Send Comments Now On Proposed Townhomes At 50th Avenue NE In Windermere Circle

A Land Use Application for another town home in the Windermere Circle area of north Laurelhurst was submitted several months ago.

The existing structure, a one story 4 unit town home at 4270 NE 50th Street, kitty corner to 44th Avenue NE, will be demolished.

In its place is proposed is proposed a  3-story, 6-unit rowhouse structure with attached garages, in a neighborhood that is mostly lowrise one and two story homes and duplexes.

The public can submit comments about this project to prc@seattle.gov and here referencing Permit #3025713.

A nearby neighbor told the Laurelhurst Blog Staff:

The new development is going to tower over all of the surrounding homes. The town homes will be very narrow, in order to fit six townhouses side-by-side on the lot with underground parking.

The City's Department of Construction and Inspections told the Blog staff about the important opportunity to comment:

Comments are most beneficial when provided earlier in the review process, so the public should send those in now to voice any concerns. The formal 14-day comment period has closed, however, it’s our practice to take public comment until our written decision is published for the proposal. After all the reviews are complete, there is a six-week window for us to complete the written decision.  

Currently, the plans are out with the applicant to address required corrections. We are not able to provide a timeframe since it’s the applicant that determines when the updated plan set is resubmitted. Also, we can’t speculate on whether additional corrections may be required.

The Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) published this information in their most recent newsletter:
Distress Over Proposed Rowhouse Plan

The installation of a large land use notice for a rowhouse development in north Laurelhurst has evoked negative responses and concerns from many nearby neighbors. In response, LCC vice president Colleen McAleer and president Jeannie Hale researched the proposed development (permit #3025713) and wrote a detailed comment letter (see below) to the Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections.

The existing multi-family development at Windermere Circle has a long history as a compatible transition to the adjacent single-family zoning. It provides affordable housing for mid- to lower-income families, seniors, grad students, and Seattle Children’s Hospital staff. 

LCC’s concerns about the proposed rowhouse development in that area, based upon the Seattle Municipal codes, HALA, and the applicant’s responses in the SEPA process, are as follows: 

Displacement of diverse socio-economic residents.

Five years ago the Laurelhurst neighborhood lost 136 affordable housing units at Laurelon Terrace. These homes were “replaced” by high-rise units in the University District. The families were displaced from their community when the tear down occurred, and they either could not afford or were unable to find similar housing nearby. 

Out-of-scale compatibility with surrounding neighborhood. 

The new SMC 23.34.014, B, #5, states the function of LR1 zoning: “The area would provide a gradual transition between single-family zoned areas and multi-family or neighborhood commercial zoned areas.” The proposed rowhouses are much taller in height and bulk, planned as a 72-foot wide mass along NE 50th St. and 44th Ave. NE. The adjacent residences are not 32 feet in height, and the rowhouse plan without set backs will create a tunnel effect along these residential streets destroying the character and scale of the existing homes. 

LCC is concerned about the displacement of a whole sector of economically diverse families and seniors in our neighborhood. Displacement can lead to homelessness. These new rowhouses will be priced for ownership at around $1,000,000 each. The property sold to an Eastside developer for $1.6 million. 

The SEPA documents in the permit application process state “N/A” as an answer to how many people are being displaced. Further, the applicant answered “NO” to mitigation to help relocate any former residents. 

LCC finds this disingenuous as leases had to be known to the property’s purchaser and asks that SDCI require the applicant to provide information and provide mitigation for soon-to-be former residents, based upon the City’s HALA goals. 

Concern regarding building set backs and widths of rowhouses. 

The set back on 44th Ave. NE is only 3’6” to 3’ 8” to the property line, which does not comply with a normal LR1 project set back. SDCI should oppose this and require a normal set back for pedestrian sidewalk safety and zoning adjacency compatibility. This is in violation of the required minimum 5-foot set backs for side yards, and should NOT be permitted. 

Secondly, the overall building width of this rowhouse project appears to violate SMC 23.84.032 which caps the maximum width of rowhouses at 60 feet (about three to four units). Project # 3025713 has six units at 12’ 1” each, which equals 72.5 feet. SDCI should clarify the code, or reject the project.  

Possible mischaracterization of the slope and grade of the proposed development site.  

The characterization as a “rolling hill” may not be correct. SDCI should require the exact grade percentage as this may affect the building site, height, and construction techniques and windows. It appears that the site is on a fairly steep hill, and this may change the mentioned factors. 

The applicant’s SEPA evaluation states that “no view blockages” will occur. However, the proposed 72.5-foot mass width and a 32-foot heights (including a roof garden) will impact neighboring residents’ views to the west where the Olympic Mountains offer spectacular sunsets. 

Lack of revegetation specifics. 

The proposed rowhouse project wipes out almost anything green, and states in SEPA that “native plants” will replace the lost greenery. No specifics were given, and the site reflects little vegetation or tree replacement, which is essential to retain Seattle’s Urban Tree Canopy and its commitment to being named an Urban Bird Treaty City. 

Summary: LCC has requested that permit #3025713 be denied and that the owner and applicant comply with the HALA displacement goals, the Seattle Municipal Codes, and fulfill the SEPA requirements. The City should follow its own guidelines and preserve the codes and goals of the regulations without having an Eastside developer displace existing affordable housing and create an out-of-scale LR1 project that violates its own building and land use codes. Better development of this site can be achieved with a design the complies with the City’s own guidelines and goals.

LCC also submitted these formal comments to the City's Department of Construction and Inspections

The Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed new Rowhouse project in our neighborhood , permit # 3025713.

The appearance of the land use sign has evoked many negative responses from neighbors in the community who have expressed their concern about several aspects of the proposed rowhouses.

The existing multi -family development has a long history as a very compatible transition to the single family zoning adjacent. It provides affordable housing for mid to lower income level families, seniors, grad students and some staff who work at Seattle Children;s Hospital nearby.

LCC;s concerns about the proposed development, based upon the Seattle Municipal codes, HALA, and the applicants responses in the SEPA process are as follows: 

Displacement of diverse socio-income residents  

Five years ago the Laurelhurst neighborhood lost 136 affordable housing units at Laurelon Terrace with had family sized units. These homes were "replaced"by high rise units in the University District, not at all located a single family neighborhood with green spaces for families. Basically, these existing families were displaced from their community when the tear down occurred, and could not afford , nor find similar housing nearby. LCC supports more density as a goal of the City, but we are even more concerned about the displacement of a whole sector of economically diverse families, seniors and work force salaried folks who have lived within higher income leveled neighborhoods. Displacement can lead to homelessness, and these new "rowhouses" will be priced for ownership at around $1,000,000 each. The SEPA documents in the permit application process states an answer to how many people are being displaced. Further, the applicant answered to mitigation to help relocate any former residents. LCC finds this disingenuous as leases had to be known to the property's purchaser, and asks that SDCI require the applicant to provide information, and provide mitigation for soon to be former residents, based upon the City's HALA goals. 

Out of Scale compatibility  

The existing LR1 zoned Windermere Circle complex of multi-family housing envelopes this permit, and was built with the architectural style of its time, to blend seamlessly into the single family neighborhood with similar features and in similar bulk, scale and massing in heights and setbacks. The new SMC 23.34.014 , B, #5, states that the function of the LR1 zoning should be: The area would provide a gradual transition between single-family zoned areas and multi-family or neighborhood commercial zoned areas.  The proposed Rowhouses are much taller in height, boxlike and are built in a 72 feet wide mass along the residential NE50th street, and along 44th Ave NE. The adjacent residences are not 32 feet in height, and the rowhouse plan without set backs will create a tunnel effect along both NE 50th St and 44th Ave NE, destroying the character and scale of the existing LR1 and adjacent SF5000. The location and orientation of the proposed 32 foot high row houses places a wall along these sidewalks instead of a set back and entry along NE 50th Street. This is not a gradual transition which is in the SMC. Cottage housing, or lower scale or homes that face both NE50th Street and 44th Ave NE would be more compatible with the SMC, and still provide denser housing options. 

Building set backs and width of the new rowhouses  

The set back on 44th Ave NE is only to the property line which is completely opposed to a normal set back of a LR1 project. SDCI should oppose this and require a normal set back for pedestrian sidewalk safety and zoning adjacency compatibility and zoning. This is in violation of the at least 5 foot minimum set backs for side yards, and should NOT be permitted. Secondly, the overall building width of this rowhouse project appears to violate SMC 23.84.032 which caps the maximum width of rowhouses at 60 feet. (about 3-4 units) Project # 3025713 has 6 units at 12; each which equals 72.5 feet. SDCI should clarify the code, or reject the project. (see attached document from Seattle's Municipal Code)  

The SEPA evaluation also noted that the applicant did not know the slope and grade of the proposed development site.  

The characterization as a rolling hill may not be correct. SDCI should require the exact grade percentage as this may affect the building site, height and construction techniques and windows . It appears that the site is on a fairly steep hill, and this may change the mentioned factors, and needs to be exactly sent to SDCI. 

The applicant's SEPA evaluation states that no view blockages will occur. However, the proposed 72.5 mass width and a 32 foot height (plus roof garden) WILL impact neighboring residents viewline to the west where the Olympic Mountains offer spectacular sunsets. This view of the mountains would be blocked from existing residents across the street on NE 50th St and 44th Ave NE.  

Vegetation 

The proposed rowhouse project, in essence wipe out almost anything green, and states in SEPA that native plants will replace the lost greenery. No specifics were given , and the site reflects little vegetation, nor tree replacement which is essential to retain Seattle's Urban Tree Canopy, and its commitment to being named an Urban Bird Treaty City.  

Laurelhurst Community Club represents this area of the City, and along with its front line neighbors, asks that the permit # 3025713 be denied, and request that the owner and applicant comply with the 5 HALA displacement goals, the Seattle Municipal Codes, and fulfill the SEPA requirements.  

The City of Seattle should follow its own guidelines and preserve the codes and goals of the regulations without having an Eastside developer displace existing affordable housing and create a out of scale LR1 project that violates its own building and land use codes.  

Thank you for considering our comments and we know that a better development on this site can be better achieved in another design if this one is DENIED.

The Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) contacted the City about tenant relocation assistance for current occupants of the town home saying:

Our families that will be affected are very stressed. Are there any provisions in the Code that require developers to provide assistance to families who must move due to the proposal—some kind of relocation assistance?  If so, what office is in charge of this?   These families have lived there for years.

Brandon, City Design Review Planner said that he has received many calls about tenant relocation assistance from current occupants of the town home.

The City Housing Ordinance Supervisor, Seattle Department of Construction and Inspections said about the Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance:

If residential tenants are going to be displaced by a project, the property owner or developer must apply for a Tenant Relocation License if the project meets the criteria . The relocation fee applies to anyone who is displaced if they meet the income requirements.  

The license covers all tenants in the building. Only low-income tenants receive relocation assistance  An application for a Tenant Relocation License must be made no later than the date on which an applicant applies for a master use permit, or if no MUP is required, at the time of construction permit application.  No permit can be issued until the Tenant Relocation License is issued.

LCC suggests that neighbors contact Brandon Cummings at 206) 684-0251 or Brandon.Cummings@seattle.gov. There appears to be income restrictions that trigger application of the tenant relocation assistance. 

Three other townhomes are already currently under construction in that area:

#6430745:

5048 Sand Point Way NE - 6 town homes built on one lot where 1950's triplex was demolished. Three town homes to face Sand Point Way NE and three town homes to face Sand Point Place NE

#6477308

5027 44th Avenue NE - 4 town homes built on one lot where 1 story 1950's triplex demolished. 

#3024924
Land Use Application to subdivide one development site into four unit lots. The construction of residential units is under Project #6477308. This subdivision of property is only for the purpose of allowing sale or lease of the unit lots. Development standards will be applied to the original parcel and not to each of the new unit lots

#6552793

5001 44th Avenue NE - 6 town homes built (each to be only 12' wide) on one lot where 2 story 1950's triplex currently exists. Plans under review with City. 

A neighbor said: about the three projects:

16 town homes each with a 4th story rooftop deck are currently under construction in quaint little historic Windermere Circle, the charming loop of duplexes and triplexes near Children's Hospital where most buildings are two and three story.  The transformation is going to be dramatic.

It makes for reduced home values. Towering 3-story homes (with 4th floor rooftop decks) reduce the value of the one- and two-story homes surrounding them. The smaller houses lose privacy, views and sunlight.   

Parking and traffic problems always follow. Each of these projects has off-street parking. But the parking arrangements (for the first and third projects listed in the document) are ridiculous.  

Like many row house projects, these garages will be very difficult to get a normal size car in and out. The owners will most likely use their garages for storage and park their cars on the street.  The streets around Windermere Circle are already extremely cramped and crowded.  

There are construction irritations for surrounding neighbors. With all three of these projects going at once in Windermere Circle, there's going to be noise, dust, and traffic issues for the folks living in the Circle, as well as the larger community.

Talaris Violates Landmark Agreement Second Time And Cuts Down Trees Without Approval

 

On the morning of April 27, the Laurelhurst Blog received this information:

Talaris  is cutting down major  trees this morning on the north side of the property and I wondered if they have the right or permission to do it? Please forward this to the powers that be in case this can be stopped.  

From what I can tell,  it looks like they thinned at least 2 trees and I think at least one was totally cut down.  I'm not on site so this is from a little ways away.  It looks like they are preparing other trees to come down.  These are major trees we are talking about!  Just wanted to try to keep the damage minimal if possible. 

 

The Laurelhurst Blog Staff immediately contacted Erin, Landmarks Preservation Board Coordinator, who said: 

I was contacted recently by the property owner and provided with documentation regarding two significantly rotted trees.    I explained that Landmarks Board approval is required for their removal.

 

This is the second time Talaris has cut down trees without proper approval from the City Landmarks Board and after the trees were cut down, then requested a retroactive Certificate of Approval from the City.

The first violation happened on November 13, 2013.  Then in January, Talaris suddenly got a retroactive certificate in place after the trees were cut down: 

Here is the timeline and Blog post detailing the first violation: 

11/6/13 - Talaris designated Landmark

11/14/13 - Talaris cut down trees without approval in the buffer that provide privacy to adjacent neighbors.  Erin issued stop work order after three big cottonwood trees had already been cut down.

1/6/14 - Landmarks Board received application for retroactive Certificate of Approval

1/31/14 agenda item for Landmarks Meeting "Certificate of Approval"

And before that time on September 20th, after the Battelle / Talaris property was nominated, the Landmarks Preservation Board, "issued a report that informed the property owner that they were required to have approval from the Landmarks Board before making alterations or significant changes to specified features proposed for preservation. The areas of control for this property include the site and the exteriors of the building."


 Lois Maag, City Strategic Communications Advisor, told the Laurelhurst Blog Staff, regarding the recent violation:

 

Erin received an email from the property owner’s representative on Friday, April 22nd, indicating that they wanted to remove two trees this Spring.  The owner’s representative provided assessments prepared by a certified arborist as well as photographs that illustrate the level of decay relating to Project #6523889.

Erin read this email on Monday, April 25th and responded.   She explained to the owner that in the absence of a controls and incentives agreement for the property she did not have the authority to administratively review the proposal, and that they would need to seek approval from the Landmarks Preservation Board.  She urged them to prepare and submit the application and we would get it scheduled for the Board’s review as quickly as possible.

The property owner or their representative also contacted SDCI (City of Seattle Department of Constructions and Inspections - formerly DPD). SDCI’s arborist analyzed the trees and determined they were hazardous and therefore not subject to tree protection codes. The trees were non-exceptional and were a safety hazard. Permits from SDCI are not required.  

People are allowed to cut down up to 3 non-exceptional trees a year on their property. Not only was this tree non-exceptional, it was a safety hazard. Permits are not required to remove non-exceptional trees.   

Even though the trees were cut without approval by the Landmarks Board, the process still needs to be followed along with an explanation given to the Board as to why this happened.  

On the morning of Wednesday, April 27th some neighbors reported to you and to Erin that there was tree removal underway.   Erin immediately called the property owner’s representative who was unaware the trees were being cut. We cannot explain to you why the tree removal occurred when it did, the property owner will need to respond to that question. 

When we are notified of a compliance violation we always attempt to work with the property owner to try to find a resolution.  We start by assessing the situation, looking at potential alternatives to mitigate the issue, and review the Certificate of Approval process with the property owner.   

In this case, the need for a Certificate of Approval was made clear to the owner’s representative prior to the action taken to remove the trees.  The next step is for the owner to seek retroactive approval from the Landmarks Board. 

The property owner’s representative prepared a complete application by Thursday, April 28, and presented it to the Landmarks Board at their Board meeting on May 4 for retroactive approval, which was then approved.   

Of course, giving retroactive approval is not our, nor the Landmarks Board, preferred methodology. At last night’s Landmarks Board meeting, the Board voted to approve the retroactive Certificate of Approval.  

The Board stated that it understood the trees needed to be removed, but made it clear to the property manager that it was very displeased with the situation. The property manager accepted full responsibility for the mistake and stated that he will make sure to seek approval in advance.

Given this is a landmarked site, the owner is responsible for coordinating with the Department of Neighborhoods on any required approvals before proceeding with removal.   

Given that the Board has voted to give retroactive approval for the application, there is now no outstanding violation and there will be no further compliance action on our part regarding this matter.

 
The basic tree assessment performed by certified arborist on March 4 regarding the  red oak trees located on the northwest corner of the property says:

Decay and a large scar at the base of the trunk and lean to the north increases the failure potential of this tree.  Approximately half of the tree has failed.  The tree is located adjacent to a road, buildings and landscape all of which are used frequently.  The best mitigation option for this tree is tree removal.

Another report from a certified arborist wrote after his visit on the same day: 

This tree has advanced decay throughout its entire structure and is likely to fall in the weather events stated common to this region.  It will impact a target, and the consequences would be significant to severe. Immediate removal is recommended and certainly before the tree leafs out and we have any moderate winds.

 

 

Here are photos taken by a neighbor on April 27th while the tree work was happening:

 

 

 

The 2 large logs and stump were from a substantial tree.

These trees have been thinned very hard, quite a way up. 

This is where they were working when they stopped in the morning.

I don't know if the intent was to remove them or just thin them hard.

Here are 2 large logs and a large stump. 
This is on the main road right
by the edge of the road on the right toward the ponds.

 

 

 

 

A neighbor also commented about the specific property upkeep: 

I hope they are keeping the water circulating in the ponds to prevent a mosquito infestation.  The 41st Street side of the property is so neglected but once you pass that first big bend in the road they are maintaining it somewhat,  not like they used to by any means but a lot better than 41st.

Neighbors have also complained over the last two years that Talaris has stopped mowing the grass on NE 41st Street along the roadside where for decades, the large grassy area was popular for sports teams to use for practices until Talaris suddenly put up a fence around the entire property  in September of 2013.  

One neighbor reported that the grass, just a few weeks ago, had grown to about 24 inches high and was  "looking awful."  Talaris finally mowed the grass about two weeks ago.

The Laurelhurst Blog reported about the same overgrown grass problem in May of last year after receiving numerous  complaints about it.  At that time, neighbors became more and more worried about the tall dry grass, hot weather and impending 4th of July firecrackers and continued to voice concerns. 

A Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) representative attended a Landmarks Board Meeting, at the time, and showed six  8 X 10 inch photos of "the tall grass and deteriorated conditions of the landscape at Talaris."

A nearby neighbor also went to the fire station  to voice concerns about Talaris not cutting the grass and the possibility of a fire.

Finally, Talaris finally cut the grass two days before the 4th of July holiday last year.

 

City's Permitting and Planning Offices Re-Organize Under New Name And Director

Several months ago, Mayor Murray signed an executive order yesterday calling for an all-new Department of Planning and Development under a new name. The long-time Director, Diane Sigamura, retired after 37 years in the position.

It is now called Seattle Department of Construction & Inspections.  And DPD's City Planning division is now the Office of Planning & Community Development. Nathan Torgelson is Director overseeing both Departments.  City planners from the DPD, and the departments of transportation, parks and housing all work together in the new OPCD office.

The group has been working on several new initiatives. One is implementing a new system, called, Accela,  that will better track all permitting, code compliance, and property management processes.

"This is a huge and important undertaking for the department and will improve the efficiency in which you can track permits," Torgelson said.

The completion of the registration phase of the Rental Registration and Inspection Ordinance (RRIO) program and implementation of new tenant protections is also underway

Torgelson commented that "we are now a city of more renters than homeowners. Our goal is that these initiatives will improve the conditions in Seattle’s rental stock"

The Mayor said about the re-organizations that the new departments will act as "a single entry point to address community concerns and will work closely with the Department of Neighborhoods to gather input and ideas from neighbors."

Murray has said that Seattle is currently the country’s third-fastest-growing city and is on trac to permit 9,000 new housing units this year, 30 percent more than in 2014.

Parent Group Files Appeal To Stop Additional Laurelhurst Elementary School Portables And Principal Hopes Portable Arrives In October, Attend Meeting Tonight To Learn More

portable delivered then removed on north playground at

Laurelhurst Elementary School last summer

 

 

 



In July, the Laurelhurst Blog reported that the City approved one more portable at Laurelhurst Elementary School.

Principal Talbot's had requested the one additional portable at the very end of the school year after she had hired an additional teacher, the 18th teacher, without having enough space for the additional class saying in an end of year email:

 

When people ask me what I want the outcome of this difficult dilemma to be, I reluctantly have to admit that in spite of a strong consensus from the community in opposition to adding portables, I would like to have one additional portable classroom if the summer construction project isn’t possible. 

Christi Nagle, who heads up a concerned group of parents called Parents for Playgrounds and Proper Planning , told the Blog staff that following the City decision to allow the portable, her group filed an appeal, Project #3019627, on July 24th based on the following rationale:

 

• SPS failed to provide an accurate or sufficient rationale for an additional portable.
• DPD failed to consider all pertinent facts when determining the educational need for an additional portable.  For example, DPD's analysis did not take into account that on the day it issued its decision, SPS began construction to split the Laurelhurst library, thus creating another critical instruction space.  
• DPD failed to fully and accurately consider the negative impact a new portable will have on Laurelhurst Elementary students and the community at large.  
• DPD failed to consider existing alternatives to another portable, such as continuing to work collaboratively with LASER to ensure kids have both adequate instructional space and excellent before and after school care.  
• The departure is inconsistent with the general objectives and intent of the land use code and does not ensure that an additional portable will be compatible with the character and use of its surroundings.  It is inappropriate in relation to the character and scale of the surrounding area; it has not been located or designed to reduce bulk; and it reduces much needed recreational open space.

 To read the full appeal go here.
 

The parent group forwarded the Blog staff a letter Principal Talbot sent out on August 24, in which she recently hired another another teacher, the 19th teacher, saying:

Friday afternoon I received notice that we will receive funding for a 19th general education homeroom teacher.  The legislature funded the reduction of class size required by the Citizen’s Initiative 1351 that passed last year, and when the district received this funding they found that our numbers justify an additional classroom. 

I’ve also learned that the district will pursue a permit to add one portable for this teacher.   The district’s timeline for actual delivery of a portable is after October in the best case scenario.  This does present us with a challenge for starting the school year with a teacher who does not have a room to teach in.

Christi said the "letter from Sarah was a surprise...and once again, the situation has changed."

Another parent involved in the Parents for Playground and Proper Planning said:

The hearing examiner’s decision allowed only ONE portable at Laurelhurst.  The portable the Principal is seeking to add would presumably house the newly hired 19th teacher at our school.   

We think it may be optimistic to expect a portable as soon as October, particularly if our neighborhood group, Parents for Playgrounds and Proper Planning, decides to move forward with our appeal.   

There is space for one new teacher inside the school because an additional classroom was created when the library was split into two classrooms.  The library then moved into a single, large classroom on the 1st floor.  Splitting the library was proposed by PPPP and is one of many examples of how we are proactively trying to maximize the very limited space at our school without losing critical outside play space.

The appeal should be heard by Sue Tanner, City of Seattle Hearing Examiner, probably in November.
 

And Christi added that the group has retained land-use lawyer, David Bricklin, to assist in processing the appeal.

Christi added "The issue remains unresolved and community feedback and participation will continue to be important."

The group is hosting a community meeting tonight at 7pm at Ric and Kaylene Anderson's house (4610 NE 38th Street) to discuss next steps.  

For more information and background on the portable issue go here.

 

City Approves One More Portable At Laurelhurst Elementary School

Today's Land Use Bulletin for the City of Seattle shows that the additional portable requested by Seattle Public Schools (permit 3019627) has been approved by the Department of Planning and Development (DPD).

Principal Talbot's requested one more portable at Laurelhurst Elementary School at the end of the school year after hiring an additional teacher, making for 18 total teachers, without having enough space for all classrooms saying in an end of year email:

When people ask me what I want the outcome of this difficult dilemma to be, I reluctantly have to admit that in spite of a strong consensus from the community in opposition to adding portables, I would like to have one additional portable classroom if the summer construction project isn’t possible. 

 

Design Departure Committee last month wrote DPD saying:

Since you are considering new information from SPS, we hope that the Committee might be able to present some new information as well.  Since the

March 17 public meeting we have learned that:
·       LASER had agreed to share one of its portables again next year for instructional space
·       SPS has pulled permits to divide the school library, creating a new classroom
·       These two “new” classrooms would obviate the need for additional portables at our school. 

This information indicates that a less impactful alternative exists to simply plopping down more portables in violation of current lot coverage rules and to the detriment of the health and well-being of our community.    

Laurelhurst already has the smallest playground with the highest lot coverage percentage of any NE Seattle elementary school.  SPS has not provided any justification for making our already tight situation worse by adding more portables. 

Seattle Public Schools had originally requested a waiver from City zoning regulations to add up to 4 more portables at the school, increasing the allowed lot coverage of 45% on the two playgrounds.

In March the Design Departure Committee Meeting had a formal meeting, along with DPD and DON (Department of Neighborhood representatives) and two Seattle Public School representatives who appeared unprepared so much so that  DPD (Department of Planning and Development), sent SPS a "Correction Notice" on June 16 with 27 in-depth questions to gather more information before making a final decision.

A packed room of almost 200 people attended the meeting and almost 2 hours of public comment was heard including about 50 speakers, who spoke passionately against increased lot coverage at the school which they testified would result in a significant decrease in playground space, as well as permanent livability impacts to surrounding neighbors

And at this meeting, the Committee unanimously passed two motions, both 6-1 (School District representative voted no on both) - 1) in favor or making a decision at the meeting, thus voting against no further meetings and 2) in denying the proposal for additional portables at the school.



Here is the notice posted on the DPD website regarding the final decision:         

NOTICE OF DECISION FOR DEPARTURE FROM DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL STRUCTURES

Attachments: View Decision            Project: 3019627   Address: 4530 46TH AVE NE Area: Northeast Zone: SINGLE FAMILY 5000, ARTERIAL WITHIN 100 FT., CITY OWNED PROPERTY Contact: MIKE JENKINS Contact phone: (206)252-0558 x Planner: Holly Godard Planner phone: (206) 684-0532 Conditions: The Seattle School District has applied to the Department of Planning and Development (DPD) to modify the development standards for Laurelhurst Elementary School.Project Description:  Departure request to allow 45% lot coverage by adding four portable classroom buildings to provide four additional classrooms for Laurelhurst Elementary School.  Total footprint of the four proposed buildings is 3,584 square feet. DEPARTURE DECISIONThe Director's decision is to CONDITIONALLY GRANT the Development Standards Departure request.      One portable classroom may be located at Laurelhurst Elementary School for a lot coverage maximum of 39.0%   INFORMATION AVAILABLE   Copies of the Director's report and the application materials are available at the DPD Public Resource Center, 700 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2000 (206) 684-8467.  The Public Resource Center is open 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Monday, Wednesday, Friday and 10:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday.  Questions may be directed to Holly J. Godard at (206) 684-0532.   HOW TO APPEAL THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS DEPARTURE DECISION Appeals of the Director’s Decision must be received by the Hearing Examiner no later than 5:00 p.m., July 27, 2015.  Appeals may be filed online at www.seattle.gov/examiner/efile.htm, delivered in person to the Hearing Examiner’s office on the 40th floor of Seattle Municipal Tower at 700 Fifth Ave. or mailed to the City of Seattle Hearing Examiner, P.O. Box 94729, Seattle, WA 98124-4729. (Delivery of appeals filed by any form of USPS mail service may be delayed by several days. Allow extra time if mailing an appeal.) An appeal form is available at www.seattle.gov/examiner/LANDUSEAPLFORM.pdf.