Stone34 Design Review Meeting

Another Design Review Meeting for Stone34 (3400 Stone Way North) is scheduled for Monday, April 30 at 8:00PM, at the University Heights Center (5031 University Way NE). This is the second recommendation meeting since the Design Review Board did not make a recommendation during the March 19 meeting.

Skanska’s most current design proposal is available for review here.

  • Katherine

    To give you an idea of the neighborhood concerns with this issue, here are some stats.

    In the fall, in response to the Determination of Non-Significance, the city received 118 letters. 91 of those letters — 77% of the letters — were from people who raised concerns about the height, bulk and scale.

    In response to the MUP application, as of the end of February, there were a grand total of 91 letters from neighbors. 81 of the letters raised concerns about the height, bulk and scale of the building. So 89% of the letters were opposed to the building as it’s currently being proposed.

    At the last Design Review Board meeting, 75 people testified. 50 (or 66%) of the people who testified raised concerns about the height, bulk and scale.

    When the WCC decided to appeal the original DNS decision, a vast majority, if not all, of the members who spoke at their meeting raised concerns about this building.

    Having worked in the non-profit world for over two decades, I’d like to point out that it’s entirely fair for a president of an organization to advocate on an issue especially as an individual and especially when their views align with the majority of their members or community members who have expressed opinions on an issue.

    I respect Lee and others from both sides who have used their first names. Miss Ruby would you be willing to do the same? At the very least, would you be willing to let us know if you have been hired by Skanska to work on their PR?

  • Miss Ruby

    I could certainly see where people who were opposed to something in the neighborhood would be more vocal about their opposition than those who were supportive and assumed it was moving forward as advertised. I don’t think that Katherine’s count is a fair representation of how the community at large feels about the project.

  • Ryan

    @Katherine, there is nothing wrong with people using nicknames or pseudonyms on this blog, it does not mean they are a paid community organizer trying to drum up support for one side or the other. The boogeyman is not lurking on the Wallyhood; its a blog.

  • Donn

    For me the question is, are they getting their money’s worth? That’s why I’m thinking Fremont Dock. I’m not pro-Skanska here, but I do respect them as an organization with high professional standards.

  • coolio

    Did anyone go to the meeting last night?
    Is the Fremont Dock a second site possibility for Skansa?

  • Dennis

    Coolio – the Fremont Dock Company (Suzie Burke) is the owner of the land the project will be built on along with a sizable chunk of the Fremont and Wallingford.

  • Nancy M
  • coolio

    bummer, I knew the money would win, Thanks for link Nancy.
    So then will it be where the Fremont Dock that bar is? Or where Subway is or take on both sides of street and also corner?

  • Neighbor2You

    And my thanks to Nancy, too, for posting the link.

    Not sure how to interpret “I knew the money would win” comment, and actually, that’s related to some of the earlier exchanges above about the content of neighborhood blogs. While not an outright accusation of misdoing, it reads to me like it has a pretty strong inference (and is consistent with other posts about how money can “buy” a specific outcome) so I’m just curious….do others interpret it that way?

    And to my knowledge, the proposed site is the northeast corner of the block where the Subway is now.

  • Donn

    I have attended a couple of the hearings, but not this one. As I understand it, this is a volunteer board, and at the hearings I attended they looked pretty good and I don’t think they have anything to be embarrassed about. If I’m right, though, they are not normally charged with enforcing zoning regulations, or overriding exemptions from zoning regulations based on legislation that hasn’t been presented to the city council yet, or whatever the situation actually is, and my guess was that this outcome was really a foregone conclusion. Though it would have been great to see this project put out of its misery here.

    I don’t think it’s a place where the money has played the kind of role we’ve been talking about – and I don’t think it’s a place where our community input has played a primary role either. Their customary job is to look at massing, visual transitions, street level activity, etc., and recommend changes. They did so, Skanska responded. Where the money really plays its role, and where they ought to be listening to the community, is in the planning offices. I don’t expect they’re ever likely to come out of their offices and appear in a public meeting like the DRB does, but in theory they get the input we’ve mailed to them.

  • Thomas

    @Ryan. I think it’s fair for the people to ask for Miss Ruby’s affiliation when she had no problem listing Lee’s (then putting unfounded words in his mouth) when he was clearly writing as an individual. Even if it’s a blog, there is something to be said for fairness and integrity especially when the blog is for a community as lovely as ours.

Subscribe to Wallyhood

Never miss a story! Enter your e-mail address to receive Wallyhood to your inbox.

Email Address