1960-1979

N SE

D MA

Joming Lau URBDP 573 0

6,000

BELLEVUE AVE

500 1,000

2,000

Study Area Boundary

12,000

24,000

36,000

Feet 48,000

0-9 10 - 18 19 - 35 36 - 72 73 - 151

3,000

Population Density

Compared with the rest of the City of Seattle, the population density of Capitol Hill is much higher, with population densities of 73-151 near the intersection of E Olive Way and Summit Ave. There are a variety of densities throughout Capitol Hill, showing a variety of housing types, with greater variation than the rest of Seattle. With such a high level of density, Capitol Hill would benefit greatly from a pocket park that would allow for resident populations to have some access to green space.

Joming Lau URBDP 573

UNIV

6,000

D MA

Proposed Pocket Park Site Study Area Boundary

Average Household Size

12,000

24,000

36,000

Feet 48,000

ISO

This project sought to address the unmet need for green space within the Pike/Pine District of Capitol Hill by identifying potential sites for pocket parks. The goal of this project was to provide small spaces that would allow for a space that would allow for contemplation while also facilitating the occurrence of meaningful interactions. This project also provided an opportunity to develop expertise in integrating various software programs (including ArcGIS, Photoshop, Indesign, and Sketchup) into their workflow.

3,000

Feet 4,000

Demographic Comparison

Average Household Size

Compared with the rest of the City of Seattle, the average household size of residents living in Capitol Hill is relatively low, and homogenous in terms of its distribution across the neighborhood, with much of the neighborhood in the 0-1.61 category A similar household is observed in Downtown Seattle as well as U-District, while medium sized households are situated in North Seattle, and large households to the south.

Proposed Pocket Park Site Study Area Boundary

Household Income 0 - $35,313 $53,572 - $73,125 $73,126 - $106,070

6,000

12,000

24,000

36,000

Feet 48,000

$106,071 - $200,001

23RD AVE E

19TH AVE E

15TH AVE E

BROADWAY E

SUMMIT AVE E

O DIS MA

IS AD EM

23RD AVE

E PINE ST E PIKE ST

15TH AVE

LIV E

T AS

Legend

$35,314 - $53,571

Joming Lau URBDP 573

Y WA IVE OL T ES T PIN ES PIK

C NE SE

2,000

BELLEVUE AVE E

I5 SB I5 EXPRESS

AV E

ST EL L

9T H

HO W

E THOMAS ST

E JOHN ST

My role on this project included developing a methodology and criteria for the site selection process, management of parcel data with ArcGIS and Excel, demographic analysis to support the site selection methodology, and developing 3D visualizations (using Sketchup) of the neighborhood surrounding the proposed pocket park site.

W AY

I5 NB

FAIRVIEW AVE N

23RD AVE E

19TH AVE E

15TH AVE E

15TH AVE

ISO

E UNION ST

500 1,000

10TH AVE E

E PIKE ST

Legend

0 - 1.61 1.62 - 2.03 2.04 - 2.39 2.40 - 2.88 2.89 - 3.78

AD EM

BROADWAY

E PINE ST

DENNY WAY

23RD AVE

BROADWAY E

Y WA IVE OL T ES PIN

N SE

Feet 4,000

BELLEVUE AVE E W SUMMIT AVE E AY

I5 SB I5 EXPRESS

O LI VE

ST T W AR ST E

23RD AVE

PIK

Proposed Pocket Park Site

Population Density (person/acre)

I5 NB

FAIRVIEW AVE N

23RD AVE E

Capitol Hill / Pike-Pine Building Context Map Demographic Comparison Legend

Median Age

E UNION ST

Joming Lau URBDP 573 ST

ISO

BROADWAY

19TH AVE E

15TH AVE E

BROADWAY

15TH AVE

BROADWAY E

O LI VE

T W AR

ST E

23RD AVE

15TH AVE

Feet 1,000

E PIKE ST

AD EM

E THOMAS ST

E JOHN ST

E AV

750

E PINE ST

DENNY WAY

N RE BO

500

E THOMAS ST

E JOHN ST

VE HA 8T E AV VE E H A H AV 6T 5T

125 250

Y WA IVE OL T ES PIN

Joming Lau URBDP 573

H 7T

BROADWAY

10TH AVE E

I5 SB I5 EXPRESS

I5 NB

FAIRVIEW AVE N

W AY

LIV E

O E

BELLEVUE AVE E W SUMMIT AVE E AY

BELLEVUE AVE

19TH AVE E

15TH AVE E

BROADWAY E

I5 NB

23RD AVE E

10TH AVE E

I5 SB I5 EXPRESS

SUMMIT AVE E

BELLEVUE AVE E

FAIRVIEW AVE N

ST EL L

½ !

Zoning

Identified_Potential_Sites1

EE AV NT

HO W

VIR

RA NO LE

BELLEVUE AVE

BELLEVUE AVE BELLEVUE AVE

BELLEVUE AVE

Legend

!! ½ ½

½A ! ! EM ½

½ !

O LM BE

BELLEVUE AVE

O DIS

½ ! ½ !

½ !

13TH AVE

similar median age is observed in the 1920-1939Acentral portion of Seattle (U-District, Belltown,

Feet 1,000

VE NA

BELLEVUE AVE

½ !

13TH AVE

! ½ ½ ! ½ !

½ !

Proposed Pocket Park Context - Overview Map

RE BO

Compared with the rest of the City of Seattle, the median age of residents living in Capitol Hill are relatively young, and homogenous in terms of its age distribution, with much of the neighborhood in the 29-35.3 age range.

750

VE E HA 6T H AV 5T

3,000

500

E AV

2,000

E PIKE ST

½ !

Street Trees

H 8T

500 1,000

VE NA

1960-1979

VE NA

36,000

51.8-78.5

1940-1959

RE BO

35.4-40.9

E PIKE ST

PIK

1900-1919

29-35.3

Feet 48,000

1920-1939

1980-1999 DENNY WAY

½ ! E PINE ST

½ !

Capitol Hill / Pike-Pine Building Context Map

1900-1919

VE E HA 6T H AV 5T

17-29

24,000

E UNION ST

Study Area Boundary

Median Age

E PIKE ST

Date of Construction Demographic Comparison

E PINE ST

12,000

E PINE ST

DIS Street MA Trees

Proposed Pocket Park Site

41-51.8

6,000

125 250

Proposed Parking Park Site

After 2000

N ISO AD EM

Proposed Parking Park Site

Legend

Proposed Pocket Park Site

1960-1979

Street Trees

E AV

E PIKE ST

½ !

Reasons to include -area lacking street trees -high imperviousness (gathered from site visit) -complementary adjacent land uses -optimally located away from existing parks

! !

½ !! ½

½ ! ! ½

Ground-Truthing

½ !

Reasons to eliminate site -poor sense of enclosure -inadequate street frontage

1980-1999

H 8T

N RE BO

VE HA 8T E AV VE E H A H AV 6T 5T

H 7T

Legend NE m n SE

E THOMAS ST

E JOHN ST

E PINE ST

! ! !

1940-1959

E PIKE ST

Date of Construction

Low/Average

Y WA IVE OL T ES T PIN ES PIK

½ !

AV E

9T H

VE NA

DENNY WAY

EE AV NT

Average

O LM BE

Proposed Pocket Park Site

E PIKE ST

E THOMAS ST

E JOHN ST

½ E DENNY WAY !

May 2011

Potential Pocket Park Sites

After 2000

m n

Average/Good

! !

½ !

C NE

! ½ ½! ! ½! ½

½ !

! !

½ !

Raster Analysis using bike routes and bus stops

SELECT BY ATTRIBUTES

! ½ ½ !

Low/Average

Street Trees

Good

N TU

E JOHN ST

University of Washington Digital Design Practicum

E THOMAS ST

½ !

½ ! !! ½ !

½ !

Vacant/Parking Lot Parcels 5,000 - 1000 sq ft accessible by bus or bike and located away from existing parks

1920-1939

Legend

Building Condition

½ !

! !

Visual Inspection to Maximize Distance from Existing Parks

h g

At least 500 ft from Existing Parks & P-Patches

BUFFER

1900-1919

Average

Demographic Analysis Legend E PINE ST

I5 Site

L NE

! ½ ½ !

½ !

!! ½ ½

½ !

½ ½ ! !

! ½ ½ ½ ! !

! ½ ½ !

CLIP ALL PARCELS CONTAINED WITHIN

Within 200 ft of a bus stop or 600 ft of a bicycle route

Proposed Parking Park Site

Industrial

m n

VE HA 7T

E PIKE ST

Auto Showroom and Services

Parcel Area 5,000-10,000 sq. ft

Vacant/Parking Lot Parcels 5,000 - 1000 sq ft

½ !

h g

E DENNY WAY

SELECT BY ATTRIBUTES

Capitol Hill Pocket Park Siting Project

Date of Construction

E PINE ST

Average/Good

Retail Store

VE HA 8T

E PIKE ST

VE HA 7T

Good

Restaurant/Lounge

VE HA 8T

Building Condition

Office Building

ES PIK Low/Average

VE HA 6T

Condominium

Proposed Pocket Park Site

E PINE ST

VE HA 6T

Apartment

VE HA 5T

Present Use

E PINE ST

m n

Street Trees

m n

NN TU

½ !

! ½ ½! ! ½

! ½ ½ !

Feet 2,720

2,040

½ !

½ !! ½

1,360

Legend

Proposed Pocket Park Site

VE HA 4T

VE DA

Industrial

Street Trees

E AVE

Auto Showroom and Services

Legend

VE HA 4T

E PIKE ST

By taking the place of a parking lot, the proposed ST Eand pocket park will satisfy the open space PIN recreation needs of neighborhood Good residents within the surrounding blocks who may not be able to enjoy other park spaces slightly further Average/Good from the proposed site. The site is also favorably situated in terms of access by bicycle or bus, allowing residents to take a moment in their daily Average routine to enjoy a short break. T

Proposed Pocket Park Immediate Context - Plan View

Retail Store

Proposed Pocket Park Building Context

Building Condition

Office Building Restaurant/Lounge

VE HA 5T

WESTLAK

VE DA

Condominium

E PINE ST

Apartment

E PIKE ST

AV E

there is a feeling of starkness when the trees

Present Use

o Belm

AVE

Legend

have shed theirpark leaves. The proposed pocket site serves an unmet need for green space within Pike-Pine District By taking the place of a the parking lot, the proposed ST of Capitolpocket Hill. Tucked in between Eand park will satisfy the openseveral space PIN would AY ofproposed neighborhood residents m n needs Street Trees residentialrecreation buildings, the pocket W within the surrounding blocks who may not beE also provide a respite from the highly impervious LIV able to enjoy other park spaces slightly O further surfaces that characterize the area. Although from the proposed site. The site is also favorably during thesituated summer there is adequate canopy in terms of access by bicycle or bus, Proposed allowing residents to take a moment in their daily Park cover from the street trees, during thePocket winter, enjoy a short break. T trees there is a routine feelingto of starkness when the ES have shed their leaves. PIK

Street Trees Proposed Pocket Park Site

m n

AndersonThe Park servesE as a place for all residents proposed pocket park site serves an unmet of Capitolneed Hill to green space, there isDistrict not a for enjoy green space within the Pike-Pine small, quieter place local around of Capitol Hill.that Tucked in residents between several Y residential buildings, WA the proposed site can use the for proposed passive,pocket would also provide a respite from the highly impervious IVE contemplative activities, or as an impromptu OL surfaces that characterize the area. Although space thatduring allows meaningful interactions the for summer there is adequate canopyto happen. cover from the street trees, during the winter, WESTLAKE

Legend

G IN

Proposed Pocket Park Neighborhood Context - Google Earth Massing Model

HO W

Industrial

YA L

Services

PR PI KE AN

Retail Store

small, quieter place that local residents around the proposed site can use for passive, Within southwest Hill,orthere 2 parks, contemplative activities, as anare impromptu 9T Capitol Plymouthspace Pillarthat Park andforCal Anderson Park to meaningful interactions Hallows A proposed site. While Cal within 900happen. feet of the

E PINE ST

AV E

OFF

Within southwest 9T Capitol Hill, there are 2 parks, Plymouth Pillar Park H and Cal Anderson Park AV proposed site. While Cal within 900 feet of the Anderson Park servesE as a place for all residents

to enjoy space, there not a Auto Showroom Selecting ofa Capitol PocketHillPark Sitegreen in Capitol Hill is and

e nt Av

DENNY WAY

PR PI KE AN

Restaurant/Lounge

Selecting a Pocket Park Site in Capitol Hill

E PIKE ST

I5 EX

EW FAIRVIEW AVE AR FAIRVIEW AVE T ST

YA L

680 !

½ !

DENNY

Condominium

WAY Office Building

340

½ !

I5 EXPRESS

Present Use

Proposed Pocket Park Immediate Context - Isometric View

m n

I5 NB EASTLAKE AVE E

Site

All lots

! !

!! ½ ½

Site Selection Methodology

Vacant or Parking Lot (Commercial)

½ !

OFF

BELLEVUE AVE

Example: Formosa Park, West Hollywood, CA

E PINE ST

½ !

OLIVE WY ON RP D 9TH MELROSE AVE RP

FAIRVIEW AVE N

WESTLAKE AVE N

ike EP

ton

Boyls

E ROY ST

! ½ !

Street Trees Ave

Formosa Pocket Park in West Hollywood is a 4,000 square foot park that was created for

10TH AVE E

E LAKEVIEW BLVD

! ½ !

m n Formosa Park, West Hollywood, CA Example:

Proposed Pocket Formosa citizens PocketofPark in West Hollywood is a Park a nearby mixed-use development. Containing a variety of was plant created types, a water 4,000 square foot park that for and seating areas,development. the park was citizens offountain a nearby mixed-use designed out of a desire for more public Containing a variety of plant types, a water gathering spaces, and to be a recreational fountain and seating the park was haven from theareas, bustle of surrounding streets designed out of a desire for more public Apartment gathering spaces, and to be a recreational haven from the bustle of surrounding streets

E ROY ST

Pocket Parks: Neighborhood Pocket parks are one Away to provideTreasure recreation ERCER or open space needs distinctive from other typesM MERCER ST Pocket parks are one way to provide recreation of park needs such asneeds regional, community or open space distinctive from other or types MERCER ST neighborhood Primarily aimed at offering of parkparks. needs such as regional, community or neighborhood parks. Primarilyvenue aimed at a small open-space/recreational ofoffering a a small open-space/recreational venue of a more passive or intimate nature, servicing local more passive or intimate nature, servicing local REPUBLICAN residents rather than thethecity ST REPUBLICAN residents rathercitizens than citizens across city(a (a ST across role played larger park types). Pocket roleby played by larger park types). Pocketparks parks may be considered an alternative may be considered as anas alternative to tooror replacement of a neighborhood park where replacement of a neighborhood park where providing a typical neighborhood park is providing impractical a typical or neighborhood not achievable. park is impractical or not achievable.

Legend

VE TA

½ !

B I5 N

½ !

E ALOHA ST

½ !

VE TA

RC ME

Pocket Parks: A Neighborhood Treasure

I5 N

T RS

½ !

Capitol Hill Green Map Joming Lau URBDP 573

E ALOHA ST

VALLEY ST

LM BE

LAKEVIEW BLVD

Neighborhood Context

E UNION ST

500 1,000

2,000

3,000

Feet 4,000

Demographic Comparison Compared with the rest of the City of Seattle, the household income of residents living in Capitol Hill appears to be relatively low (as is the rest of Downtown Seattle), with more wealthy populations living to the north and connecting to Montlake to the north. One note of caution is that this income data is almost 10 years old, and this maps do not appear to reflect the shift in income that has happened in Capitol Hill. In terms of what this means for the value of parcel parks, lower income households often have less access to private green spaces such as backyards as well as larger spaces such as neighborhood parks, and pocket parks could serve as an effective remedy to this issue.

Household Income

Joming Lau URBDP 573

1980-1999 After 2000

125 250

500

750

Feet 1,000

Capitol Hill Pocket Park Siting Project

Joming Lau URBDP 573

Capitol Hill / Pike-Pine Building Context Map

Title Date

ADD PROJ DESCRIPTION

Pike/Pine Conservation Overlay District: Building Relocation Analysis

ADD SKILLS

University of Washington Digital Design Practicum

ADD ROLES

April 2011 The images on the left were created as an experiment in visualizing the impact of a hypothetical relocation of the Comet Tavern building from its historical location at 922 E. Pike Street to a new location at 1422 11th Avenue.

N Photo montage showing the Comet tavern building on the proposed site

Photographic surveying was used to document existing street and facade conditions, and Photoshop was used extensively in the creation of a photomontage, an elevation and an aerial view to simulate what such a relocation might look like.

Aerial view showing the Comet Tavern building on proposed site, and a P-Patch taking its place at its current location

Original Building Location

Elevation of Comet Tavern Building in proposed location at 1422 11th Avenue

Parks for the People Design Competition

SAN JUAN ISLAND NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

Demographic Trends

University of Washington, Van Alen Institute, and the National Park Service March 2012

APPROACH | ARRIVAL | RETURN

THE INFORMED JOURNEY | The new approach we propose is a National Park experiential journey – a digitally-informed framework – intended to engage the next generation of National Park Stewards while enhancing a reverence for place. JOURNEY | connections + portals

vancouver, b.c.

points of departure [ON] BOARD | kiosk

DIGITAL JOURNEY | information + orientation

tvvv```vvv

friday harbor

anacortes ferry terminal

[on] site

[on] line

[on] board

[on] island

mobile

[ON] LINE | social networking

[ON] ISLAND | wayfinding

kiosk

seattle

web

Upload | Share your park

APPROACH

ARRIVAL

[ON] RETURN | mobile

[ON] SITE | mobile

RETURN [ON] SITE | mobile

The Van Alen Institute in partnership with the National Park Service held a design competition to reimagine America’s national parks. I was part of a collaborative team of 21 students including planners, architects, landscape architects, ecologists and museologist at the University of Washington in a quarter-long studio. We worked with staff from San Juan Island National Historical Park to find ways to provide improved accessibility and interpretive opportunities for park visitors and local residents. Further refinement of studio outcomes were used in the design submission, where the University of Washington placed as one of six finalist teams. One important element of the project included a digital strategy that looked at new ways of engaging park visitors in the historical and ecological narratives of the park, by bringing the concept of the park visitor center into the landscape itself through digital technology. My role on this project included developing the digital strategy with five other teammates, preparing mockups, presentation and display boards (using Photoshop, Indesign, Powerpoint and Prezi), providing GIS and GPS mapping, project management, and conducting field research.

Tianzhong Village Title Development Concepts

Existing Conditions

Date University of Washington and Sichuan University ADD PROJ DESCRIPTION July 2011 ADD SKILLS I was part of a 25 member group with ADD ROLES spanning planning, backgrounds landscape architecture, architecture, China studies, historic preservation, real estate, engineering that went to China for a summer field study program. One month was spent at Tianzhong village in Fujian province, a region renowned for its tulou, a vernacular communal residence, developing precedent studies and conducting background research through site visits and interviews with residents and local officials. Three teams, working at regional, village and building scales explored design concepts grounded on our research. This included SWOT analysis of development opportunities that explored economic development strategies organic farming, tea cooperatives and cultural and eco-tourism.

Concept Diagram

Proposed Site Plan

‘Full Development’ Concept

A Site Elevation ‘A’

B 6m

Site Elevation ‘B’

4.8m

22m

My role on this project included co-developing a ‘full development’ concept for 120 dwelling units, and provided retail, restaurant, hotel space while retaining portions of the site for existing agricultural use. Other major tasks included GIS and GPS mapping, providing project management support for the larger team, coordination between regional and village scale teams, as well as 3D representation of design concepts in Google Sketchup.

42m

30m

Title Date

Landscape Performance Series: Case Study Briefs

ADD PROJ DESCRIPTION

Landscape Architecture Foundation and University of Washington

ADD SKILLS ADD ROLES

llon on ga

s use

d per

m on

th, o

r 12

milli

h li , whic 4 mil nsors all ge of gy Page 1 of 4 Methodolo LPS era a w ture se ll se mois an av ta d byConvention Center Expansion Project ever m , with ll 5 st o u tr a g Vancou u Project Titletwisithcon nd A te. illion eda July a 6 acre si mrth hard 12 m systepa ed. e June, wall Performance at all Benefits tioirnt com ology ring for th for Landsc seaapewalleaning th rriga Method k reach ly du year ae, m lent ,) on dripa-ibitat svels are e r per a a s te f iv n a used o ll le ment in 3 years w h equ eaterbataselifeet t habitat showing marine develop e use inm g aoisture ns of as linearheigh ofwmarine s:at an 1,500 ll ,-m � gCreated gallo ould ugh th sin ed ’s d th nceacoansee towa savein rmta ht ofte8-10 d thro dgehtein alltypical d years reting able u e a heigsite hieve n constis uesrefecompar re o c o p th r m a ti c in n a is th hes th tio th tru rig m esti ing This leng nly wing ted ir ssguamtipon inf cons extend cture 5 the habitat skirt and surrounding marine e s, a ri ate o sav skirt 3 years ago, monitoring of the habitat m ing calcula sithtee ir st ofor. ststhe of installati struon of7 the activin cost g 477rd metr 4,350. in (DFO) requirements for l cpoaidSince hrt, hard done 6 to fulfill Department of Fisheries and Oceans rin rega to e co 5 has pitba e on f 47 annually ateerigfo w 12,6 wall been in h uldTnheeecda with thhabitat eapstiuons otable th o milli l $ a Ltd. includes biannually g a nts m m e 4 e m Consulta n /g ing u s o 6 b Engineer 5 3 p ress 0f r le Authoriz ld ation. Monitoring by EBA t 10, 0.0 03o aAct rers used ewight. only u 0 e $4.3 tructuA th ,3 u f Fisheries o 6 n s o g 5 a biota, and comparing biota $ ,3 a h 6 li ef wate me ,w or len � e$ -Use irt m kirt dominant intertidal and sub-tidal ds a3s a t sthe portan inventory and assessmentitaof to b r li, trae1m3/galir=t h$conducti har png skons o th$e1saUSD the project. Installed ted008 pfoere.0 f su e= hab accepted reference site (Marathon) adjacent to 0 3 0 t sk itgaat ll AaD ma.0 el o hab Ch v is erre* $0 habita al levdiversity /productivity with a known esisti $06 Th f the and e 1 r to o by the Department of a ed -$ te e th determin e was a n . e site o habitat, the Marathon reference th at av st onfgw qu ohnts /y at th marine llati ld h o le an e 8-10 years ago as new en th n most recent n ghaellig en th insta ing wou -meCter milllliyoto Giv gatio le marine habitat condition. In the iv d acceptab ri an id re n ir achieved G v have 2 e to a f a 1 ion o n ctu Fisheries and ,Oceans nts Ltd., no significant 50. ll pro of o stru rison rication r green ront conducte 2011 by EBA Engineering Consulta port 26,5 seawa mpa inventory the and cture ly pro on d in March r foassessme =$ fab wate al years of marine development), and g stru st Co milli ign, * 5m ention the Marathon reference site (8-10 asin 64between r Co des ally in e was observed and diversity. As well, 43 species $4.3 , incre 5,310/m a conv gy th0eannudifferenc gs: richness 50fo species of r = lo in n terms in ,3 v ent), o o 2 fo se 4 f ati ofcamarine developm t$ 00years (3 skirt rigreference o$n72,7 o0st,0sa habitat of 500 or th1o2d,66 se st o c ir schools li e a and f cos site, o b n il o te M 0 c o the at e s $ si th the habitat skirt, compared with 46 species gati$8,3 n inon ital .3gm vin d on m= skirt.1 $8 g ir5riwere cap tio ostdsa duce 0ir-rigafound 477 Chinook were observed at the habitat ulatin4,3te l5 e ‘Re and possibly �stimCate tre7 , s: Chum, Coho, /m x 6r si greater of the following g calc 2 03/ga salmonid (see abov e =0.71). ,550 Cen gardin =w$a1te2r,6fo .003 the n =47, R $26 or $0 e bsle s to ventipotinons re pota gatio e dataset (Nor e ri a tr gallons re ir million li c 1.29 a p r th by 13% Runoff of al ter onssum per U SD e fo in site lin s Stormwa com er C A  U–seActuD = $1 $0.0008 rigati�on Reduced ction best fit This ncouv ir is se C A redu ts the er Harbour is 1474.9mm = 58.067 a e ca $1 of water tion from tioonf n Va reopresen 5+0.9I annual rainfall in Vancouv the average Bas  the aseBased on climate normal data, eqcua Cost onsump win Rv=0.0 ons s = agse g  b llo c fo a in r e gall 2 v Th arding lion inches , t sa l wate re il s a g u m o n s) C 12 An tail ons ar ug) = mpti r more de s / yebe used to derive annual run off: ncan uly/a llion, Assu gallo $72,720 ons the following equation ne/jinformat this Using u %’ fo illion . = ths (jfractionn ga by 50 24 m 303/gal ation morvnious12 millio ’, 20 3 pe .6% 0 .5 = e 72,7 reo: nIath=xIm r irrig = 0 g .0 $ ) / 0 : Rv= a13 sa s .5 * Pch $ P = u es R n j *es ter fo receive s/m lloch in Case Whe ar * % (0 ation 0.81 to 0.815 in lackw s /ye Base on gallon ge x 50 se irrig.8 on 5ga lloin milli 70 ches) / treated b designed ses. As sa a n ches a .9*0 152 = li g u in 43 il ‘B 3 n n r m +0 o o 04 = e fo 4 li o ti .7 is =il0. tio=n 0.05 / 0.59*0.=72 irriga on-sit t syst4em tion purp ches -0 247m uase x 0.5+ 0. a n s Base g the eRqvba t use tm .815 in runoff (inches) Where:ff R= =(0Annual sa=ge0.05 a meeterf for irrig to fi=rs 58.067 trere sqrua o In runo (inches) Solvin rigatioRnvpruoj 5ate stem.138 t sy,2 ctions P = Annual rainfall the ro ir 81blackwevents r. ga en24 runoff tothat llons (usually 0.9) produce tm ate d % redu a = e Base w e rainfall 0 re et annual th tr of e 65 le fe , r Pj = Fraction b 286, atere -site 3 be deliv of 3po=ta1, wua 0cksq ly on r cnt an bla se5m ppcoefficie e 36 = Runoff 87u0. Rv 0. ea:n26 it1. 0/year suns ate5 m2 d=ue4,to teio se: $of ar $36,36 uact e w38 e e o -s ff reqdu ngs of tion al Ca Ro to Bruc 81 .1 ich th ses the ruisno inade r Xw h Actu ir ri g a ng in cost savi si te cordingWest be h,2 e 24 jectVuoltum a ft % .6 AcCentre ere 13 ro th lti p t, su it - Vancouvern Convent a 50%.ion th 4749m This case 1. Habitat roof will d wCompensation tm*en 1 Marine 50% reSurvey Report io by a te at 0 e by ig ia 2 n tr ed, the c ater is irr e io72,7 at$ 1971-20 ig= data tablish in site 00 normal ct In th wage for cost ass2oVancouv irr table w ode=0&province= es climate e ns po is Harbour er sit io ng=e&dC no ity on =888&la e; un se ml?stnID case wag rmals/res is no duced ctualate.weat ted redu imate_no City .gc.ca/cl t comm ults_e.ht heroffice City se of sta A � Re http://clim , there the plan ite and ce se – of the ro &month2 -s a n on on =12) such , c tio ct of But=&month1=0 scrip chite Base BC&prov nation Available: itect’s de scape ar gs = a comSbitormwater Loads. (2010, January). [Online]. Calculate ethod to at Mnd savin LMN Arch 3 The ect’s la Simple er from Urban th/simple.htm proj Cost 0assessment/simple%20me ackw ) ck, the ated bl atercenter.net/monitoring%20and%2 w.stormw tre http://ww 23, 2011 Hemsto g only ctober sin O , (u ns atio : watered mmunic Available sonal co er ]. t e (p n s n me chitect [Onli iron scape Ar 11]. Env L Land x ec 20 re. ed D efault.asp stock, PW apo 4 ruce Hem d ccess B Sing paign. [a ter/Pages/ n o e ater Cam n/tapwa l ris leve er, Tap W r.org/regio e st se a e v t of tre W o Vancou ovancouv pac C en 5 Metr etr e im tion h .m n T w e 5. /ww onv 0 0 C 2 r http:/ n. uve nco ndelsoh 15 - Va 2 Me ort 01 – d Robert s 10: 2 ey Rep rv ic n u a S m no Ng itat Shiuen ent Eco on Hab m ti 6 Weielop pensa D ev om and rine C 7 Ma

December 2011 The Landscape Architecture Foundation (LAF) partnered with the University of Washington’s Sustainable Urban Landscapes class to develop a set of case study briefs featuring sustainable projects with quantified landscape benefits. Working closely with LAF staff, professional designers and other members of the project team, a set of robustly researched case studies was developed, documenting the measurable benefits of exemplary high performance landscapes that deliver ecological, social and economic benefit. My role for this project included the developing a case study that quantified the benefits of the Vancouver Convention Center Expansion Project. In correspondence with the design team, a methodology was developed that quantified marine habitat creation, and reductions in stormwater runoff, on-site irrigation, heat gain and heat loss. A narrative describing the project was also synthesized, and additional imagery collected that would highlight the project.

The buildings in these commercial nodes are largely single story, though there are some newer two and three story buildings (refer to Exhibits 5). The upper levels of the newer buildings contain apartments or condominiums. The neighborhood around the site is predominantly single-family houses and occasional multi-family buildings. Northgate Mall is located about 1 mile to the west of the site.

Site Analysis

Market Analysis

NEIGHBORHOOD, SUB-MARKET, & TRADE AREA ANALYSIS

Site Attributes

STATIC ATTRIBUTES STATIC ATTRIBUTES

Exhibit 4: Northwest Veterinary Clinic SITE PROFILE DATA Exhibit 4: Northwest Veterinary Clinic SITE PROFILE DATA Location: NW corner of 35th AVE NE Location: NW corner of 35th AVE NE & NE 95th St & NE 95th St Address: 9505 35th Ave NE Address: 9505 35th Ave NE Parcel #: 9553200035 Parcel #: 9553200035 Zipcode: 98115 Zipcode: 98115 Owner: JDR Property Management LLC Owner: JDR Property Management LLC Current Use: Veterinary Clinic / Parking Lot Current Use: Veterinary Clinic / Parking Lot Lot Size: .63 acres / 27,491 SF Lot Size: .63 acres / 27,491 SF Land Value: $1,099,600 Land Value: $1,099,600 Improvement Value: $1,000 Improvement Value: Building Size: 4,108$1,000 SF

Building ParcelSize: size: 4,108 SF Parcel size: East west dim: 180ʼ

Exhibit 2: Context Map Map of NE Seattle. Source: Wagda Context andData Market Area Delineation within walking distance of the project site. The intermediate area is dened by the market area

Exhibit 1: Context Map of Seattle. Data Source: Wagda

Financial Analysis

described above, and is comprised of the Wedgwood/View Ridge Community Reporting Area CITY (CRA), and the northern halfLAKE of the Ravenna/Bryant CRA. This area stretches from a few blocks west of the Lake Washington as the eastern boundary, Lake City Way on the west, Meadowbrook Park on the north, and NE I-565th St. on the south. The largest scale of data incorporated in the SITE analysis is King County as a whole, to show how the two smaller areas compare to the larger

Below is an analysis of the predicted financial performance of each of the five alternative development scenarios described above. In each case, the following assumptions were made:

region. UNIVERSITY Neighborhood Analysis and Demographics DISTRICT

Population and Demographic Information The population of the immediate project area in 2010 was 4,995 (in 2,057 households), while the larger Wedgewood neighborhood stood at 15,020 (in 6,441 households). At the largest market area described in the previous secion the population isn’t very dense. Currently, the population density is DOWNTOWN almost 3,000 people/square mile (about 4.5 people per acre). The majority of the SEATTLE area is single-family residential homes with several commercial nodes spread across the area. The area has seen steady growth since the year 2000 and is expected to see continued growth through the year 2015. I-5 With a median age in the area of 43 years, residents here are generally older than in King County, where the median age is 37.8 year. Exhibit 8 shows the populations broken down into cohort segments.

§ Raw land cost: o $30/sf SF-7200 o $50/sf NC1-30 § NOI existing @ $20/sf § Construction period: o 1-story @8 months o 3-story @ 14 months § As-is cap rate: 10% § Vacancy ratios: o 1-story 10%, 3-story 6%

§ Expense ratios o 1-story 14%, 3-story 12% § Demolition costs @ $8/sf § Parking construction @$1.70/sf § Landscaping costs @ $2.50/sf § Construction costs: o 1 story @$95/sf o 3-Story@$110/sf § Income rates for o commercial @ $20/sf o apt @$24/sf

Exhibit 15 indicates that the population in Wedgewood is predominately white, and more highlyeducated (See Exhibit 9) than the rest of King County. Over 2/3 of Wedgewood residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher as compared with 44% in King County (see Exhibit 10). Ethnic composition is quite similar to the rest of King County, except for a lower percentage of AfricanAmericans in Wedgewood.

EastNorth westsouth dim: dim: 180ʼ 152ʼ North 152ʼ SE south cornerdim: radius: 15ʼ SE corner radius: 15ʼ Zoning:

Demographic Analysis 4

Zoning: East 110ʼ: NC1-30

Exhibit 8: Population and Age Demographics. Source - ESRI

EastWest 110ʼ: NC1-30 70ʼ: SF-7000

ALTERNATIVE USE ANALYSIS

West 70ʼ: SF-7000 Exhibit 5: Bird’s eye view of the site.

Bird’s eye view of the site

Exhibit 5: Bird’s eye view of the site.

STATIC ATTRIBUTES

Site Access The site is bordered on two sides by minor arterial streets (as classied by the Seattle Comprehensive Transportation Program of 1984), and there is a trafc light at the their intersection. Sidewalks are present along 35th NE, but they end at NE 96th. NE 95th has sidewalks only at the intersection. 35th Avenue NE is serviced by north-south travelling city busses, which connect the site with University Village and the University District to the south and Lake City to the north. NE 95th has no bus service but provides a direct vehicular connection to Lake City Way, about 1 mile to the west. Currently, vehicular access to the site is via one curbcut on 35th NE, one curbcut on NE 95th, and a driveway at the west end of the site off NE 95th (see Exhibit 5). Existing Improvements

Financial/Use Analysis

ingress/

There is currently a one-story structure on the site, the Northeast Veterinary egresscommercial points Clinic. To the east and north of the building are paved driveway and parking areas. The driveway exits the site at the extreme west edge of the parcel, onto NE 95th Street. Between the existing building and the driveway on the west side of the site there is an unimproved grass / gravel area, apparently used for overow parking. The existing building is approximately 35 years old and 4,108 SF in size (see Exhibit 4). 6

Zoning and Land Use

Exhibit 3: Site Context Map. Data Source: Wagda

0.5 mile around Trade Area King County NEIGHBORHOOD, SUB-MARKET, & ring TRADE AREAsite ANALYSIS NEIGHBORHOOD, SUB-MARKET, & TRADE AREA ANALYSIS 2010 Total Population 4995 15020 1936894 NEIGHBORHOOD, SUB-MARKET, & TRADE AREA ANALYSIS 2010 Median Age 43.4 43.2 37.8 Exhibit 10: Education Demographics. Source - ESRI

Development Exhibit Composition Demographics. Education Level (% of Exhibit 9: 10:Ethnic Education Demographics. Source -Source ESRI - ESRI .5 mi single-family ring around site Trade Areanode of commercial King CountybuildThe neighborhood consists of mainly homes with a small population) Ethnic Composition mi ring around site Trade Area King County Education Level (%(%) of of 35th.5Ave. ings atthan the9th intersection NE0.83 and NE site 95th Street. The commercial node occupies .5 mi ring around Trade Area King County Less Grade 0.98 3.44 population) one-half a block in each 78.44 77.48of the intersection, 70.05 Caucasian approximately direction from each corner Some High School 1.72 1.58 4.7creating a 1.84 6.01 Lessarea than Grade 0.83The businesses currently 0.98 in this commercial 3.44 African American 2.32 total of9th approximately 1 square block. node are High School Graduate 9.92 8.5 18.26 0.93 Somediverse High School 1.72 1.58 4.7 American Indian 0.54 fairly and consist of a development company, an animal0.49 hospital (on the site we are curSome CollegeGraduate 17.37 15.42 20.83 High School 9.92 a pub, a Chinese13.75 8.5 18.26 Asian 12.99 rently analyzing), a chiropractor, a re station, restaurant, an auto13.88 repair shop, a Associate Degree 4.62 4.38 8.43 0.13 nodes along 35th 0.61 Ave. NE, Some College 17.37 15.42 20.83 Pacific Islander 0.12 gas station, and a barber shop. There are several similar commercial Bachelor's Degree 35.24 36.65 28.24 2.08 3.73 Associate 4.62 4.38 of NE 85th Street, 8.43and there Other RaceDegree (single) the closest of which is ten blocks to the1.54 south at the cross-section ALTERNATIVE USE 16.1 ANALYSIS Graduate Degree 30.27 32.49 4.22Avenue NE. 4.8 Bachelor's Degree 36.65 28.24 Two or more Races 4.04 are other nodes every ve to ten blocks 35.24 continuing south on 35th Graduate Degree 30.27 32.49 16.1 Most Fitting Use Analysis Household Characteristics Exhibit 11: Income Demographics. Source - ESRI Household ownership in the Wedgewood neighborhood is signicantly higher than the rest of The following analysis analyzes theSource use components of the above 5 options to determine which .5 Mile Ring around Exhibit 11: Income Demographics. - ESRI King County, with roughly 75% of housing units11 occupied byTrade the owner, with just under Area compared King County the site is most tting on the site in question. 60% in King County. Renter occupied housing units were less common, and interestingly vacant .5 Mile Ring around 2010 Per Capita Income 39372 44001 38562 Trade Area King County the site housing units Household were signiIncome cantly lower than in the rest of King80677 County, likely indicating that there 2010 Median 80075 75693 Key Assumptions: 2010 Per Capita 39372 44001 38562 was a demand forIncome more housing Wedgewood has101742 an average household size of 2.29, 2010 Average Household Income in the area. 93340 92740 2010 Median Household 80075 of the property 80677 -a2010 Size/Layout: is County a Income large tree in$192,000,511.00 the middle which needs$73,918,471,544.00 to be75693 built around. similar valueThere toHH King at 2.38. Aggregate Income $655,521,824.00 2010 Average Household Income This diminishes the potential for ofce and93340 retail complexes as101742 it would not allow for92740 the 2010 Aggregate HH Income $192,000,511.00 $655,521,824.00 $73,918,471,544.00 Exhibit 12: Household Demographics. Source -&ESRI stripmall-esque development seen on 85th 75th. .5 Mile Ring around 2010 Household Income

the site

Trade Area

The following section includes graphic representation of ve alternative use options Team 7 feels are worth investigating. In each case, it has been assumed that the area of the site zoned SF-7200 would be left undeveloped, for reasons explained in this document under static attributes(?). As is the case in most new development projects, a main driver of each of these alternatives is the location of on-site parking. The site’s small size and 3-story height limit will result in a small development that could not possibly generate enough income to justify the cost of locating parking below grade. For this reason, the four new-development alternatives described here have parking located in a surface parking lot. In each of the four new-development alternatives, the building is located at the street edge, with parking behind. This is essentially required by zoning regulations, but has the benet of locating commercial space close to the streets, for high visibility. The ve development options considered are: Leave the existing building as-is Financial feasibility development scenarios Develop a 1-story commercial building of (8,800five SF)

• • • • •

Develop a 3-story mixed use building with ground level commercial and residential above (17,943 SF) Develop a 3-story mixed use building with ground level commercial and ofce above (17,943 SF) Develop a 3-story building with ground level commercial and ofce above (21,345 SF)

Alternative Use Scenarios

ALTERNATIVE USE ANALYSIS

These are all represented in graphic form on the following pages (Exhibits 23-27).

ALTERNATIVE USE ANALYSIS

Exhibit23: 24:Keep One Story Retail building. Exhibit the existing

26: One Mixed UseRetail - One Story Retail with Ofces Above Exhibit 24: Story

Building Size Size -- 4,108 8,800 SF SF Building Building Footprint Footprint -- 4,108 8,800 SF SF Building Parking -- 11,336 7,920 SF Parking SF- -approximately approximately18 20stalls stalls

Building Building Size Size -- 8,800 17,943SFSF Building Footprint - 8,800 SF Building Footprint - 5,981 SF Parking - 7,920 SF - approximately 18 stalls Parking - 7,920 SF - approximately 24 stalls

King County

- Egress/Ingress: There’s an ingress isRing approximately 15 ft.Area from a trafc light which might .5 mile.5that ring around site Trade King County Mile around <$10000 (%) 2.87 2.55 2010 Household Income Trade Area King4.8 County site make it difcult for retail customers to usethe effectively. $10000-14999 (%) 3.01 2.5 2.47

Housing Housing Housing %2.87 of Total % of Total <$10000 (%) 2.55 4.8% of Total Units Units is 2.27 2.67 2.87 - $15000-19999 Topo/Drainage:(%) Drainage for the site is fair; however there an approximateUnits 3 foot downhill $10000-14999 (%) 3.01 2.5 2010 Average Household Size 2.4 2.29 2.38 2.47 $20000-24999 (%) 3.26 2.53 3.4 slope from to the street to the property. 2.67 $15000-19999 (%) 2.27 2.8759.13% 2010 Owner Occupied 1574 76.52% 4762 73.93% 471278 $25000-29999 (%) 2.72 2.31 3.12 $20000-24999 (%) 3.26 to the property. 2.53 3.4 40.87% Renter Occupied 23.53% 1679 26.07% it runs 325778 - 2010 Public Linkages: There is a bus 484 stop adjacent However limited $30000-34999 (%) 3.4 3.82 3.66routes 2010 Vacant Housing 81 3.94% 319 c for2.31 4.95% $25000-29999 (%)Units 2.72 3.12 7.33% (Bus 64 & 65) and incoming traf retail or ofce58439 projects. $35000-39999 (%)does not provide enough 3.06 3.17 3.39 Total Households (%) (excluding $30000-34999 3.4 3.82 3.66 2057 6441 797056 3.38 $40000-44999 (%) 3.5 3.37 vacant units)

- $35000-39999 Pedestrian: The property is located in a residential neighborhood (%) 3.06 3.17which allows people 3.39to walk $45000-49999 (%) 2.97 2.95 3.61 to$40000-44999 a potential retail However, for a residential development,3.38 there is (%)development on the site. 3.5 3.37 $50000-59999 (%) 6.42 6.75 8.62 $45000-49999 (%) 2.97 2.95 3.61 little to walk to. (%) $60000-74999 10.89 12.42 9.89 $50000-59999 (%) 6.42 6.75 8.62 Transportation $75000-99999 (%) Use Analysis 19.54 18.37 19.75 Exhibit 28: Most Patterns Fitting $60000-74999 (%) 10.89 12.42 9.89 $100000-124999 (%) collected information 15.9 15.01 patterns in Wedgewood 12.27 In 2000, the Census regarding commuting and $75000-99999 (%) Office 19.54 18.37 19.75 Factors/Attributes Apartment Factors/Attributes Weights $125000-149999 (%) of trips Retail 7.63 6.57 14% by public 6.37 found that over 75% to work were in a car/truck or van, transportation, $100000-124999 (%) 15.9 15.01 12.27 Static Static 40% $150000-199999 (%) 5.79 7.31 5.93 3% by bicycle and(%) 1.2% by walking. 94.8% of workers did not6.57 work at home, and their $125000-149999 7.63 6.37 commute $200000-249999 (%) 3.74 7 3.99 2.97 Size, Layout 4 of 25.94 minutes. required on average Appendix - Journey to30% Work) this is $150000-199999 (%)a total 5.79 (Refer to the Environmental 7.31 5.93 $250000-499999 (%) 2.28 3.23 2.71 Ingress/Egress 6 piece of 5 information Linkages 30% $200000-249999 (%) 3.74 7 in this section 3.99 2.97 probably the most important $500000+ (%) 0.34 0.92 0.8 $250000-499999 (%) 2.28 3.23 2.71 Topo/Drainage 5 5 5 $500000+ (%) 0.3419 0.92 0.8 Subtotal Segmentation: 15 14 Tapestry Income Based on tapestry segmentation information obtained from which ESRI Business Wedgewood has a median household income above $80,000 is higher Analyst than theOnline rest of(BAO), King Income Environs the largest market in Wedgewood is classi ed higher as Wealthy Seaboard comprising County, which was segment about $75,700 in 2010. The slightly average shows Suburb, the possibility for Wedgewood has a median 7 household5 income above which is higher than the rest of King 6 $80,000 43%Land Uses of households within Wedgewood. largest market segment are the Metropoliexpendable income and more purchases. The second County, which was about $75,700 in6 2010. The 8slightly higher average shows the possibility for 7 tans,Quality/Value making up 31.8% of households in Wedgewood and 10.2% within 0.5 miles of the site (refer expendable income and more purchases. Safety/Security 8 6 7 to Exhibit 13). Subtotal 22 17 21

Exhibit 25: Mixed Use - One Story Retail with Apartments Above

Exhibit 25: Mixed Use - One Story Retail with Apartments Above Exhibit 27: Three Story Ofce Building

Most Fitting Use Analysis

Current Linkages Public Transit Vehicular Pedestrian Subtotal Weighted Total

Building Size - 17,943 SF Building Footprint - 5,981 SF Parking - 10,739 SF - approximately 24 stalls

23Exhibit 26: Mixed Use - One Story Retail with Ofces Above

University of Washington Department of Urban Design & Planning December 2010 This feasibility study was conducted for a property in the Wedgwood neighborhood of Seattle, for a hypothetical client. As part of a five member team, using the financial and timing requirements as a framework, several development scenarios were developed based on neighborhood, submarket and trade area and zoning analysis. These scenarios would provide a framework to guide future development of the site. Based on our analysis, a mixed use development with 2 floors of residential apartments would be the optimal use option, although the final recommendation was that given market conditions in the neighborhood, an alternate location would be the most appropriate action at the time. My role on this project included zoning, neighborhood and demographic analysis, market area delineation. I also played secondary roles verifying financial calculations and report writing.

Building Size - 17,943 SF Building Footprint Size - 21,345 SF SF Building - 5,981 Building-Footprint SF Parking 10,739 SF- -7,115 approximately 24 stalls Parking - 9,605 SF - approximately 21 stalls

ALTERNATIVE USE ANALYSIS

Wedgwood 35th Ave NE Feasibility Study

23 24

5 12

3 6 3 12

4 7 5 16

8 3 16

29.76

30.08

37.84

WEDGWOOD SITE ANALYSIS REPORT

12 13

The analysis shows that apartments are the most tting use on the site, followed by retail and ofce almost equally. Therefore, when considering the following nancial analysis, Mixed Use with residential above should be considered the optimal use option.

December 9, 2010 Team 7

Building Size - 17,943 SF Building Footprint - 5,981 SF Parking - 7,920 SF - approximately 24 stalls Exhibit 27: Three Story Ofce Building

13 Building Size - 21,345 SF Building Footprint - 7,115 SF Parking - 9,605 SF - approximately 21 stalls