Seattle Public Schools Submits Additional Information To Support Need For Portable At Laurelhurst Elementary School

 

 

 

portable delivered then removed on north playground at

Laurelhurst Elementary School last summer

 

 

DPD (Department of Planning and Development)  has yet to announce its decision on whether they will grant Principal Talbot's request of one more portable at Laurelhurst Elementary School, though some say the decision may come as early as next week.

In the meantime, Seattle Public Schools (SPS) has posted answers to numerous questions requested in the DPD "Correction Notice, providing quite a lot more background information for the portable need, which many say should have been presented at the Design Departure Committee Meeting on March 17.  DPD sent the Correction Notice to SPS, as they were unable to make a decision based on the limited information.

As published in the Blog, Principal Talbot already went ahead and hired an additional teacher, making for 18 total teachers, without having enough space for all classrooms saying in the last school newsletter:

We got the great news this week that we have been granted the extra teacher I have been requesting from the district.  Unfortunately, it does push us up against the question of space for the new classroom.

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. My support for a portable is based on finding an answer that will get us started next year with the 18 homerooms our students need, while minimizing negative impacts to students. 

Several members of the Design Departure Committee Meeting recently wrote DPD a letter expressing their frustration in not being informed of the Correction Notice and extensive request for information, as well as their concern with the lack of Committee involvement when SPS provides the additional information 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. 

 

 

Christi Nagle, who heads up a concerned group of parents called Parents for Playgrounds and Proper Planning said: 

I think people who attended the March 17 Public meeting would be interested in SPS corrections answers because these are things that SPS should have addressed at that meeting.  Also, close neighbors might disagree with some of the subjective answers about whether or not one additional portable is noticeable, fits in with surroundings and is buffered.  

Neighbors are encouraged to post public comments on the DPD website after reviewing  SPS Correction Notice answers.  Send public comments if you see any discrepancies. 

 

   

Here are SPS's answers to DPD questions as submitted in the  documents section of the Corrections Notice on 6/16 for one 28x32 portable that would be located on the North playground next to the current 2nd grade portable near the entrance to the playground as depicted on the Site Plan Location:

What is the LASER program?  

SPS RESPONSE: LASER is a before and after school childcare provider.

 

 
2. How long has the program been operating at Laurelhurst School?

SPS RESPONSE: The LASER childcare program began service at Laurelhurst Elementary School in 1984. 

3. Whom does it serve?

SPS RESPONSE: Childcare is offered to school age children ages kindergarten thru 6th grade for a fee. 

4. What is the agreement between Seattle Public Schools (SPS) and Laurelhurst Elementary School?

SPS RESPONSE: Seattle Public Schools provides the policy and procedures framework, necessary funding and oversees the operation of Laurelhurst Elementary School, a public K-5 elementary school. 

5. What hours does the program operate?
SPS RESPONSE: The LASER childcare program operates from 7:00 am to 9:10 am in the mornings and 3:20 pm to 6:15pm in the afternoon. It operates additional hours when Laurelhurst Elementary School teaching staff have professional development days.  In addition, it operates some holidays, offers a summer day camp program, parent night out program and vendor taught enrichment classes.  It has a symbiotic, complimentary relationship with Laurelhurst Elementary School. 

6. Where is the program located?
SPS RESPONSE: The LASER childcare program is located at Laurelhurst Elementary School in portable structures owned and operated by LASER. Additionally, SPS leases auditorium space to LASER after school care in a partnership agreement.  Last year, when SPS learned that an additional portable would exceed the allowable lot coverage percentage LASER graciously leased one of the LASER owned portables, to SPS to be utilized on an interim basis, for a Laurelhurst Elementary School classroom. 

7. Is the program going to stay at Laurelhurst Elementary School?
SPS RESPONSE: Yes, it is the intent of SPS to have the Laser childcare program remain at Laurelhurst Elementary School in accordance with the provisions of our lease agreement. 

8. Are there other places for the program to operate on the Laurelhurst property?
SPS RESPONSE: Not at this time. 

Address the Code criteria in SMC section 23.79.008 C 1:  
Relationship to Surrounding Areas: 
1. How would one additional classroom portable relate to the character and scale of the surrounding area? Show this graphically and describe in a narrative.
SPS RESPONSE: Percentage of site taken by one single portable is not significant.  Given the school has four existing portable structure, the net effect of adding one additional portable structure, on scale and character, is not appreciable. See Attachment #1. 

2. Are there significant setbacks, major arterials, topographic breaks, and similar features which provide a transition in scale to the residential fabric of the area and/or to the park? SPS RESPONSE: The proposed portable is a single story structure with painted wood siding, residential style windows, wood overhang and gable roof. Aesthetically, the proposed portable is more residential than commercial in character. Tree-line streets reduce the visual impact of the proposed portable from the nearby adjacent streets and residences. Viewed along the adjacent street, the existing three portables reduce the relative impact of adding one portable.  

3. How does the proposal locate and design the structure to reduce the appearance of bulk at this site?
SPS RESPONSE: The design of the proposed portable being a single, one story structure with low sloped roof, separated from other structures, results in low “bulk’ or massing relative to a more commercial, taller or larger design. 

4. What are the impacts on traffic, noise, circulation and parking in the area if this portable classroom is allowed?
SPS RESPONSE: SPS is currently utilizing an existing portable owned by the LASER childcare program. The LASER childcare program is currently utilizing the existing Multi-Purpose Room within Laurelhurst Elementary School.  Granting the departure request will not have an impact on existing traffic as the students exist and currently attend Laurelhurst Elementary School.  The additional portable classroom is being proposed to allow the LASER child care program the reuse of their portable, vacating the Multi-Purpose Room. The additional portable also allows SPS to vacate the LASER childcare program portable and occupy a structure owned by SPS. Therefore, the impacts on traffic, noise street circulation and parking would be minimal. Reference SMC 23.54.015 A. and Table C, required parking for public schools and 23.54.015 J., existing parking deficits.  

5. Identify the impacts on housing and open space of adding one portable.
SPS RESPONSE:  The Laurelhurst neighborhood has a high percentage of open space including the adjacent 13.2 acre Laurelhurst Park. The park and school property were developed concurrently in the 1920s and both can be considered with respect to open space and impacts on nearby housing.  Houses across from the school block are all within a maximum of two blocks of the 13acre open space of Laurelhurst Park in addition to the 1.6 acres of open space on the Laurelhurst School block. The increase in lot coverage over the exiting is less than 2% (45,361/46,257sf).  Therefore, impact on open space is not large relative, to the existing site.  
From the west side of the site along the two-story portion of the building, the new portable, located along the east side of the site, will have very little impact on space and visibility from the street and houses along the west side. 
The City of Seattle zoning code would allow 45% coverage if the entire building were one story, 35% if any part is two story.  The 31% of the coverage that is two story is set back from the building perimeter on three sides where it therefore has minimal impact on bulk and open space. 

Answer the following in your response.  
1. What does the proposed portable classroom look like?
SPS RESPONSE: See Attachment 1 manufacturer’s drawings and photographs of similar units including ramps and landings.  

2. What is the height, width, length and full footprint with ramp or steps?
SPS RESPONSE: See Attachment 2 drawings showing the height, width and length, and elevation drawing showing ramp and landing.   3. Show elevations of the proposed portable classroom.
SPS RESPONSE: See Attachment 1 manufacturer’s drawings. 

4. Where does SPS hope to locate the portable on the Laurelhurst School site?
SPS RESPONSE: See Attachment 3 for proposed location of the one additional portable at Laurelhurst Elementary School site. 

5. How much space will be turned over to the portable? Is it play space or landscaping? SPS RESPONSE: The proposed portable will be placed over existing impervious paving currently used for play space. No landscaped or pervious area will be modified by this placement. 

6. Graphically show alternative locations for the portable classroom.
SPS RESPONSE:  See Attachment 4, 5 pages, showing existing site plan, proposed site plan with preferred location, and three alternative locations considered. 

7. List the pros and cons for each location.
SPS RESPONSE: SPS considered four locations on-site for the placement of the proposed portable. The proposed location will minimize the impact to the playground and clusters the proposed portable with the existing portable structures on-site facilitating supervision by staff.  

Need for the departure: Please fully articulate the request for one portable classroom building which was mentioned during the School Departure Advisory Committee meeting deliberations. What is the need for the portable? 
1. Describe the number and uses of the portable classrooms currently on site.
SPS RESPONSE:  Four portables currently exist at Laurelhurst Elementary School, two of the structures are currently owned by LASER and two by SPS.  SPS has entered into a lease agreement with LASER and last summer modified the lease agreement to allow SPS to utilize on an interim basis a LASER owned portable for a Laurelhurst Elementary School classroom.  

 2. What would the new portable classroom be used for?  
SPS RESPONSE: The new portable classroom would be utilized by SPS as a classroom. 

3. How would the programming at Laurelhurst School be improved by adding a new portable?
SPS RESPONSE: SPS would occupy and utilize space it owns to fulfill its educational mission and LASER childcare would utilize space it owns to fulfill its mission. 

4. What population of children would be served by a new portable?
SPS RESPONSE: The new portable would serve K-5 grade students, most likely the classroom currently occupying the LASER child care portable would be relocated to the new portable and utilize it as their homeroom. 

5. How long would the portable classroom be needed?
SPS RESPONSE: For the foreseeable future as enrollment projections indicate a stable or slightly growing student population and SPS is uncertain as to the impact enactment of the McLeary Supreme Court decision will have on K-3 class size. Most likely the portable will be needed until the school is renovated in a future BEX program.  

6. What is the impact to the Laurelhurst School programming if one portable is not allowed? SPS RESPONSE: The LASER childcare program has agreed to lease their portable to SPS on a temporary annual basis, they have expressed the desire that this lease not extend in perpetuity and desire to reuse their portable at a future date.  Should SPS and LASER fail to renew the lease SPS would vacate the portable and there would not be a space for the current classroom within Laurelhurst Elementary School. 

7. Does the need for the portable address school population needs other than LASER-centered needs? Other programs or school related activities?
SPS RESPONSE: The need for a new portable addresses Laurelhurst Elementary School student population needs. 

8. Other information that would be helpful?
SPS RESPONSE: Laurelhurst Elementary School currently houses three multi-grade classrooms.  SPS educational program desires that elementary schools house not more than two multi-grade classrooms. Adding a portable at Laurelhurst Elementary School would also provide SPS flexibility to address this problem when enrollment begins to decline.

 

 

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.

 

What Happened To The Portable At Laurelhurst Elementary School?

portable delivered then removed

on north playground at Laurelhurst Elementary School

At the end of June, a new portable was delivered and set up on the Laurelhurst Elementary School north playground. Recently it disappeared.

We have received many emails and heard neighbors asking what happened to it. General consensus from families and neighbors is that they are very happy to see it gone as it was put right in the highly used kickball/soccer area and was an eyesore to neighbors.

Seems the school needed to submit a "departure" request as the City of Seattle deemed the portable going 3% over the allotted 35% school coverage for the neighborhood after it was delivered.

The Laurelhurst PTA Co-Presidents, on behalf of the Laurelhurst PTA Board of Directors, sent the Laurelhurst Blog the below letter regarding the status of the portable:


An Update on the Portables at Laurelhurst Elementary

“What’s going on with that portable?” many of you may have wondered this

summer as you drive down 47th Avenue NE. A brand new portable was placed on the north playground in late June. It was added to ensure every class has the space they need, and to address continued enrollment growth in our strong northeast neighborhood schools. 

You may have also noticed that this same new portable recently disappeared. What happened?  

Before it was fully made ready for occupancy, the City of Seattle informed the school district that the portables actually put our building 3% over the 35% maximum lot coverage allowed for a school in our neighborhood.  

Occupying any new portable will require approval of a “departure” request from the district to the City of Seattle. A committee of neighborhood residents will then review the request and decide if a departure from the land use regulation is acceptable. 

The district intends to proceed with the departure request, but this process will take some time. Since new portables are in short supply and badly needed at many schools, rather than leave it unoccupied at Laurelhurst, it has been relocated. Our new principal, Dr. Sarah Talbot, is working with the district and our partners at LASER to restructure our current spaces, providing a temporary solution for our classroom needs this year. 

Portables don’t necessarily have the best reputation. They’re not particularly attractive, they sit on what would otherwise be play space on most school grounds, and they seem separate from the rest of the building. But when a portable helps a school give every student the elbow room they need, and teachers make it a warm and inviting place for their students to learn and engage, then a portable becomes a “cottage,” and the kids in it have a great year. 

It’s our teachers, students and families that make Laurelhurst Elementary such a strong school, sometimes in spite of less than optimal building conditions. The Laurelhurst PTA Board wants to help our school be the best it can be.  

Our goal is to put Laurelhurst Elementary on the list for much-needed building upgrades on the next capital improvements school levy (known as BEX), expected in 2018. We want to see a beloved building that has seen multiple generations of neighborhood kids pass through it’s halls receive a 21st century upgrade.  When that happens we can hopefully say goodbye to the cottages. 

In the mean time, we want families to continue to send their kids to Laurelhurst Elementary, which means giving teachers and students the learning space they need. Approval of the departure request to add portable space would provide us with flexibility and room for growth, which in turn brings more resources, stabilizes staffing, and makes for a thriving school. And that is a great thing for the community.  

The departure process is scheduled to begin later this fall. We will post more details as they become available, and hope you will consider getting involved. Please also reach out to any of us on the PTA Board, as well as our new principal, with questions you may have. 

Amy Barss and Linda Chou, Laurelhurst PTA Co-Presidents, on behalf of the Laurelhurst PTA Board of Directors

email: laurelhurstpta@gmail.com

City Appears To Be Giving Seattle Public Schools Second Chance For Stating Case For More Portables

North playground

 

On March 17, the City appointed, Design Departure Committee Meeting whose role it was to decide whether Laurelhurst Elementary should be allowed up to four more portables, ultimately 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
2) in denying the proposal for additional portables at the school, 

Seattle Public School District (SPS) presented their reasons in requesting a waiver from City zoning regulations to increase the allowed lot coverage of 45% on the two playgrounds.
A packed room of almost 200 people attended and almost 2 hours of public comment was heard including about 50 speakers, who spoke passionately against increased lot coverage at the school which would result in a significant decrease in playground space, as well as permanent livability impacts to surrounding neighbors.
This week, on Tuesday, May 26th, DPD (Department of Planning and Development) sent Seattle Public Schools (SPS) a "Correction Notice," titled Cycle 1 corrections for LAND USE v2.pdf, which LCC said routinely happens if DPD needs more information or what they have been provided does not fit their criteria, in order to make their final decision.

One attendee commented about the lack of SPS' preparation, saying that SPS did not provide key details and facts, such as conveying clear statistics comparing NE Schools lot coverages,  which were "on the other hand, convoluted and misleading."

LCC said on learning about the Correction Notice said "Looks like DPD is looking for ammunition to allow one new portable."

Another resident commented that:

It appears as if DPD is giving SPS a second chance on their request for additional portables if they are able to provide answers to their specific questions in the Correction Notice form.

 

 

If SPS had been thoroughly prepared at the March meeting, the Correction Notice would not have been necessary resulting in this significant delay. And now SPS is handed on a platter a specific list of requested information, which they really should have given at the March meeting. Why do they get to be coddled like that?  

Furthermore, the information DPD is requesting should be made public and another meeting should be held so that the Committee and public can weigh in.

 

Christi Nagle, who heads up a concerned group of parents called Parents for Playgrounds and Proper Planning said:

The entire community at school and the neighborhood should be informed about the latest questionnaire that DPD has sent to SPS.  DPD told no one in the community that they were sending the notice to SPS.   

Does the committee get a chance to "audit" and review the SPS answers? These and other questions need to be answered to the whole community who attended public meeting, served on committee, wrote in written comments, and whose kids attend the school.  

DPD and DON have been completely silent about the whole departure process since the March 17 meeting and barely provided information to the community.  It seems as if it is up to us to call, email, and question DON and DPD about what is going on, otherwise we will simply be left out. 

 

 

 

The Laurelhurst Blog has emailed Holly Godard, listed as the DPD contact on the Permit 3019627, with the following questions:

• Is it standard procedure to have the major institution be allowed to fill out a document with additional info that should have been presented at the CAC meeting?
•  Shouldn't the public and the CAC be involved in learning what additional info SPS is giving, since really it should have been given in the presence of the CAC and the public/neighbors who attended?

For questions from the public Holly's email address is holly.godard@seattle.gov  and phone number is (206) 684-0532.

 

Here is the Cycle 1 corrections for LAND USE v2.pdf:

 

 

MIKE L JENKINS

Ms 22 332, Po Box 34165

2445 3rd Ave South

Seattle, WA 98124-1165

Re: Project# 3019627

 

Correction Notice #1

Review Type LAND USE Date May 26, 2015

Project Address 4530 46th Ave NE Contact Phone (206) 252-0558

Contact Email  mljenkins@seattleschools.org

Contact Fax (206) 252-0573

DPD Reviewer Holly Jean Godard

Address Department of Planning &

Development

700 5th Ave Suite 2000

PO Box 34019

Seattle, WA 98124-4019

Reviewer Phone (206) 684-0532

Reviewer Fax

Reviewer Email Holly.Godard@Seattle.Gov

Owner SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT

 

Please make your response a narrative describing how you have met the correction item. Also state on which plan sheets you have responded, cloud the plan sheet corrections in red ink and up load the

documents.

 

Applicant Instructions

Please see the attached flyer to learn "How to Respond to a DPD Correction Notice".

If the 3-step process outlined in the aforementioned document is not followed, it is likely that

there will be a delay in permit issuance and there is a potential for penalty fees.

 

Codes Reviewed

This project has been reviewed for conformance with the applicable development standards of the Land Use Code.

 

Corrections

1 Please provide additional information as requested below. I will use this information in my review of project 3019627. Please see SMC 23.79.008 C 1.

 

Please describe the LASER program at Laurelhurst School?

1. What is the LASER program?

2. How long has the program been operating at Laurelhurst School?

3. Whom does it serve?

4. What is the agreement between Seattle Public Schools (SPS) and Laurelhurst School?

5. What hours does the program operate?

6. Where is the program located?

7. Is the program going to stay at Laurelhurst School?

8. Are there other places for the program to operate on the Laurelhurst property?

 

2 Address the Code criteria in SMC section 23.79.008 C 1:

1. Relationship to Surrounding Areas:

1. How would one additional classroom portable relate to the character and scale of the

surrounding area? Show this graphically and describe in a narrative.

2. Are there significant setbacks, major arterials, topographic breaks, and similar features

which provide a transition in scale to the residential fabric of the area and/or to the park?

3. How does the proposal locate and design the structure to reduce the appearance of bulk at this site?

4. What are the impacts on traffic, noise, circulation and parking in the area if this portable

classroom is allowed?

5. Identify the impacts on housing and open space of adding one portable.

 

3 Answer the following in your response.

• What does the proposed portable classroom look like?

• What is the height, width, length and full footprint with ramp or steps?

• Show elevations of the proposed portable classroom.

• Where does SPS hope to locate the portable on the Laurelhurst School site?

• How much space will be turned over to the portable? Is it play space or landscaping?

• Graphically show alternative locations for the portable classroom.

• List the pros and cons for each location.

 

4 1. Need for the departure : Please fully articulate the request for one portable

classroom building mentioned during the Committee meeting deliberations.

What is the need for the portable?

1. Describe the number and uses of the portables currently on site

2. What would the new portable be used for?

3. How would the programming at Laurelhurst be improved by adding a new portable?

4. How long would the portable be needed?

5. What is the impact to programming if one portable is not allowed?

6. Does the need for the portable address school population needs other than

LASER-centered needs? Other programs or school related activities?

7. Other information ?

 

City of Seattle How to Respond to a DPD Correction Notice

Step 1: Pick up the Plans

• Plans Routing will notify the primary contact for the project by email or phone when all reviews in the review cycle are complete and plans are ready to pick up

• Once you have been notified, pick up the plans at the Plans Routing counter in the Applicant Services Center (20th floor)

• You may check the status of any review at the following link:

http://web1.seattle.gov/dpd/permitstatus

 

Step 2: Make Corrections

Construction Permits: Coordinate responses to correction items among all designers, architects, engineers, and owners.

Provide a separate written response for each review discipline that has asked for corrections.

Be sure to address each item on all correction notices. We won't accept corrected plans without written responses. Include the following information in each response:

• Describe the change you've made.

• Say where the change can be found in the plan set.

• If you have not made a requested change, say why. Give a code citation and provide calculations to support your reason.

If you replace sheets in the corrected plan sets:

• Identify changes on the replacement sheets by clouding or circling the changes.

• Mark the old sheets as "VOID" and roll them up at the back of each corrected plan set. Do not insert or staple voided sheets into the corrected plan sets.

If you add changes to the original sheets:

• Identify the changes by clouding or circling them with ink (preferably red, waterproof ink). Do not use pencil to make changes.

• Do not tape or staple anything to the plan sets.

Platting Actions: Provide new copies of the survey when responding to a correction

 

Step 3: Return Corrected Plans

• Return the corrected plans to Plans Routing in the Applicant Services Center (20th floor). If your plans are electronic, upload your corrected sets through the DPD Project Portal.

 

If you don't follow these instructions:

• Plans Routing may not accept your corrected plans.

• DPD may be delayed in starting corrected plan review, which can delay permit

issuance.

• DPD may charge a $300 penalty fee.

 

City Approves Additional Lot Coverage Allowing One More Portable At Laurelhurst Elementary School

North playground

 

The City of Seattle Hearing Examiner, Sue Tanner, has approved the additional lot coverage for one portable at Laurelhurst Elementary School.

Christi Nagle, who heads up a concerned group of parents called Parents for Playgrounds and Proper Planning, notified the Laurelhurst Blog Staff of this latest update.

Seattle Public Schools submitted a requested last year requested a waiver from City zoning regulations to increase the allowed lot coverage of 45% on the two playgrounds, allowing up to four more portables.

On March 17, the City appointed, Design Departure Committee Meeting whose role it was to decide whether Laurelhurst Elementary should be allowed up to four more portables, ultimately 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
2) in denying the proposal for additional portables at the school, 

Then several weeks later DPD (Department of Planning and Development), sent Seattle Public Schools (SPS) a "Correction Notice," which the Laurelhurst Community Club (LCC) said routinely happens if DPD needs more information or what they have been provided does not fit their criteria, in order to make their final decision in granting at least one portable, though the request does not state what size.
Several members of the Design Departure Committee Meeting wrote DPD a letter expressing their frustration in not being informed of the Correction Notice request, as well as their concern with the lack of future Committee involvement when SPS provides the additional information.

On July 24th, the group filed an appeal, Project #3019627 regarding the City's approval to allow one more portable at the school. 

Christ Nagle told the Blog Staff:

A few days ago, we received the decision from City of Seattle Hearing Examiner, Sue Tanner, over the holidays.  Unfortunately, she approved the additional lot coverage for one portable.  

Her decision was based on rationale below...

"The District's need for control over its instructional space is a valid, present, educational need. … The Appellant's argue that the District could simply purchase the LASER portable that the district is currently leasing for use as a 5th grade classroom.  That may be one option available to the District, but there is no evidence in the record that LASER would be willing to sell the portable, or that the District wants to purchase it.  Having shown the need to control its classroom space the District has the authority to determine how it will do so."

Obviously, we are disappointed in the fact that decision is partly based on whether or not LASER is interested in selling one of their portables, and SPS is not being pushed by the City to execute the transaction to make most efficient use of space.  LASER is a tenant leasing space on SPS property.  We all want LASER to remain on-site, as they are an important part of the school community.  However, Parents for Playgrounds and Proper Planning, feels that the LASER program has ample space as set up now, without using their 2nd portable that is current 5th grade classroom.  Space is tight, and the most efficient, educationally beneficial uses are necessary.

PPPP filed a Reconsideration motion (12/28/15) based on the fact that the Examiner ignored an important piece of evidence in her decision.  This SPS memo confirmed district policy prioritizing K-12 classroom space over after-care space.  Sue never mentioned the document in her decision.   

SPS filed a rebuttal to our reconsideration on 1/6/15.   Yesterday, the Hearing Examiner denied our motion to reconsider, and submitted her final unchanged decision.  If anyone would like a copy of the appeal decision or PPPP reconsideration motion, please email us and we are happy to send them to you.  christinagle@yahoo.com  or  kaylenea@comcast.net. 

Parents for Playgrounds and Proper Planning is discussing next steps.  We have the option to appeal the City’s decision to the Superior Court.   

Thank you very much for the community support throughout this process.  We still feel strongly that our neighborhood school would be degraded if another portable got plopped down on top of the heavily used open playground space.   Quality, active recess is a key element to kids' educations.

portable delivered then removed on north playground at

Laurelhurst Elementary School last summer