|
|
Return to Neighborhood
Branches page.
Return to Northgate
Branch
More than 90 people from the community attended this meeting to discuss proposed site plans for the new Northgate library, community center and park. The Seattle Public Library city librarian Deborah L. Jacobs started the meeting with welcoming comments and introductions of Ken Bounds, superintendent, Seattle Parks and Recreation; Library capital program director Alexandra Harris; Parks and Recreation director Erin Devoto; and the site planning design team of Stan Lokting, consultant with ARC Architects, and Terry Reckord, landscape architect with MacLeod Reckord. During the course of the meeting, Jacobs and Bounds also introduced Linda Larson, president of The Seattle Public Library board of trustees; Greg Maffei, Library Board member and steward for the Northgate Branch; Library Board member Eric Liu; Park Board chairman Bruce Bentley; Park Board members James Fearn Jr., Susan Golub, Sarah Neilson and Kathleen Warren; David Traylor, member of the Citizen Implementation Review Panel (CIRP), a 15-member panel that provides citizen oversight of The Seattle Public Library's Libraries for All building program, and CIRP steward for the Northgate Branch; Ellen Judson, CIRP vice chairwoman; and David Kunselman, Library capital projects manager for the Northgate project.
Lokting and Reckord reviewed the two different site plans, scheme A and scheme B, and the features of each. During the question and answer session, members of the community asked the following questions:
Q. What’s the narrow slot between the plaza and the community center?
A. It is an interior hallway that provides access to some of the spaces.
Q. A surface parking lot may be a tempting place to park for mall patrons.
Have designers considered this?
A. Parks and the Library have not yet hired an architect(s) to design the
project, but this will be considered as we begin the building design work.
Q. Do we have the money for scheme A right now? And we do not have the money
for scheme B right now?
A. We do have the money for scheme A, but do not have the money for scheme
B, which would cost an estimated additional $1.6 million.
Q. Library staff members have said they want to protect the library from
noise from Fifth Avenue Northeast, but in both plans the library is on the street.
A. Like a retail store, the library needs to be visible and easy to find.
It will advertise its presence by being on the street edge. The north main reading
room is the most sensitive area in the library to noise. It faces away from
the street and toward the park. Parks and the Library also can build wall and
window sections that can block out noise.
Q. How safe will the underground parking be, and how do patrons get in
and out of it?
A. Since Parks and the Library are still in the site planning phase, it’s
a little too early to give specifics. If the project includes structured parking,
it would be designed with safety in mind and have good lighting. We are very
sensitive to safety needs of the facilities in this neighborhood. The entrance
would be at the existing intersection on Fifth Avenue Northeast. Patrons would
go down a spiral garage entrance and come out at approximately the same place
as they went in. Entrance to the community center from the parking lot would
be located on the lower level and be accessible by stairs and an elevator. The
library would be located across the plaza.
Q. What is the total slope differential on the site? Also, I don’t
see any planning for drainage management.
A. The site slopes from northwest to southeast. There is a 20-foot vertical
difference and another 20 feet of fill down to the street at 105th Street. The
total difference is about 40 feet. The Library and Parks have budgeted for onsite
stormwater detention and treatment, likely through an underground vault that
would hold rain and slowly release it into the stormwater system. Since the
site is currently all asphalt and we intend to redevelop to add a park and landscaping,
any reduction in asphalt would greatly reduce the impervious surface and improve
the water quality.
Q. It appears that construction will occur all the way up to the street
edge without street-side parking. I would like to see more of a promenade. The
trees in these plans along the edge of the street do not provide much blockage.
It would be dangerous for kids if they ran after items that strayed into traffic.
Also, the library seems like it should be back in the space because it needs
quiet with the community center as a buffer.
A. City zoning, which has defined Northgate as an urban center, requires
building placement next to the sidewalk edge. This is part of the transformation
from suburban to urban development. The Library and Parks are committed to creating
a pleasing streetscape for pedestrians along Fifth Avenue Northeast, including
adding 12-foot-wide sidewalks, street trees, benches, landscaping and topography
to act as a buffer between the park and the street. We seek to contribute to
safe and inviting pedestrian connections between the park and other uses and
open space in the area. We would make sure through design that park users are
protected from the street. We anticipate providing a public plaza that provides
a pleasant and safe connection to the improved pedestrian crossing connecting
the Northgate Mall to the library and community center. The plaza also would
provide a gateway to the park, which would then be linked to Park 6 and Thornton
Creek. These improvements will enhance connections to residences, transit, shopping
and future open space in the area. Also, these plans do not preclude curbside
parking. It may be of value to put short-term parking on the street. Any street-side
parking would have to extend into the site, instead of out into traffic.
Q. Would there be any possibility of reducing the cost of scheme B by parking
across the street at Northgate Mall? What percentage of people will be long-term
parkers versus short-term parkers?
A. In determining the number of parking spaces, we’ll start with what
the code requires. Then we’ll document how people get to the site and
what other parking is available in the area. Currently there is no street parking
in the area. Parks and the Library have great concerns about pedestrians crossing
Fifth Avenue Northeast to get to the branch, park and community center. Large
events at the facilities may necessitate using additional parking on special
occasions. We will explore all options and the site will be well-served by transit.
Q. Has the beauty of the building been considered so we don’t have
another tin box like Target?
A. It is still too early in the design process to think about design specifics
like that; however, we are committed to providing handsome civic buildings that
invite public use and enjoyment.
Q. East-west traffic is really miserable through this area. Is there an
opportunity for an overpass or a traffic blocker of some kind?
A. There will be street-frontage improvements, including 12-foot-wide sidewalks,
street trees, benches, landscaping and topography to act as a buffer between
the park and the street, which will contribute to safe pedestrian connections.
There are many ways to strengthen pedestrian uses while accommodating traffic
and we will look into them.
Q. I have three concerns: 1) Drainage on the site is a problem and should
be studied; 2) Safety and crime prevention are important issues and have the
potential to cause problems; 3) The parking listed in these drawings does not
look adequate. I recommend an increase in parking stalls. Also we’ll need
to prevent mall patrons from parking in the lot.
A. 1) Right now, the site drains to 105th Street to the southeast of the
lot, and it goes into a concrete drainage pipe. When we redevelop the site we
will add a lot more pervious surface with grass and trees. This will greatly
reduce the amount of water coming off the site. The Library and Parks have studied
natural elements such as exposed water elements and drainage swales. The slope
of the site and the fact that it is on top of fill works against us. In addition
to costing more, the swale approach also would use up valuable open space. The
Library and Parks have budgeted for onsite stormwater detention and treatment,
likely through an underground vault. 2) On the issue of safety, we have made
the park visible from the street so it is easier to supervise. Our goal is to
avoid recesses and unsafe entries. We will use landscaping to promote safety.
3) On the parking issue, we need to find a balance. We believe that 60 to 67
stalls will get us where we need to be.
Q. As far as library size, how does it compare to the Green Lake Branch?
What will be the “greatest hits” at the community center?
A. The library will be 10,000 square feet, for comparison. The Green Lake
Branch is currently 8,090 square feet, the Ballard Branch is 7,300 square feet,
and the Lake City Branch is 9,000 square feet. The community center is planned
to be 20,000 square feet. It is comparable to the new Meadowbrook Community
Center. There will be a gym, arts and activities room and kitchen.
Q. On scheme B, how would parking for the handicapped be accommodated?
A. Handicapped parking would be underground and adjacent to the elevator.
The elevator would go up to a plaza that would connect to the library and community
center.
Q. Budget is important, but underground parking is ideally the way we should
go. We need a civic center that is more pedestrian-friendly, less automotive-friendly.
How does the fact that the site is fill affect the project? We ought to use
this chance to create water retention that celebrates Thornton Creek.
A. There is approximately 20 feet of fill in addition to the grade. There
are many ways of addressing this. Geo-piles, a foundation system, is the least
expensive way to provide the structure for the building. We tried to keep costs
down while getting the best function. Surface parking accommodates the loading
and unloading for both buildings better than any other scheme we looked at.
The underground parking option is more constrained. For the drainage, we did
consider swales, or a different way of dealing with stormwater, but they all
take up valuable open space.
Q. Where could $1.6 million for underground parking come from?
A. Neither the Library nor Parks is able to pay the estimated $1.6 million
for underground parking. Funding for the project comes from the Community Center
Levy, the Pro Parks Levy and from the “Libraries for All” bond issue.
We studied the underground parking issue, even though we don’t have money
for it, because it illustrates the trade-offs between parking and open space
and allowed us to estimate the costs. Within available funding, Scheme A (surface
parking) is what we can afford.
Q. Is there a possibility that Scheme A could be modified to provide more
open space? Because the community center will have big, blank walls, what will
we do to mitigate that for neighbors to the east? Is there anything else along
Fifth Avenue Northeast, or just the park?
A. The community center will be located toward the southeast corner and
will be partially sunken into the site. The perception to neighbors will be
about a story to a story and a half visually. In addition, it might be detailed
with windows. We don’t envision a fence along Fifth Avenue Northeast.
We want the park to feel open and accessible. Issues of security can be dealt
with in the design process. The park would be below the level of the sidewalk.
In addition, the following comments were made:
On scheme A, I was thinking you could draw a line right down the middle and flip it over to have the community center at the front. It would be better for noise and be a better buffer to have parking on the street. I oppose underground parking because of the safety and security issue. Twelve-foot sidewalks seem silly. I don’t think you need even 8 feet of sidewalk to accommodate pedestrians.
Congratulations on showing us at least one plan that stays within the budget. We need these facilities. Whatever choices we make, please keep the entire project within the budget.
I am disappointed to hear that the Parks Department’s preference is for Scheme A (surface parking). The park is too small. Do not dismiss acquiring additional funding out of hand
Jacobs discussed next steps for the project, saying the design process would begin after the architects are selected. She mentioned there would be further opportunity for public comment, and additional public meetings in the future.
The meeting ended with a reminder to have people send comments about the branch to Library staff or e-mail the capital program office at capital.program@spl.org. People also may contact capital project manager David Kunselman at (206) 386-4096 or by e-mail at david.kunselman@spl.org. Send comments about the community center and park to Tim Motzer, Parks project manager, at (206) 684-7060. A recap of the meeting will be posted on both the Library and Parks Web sites. The meeting ended shortly after 8:30 p.m.
Content Modified: Content Modified: 19 March 2003
12/30/2005
© 1999-2006 - The Seattle Public Library